Do you actually like CP77 being shorter then Witcher3 ?

+

Do you actually like CP77 being shorter then Witcher3 ?

  • Yes (because)

    Votes: 31 7.1%
  • No (because)

    Votes: 365 83.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 39 9.0%

  • Total voters
    435
The Witcher were spread too long with too many meaningless distractions. Many times I felt like in offline MMORPG.
So yes, I'm happier with "shorter" CP, though I already spend more time in CP (150) than W3 (126) to finish so it is realtive...
 
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?
I am taking about the bare minimum needed to complete the game.

If you don't count the driving from place a to b between the missions, the main story of cyberpunk falls very short.

It's not kane and lynch shirt but for an open world rpg, it is short.

The length of the Witcher 3 was far better.

(And the fact that the witches side quests field more integrated)
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
I kinda do.
Beginning is rushed, so the story could stand to be a few hours longer, but even with that it would still be noticeably shorter than TW3. If they don't have interesting material for longer story, then I prefer them not to add unnecessary padding for its own sake.
 
I don't see any point in comparing it to Witcher 3 or any other game regarding numbers. More important is what people feel about the the pacing of the game. Does it feel rushed or it dragged too much? Or maybe it's fine as is.

No reason to ask anyone if they're happy with the length. People are greedy and in vast majory of cases it will be "the longer, the better".
 
I am taking about the bare minimum needed to complete the game.

If you don't count the driving from place a to b between the missions, the main story of cyberpunk falls very short.

It's not kane and lynch shirt but for an open world rpg, it is short.

The length of the Witcher 3 was far better.

(And the fact that the witches side quests field more integrated)

Complete the game everything - or complete the game story quests?

Because this is where it gets hazy. The length of one game in one environment - doesn't necessarily mean that length will be appropriate in another. If you fast travel and don't go off the beaten path - what interesting non checklist missions do you miss, if you don't count the driving and riding does the game have value as an open world? What character dialogue do you not hear, what scenes do you not see?

...but honestly by this point we're dealing with if buts and maybes and who enjoys what more.

I think aiming for arbitrary time limits should never be even factored in. The game world and the story should simply be enjoyable - and if that takes longer or shorter - ultimately I'm not phased.
 
I can only say that I absolutely did enjoy and not enjoy the pacing of the story.
At the same time.

If I would read the story as a book while taking the train home, I would have loved the pacing and energy of the story. Inna linear game, the pacing would have been perfect.

Sadly, Cyberpunk is not a book or a linear game.
It's an open world game, with a metric shitton of side missions and other crap to waste time.

That's why I also hate the pacing. It simply does not fit to the scope of the game.
 
Shorter would have been fine if replayable as promised/advertised and not just "do the last mission 7 times to see all the endings".

The way it is it's absolutely not ok, it lasts as much as a linear story driven "action-packed" game (e.g Uncharted 4), which is not fine for an RPG where 80% of the time you're just chatting with NPCs and hoarding trash.

If you consider all the secondary and tertiary activities then it's long enough, but the vast majority of them are not worthy of our time (I've done them ALL hoping to find something that could change my mind), and absolutely not related to main quest (actually, you shouldn't do them at all according to the main quest).

W3's quality is far from being matched.
 
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 wouldnt say exactly short as a whole but the main Story was short and rushed for my taste.

As I said the problem I have Is that there Is not much replayability in the CP77 because you can experience almost everything in one playthrough, and when I replay those "big" games after a while I want to have different experience and find new things etc. Which I fear wont be the case with CP77 because the game Is very scripted for na open world and there Is just not enough content in my opinion.
 
I wouldnt say exactly short as a whole but the main Story was short and rushed for my taste.

As I said the problem I have Is that there Is not much replayability in the CP77 because you can experience almost everything in one playthrough, and when I replay those "big" games after a while I want to have different experience and find new things etc. Which I fear wont be the case with CP77 because the game Is very scripted for na open world and there Is just not enough content in my opinion.

I thought we weren't talking about the main story though? Just the overall open world time to completion.

