Do you actually like CP77 being shorter then Witcher3 ?

[BigWezz69]

Yep, walking around and exploring are great, no doubt. But it not make "main story" longer

True, but if you could just fast travel to every point in CP77, a player could blast through the main story pretty quickly, especially on the easiest difficulty.

Like I said, Story and characters are great in ME, but for me, the "very" bad point are the dialogues. It's too "sober" (for all ages), if I can say that.

I couldn't disagree more. Its the dialog, character stories, character personalities and choices that are the ME franchise main strengths. Without trying to spark an argument, I found CP77 dialog to be not much better than ME, if anything, worse in a lot of places. A lot of the dialog seems pretty pointless too. But that my take on it. If you like it, that's cool beans.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I couldn't disagree more. Its the dialog, character stories, character personalities and choices that are the ME franchise main strengths.

I agree for story and character, but my "problem" is only with dialogs, it looks like they came out of a film for all audiences...
(I hope it's not only the french version...)
But you can't said it's good when you listen that, honestly... And it's the same in all the trilogy.

Spoiler: At the right time

or with Wrex where it's must be an "important" moment.

But don't get me wrong, I love ME. Without it, I wouldn't have bought the legendary edition when I already have all three since day one
Anyway,

True, but if you could just fast travel to every point in CP77, a player could blast through the main story pretty quickly, especially on the easiest difficulty.

If you rush, you rush, no secret
- 22m 58s 430ms for kill alduin in Skyrim...

 

[OdiousMortem]

When you try to research how long it takes people to finish games, I'm pretty sure all we will be looking at is averages. My guess is most of the people that post here will probably be able to finish a game faster, due to experience and a willingness to read about the game outside of playing. There's a lot of variables there.

Steam says 21% finished TW3, but over average people only finish about 10% of the games they play. So already -- if that's true -- the TW3 has done twice as well as your average game in getting players to finish it, even though it's longer than most.

But, unfortunately, it's easy for a company to look at a game that only gets 20% of their players to finish as seeing half of their game as lost revenue.

My GUESS is what could be happening is they are seeing a lot of their labor as lost revenue. They can shorten games and most people wont be any wiser. Personally, I don't want to see that, because when I get hooked on to a game, I stick with it.

But, if it's done right, it could end up not being different. They would end up releasing the game in smaller chunks, for a smaller cost. In theory that means the product SHOULD be of better quality, and it should allow to track profits a little easier and keep the shareholders happy with more steady releases.

But my comment is doing down a rabbit hole. I'm sure you get the idea, though.

I think some of what we are seeing, not just from CDPR but the whole industry is growing pains. I just hope we don't get too carried away with silliness that leads to boring products. It can happen. Right now we are seeing a lot of fun games. So I am not claiming to have the answers here, I am just pointing out something I noticed.

 

[cartlidge]

People do not feel that they have got their moneys worth if content is gated or the story too long and boring. They paid for content they are not getting to see. This affected a lot of the design of wow allowing more players to see more content, raids got easier, dungeons got easier, group formation got easier. This had pushed forward evolution in game design

Shorter main story and more side quests makes the game more accessible and means more players will engage.

I thought the main story in cyberpunk was too short, I also disliked the reduction of raids from 40 man and what I felt the trivialization of content. My feelings unfortunately are neither here nor there and the bottom line is more players did get engaged. I have no issues playing cyberpunk for over 100 hours on a playthrough, it's just not all the same story. It can be completed in 20 hours or 100, the choice is the players without feeling penalized for having lack of free time

 

[Guest 3847602]

In regards to Skyrim, its also about adventuring. If you are moving about the map via fast travel with the mod you mentioned, then its easy to miss a lot of stuff. Most of the time while traversing the map between main quests and side quests, you can stumble upon new places or random events happening, thus you go and check them out.

This adds to the play time, which some may see as distracting, but I think most like it. There's not much more to a fantasy game then going on a quest only to find yourself embroiled in another quest that you happened to find along the way.

While Skyrim is great, Oblivion has my heart as it was my very first fantasy ARPG. I still get goose bumps when leaving the sewers for the first time ..

Oh, I'm aware of what Skyrim's appeal is supposed to be, even though it's not my kind of game, to put it mildly.
My response is related to the claim that its main quest is longer than Cyberpunk's, which may technically be true, but in reality you spend 2/3 of that time traveling to the next quest. In Night City, it's never going to take more than a few minutes for you to reach the next quest location, so in the end, actual main story of Cyberpunk is almost twice as long than in Skyrim.

Got to admit, the story in Cyberpunk was for less compelling than the Mass Effect story was for me. ME was about the characters and Shepard (FemShep all the way), and while CP77 sort of did the same, it just wasn't as good imo. Plus, for me at least, there was a lot of cringe dialog in CP77 and the overall story was lacklustre and even pretty predictable in the end.

