That's your view, which I respect, but don't necessarily agree with.
Let's assume a top tier player can speedrun Sekiro in 2 hours. That same player has spent over 100 hours on Elden Ring. Does that player necessarily think that Elden Ring is a "better" value than Sekiro because a full playthrough takes orders of magnitude longer? Maybe, maybe not.
Putting people like OP and others that think like him (me) in this situation, we'd probably prefer Sekiro. Why? Because not only is a full, complete Elden Ring playthrough not a great time proposition (on an per completion basis), but also... To get to the point of beating Sekiro in 2 hours took A LOT of replay. Replay that is encouraged by a shorter running time and emphasis on a linear path and tight gameplay.
So you value beating a game many times, faster and faster. Other people value a long, involved experience. Both views are fine!
My most played game ever, by far, is Rocket League, and that's fundamentally the exact same thing over and over in 5-minute chunks. So I get that (although I probably never would have gotten the game had it been $70). But with single player games I generally prefer a long adventure that I probably won't play again for quite some time after finishing it.
(People have beaten ER in like 20 minutes though.)