The review was very positive, besides the stealth aspect and ending.As far as the stealth aspect is concerned, that is an added bonus in my opinion.This does make me curious of how the ending will be played out though. Either way, there will be more than enough playthroughs to keep me occupied.
the reviewer said he did the majority of the game in 24 hrs. Mostly everything. Then he later confirmed that fact on the forums. So either he's full of it or Gop is. Basically, I've been looking forward to this game for 2 years, and the prospect of polishing it of in a weekend seems surreal.
I was asking myself the same, my bet is that with so many ending he probably got a poor one or maybe some awesome character that he like diesMoutch2 said:How couldn't you be disappointed to see the ending of The Witcher 2 ?
I think it depends on the person but most rpg fans like to explore and read the lore. I am not going to worry about it but it would be more safe if we knew how must time took him to pass ME 2 for example, maybe 24 hours tooMoutch2 said:
About the alledgedly disapointing end, I'm glad I have read about it in order to low my expectations. Now, I'm hoping for a bit rushed an incomplete ending,
I see a lot here being so quick to judge, the game is days away guys. Play the game itself.Also it's funny how some are loving the Devs at one minute then quickly bashing them after. The review is a good reference but judging the whole game because of one/two review is for me somewhat immature.
'average completion time' is absolutely MEANINGLESS to me.i took 80 hours to finish the witcher 1.i took 70 hours to finish Mass Effect 1.i took 40 hours to finish Mass Effect 2.i'm sure the witcher 2 will be full of content, making it plenty long.
The problem is that reviewers did finish that game under 40 hours without rushing. And that cdpr said that the main story would be at least 40h and much more with sidequests. So at least one side is lying and I don't see any reason for a reviewer to give such a good score to a game and lie about its duration. So I don't see any reason not to believe that review even if it was made by someone not used to rpg.Yes most of us will try to complete all the sidequest and probably take more time than that but the point is that the mainplot (meaning quests that must be done in order to finish the games to me) is much shorter than announced.
There is a huge disparity between play times here and that's why some gamers are concerned. Its not just a matter of 5 or 10 hours; reviewers are listing play times that are barely a third of what Gop said - and for the whole game no less, without ever playing it before. Basically, if we believe CD-Action and the Finnish review, TW2 is no longer than a beefy action game in its entirety. Imagine them blazing through TW1 in 20 hrs for the first time...no way. I mean they would have to skip every single bit of side content available to pull that off and even then it would be a stretch. If this is the case, they may as well have said " I barely even played the game, but here are my impressions anyway" Instead, the CD-Action reviewer posted on the site and said he did nearly everything in 24 hrs. He said this twice to avoid confusion.I'll quit nay saying now I promise But people who think they are going to stretch 20 hrs into 40 may be deluding themselves.
But people who think they are going to stretch 20 hrs into 40 may be deluding themselves.I'm starting to think the 40 hours claim includes playing through BOTH versions of Act II. I read an interview with Konrad Tomaszkiewicz where he says they took a risk by having the two different versions, since it makes the game shorter than it would have been if they both happened during one playthrough.
They did indeed take a big risk. I've long thought about the cost/benefit of non-linearity in story based games vs the mutli-path route of an open-ended game. In the former, I'm forced to replay content to get to the new stuff; in the latter, I pick and choose the path I want. Quite frankly, the bigger and more open a game is, the more non-linear it is imo. I've always felt the 'choose your own adventure' path has serious perils from a game design standpoint. One more thing. The reason I replayed TW1 as many times as I did, was due to it's complexity and depth, not it's famed non-linearity. In fact, the story was so well written, the C&C so convincing, that in my 7 or 8 runs ( some incomplete) I rarely ventured from the same moral decisions. I found it hard to do so. But I was always picking up minutia I had missed in subsequent playthroughs.
I think what we're missing here is that the game already got two 90+ reviews, regardless of how long it is, which is an impressive feat either way.And it could very well be that what the reviewers refer to as unhurried play might not be the same for us because it's a known fact that reviewers have to play through games rather quickly to meet publishing deadlines.