I'm undecided because I feel like the length and how they frame the missions is great, especially with the side missions, too, but I think that there were 1 or 2 instances where I felt that things went by too fast.
140 hours with some replay...lack of content...ok
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.
just make a save file before the decision and see how it plays outI would like it shorter. Because it was short I was able to try many in game choices, which I wasnt able to do in Witcher 3
203 hours now and have been dreaming of them adding content to an empty world that doesn't allow the player to interact with much of it.140 hours with some replay...lack of content...ok
On my 3rd play through and yes the main story is very short if skipping scenes, Witcher Wild Hunt alone without the expansions is by far the best period.After actually playing through the game twice, the whole "we cut the story because the original was too long" is complete bullshit. The main story is a fraction of W3's for no other reason than that of all the other cut content in the game. Piss-poor management.
I don't know who these ... people, reviewers, whatever are that have convinced CDPR that The Witcher 3 was "too long", or if that's just some PR excuse thrown out to s'plain why the game is shorter ... but, I'm in the category of gamer where if I like, love, enjoy a game, i want the thing to to have 25 Million hours of playable content, so I never ever forever have to do a 2 play through after I've invested time in developing a character I like, to start with a new character.
No, i want games to be ridiculously bloated with content.
I can never understand why games length should be a problem for anyone. If a game feels "too long" it probably means that you're not enjoying it enough and that the problem is not the sheer volume of content but the quality of the content itself. With that being said, I have nothing against good, short games, but in an open world, RPG-ish adventure, there should be a lot of content, especially side quests.
Wild guess, some random person on twitter, reddit, whatever said they thought TW3 was too long and that got extrapolated and blown out of proportion to be a big deal (and potentially taken out of context). I can't rationalize the too long argument with any degree of logical reasoning unless it's because the quality of the content fails to maintain interest throughout the entire experience. In which case the fault does not lie with the temporal component but the content failing to maintain interest. Put differently, at that point the flaw is with the content.
Personally, I think this issue appears in CP at points. Some of the side content is absolutely brilliant. The people constructing it deserve every bit of praise thrown at them (seriously, good job team). Other portions come off as procedurally generated, filler content. It's not good in any sense of the word. When engaging in the latter it feels like a mindless time-sink. When engaging in it the game can feel too long or dragged out.
In CP I don't think it's fair to say the game is short. Not if you look at the complete picture. The primary narrative is at the shorter end of the spectrum. I'd place the blame there on the story being told though. It's kind of hard to keep things interesting when the narrative is, "Got thing in head killing me, must fix.". At a certain point you run out of room. And yes, this is a way of saying the primary narrative in this game isn't very interesting at a conceptual level in my opinion.
On a somewhat unrelated and potentially controversial note.... For some reason I think this game would have been better if instead of trying to force an extended, singular primary narrative into it they went with a.... short story approach. V in Night City. You're not saving the world. You're not saving yourself. You're not trying to "save" anything. You're just a merc in NC doing jobs and trying to propel your prospects in a positive direction. You're trying to survive the dystopian world in a non-specific way. I can't quite place why. Or, at least, sufficiently articulate why.
For side quests I did. But for main quest (like we meet keira metz at start, and her impact is directly in end), sometimes it takes too much time. I didnt had much time when I played TW3just make a save file before the decision and see how it plays out
Honestly, this can be said about every game.203 hours now and have been dreaming of them adding content to an empty world that doesn't allow the player to interact with much of it.
Look yes it has content but basically through the quests, after all of that you are searching for content sitting around, can't sit and order food, can't go into clubs listen to music, can't BD. The list goes on and on, too many things the game lacks (content.)
Want me to stream it and show you? (Regardless, I love CP77.)
View attachment 11150744