in recent news Cdpr revealed that Cyberpunk's length is "slightly" shorter than the witcher 3 and they made this decision because people complained that the witcher 3 was "too long" and sure at the surface this may be true and i personally have criticized many games in the past for being to long(especially Jrpgs) to me if a game justifies its length then its a positive and there are many games that do that,the witcher 3 is one of them despite some story arcs dragging way longer than it should (finding dandelion) they also said that there is more replay value and while im all for it i dont want it to come at the expense of the first playthrough this was my main gripe with the witcher 2 and the very reason why i prefer the witcher 1 and 3 over it,the biggest problem with the games length being short is that the pacing of the game will be too fast for its own good and sadly this does seem to be the case when many previews complained about being overwhelmed,in the end i just hope that Cyberpunk will offer more side content to make up for it and that the first playthrough will be enough and satisfying.
Hey,
some guy on youtube mentioned that the main quest will be around 30-40 hours. I don't know how he got these numbers, but I hope for at least...let's say (50-60)+ hours.
I think that there were too much "filler" and "secondary" elements/quests tied to the main quest which prolonged it...in kind of a boring or rather repetitive way. You "had to" play in the theatre, retrieve Gwent cards for Zoltan, explain everything to Emhyr, play Ciri flashbacks, negotiate with trolls, escort a goat, rescue Dandelion, ask everyone to defend Kaer Morhen, go through different worlds,...
I mean, these are cool and everything, but maybe it would be better to have them as secondary quests...?
If you would sum up the "real gameplay and story" through these quests you would get like...maybe a quarter of the time?
I prefer many shorter games overall (the original King's Quest / Space Quest series, Call of Duty 4, Salt and Sanctuary, Halo 1...) When games are specifically developed to achieve a certain "length", that often results in far too much filler and padding.
Repetitive, time-consuming gameplay.
Backtracking through tired areas.
Quests and stories that are obviously shallow, uninspired filler.
Cookie-cutter locations and game mechanics.
Difficulty spikes that require either numerous saves / reloads to progress through...or sometimes hours of grinding in order to balance.
Scavenger hunts that offer little-to-no meaningful rewards.
And so on. While it's unarguable that these things definitely drive the "hours played" sky high in places, and they will definitely be loved by some players, I feel they impact other areas of the gameplay in extremely negative ways -- especially when they cannot be skipped or are required to progress smoothly. If a game is incredibly plot-driven, the most egregious of these impacts is on the pacing and energy of the main story. Some good it does to create a roller coaster...but stop the ride every time something exciting happens and try to get the players to play carnival booth games like dart balloons or guess-my-weight for 30 minutes...before getting back on the roller coaster to continue the ride.
Also, there's something else that I've been arguing for since...forever. If a game is going to truly branch and create critical, decision-making moments that truly impact the outcome of not just a single quest, but the larger story as a whole, then the tree of potential outcomes is going to get very big, very quickly. That means story bits, scenes, quests, characters...along with all of their levels, dialogue, and interconnected results that lead to future story, quests, etc...all of which will be exclusive. Meaning: if you don't make that particular series of decisions, then you will never see that particular content in your playthrough. True choice and consequence, from beginning to end. In this regard, the game itself will be noticeably shorter.
Hence, shorter in terms of an RPG can be a very good sign. While it might take only 30 hours to complete a single playthrough...playing through 2 more times might as well be like playing through a totally different game each time. I would argue that such an approach would make for an exceptional role-playing experience.
I prefer many shorter games overall (the original King's Quest / Space Quest series, Call of Duty 4, Salt and Sanctuary, Halo 1...) When games are specifically developed to achieve a certain "length", that often results in far too much filler and padding.
Repetitive, time-consuming gameplay.
Backtracking through tired areas.
Quests and stories that are obviously shallow, uninspired filler.
Cookie-cutter locations and game mechanics.
Difficulty spikes that require either numerous saves / reloads to progress through...or sometimes hours of grinding in order to balance.
Scavenger hunts that offer little-to-no meaningful rewards.
And so on. While it's unarguable that these things definitely drive the "hours played" sky high in places, and they will definitely be loved by some players, I feel they impact other areas of the gameplay in extremely negative ways -- especially when they cannot be skipped or are required to progress smoothly. If a game is incredibly plot-driven, the most egregious of these impacts is on the pacing and energy of the main story. Some good it does to create a roller coaster...but stop the ride every time something exciting happens and try to get the players to play carnival booth games like dart balloons or guess-my-weight for 30 minutes...before getting back on the roller coaster to continue the ride.
