I agree, while I do have large amounts of time to game, especially during the summer (teacher) they are sessions with constant interuptions. Its pretty much required for me to play a game that it has the function to Pause the game ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, cutscenes, battles, walking around, anytime. I was able to play all the way through the RPG Eternal Sonata because at every interuption I could always just pause and come back 10 mins later or 5 mins later.

I'm glad that my email generated so much discussion. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I'd like to elaborate on some of the points which have come up in some of the responses.

Some of the responses have touched on my "six months to complete a game" comment. Allow me to explain. My concern about some games is that over that much time, I start to lose touch with the narrative flow of a game. This can be especially problematic with RPGs featuing numerous characters and plot threads. Maybe it's just me, but experiencing a lengthy game in short bursts divided by days and weeks and months can lead to a disjointed, unsatisfying experience.

In my opinion, evaluating the relative value of a game's length goes hand in hand with weighing the offline and online components. Short action/adventure games are often offline, self contained and enjoyable. Many FPS games have short offline campaigns because it seems they expect many players will spend more time playing online. Perhaps some developers will refute that assertion, but it is a commonly-held belief among gamers I know.  

Don't get me wrong. I love shooters. However, in the future I won't be buying Halo or Call of Duty or any other FPS at full retail price because I feel like I won't using all of the game's features. If I play it at all,  I'll wait until a used copy shows up at my local gaming shop.  

The bottom line is, I hope game developers are taking notice of these topics because no matter what your particular point of view is, there seems to be some agreement that there is an underserved segment of the market out there.

While I do agree with Darren's points on save design and making sure short sessions are possible, I'm going to have to disagree with him on the length of games nowadays.  As others have said, many top-level games coming out nowadays are a dozen hours or less.  The reason reviewers focus on the negative aspect of a short game is the fact that many people don't just look at the price of a game, they look at the price-per-hour.  If I buy a 50 hour game for 50 dollars, then I got my entertainment at a rate of 1 dollar per hour.  If I bought a game for the same price and it only lasted ten hours, each hour cost five times as much.  In most cases, the shorter game was not five times as enjoyable as the longer one, so those who want value for their dollar feel ripped off.

While a different pricing system would be wonderful, where shorter games cost less money, this simply isn't viable from a game design standpoint.  Most of the programming in a game is focused on creating the graphics, sounds, controls, etc.  In other words, the 'foundation' of the game.  Once the foundation is created, adding on another level or cutscene becomes less of an issue.  It is far easier to make one 40 hour game than two completely different 20 hour games.

Others have commented on 'excess content' of a game increasing the length for those who want to lengthen their experience.  While I personally despite sidequests, they are a good compromise between those who just want to finish the game, and those who want hours upon hours of gameplay.  This is why so many longer games nowadays have 'sidequests', which are completely optional.  Just look at Final Fantasy X.  When you reached the end of the game, you had the option of going back and getting the 'ultimate weapons', or going through a number of difficult dungeons and optional bosses/sidequests for stronger equipment.  Those who just wanted to beat the game could do so without their playtime reaching obscene levels.

It seems to me that Darren wants shorter games because he still wants the exhilaration of completing a game, without having so spend 6 months on it.  Does he play games only for the endings?  Does he spend his playtime chasing the carrot on a stick, and gets frustrated when the stick is too long?  While the ending is a nice reward, you can enjoy a game without ever completing it.

Also, there's nothing saying you can't come back to a game later to complete it.  I recently did this with Grandia III: I played the game to the second disc, got tired of the game, and then came back 6 months later when the battle system was all fresh and new again.  Granted, this can be confusing if you forget what you were doing in a game, but you could always write things down, assuming the game doesn't do it for you (I love how some games like Rogue Galaxy have started implementing loading screens that give a quick recap of what you're up to at the moment.)

In the end, I'm mostly baffled that Darren doesn't like it when a game takes him 6 months to complete.  You just paid 50 bucks for a piece of entertainment that lasted you SIX MONTHS.  What movie or book could possibly accomplish such a feat?