This sounds intensely ignorant.
The number of different factors that go into the size of a game is large, but quality is not some kind of 1:1 ratio with size. Perhaps it could be because a large number of uncompressed, high quality assets are available, but not necessarily, and further, it could mean they simply didn't package these in an appropriate or efficient manner.
To say nothing of the fact that internet speeds aren't keeping up with these ballooning sizes, or that the best technology for storage comes with a very high premium as it increases in size, there's nothing to cheer about just because a game is big.
On the other side of the spectrum... do any of you ever feel the opposite way when playing a game that's 1 gig or a few gigs or even less than a gig? Let's use a AAA game for this example... a game you paid $50 for. Would you feel like you're not getting your money's worth if it was just a gig or two?
Never.
Here's my strategy:
1) Play the game
2) Determine if I got my money's worth
At no point would I consider the size of the game as indicative of its quality, subconsciously or otherwise.
Edit: Sorry if this comes off aggressive. It just seems like exactly the sort of marketing thing that people get taken by, and I hate that. Like saying, "This has 1 billion transistors!" What does that mean? Nothing at all. You could creating something with a lot of tech behind it, but that tells you nothing about the quality of the product.