There is a lot you can't experience in one playthrough - because a lot of the smaller side gigs and quests have multiple endings and hidden objectives that unlock other things. If you simply mean "Completed Quest D" and not "Completed Quest D in ways A, B, C and D" then sure - one playthrough is enough - but I always go back and read books I've read before, watch movies I've seen.

I've done three VERY different playthroughs in Cyberpunk. Stealth, heavy combat, hacking and with lots of different outcomes and conclusions in different side quests and gigs.

..again though - Like I said in a post above - we're now just in "This person enjoys things like this, and that person enjoys things like that" - Honestly, length should not be a factor, if the game ends up being longer or shorter but ultimately fulfilling - that's what the goal should always be.
 
If we only look at the complete scope, the game seems to be longer.

But that's not what's count.
What's counting is the "round" experience.
The amount of content you have to make, to get what you want.l, before it starts getting boring or illogical.
 
I think my playthrough of TW3 was a really good play length. I did all the side quests, removed all the monster lairs, all the ?'s I could find, plus having the GOTY addition, both expansions. Took me roughly a year as a casual gamer playing only a few hours on the weekends.

On the other hand, I only have the Skyrim base game and have yet to finish that, mostly because I'm lost. My main quest wants me to go into the wizard's tower (or something like that) but there's a huge gap in the bridge and I can't find a way in. Many of the side quests I'm on have no marker and the detes give me no clue where I'm supposed to go and the world is so monochrome in color... I just gave up.

Cyberpunk: I haven't finished yet, but I can already see it being way too short. I've been trying to hold off on the main mission to see what the updates bring, but I fear I'm already halfway through that and I've completely cleared 2 areas and much of the others and it's only been a month.
 
TW3s big advantage was the after story gameplay.

Gerald could still do all the side missions before joining XYZ in wherever.
This allows the player to have influence on the games pacing.

It's a tad more difficult in cyberpunk.
 
TW3s big advantage was the after story gameplay.

Gerald could still do all the side missions before joining XYZ in wherever.
This allows the player to have influence on the games pacing.

It's a tad more difficult in cyberpunk.

you can do the same in CP...
 
Shorter story would be alright if compensated by increased reactivity and thus increased replayability. CP77 was supposed to be "slightly shorter" than TW3, but turned out to be <=50% of its length, as per "howlongtobeat.com" stats – in addition to being less reactive overall. Given we were to expect "no less" than TW3, I can't help but feel we were sold short.
 
The main storyline is around 21 hours apparently. Which I do not consider short.

The pace of it is really quick though which makes the game seem even shorter. Which if you think about makes sense considering that V has 2 weeks to live.

The game doesn't really give you the chance to slow down if you're sticking to the main story.
 
Shorter story would be alright if compensated by increased reactivity and thus increased replayability. CP77 was supposed to be "slightly shorter" than TW3, but turned out to be <=50% of its length, as per "howlongtobeat.com" stats – in addition to being less reactive overall. Given we were to expect "no less" than TW3, I can't help but feel we were sold short.
Exactly this I would forgive if the game was only "slightly shorter" but there Is like half the content Witcher3 had.

I still think that it wasnt because people didnt finished Witcher3 or were complaining for it being too long. Its because the game Is clearly rushed and only in some early acess state.

What I fear is that we will never have the obvious cut content back.
 
The intro was too short and felt meaningless later on. The rest I felt was really good! Of course I wanted more of everything but what was presented is still pretty damn good IMO.

I'm not a huge open world player though, so my expectations were maybe different? I played Skyrim a lot but that's 9 years ago now so it doesn't count. The last big game titles I've been playing were almost exclusively Fromsoft games or online MMOs and MOBAs with a player versus player focus. So yeah, for me an easier game with a very strong focus on a good story was what I wanted...
 
The main storyline is around 21 hours apparently. Which I do not consider short.

The pace of it is really quick though which makes the game seem even shorter. Which if you think about makes sense considering that V has 2 weeks to live.

The game doesn't really give you the chance to slow down if you're sticking to the main story.

You can finish the story in less than 17 hours.
Even Far Cry 4 has a longer main quest.

Personally, I think what they said about most of the players not finishing TW3 is just an excuse.
They hadn't the time to do (bear in mind, do, not write) a story similar in length, and the presence of two timeskip just confirms that.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom