How much playtime do you expect Cyberpunk 2077 to have?

[kanethepane]

How much playtime do you expect Cyberpunk 2077 to have?

How much playtime would you expect to get out of the game?, how much would you be satisfied with.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'd hope a singular meaningful runthrough to take around 40 to 60 hours (excluding repeated sideline activities and other possible generated filler missions or possible post ending freeroam that might inflate the time), even less would be ok, but longer than that, and it usually starts to get repetitive and bothersome.

But then, I would also hope there is enough mechanical and narrative nuances in the game that a different character build along with a different approach to the games hurdles and dilemmas will provide a diffferent enough experience to push through the game without too much repetition (i.e. I can't replay Witcher 3, it's just too much repetitive fighting and cutscenes to bear for a few bits of different narrative outcomes here and there). That is to say that a singular character build might only witness around a 3rd or 4th of the game, another character another 3rd or 4th and so on. And while some paths for some characters might (and would) overlap, they'd still create a unique feeling whole as they do have their own flavor to them to begin with and the pieces that create the said whole are different.

So to get the entirety of the meaningful (and I need to emphasize that word... meaningful as a whole, not just some key moments here and there between which everyone does the same grind) content, you'd need to play the game several times.

 

[walkingdarkly]

For single player story, I hope to see 50 hours minimum, 75 to 80 hours maximum but even though I say that I'm personally going to log tons of hours into the game. For the multiplayer side, would depend on how they set up multiplayer.

 

[Suhiira]

I'd hope a singular meaningful runthrough to take around 40 to 60 hours (excluding repeated sideline activities and other possible generated filler missions or possible post ending freeroam that might inflate the time), even less would be ok, but longer than that, and it usually starts to get repetitive and bothersome.

I'd tend to go with this too.

But then, I would also hope there is enough mechanical and narrative nuances in the game that a different character build along with a different approach to the games hurdles and dilemmas will provide a diffferent enough experience to push through the game without too much repetition (i.e. I can't replay Witcher 3, it's just too much repetitive fighting and cutscenes to bear for a few bits of different narrative outcomes here and there).

Here I'd also agree.

 

[sleepyhead062]

Almost as long as the witcher 3, but with more re-playability or perhaps branching storyline.

 

[atomowyturysta]

You can easily get 300hs from Witcher 3, and that is without taking on "outdated" quests. I, personally, hope "77" will beat it. However, the main storyline should stick to a healthy dose of 100-120hs of gameplay.

 

[Hoplite_22]

honestly I want a single play though to be more like 20 hours. a tight focused game with out the bloat that was in the Witcher 3 (that mid section was long and meandering even with out the side stuff) that you can play again with say a diffrent class or skill would be preferable to a 100 single play through that feels like work after 20 hours.

 

[atomowyturysta]

honestly I want a single play though to be more like 20 hours. a tight focused game with out the bloat that was in the Witcher 3 (that mid section was long and meandering even with out the side stuff) that you can play again with say a diffrent class or skill would be preferable to a 100 single play through that feels like work after 20 hours.

So, basically, you want the most important game in vg industry to be painfully short? Even with another take, with a different class, the core game will be the same, so it would at max give an actual 30h of gameplay. That's short for a game the target players wait since the dawn of vg industry

 

[sv3672]

So, basically, you want the most important game in vg industry to be painfully short? Even with another take, with a different class, the core game will be the same, so it would at max give an actual 30h of gameplay. That's short for a game the target players wait since the dawn of vg industry

I think the idea for those who want a shorter game is exactly that the choices would actually have a real impact in gameplay or story, at least to an extent similar to Roche's and Iorveth's paths in The Witcher 2. So, when replayed, it would be quite different 30 hours. Unfortunately, though, the majority of players does not even complete games once (judging from Steam achievements). By the way, 30 hours is not exactly painfully short, it is possible to make great games shorter than that if we exclude unimportant side activities (grinding, crafting, collecting, minigames, filler quests, etc.) and the pacing is reasonably fast.

But it is true that "hours per dollar" is a metric that sells games nowadays, so realistically I would expect CP2077 to be at least as long as TW3, quite possibly even longer as the bar needs to be raised. The map area will likely be increased too, that has already been rumored. Therefore, I doubt one playthrough would see only 1/3rd or 1/4th of the game, as kofeiiniturpa suggested, chances are it will be more similar to Witcher 3 or Blood and Wine.

 

[metalmaniac21]

100+ hours of boring interactive movies and additional 100+ hours of contemplation at Blade Runner 2049 wanna-be scenery and boring riding between said movies. Which is not a bad thing on itself but in consideration that Cyberpunk is an RPG... It is.

With multiplayer? Ad nauseam

 

[Rawls]

A pure main quest run would ideally take around 50 hours. I'd hope for meaningful side content to add another 50+ hours though.