I love Mass Effect, but some of the cringe in ME3 is almost lethal for me (particularly the beginning on Earth, Shepard's nightmares and everything that comes out of Kai Leng's mouth).
There's also ME2 and this:

 

[CTPhipps]

People do not feel that they have got their moneys worth if content is gated or the story too long and boring. They paid for content they are not getting to see. This effected a lot of the design of wow allowing more players to see more content, raids got easier, dungeons got easier, group formation got easier. This had pushed forward evolution in game design

Shorter main story and more side quests makes the game more accessible and means more players will engage.

I thought the main story in cyberpunk was too short, I also disliked the reduction of raids from 40 man and what I felt the trivialization of content. My feelings unfortunately are neither here nor there and the bottom line is more players did get engaged. I have no issues playing cyberpunk for over 100 hours on a playthrough, it's just not all the same story. It can be completed in 20 hours or 100, the choice is the players without feeling penalized for having lack of free time

The problem with this logic is that you are not developing the game for people to play the game. You are developing the game for people to BUY the game. After that, whatever they do is their own business. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is probably the most completed game of all time and is a cinematic masterpiece that very few people can't beat with about 8 hours time commitment.

Analysis: Player interest in Call of Duty’s campaigns is cratering

Less than 10 percent of PC/Xbox players finished Black Ops 3's single-player story.

arstechnica.com

Just over 53% completion.

Some people just like owning games and playing them a little. The people who DO complete the game are the ones that are fantastically engaged and want to experience the whole thing as well as have a dedication to the Ip.

You don't want to give those people less than a whole meal.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

The problem with this logic is that you are not developing the game for people to play the game. You are developing the game for people to BUY the game. After that, whatever they do is their own business. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is probably the most completed game of all time and is a cinematic masterpiece that very few people can't beat with about 8 hours time commitment.

Analysis: Player interest in Call of Duty’s campaigns is cratering

Less than 10 percent of PC/Xbox players finished Black Ops 3's single-player story.

arstechnica.com

Just over 53% completion.

Some people just like owning games and playing them a little. The people who DO complete the game are the ones that are fantastically engaged and want to experience the whole thing as well as have a dedication to the Ip.

You don't want to give those people less than a whole meal.

I think for the writers/creators, its more like... if a lot of people walk out on your movie, its not considered a good movie. Now regular games are a bit different. You can enjoy playing Terri's without ever finishing it. But for rpgs? not sure most people who don't finish an rpg think of it as a good game. They may not hate it, but in my memory, the ones I didnt put signifigant time in, were kinda not that good to me.

20% seems pretty low for me, for an rpg, but I will say due to pop culture, there may be a lot who bought it who aren't reg rpg type players.

I think the Cp style of having a medium sized main story with a lot of side content works well to balance those who want dif levels of engagement. I would develop the side stories even better. Though, from the posts here, some who wanted a deeper game didnt naturally find some of the side content, so maybe there's some loss.

was there ever an rpg that you liked but didnt finish?

 

[BigWezz69]

Oh, I'm aware of what Skyrim's appeal is supposed to be, even though it's not my kind of game, to put it mildly.
My response is related to the claim that its main quest is longer than Cyberpunk's, which may technically be true, but in reality you spend 2/3 of that time traveling to the next quest. In Night City, it's never going to take more than a few minutes for you to reach the next quest location, so in the end, actual main story of Cyberpunk is almost twice as long than in Skyrim.

I get you, but the ability to stumble into quests and random encounters is far more appealing than zipping between main quest markers and not seeing the world.

I love Mass Effect, but some of the cringe in ME3 is almost lethal for me (particularly the beginning on Earth, Shepard's nightmares and everything that comes out of Kai Leng's mouth).
There's also ME2 and this:

While I wont contest there is cringe as that would be stupid of me to do, for me personally, CP77 takes the cake. And in all fairness, that's a funny mod for the Normandy

 

[rednhax]

I don't play a lot of games, I like to play one at a time and play it till I get bored, ideally that doesn't happen before many many years.

Technically, the gaming industry doesn't like me, since they want me to buy at least 12 games a year, but I would prefer to invest the cost of 12 games a year on ONE game that I really enjoy.

Still hoping more sandbox elements and other elements are added to make this game easier to continue beyond the story. You know a cyberpunk world to live in

PS: I never finished the Witcher, in fact, I never got really far with it because I don't like the controls/camera, although, I plan on revisiting soon with some mods(Immersive CAM) to see if it helps. Just wanted to bring this up, because the most likely reason people didnt finish the Witcher has to do with the clunky controls and not the game itself.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Just wanted to bring this up, because the most likely reason people didnt finish the Witcher has to do with the clunky controls and not the game itself.

