metalmaniac21;n7153210 said:
In which way 60 hours is short?
Argument about the actual length of the game aside, it's "too short to have a proper progression" in the sense that you become far too powerful far too quickly. A vampire would take hundreds of years to become a fraction as powerful as you do in the game barring excessive amounts of diablerie or having a sire that was low(like 4th or 5th) generation elder, which would be a huge stretch at best.
Bloodlines takes place over (I think) a single night. A fledgling being able to do most of the things you could in Bloodlines is a bit silly, which is what I think (and hope) Viking meant by being too short to have a proper progression.
Granted these were all likely deliberate choices made by the devs to make the game work better narratively, and I'm fine with them. I suppose they could have tried something like they did in VtM: Redemption with a time skip, but that could have felt weirdly anachronistic and really messed with the Final Nights theme.
With regard to your reply to Gilrond about the game's balance, I think you may have missed his intent. I believe what he was saying is that the game struck a balance between gameplay/progression and storytelling. I think they ultimately did a good job and it worked just fine without restricting either side, despite the how critical I was of a neophyte being powerful. It was just a simple design decision they had to make to keep the flow of everything in tact.
Getting back to the point about the game length, this would be one where I don't quite trust a website like that simply because there are a couple of clans that have very different playthroughs, so for a full experience you would have to do most things at least 3 times.