I was more talking about your disdain for all things BioWare. :P That was you, right?
I don't have anything against not buying portal because you don't think you'll get enough value for your dollar, what I take issue with is considering the duration of Portal 2 to be a flaw or solely considering the length of a game without any thought to the net enjoyment you get out of it.
But in response to this...
I think your point about adding 60 hours doesn't necessarily make a game better is perfectly fair. If a game is super fun and will only suffer from the additional play time, then it might better off without it. If the additional hours actually make it boring, then it's WAY better off without them.
But, by the same token, I am paying $60 for the game. If I can pay 60 for a game that's tons of fun for 15 hours, or pay for one that's fun for 60 hours, I'm going to go for the latter. It's just way more bang for the buck. If I had the kind of money to spend on games that I wish I had, I might not care about the economy issue though. As it is, I only by a new game every few months or so (on average).
Overall, I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to making gaming choices.
Suppose Portal 2 is 100% fun (really abstract, but it's just for comparison). for 10 hours (I probably wouldn't do the multiplayer). Say that equals out to 1,000 "fun" points (100x10).
Now take something like, IDK, FFXIII (I actually enjoyed it :P). That's, let's say, 45+ hours of enjoyment, but it may only be 60% as fun as Portal 2. Well, 60x45 is 2700. That makes it a much better investment, if your wallet is limited enough that which you buy is a concern.
And of course, demanding more game time doesn't necessarily mean reducing the fun factor. It's perfectly feasible to add playtime and only make a game better. I can't say if that's the case for Portal 2, but it seems to me like people are demanding more fun playtime, not just more play time without regard to how fun it is.