Not sure about that, due to the number of players on RockStar games. Where for me, the controls are not great (It's my opinion, but I don't see how they could be "great"... (The one who tells me that it's a pleasure to loot a house in RDR2, I think he's lying...).

Edit :
I come back to what I just said
(Xbox stats)

• Redemption - You have finished RDR2 : 23.80% of players.
• Live or Die in Los Santos - You have finished the last mission (GTA5) : 13.72% of players.
• Prepared for the Future - Deciding the fate of the commonwealth (Fallout4) : 16.08% of players.
• The Outer Worlds - You have finished The Outer Worlds in any difficulty (Outer Worlds) : 15.89% of players.
• Dragon Hunt - Finish "The Dragon Hunt" (Skyrim-kill Halduin) : 11.43% of players.

It's always those type of % for any games. Even worse sometimes, like KCD with only 3% of players who have completed the main story... Really disappointing indeed, for me at least.
So for me, it appear that the players who really "finish" their games are a minority... Most of players never finish any games (whatever the type of games or the duration of the quests...)

 

[Didacgomez]

I get you, but the ability to stumble into quests and random encounters is far more appealing than zipping between main quest markers and not seeing the world.

I think the quest marker is closely related to game length at the end. The people who pay development costs of AAA games is not those who want 100 of hours of story I fear, it used to be enough in RPGs to give a journal entry for a quest with some location,name of npc (if any) and quest description...but people was complaining it was frustating....so developers give up journal entries and just use quest markers (in big urban environment you need good street naming and numbering,in rural setting you will need good landmarks), its the "pop culture" that @Ayinde_Palmer is referring.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

I get you, but the ability to stumble into quests and random encounters is far more appealing than zipping between main quest markers and not seeing the world.



While I wont contest there is cringe as that would be stupid of me to do, for me personally, CP77 takes the cake. And in all fairness, that's a funny mod for the Normandy

Cp actually has a number of quests that are based on finding them, talking to npcs, or have prerequisites.

but people miss a decent amount of these quests.

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2021

I think the quest marker is closely related to game length at the end. The people who pay development costs of AAA games is not those who want 100 of hours of story I fear, it used to be enough in RPGs to give a journal entry for a quest with some location,name of npc (if any) and quest description...but people was complaining it was frustating....so developers give up journal entries and just use quest markers (in big urban environment you need good street naming and numbering,in rural setting you will need good landmarks), its the "pop culture" that @Ayinde_Palmer is referring.

yes, definitely having any non marker based system in a city that no one actually knows, would probably not work too well. Real life, you need a lot of pre existing knowledge to successfully navigate a city. If you have a excellent map, and a very well designed city, you can find places, but its still fairly difficult, and probably not what people who play your average rpg expect.

most linear rpgs funnel you fairly close to wherever you need to be next to progress the story. In an open world like Cyberpunk, you can't use a design based solely on proximity to present interesting quests/stories/content

 

[Didacgomez]

Not sure about that, due to the number of players on RockStar games. Where for me, the controls are not great (It's my opinion, but I don't see how they could be "great"... (The one who tells me that it's a pleasure to loot a house in RDR2, I think he's lying...).

Edit :
I come back to what I just said
(Xbox stats)

• Redemption - You have finished RDR2 : 23.80% of players.
• Live or Die in Los Santos - You have finished the last mission (GTA5) : 13.72% of players.
• Prepared for the Future - Deciding the fate of the commonwealth (Fallout4) : 16.08% of players.
• The Outer Worlds - You have finished The Outer Worlds in any difficulty (Outer Worlds) : 15.89% of players.
• Dragon Hunt - Finish "The Dragon Hunt" (Skyrim-kill Halduin) : 11.43% of players.

It's always those type of % for any games. Even worse sometimes, like KCD with only 3% of players who have completed the main story... Really disappointing indeed, for me at least.
So for me, it appear that the players who really "finish" their games are a minority... Most of players never finish any games (whatever the type of games or the duration of the quests...)

I've always said, that internet communities (could be gaming,politics or gardening) are not very representative of "real" world. In games, I think most people after 20 hours or so stop playing (except sandboxes perhaps). At least CDPR tried something in CP2077 of "short" main quest (20-30 hours) + enough side content to buff it to 90-120 hours (or slightly higher), I think that is what we are going to see more often in general. You can find quite a lot of articles discussing that on inet, one for example:

https://www.gamepressure.com/editor...-how-many-of-them-did-we-actually-finish/zbd7

Which also express the same opinion that I have about disparity between forums and majority of players:

"For people who read industry articles or news, spend hours on dedicated forums, and, above all else, play and finish many titles, this may seem unbelievable, but let's remember that the market for video games also includes a considerable number of players who don’t bother to comment on the Internet or even use it for information on the latest productions."

yes, definitely having any non marker based system in a city that no one actually knows, would probably not work too well. Real life, you need a lot of pre existing knowledge to successfully navigate a city. If you have a excellent map, and a very well designed city, you can find places, but its still fairly difficult, and probably not what people who play your average rpg expect.