 

[Hoplite_22]

So, basically, you want the most important game in vg industry to be painfully short? Even with another take, with a different class, the core game will be the same, so it would at max give an actual 30h of gameplay. That's short for a game the target players wait since the dawn of vg industry

Painfully short? no, just free of waffle and filler that plagues games at the moment, specially "open world" with their maps full of markers. and for those replays to mean more than a cosmetic change, actual classes that closes off some things and opens others up. different start areas etc. the trade off for which is a shorter total run time. a more than worth while trade off.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'll correct myself a bit.... I want a mainquest that could basically be "completed" viably and "uniquely" at any point in the game, starting from the first minute of gameplay. But the more you play, the more comprehensive the story and its conclusion and nuances get. And the 40-60 hours comes from possible "unique" content for a character (counting in reactivity and consequences from skillbuild and narrative choices) that doesn't count repetitive tasks.

I doubt one playthrough would see only 1/3rd or 1/4th of the game, as kofeiiniturpa suggested

I doubt it too. But that's what it would optimally be; any one character would get only what's viable for him to get through his character build and the choies he gets to make. Being like Witcher 3 in this regard would be a shame.

 

[atomowyturysta]

Painfully short? no, just free of waffle and filler that plagues games at the moment, specially "open world" with their maps full of markers. and for those replays to mean more than a cosmetic change, actual classes that closes off some things and opens others up. different start areas etc. the trade off for which is a shorter total run time. a more than worth while trade off.

There's game called 'Age of Decadence". It uses similar. Idea. Several starting "classes" that predestinate most of the story. They also overlaps. If you start as a mercenary, your task is to protect a certain guy. Assassin on the other hand haas to kill that guy, and deal with the mercenary. Similarily, in V:TM Bloodlines each clan had quite unique story. Such approach would make less game play hours worthwile, but still, 20 hours is enough for 3-4 evenings of play. In V:TM that seemed short and lacked "filler content" it was 40hs. And the replayability by other class would still reqiure to do 50-70% things you did the first time. And again, most players won't be interested playing some classess. And building open world game that is 20hs long is missing the point. OW games are about exploring and finding quests, missions, places and interesting stories. W3 was almost overburdened with side quests, but they rarely felt like "fillers". They, for most, part were quite meaningful and fit seemingly into main story. Still, there should be moment where you cross the point of no return. In the finale there should be only time for main story and, maybe, wrapping some more important side quests. Unlike as in W3 "Ok. No time to waste! Ciri needs me, world needs me! There's no time to waste! But I'm still going to visit every single NPC and play Gwent..."

 

[sv3672]

I doubt it too. But that's what it would optimally be; any one character would get only what's viable for him to get through his character build and the choies he gets to make. Being like Witcher 3 in this regard would be a shame.

Maybe somewhat better than Witcher 3, after all, if there are different roles, those need to be accounted for somehow, one would expect at least in the late game for quest content to be different for a solo, netrunner or rockerboy. Although it is possible they will not be equally well supported. With the high budget, and market pressure to make long games, chances are the majority of content could still be accessed on any playthrough. However, where there are differences, effort will probably be spent on making them feel impactful, even if it does not actually affect a large percentage of content.

 

[Razrback16]

Well, for me, W3 provided around ~180 hours of content (with the (2) DLCs), so I would hope for somewhere in the neighborhood of ~100 hours of mainstory content and 200+ hours when combined with side content.

From some of the news tidbits I've read, it sounds like the CP2077 world is projected to be around 3-4 times the size of W3, so I would imagine they're aiming for a pretty long game, which sounds good to me.

 

[Draymar23]

I expect there will be around 50, 60 hours for the main quest line, another 50, 60 hours for class/faction specific quest lines and around 150 to 200 hours for sidequests. So around 250 to 320 hours gameplay with high replayability

 

[4meg]

Playtime could be quite different for each profession depending on the quests and story. A combat heavy story would be much longer for a netrunner and shorter for a solo. I would rather focus on story quality than length of play. If they can give me the experience I want and expect then a 30-40 game time would be perfectly reasonable. If instead it was drawn out to 80-100 hours with 20 hour of great play, 20 hours of okay play, and the rest is filler, then I will be disappointed.

When I was a kid and have very little pocket money I used to buy books based on page count. Looking back many of them were dreadful, but at least I felt I was getting my money's worth. I don't think CP2077 and CDPR should use this kind of mentality.

 

[solbacka1]

I heard somewhere that Cyberpunk 77 will be longer than the Witcher 3, whereas that game had about 50 hours of main quests. I'd aim for 60-80 hours.

 

[Maraldus]

Anywhere between 60 hours and 100 hours would do; it would depend on the approach, I suppose.
Depending on just how 'open worldly' Cyberpunk will be, I'll either end up spending a lot of time achieving 'completionist' status, or end up not being able to explore non-linearly.

Either way, the entire genre of Cyberpunk is amazing (just look at Deus Ex!), so it will be a sight to behold in any case!