+1
lack of speech...
Okay, I found some speech now.
This is growing into a good discussion. I'll make a few short points/observations first: I would imagine that a 3 hour game would not be 'full price'. In fact, I know they aren't, because 3 hour games already exist in the form of DLC. As a quick aside, Corwin, what games are you paying $120 for?? I'm in Australia, Tasmania even, and I rarely pay more than $80 for a game, and never more than $100. You might want to shop around a bit more, JB often sell new release games for $80. I got Empire: Total War at JB for $80 the day before the official Australian release. I got GTA: Chinatown Wars for $50 on release day as well (that is an awesome game, btw, anyone with a DS should go out and buy it RIGHT NOW).
RPGs generally need to be longer in order for the story to have emotional punch. However, for the longer length to be really justified, it's crucial that the game engage on an emotional level, and feature memorable characters that you can come to really care about. Even if that is achieved, there is the further issue of how to fill the time out. If half of a game is walking back and forth, fighting trivial monsters, the good parts get really diluted, and I often find myself getting frustrated and wanting to get back to the good parts.
The thing is, to say it's as simple as just combining the elements of several games, or to say well they should just find a better way to fill in the extra 40 hours of content rather than simply cut the length in half by eliminating the filler - well that's a lot easier said than done. The sad nature of the industry is that a lot of the studios making these kinds of games just don't have the money to spend in order to attempt the kinds of things some are talking about. In those cases, it's far better to decide to just make a 30-40 hour RPG and make sure it's tight, and consistently enjoyable. Cut out every last corridor full of minions, I don't want a single trivial fight in my entire game. At the end of the game, I'll come away feeling a lot better about it that I will about a 90 hour 'epic' that only really had 30 hours worth of real content.
I'm at a point in my life where I don't want my games designed to occupy as much of my time as possible. I want them to maximise for 'fun' per hour, not total fun, or total time occupied. If an RPG is going to attempt to really engage on an emotional level and do something to justify an extended length, then it better make sure that the story is consistently engaging, the characters are memorable, and I want to really work on my emotions. That's going to be a game where you have to put a lot into it, as a player, but it's going to give exponentionally more back.
I think it's worth mentioning Bioshock here too, because that game was emotionally engaging, tight, there was no 'filler', and I came away from it feeling like I'd just experienced something profoundly worthwhile. From the time I first started it up, to the time I finished it for the first time, I think I spent something like 60% of my time playing it. It was that compelling. If someone could make a game like that, which was a true RPG, it would be orgasmic.