Worst thing for me, is that my sense of orientation in real life sucks in a small town of 70000 people... but I'm actually good with maps and journals in videogames

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I've always said, that internet communities (could be gaming,politics or gardening) are not very representative of "real" world. In games, I think most people after 20 hours or so stop playing (except sandboxes perhaps). At least CDPR tried something in CP2077 of "short" main quest (20-30 hours) + enough side content to buff it to 90-120 hours (or slightly higher), I think that is what we are going to see more often in general. You can find quite a lot of articles discussing that on inet, one for example:

https://www.gamepressure.com/editor...-how-many-of-them-did-we-actually-finish/zbd7

Which also express the same opinion that I have about disparity between forums and majority of players:

"For people who read industry articles or news, spend hours on dedicated forums, and, above all else, play and finish many titles, this may seem unbelievable, but let's remember that the market for video games also includes a considerable number of players who don’t bother to comment on the Internet or even use it for information on the latest productions."

In fact when I see these statistics, I tell myself that to our* greatest misfortune, if the developers take these statistics into account, honestly why would they care about the duration of the games and especially the replayability...
Knowing that at best, 80% of players won't even finish the main quest... If you haven't finished the main quest, you don't care about the replayability, in my opinion.

* I say "our" because I think most of the players on this forum are part of the 10/20% of players who finish their video games

 

[Liquidcyberpunk]

Who complains about a game being to long? Some games aren't happy meals from Mcdonalds. I like to spend long periods of time with the story as possible.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Who complains about a game being to long?

"We", those who finish their games... The 10-20% of the players (And again, 20% or more is "very" rare...)

 

[Liquidcyberpunk]

"We", those who finish their games... The 10-20% of the players (And again, 20% or more is "very" rare...)

 

[cyberpunkforever]

i don't mind it beeing shorter, it's different kind of RPG
the thing is its replayability, only the prologue is diferent, corp, street kid, aldecaldo, first hours thaat is the only difference

and gameplay, too many bugs, too repetitive are some open world activities, lack of aim sensitivity for controller makes shootng weapons frustrating and problematic

open wold activities in w3 are a bit repetitive but they have diffferent details and some cntext, difern enemis, monsters, humans, elementals, cool rewards

open world exploration in cp, you only meet maelstrom or tigers, that's it, 90% is the same and recovering 10000000 taxis, wtf
in w3 you have only one prolog but ther are lots orf cool badass cinematics where you can see Geralt and other characters, in cp there are no cnematics, i didn't find any
some parts of manin story and most of side quests are really good in cp

 

[Guest 3847602]

Which also express the same opinion that I have about disparity between forums and majority of players:

It goes beyond finishing games. I remember the shock when BioWare released statistics for ME3 and it turned out that only 18% of the players chose FemShep (if your were to base your predictions on what was being said on forums and social media, you'd think it was 50%, at least) and 43% played as a soldier (which was generally seen as the most generic, boring class).

Who complains about a game being to long?

People who played Assassin's Creed Valhalla. I still haven't finished it, I doubt I ever will.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

It goes beyond finishing games. I remember the shock when BioWare released statistics for ME3 and it turned out that only 18% of the players chose FemShep (if your were to base your predictions on what was being said on forums and social media, you'd think it was 50%, at least) and 43% played as a soldier (which was generally seen as the most generic, boring class).

Damn, I'm way out of the majority... Adept female Shepard

in w3 you have only one prolog but ther are lots orf cool badass cinematics where you can see Geralt and other characters, in cp there are no cnematics, i didn't find any

I think it was the goal, "cinematic" in first person who doesn't seem to be cinematic.
I find it great obviously, no "standard" cinematic and generally no loading time. Right in the action

Post automatically merged: Jul 27, 2021

Besides, I find it rather funny as a title for a thread on this forum :
"Do you actually like CP77 being shorter then Witcher3 ?"

Because we are not going to lie to each other, I think that all those who answered here, are players quite addicted to video games... We play video games, next to it, we go to a forum to talk about games video... In addition, certainly some watch streams or videos of video games
So I imagine that for "us", when you love a video game and you see the credits displayed, you don't jump for joy... It doesn't matter if the game lasts 10, 30 or even 150 hours...

But if we took the majority of players (80-90% who don't generally finish video games), who have to play like 10 hours a week (work, family or whatever), and that we ask them if 120 hours to finish TW3 is "good" (i.e. 3 months without playing any other game), I don't think the common answer would be "yes".

We can therefore thank the developers, because I think, the business model that would be the most profitable could be a video game that would take 20-30 hours (at most) to finish at 100% and at 60 Euros.