Game is too short (3 chapters), i guess there will be an expension pack later. Playtime is a lot shorter than TW1.

Don't care about number of chapters, but how many hours those chapters provided. How long did it take you to beat it?

I agree, took me 20 hours for my TW2 playthrough, and I think at least 60+ hours with TW1.

But from the looks of the ending and the shortness of it I think they must be bringing out a large DLC/expansion which has another chapter ... at least I hope so.

Well thats what happens when you only run threw the main quest story and skipp almost all side quests. TW1 i also got done in 18hours on easy with just skipping all unnecesary quests. + TW2 has great replay value with its 16diffrent endings.

I'm in the middle of the act III. I checked the game manual that developers released and shocked when i see that i'm playing the final chapter. it's been 20-odd hours i guess. with side quests and reading the books, notes etc.

I did every side-quest I could find (apart from 1 monster killing quest), admittedly I didn't play on hard, but I doubt that would of made much difference.

There are also a few people reporting 12 hour playthroughs.

SPOILER (backwards text):
lɒminim ɘɿɒ ƨɘɔnɘɿɘʇʇib ǫnibnɘ ɘʜƚ ,nɘɘƨ ɘv'I ƚɒʜw moɿʇ oƨlɒ

I got through it pretty quick as well. now i didnt do ALL the sidequests but i did alot of them, and i took my time to see all the cut scenes which was provided and talk with everybody, i also discovered all of the maps, so i at least can say i didnt rush through it. its far shorter than tw 1 which is a shame imo. However it do have quite abit of replay value because of the many choices you got, but must ppl will proberly only play through once, so you shouldn build a game around replay value imo (unless its mp). The must disapointing thing however isent the lenght of the game, but rarther how it ends. pcgamer nailed it spot on heres a quote

---------------------------------
I had The Witcher 2 pencilled in for 92%. Great game. Some annoyances, but drowned out by the good stuff. Chapter 1 was glorious, beautiful, involving and heartfelt. Chapter 2 was even better: epic, dramatic, amazing. When I hit Chapter 3, it felt like the game-changing mid-point, where the gloves would come off and the second half of the story absolutely explode into life in a flurry of fire and steel.

It wasn’t. Chapter 3 turned out to be the end, as if The Witcher 2 suddenly looked at its watch, and went ‘Whoa, is that the time?’. Things are resolved… mostly… but in the most cack-handed ways. Plot threads are unceremoniously dumped, characters sidelined and forgotten, a couple of final quests rushed through as quickly as possible, and then the word ‘Epilogue’ appears like a slap in the face. Huge, world-changing events happen, but get no time to breathe or explore the consequences that were the whole damn point of making those big choices in the first place. It’s as if there’s a whole concluding chapter simply missing. Ending the story like this isn’t just disappointing. It’s a betrayal.
-----------------------------------

It may be shorter but the world is much richer. The story is deeper (possibly too deep, I couldn't keep up with all the names of every character being talked about). The choices in the game lead to the story unfolding in very different ways, so there's a lot of replay value. Really, if you don't rush through and just enjoy it and take in the world, it's a long enough game. I do look forward to continuing where Geralt is left off though.

well those must be who just follows the instructions on the right top of the screen. if you follow the dialogues and read the quest-related stuff, there's no way you can beat the game in 12 hrs.

Completely agree with the pcgamer review, it is hard to believe that its the same site that reviewed da2 and gave it 94% though. Even with that problem I find tw2 way better than da2.

I completely 100% agree. Its like if Fallout 3 had ended when you found your Dad.

I'm glad you agree to somethign the devs made clear 1 year ago ("game is a bit shorter than the first one"). If it took you 60+ hours to bet Witcher 1 you must have had the game running idle for at least 20 hours.

My first playthrough of witcher 1 doing EVERYTHING took 38 hours.

I'm sorry if I missed 1 line in an article (if it exists) stating that CDProjekt would definitely be releasing an additional chapter DLC. And sure, they said it would be shorter but 20 hours compared to 60+ is vastly shorter.

Also I think you must of skipped alot of stuff with TW1, alot of people have reported 100+ hours - http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/thewitcher/show_msgs.php?pid=915112&topic_id=m-1-41185461

Like I said (if you missed reading my post) I did EVERYTHING, i've beaten the witcher 2 times, and started a 3rd playthrough of the game 2 months ago in preperation for witcher 2, but had to can it due to time.

Gametime = when you're actually doing something in the game that evolves into something new.

Gametime ISN'T when you visit the same areas doing absolutely nothing.

100 hours is bullshit, by that logic I could boot up a standard 8 hour fps (like call of duty) running around the same map for 20 hours, claiming the campaign is 40+ hours.

EDIT the devs told us in various preview the game would be shorter but more potent compared to the first one.

Witcher 1 for me 38 hours 100%
Witcher 2 for some of 20-25+ hours that's not bad.