Also, there's something else that I've been arguing for since...forever. If a game is going to truly branch and create critical, decision-making moments that truly impact the outcome of not just a single quest, but the larger story as a whole, then the tree of potential outcomes is going to get very big, very quickly. That means story bits, scenes, quests, characters...along with all of their levels, dialogue, and interconnected results that lead to future story, quests, etc...all of which will be exclusive. Meaning: if you don't make that particular series of decisions, then you will never see that particular content in your playthrough. True choice and consequence, from beginning to end. In this regard, the game itself will be noticeably shorter.
Hence, shorter in terms of an RPG can be a very good sign. While it might take only 30 hours to complete a single playthrough...playing through 2 more times might as well be like playing through a totally different game each time. I would argue that such an approach would make for an exceptional role-playing experience.
The two aren't exclusive of each other actually: you can have a long game without filler.
It's even better if secondary content is crafted with the same care as the main story.
The two aren't exclusive of each other actually: you can have a long game without filler.
It's even better if secondary content is crafted with the same care as the main story.
You were misunderstanding what I was saying, I think. I'm not saying that a game being "long" is automatically "exclusive" of it being well-paced, nor that it's only possible to have long games due to filler. TW3 is a perfect example of a game that is well around 50 hours if you rush, and easily 100+ hours if you explore the side content. And all of it, in the opinion of many, is extremely well-done, varied, and engaging.
What I'm saying is "exclusive" is as follows:
It is not really feasible to have extensive length if/when you are also branching the storyline without necessarily bringing it back to the main trunk. It's not impossible, of course, but the expense, complexity, and time it would require likely means that it would not be within most studios' means to accomplish a 50+ hour campaign while also providing unique pathways that completely alter not only that, immediate situation, but the way the plot unfolds all the way to the endgame.
Let me make a visual, instead. Most games' "branches", when also taking into account a relatively linear main plotline, will look like this:
Thus, while there may be sections of the game that offer a variety of choice / consequence results and some branching, all of those segments return to the same, central plotline, which will always be completely linear. The same events in the same order with the same overall action regardless of the path one takes to reach the end result. This is like TW3, for example. Yes -- there are lots of ways to shift the details around and get different ending "situations", but the action of the game will always unfold the same way. (Begin in White Orchard --> Vizima to learn about Ciri --> Velen to discover the Nilfgaardian contact --> The Bloody Baron segment / tracking down Keira / getting into Novigrad...etc.)
An alternative approach would be to have, inherently, no "side" quests. Rather, every quest is optional -- and every quest is a unique pathway to a unique endgame:
In this version, there is no way to see "all the game has to offer" in a single playthrough. While the options are far more varied, the player will only ever see a small portion of all the content on a single run, since they can only move forward ("down" at each junction), with the occasional situation that may allow them to move sideways and "switch sides and goals". And the endgames are not different versions of the "main plot" -- there IS no linear plot. But rather, each of the color-coded "endgames" is a completely different outcome, reached by a completely different sequence of events. (As an example: Endgames 1 or 2 are versions of Orange "winning the war". Engames 7 or 8 are versions of Grey winning the war. Endgames 3 or 4 are sub-faction A rising to power and either winning or preventing the war, and engames 5 or 6 are sub-faction B doing the same, but for their own reasons.)
So, while this would make for an incredible amount of choice and consequence that could completely change the entire gameplay experience and the final result...each, individual playthrough would be very short compared to a more traditional, linear "main quest". In order to "see it all", players would have to play through the whole game multiple times. Totally different characters, making totally different choices.
You were misunderstanding what I was saying, I think. I'm not saying that a game being "long" is automatically "exclusive" of it being well-paced, nor that it's only possible to have long games due to filler. TW3 is a perfect example of a game that is well around 50 hours if you rush, and easily 100+ hours if you explore the side content. And all of it, in the opinion of many, is extremely well-done, varied, and engaging.
What I'm saying is "exclusive" is as follows:
It is not really feasible to have extensive length if/when you are also branching the storyline without necessarily bringing it back to the main trunk. It's not impossible, of course, but the expense, complexity, and time it would require likely means that it would not be within most studios' means to accomplish a 50+ hour campaign while also providing unique pathways that completely alter not only that, immediate situation, but the way the plot unfolds all the way to the endgame.
