It's a bad thing.
A short game with concentrated quality will always be better than a big-ass game with sparse content. A game doesn't have to be 200 hours worth of pointless walking/grinding/cutscenes/etc to be good. It's the content that is.
This is one of the major factors why games back then were better. Games couldn't be too big due to small disc/cartridge space or slow download time in the old days of the internet, so devs had to do more with less if they wanted to see their game sell. And in order to do more, they needed to actually like doing what you do, have good ideas and put actual smart effort into it. Some games came in one disc, some came in two, but the discs were often packed to the brim with content. Rules were kept so they wouldn't end up needing more for obvious reasons, and that factor pushed devs to only keep content that was most important and meaningful. Just looking at the things people were able to achieve with the PS1/N64 limitation alone is enough proof of it.
This philosophy however was destroyed when videogames became popular with the masses, publishers figured out marketing could sell more than the games themselves, and, as odd as it sounds, larger disk space/better internet came about.