Do you actually like CP77 being shorter then Witcher3 ?

[martygod]

As the title says. CDPR stated that CP77 will be shorter because lot of players didnt finished Witcher3 and complained it was too long, so I am asking about the public opinion, because I think that CP77 is way too short and I absolutely dont like it.

Edit:

Reason for this Is that I like huge games with ton and hundrets of hours of content, not necesarilly for the sake of spending hundrets of hours in the game on one run but for its great replayability, for exapmle I have finished Witcher3 three times and in each playthrough I have encountered new quests i have never done before etc. Same for Odyssey for exapmle or Skyrim.

But in CP77 i have finished all the big side quests in one playthrough and besides of some gigs I havent done there Is not much that Will go differently or not much of the new stuff to encounter when I play the game for the second time. And that is really dissapointing.

 

[Fuse_00]

Yeah, they cut the story because Witcher was too long, they removed wall running due to level design, they canceled 3rd person cutscenes because of immersion etc. etc. etc.

Sound like a bullshit to me, they obviously just had no time or resources for doing that.

Nobody can like that short story in RPG, DLC to Uncharted is actually longer than Cyberpunk's main quest

 

[yota71]

I played witcher as goty so i dont know how was the day one release, and after all i am really not interested on finish the game

 

[Icinix]

Yes.

I'm generally not a fan of open world games, I prefer a hub approach with each hub allowing more agile gameplay and bigger impacts.

I also don't have as much time as I used to to play games, so big massive open worlds require not just time commitment, but they need to keep me invested for that time. As such, Ive never finished inquisition and only finished one complete playthrough of The Witcher....in I think 2018.

Cyberpunk however, ive finished three times and am still heavily invested.

Its a balancing act. There is no right way, because everyone wants different thinhs.

Purely from a gametime and scale perspective, I prefer Cyberpunk to Witcher.

My thoughts on gameplay, story and choice and consequence are a seperate matter.

 

[ivigraf]

Noooo... I have played over 200h and I want more and more and more.. right now I can't call anybody .. nobody text me.. so so saad.. Well ok I call Judy once in a while.. but she gives me same answers I want something new.. and MORE

 

[Ofdimaelr]

No I don't see how it's a good thing to have shorter story...

 

[martygod]

Yes.

I'm generally not a fan of open world games, I prefer a hub approach with each hub allowing more agile gameplay and bigger impacts.

I also don't have as much time as I used to to play games, so big massive open worlds require not just time commitment, but they need to keep me invested for that time. As such, Ive never finished inquisition and only finished one complete playthrough of The Witcher....in I think 2018.

Cyberpunk however, ive finished three times and am still heavily invested.

Its a balancing act. There is no right way, because everyone wants different thinhs.

Purely from a gametime and scale perspective, I prefer Cyberpunk to Witcher.

My thoughts on gameplay, story and choice and consequence are a seperate matter.

I am not necesarilly talking about the story, but about the game as a whole, Skyrim story was also rather short but there was just so much side quests and questlines and So much to do besides that you could spend hundrets of hours if you wanted.

Its the fact that the witcher completionist Is like 180hrs and cyberpunk around 90 So there Is only half of content in the whole game and thats what bugs me.

 

[Icinix]

I am not necesarilly talking about the story, but about the game as a whole, Skyrim story was also rather short but there was just so much side quests and questlines and So much to do besides that you could spend hundrets of hours if you wanted.

Its the fact that the witcher completionist Is like 180hrs and cyberpunk around 90 So there Is only half of content in the whole game and thats what bugs me.

I'm not talking about the main story either.

I don't want games to just keep raising the bar in arbitrary length, especially just to be longer.

I also don't play games to be a completionist, I play them to enjoy them. Some of my favourite games of Stellaris for example were a few hours. Some of my most boring I quit after 50. Game length doesnt mean quality or enjoyment. It just means it took you that long to do stuff.

 

[Magicblow]

no because i have to work to get money lol

 

[yota71]

Its the fact that the witcher completionist Is like 180hrs and cyberpunk around 90 So there Is only half of content in the whole game and thats what bugs me.

Not really to complete all quest i needed 180 hour, and i have not played the end so, maybe 190 hour to complete all?

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Invited: No

Because:
The story already feels incomplete and rushed.
Not necessarily rushed in the meaning of "unfinished" but rushed in the meaning of "pacing".
You are constantly reminded with e the ongoing situation and it's urgency.

The current second act should have been the third act, so we have the chance to explore the side missions and the open world.
It feels like they did this on purpose, to hide the shortcomings of the open world.

In addition, the conclusion is illogical and full of plotholes.

The cyberspace in cyberpunk is criminally underused. It makes certain decisions later on seem to be a no-go, because we don't have the chance to explore it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Yes, because it doesn’t start to drag on like Witcher 3 (not as much anyway).

However, I do not like the story. It should’ve been more open and more based on what you decide to do (and how) along your journey rather than being as scripted as it is. The story isn’t built for an open world.

 

[lSirSmoke]

It was way too short. Filler side missions took up most of the playtime, and they are all the same.
There were no "special" missions that took a different approach or showed the world in another way.
It's fun to play, but there is little variation.

 

[Malaclypse5]

Witcher 3 imho had better missions and quests, more memorable events.
CP Story was pretty good but all in all it felt really short and not many things out of the ordinary.
And I really can't understand CDPRs reasoning behind it "Witcher 3 was too long because many people didn't finish it", like wtf, how many people did finish CP 2077 so far?

 

[martygod]

I'm not talking about the main story either.

I don't want games to just keep raising the bar in arbitrary length, especially just to be longer.

I also don't play games to be a completionist, I play them to enjoy them. Some of my favourite games of Stellaris for example were a few hours. Some of my most boring I quit after 50. Game length doesnt mean quality or enjoyment. It just means it took you that long to do stuff.

Everybody has his own preferences sure, in my opinion the side content(quests) Is not something you need to do to finish the game, but Its there Its what makes you stick with the game and replay it.

I dont like short games, because after few hours you see everything the game has to offer and there Is not much Reason to replay it because you wont encounter anything new

 

[nadsh]

No.

Main quest > gigs, especially if there's a sense of urgency involved in the main objective. I'd have sacrificed all the gigs for a longer main quest with different outcomes and more development of the Relic/Arasaka/corpo war/AIs plot.

 

[Icinix]

Everybody has his own preferences sure, in my opinion the side content(quests) Is not something you need to do to finish the game, but Its there Its what makes you stick with the game and replay it.

I dont like short games, because after few hours you see everything the game has to offer and there Is not much Reason to replay it because you wont encounter anything new

What do you call a short game though?

A short game for me would be a couple of hours.

Cyberpunk is a lot of things, but short is not one of them.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

What do you call a short game though?

A short game for me would be a couple of hours.

Cyberpunk is a lot of things, but short is not one of them.

Well. People made calculations and the cyberpunk story is a lot shorter than that of tw3. In tw3, the side quests were better integrated into the main story line.
They only achieved that a couple of times in cyberpunk.

 

[BigRock22]

Yes, I do. I was actually glad it was. I never got the chance to finish TW3 despite playing over 400 hours.

I always found myself getting bored of it about 100 hours in and putting the game down. Come back to it a few months later with a vague recollection of the story and controls just to start again from scratch. Then rinse and repeat.

 

[Icinix]

Well. People made calculations and the cyberpunk story is a lot shorter than that of tw3. In tw3, the side quests were better integrated into the main story line.
They only achieved that a couple of times in cyberpunk.

We're still just talking total game length though - so in your view - Was The Witcher 3 was the perfect length - or do subsequent games need to be longer?