Let me make a visual, instead. Most games' "branches", when also taking into account a relatively linear main plotline, will look like this:
Thus, while there may be sections of the game that offer a variety of choice / consequence results and some branching, all of those segments return to the same, central plotline, which will always be completely linear. The same events in the same order with the same overall action regardless of the path one takes to reach the end result. This is like TW3, for example. Yes -- there are lots of ways to shift the details around and get different ending "situations", but the action of the game will always unfold the same way. (Begin in White Orchard --> Vizima to learn about Ciri --> Velen to discover the Nilfgaardian contact --> The Bloody Baron segment / tracking down Keira / getting into Novigrad...etc.)
An alternative approach would be to have, inherently, no "side" quests. Rather, every quest is optional -- and every quest is a unique pathway to a unique endgame:
In this version, there is no way to see "all the game has to offer" in a single playthrough. While the options are far more varied, the player will only ever see a small portion of all the content on a single run, since they can only move forward ("down" at each junction), with the occasional situation that may allow them to move sideways and "switch sides and goals". And the endgames are not different versions of the "main plot" -- there IS no linear plot. But rather, each of the color-coded "endgames" is a completely different outcome, reached by a completely different sequence of events. (As an example: Endgames 1 or 2 are versions of Orange "winning the war". Engames 7 or 8 are versions of Grey winning the war. Endgames 3 or 4 are sub-faction A rising to power and either winning or preventing the war, and engames 5 or 6 are sub-faction B doing the same, but for their own reasons.)
So, while this would make for an incredible amount of choice and consequence that could completely change the entire gameplay experience and the final result...each, individual playthrough would be very short compared to a more traditional, linear "main quest". In order to "see it all", players would have to play through the whole game multiple times. Totally different characters, making totally different choices.
Yeah, now I get your point, it's quite and ideal situation, through I don't think C2077 is one, at it would seems weird to have such an open story structure while at the same time bottlenecking the main character roleplay.
Short RPGs (like Final Fantasy VI, Planescape: Torment, and Chrono Trigger, to mention a few) have managed to be quite memorable experiences, plus Cyberpunk 2077 will have replay value, so I don't mind if its main storyline is not as extensive as The Witcher 3's as long as it feels as engaging or, preferably, more than it.
Why more? Because, even though I freaking love TW3, I agree that one of its flaws was the pacing of the main storyline. I liked that there was more story after the Battle of Kaer Morhen but I didn't like that some of that post-BKM content felt a bit rushed and not as tight and emotional as the search-for-Ciri plotline.
So, yeah, I'm OK with CP2077 being shorter. Even so, I have the feeling this game is going to take me at least 60 hours to complete on my first playthrough alone.
I just want a good arc and the different backgrounds and choices to result in significantly different experiences. Everything I've seen so far has me pretty confident that however long the game is, that's going to be multiplied by at least 3 for me, so I'm good. My main concern is that I hope the game doesn't steal control or force me to walk slowly to take in the majesty of some stairs or whatever every few minutes. I bet TW3 is a great game, I rage quit by the time I left the tower and the game was like 'PSYCH!!! It's our turn again!!! lol". I've heard enough good about it that I didn't refund it or anything, but damn that game was not for me.
I played TW3 GOTY edition that had all the DLCs and it took me 145+ hours. The base game probably took close to 100. It was a fantastic experience. A "little" shorter is subjective. It seems like there will be lots of things to do so sinking many hours into a play through doesn't seem like it'll be a problem. We're so close...
I'm fine with a 30-40 hour main campaign BUT I do hope they've managed to put in a lot of quality side content, just like TW3. That game lasted me about 130 hours...and no, that doesn't count all the Skellige water-barrels and every question mark on the map, heh. I had the '?s' turned off actually.
Anyway, I'm not expecting the game to be as long but I am hoping for 70-80+ hours in total. Couple that with at least another playthrough with a different gameplay style and it'll be plenty of game.
On a side note, I know this news has been doing the rounds but I feel sure it was already mentioned quite awhile ago. It's a shame it's being brought up again so close to release as I've seen people using it as an excuse to dump on CDPR saying things like, 'They've decided to cut content to sell you later, they've sold out', 'They were too ambitious and couldn't handle it' or 'Obviously they're running out of time and need to cut corners'. One person even wondered if all the 'cut content' would mean the main-story would have large plot-holes and feel disjointed. Smh.
