Did the internet partially kill gaming?

You know what I mean. It's the people who have to collect everything regardless of how useful it is.
People like Sarah? =P
I get what you mean, but I think I would say people that only play games to up their gamerscore / get more trophies are the leading bane/cancer to gaming. I myself have so far only collected every achievement available for mass effect 2 after beating it a few times on different playthroughs, and even playing never bothered with trying to get every one in order.
Though I suspect this is what you really meant.

Also I'm well aware how game development works. But I'm not asking for the impossible or in all honesty even that difficult. I've seen companies produce 25+ hour games, you could easially cut that in half between two routes.
Have you ever tried making a game? It might not seem that difficult, but it just might be. You need to script out more scenes and dialogue, so you have to pay the writers and programmers more. You need to have those lines all acted, so there's more money spent on voice acting.
But, I will agree that padding a game's length with tedial sh'it is a bother. Most times I imagine companies do that to boast on the back cover having over X hours of gameplay.

TBH I don't think that's true (regarding great single/multi game). It's a matter of balance and design, but I think people are looking in the wrong direction for it (shooters aren't bad but TBH I think an RPG is going to make that type of game real, not a shooter).
>Obligatory Halo series rant<
One series I've seen rumored to delve into the multiplayer scene is the mass effect universe. Honestly I don't think that would play out well, and the single player is IMO good as is. I stand by what I said, in that there'd be a near impossibility for a game to have both a good multiplayer and satisfying single player experience.