I was one of the people who were in the "shorter, but more replayable story" camp whenever the subject of the story length in Cyberpunk came about, so of course I'm pleased with that decision. Some people complain that this is somehow appealing to the casuals, but my take is exactly the opposite of that. I feel like saying "we have a bigger world then" or "our games is X00 hours long" certainly make for a nice slogans that appeal to the masses, which is why developers usually are dreading saying the opposite, so things like "our world is smaller, but more complex" or "our main story is shorter, but more replayable", because they know that often people care more about the size of the game more then the actual substance of it, which makes them think that the game is somehow worse for it if it's not getting bigger and longer with every next title, no matter how much bloat you need to put into the game to make it this way. This is why developers get a huge props from me (whatever it is worth) for having a bravery to go for quality rather then quantity approach with the open world and story design.
And it baffles me how people are saying now that "the game will be too short" or "Witcher 3 was feeling like a journey, so the longer story is better", because the story might be 40 hours long instead of 50 hours long. Like, holy crap, do you have any idea of how much is 40 hours of story alone? In that time you can complete both Fallout 1 and 2 with all the sidequests. In that time you can complete Deus Ex: Human Revolution with all the sidequests and probably still fit entirety of Mankind Divided. Majority of games don't even last half of that. AND that's just the main story, a smaller half of the game, probably not counting stuff like Street Stories and side activities. That's a pretty big number, but people somehow act like they cut the game down to the size of CoD campaign.
Another point I would liked to make is that The Witcher 3 already put a huge emphasis on side content in the game, so much so that many sidequests were almost interchangeable from the main story and many probably didn't even realize they were playing a sidequest. Keira Metz subplot in Velen (beyond the encounter with Wild Hunt), helping Bloody Baron deal with the Crones, most of the Triss subplot in Novigrad, Dandelion subplot after saving him, Ice Giant quest, quest with Udalryk, Skellige elections, searching for Philippa before the final act, Morkvarg hunt, Radovid assassination plot, etc. They all just kinda evolved from the main story into their own thing, often expanding on characters and plot threads which were barely mentioned in the main storyline. Since developers said that they invested more time into developing side content thanks to the story being shorter, so we can expect that those kind of optional, yet important for the narrative quests will be also a lot more plentiful then in The Witcher 3. That could also fix some pacing issues that were mentioned above in regard to TW3, by making certain objectives, which would be fairly superfluous to the narrative into the sidequests, improving the general pacing of the story.
in recent news Cdpr revealed that Cyberpunk's length is "slightly" shorter than the witcher 3 and they made this decision because people complained that the witcher 3 was "too long"
Yea, I second that. I hope its 50-60 hours long. If its 40 hours long, I could beat the main story in two weeks if I play 3 hours per day. If I play 2 hours per day I could beat this game in 3 weeks. If its 50-60 hours long with 2 hours per day in front of the of tv I would be able to beat this game in a month.
I think people are missing an important factor here, speedrunners. They will beat this game in mere 2 days. With 50-60 hours long it will take them 3 days.
Yea, I second that. I hope its 50-60 hours long. If its 40 hours long, I could beat the main story in two weeks if I play 3 hours per day. If I play 2 hours per day I could beat this game in 3 weeks. If its 50-60 hours long with 2 hours per day in front of the of tv I would be able to beat this game in a month.
I think people are missing an important factor here, speedrunners. They will beat this game in mere 2 days. With 50-60 hours long it will take them 3 days.
40 hour main quest is about 10 hours shorter than TW3 main quest. So imagine TW3 through Return to Bald Mountain. I'm sure the 40 hours excludes side quest content. They advertised TW3 as 50 hour main quest and 50+ hours on side content. Of course that was a fairly conservative estimate.
Also again, they said at E3 2019 that the main quest would be slightly shorter.
Is there going to be some type of Gwent card game?
I liked collecting all the cards, but i don't remember if it had any meaning or rewards. (or did it?)
I just hope you can do stuff with your $. More options
I don`t know if i am on my own here but i play thru TW3 two and a half times , yes i know how shit i am not finishing the third play thru
One of my all time fav games is Dragon Age Origins , it was a shorter game so i played all the different Origins . I intend playing at least three times trying each LP . I hope the main story isn`t to short , if it`s a 50 hr main 50 hour side or something like that i will be happy .
