Posted June 27, 2011
![avatar](/www/default/-img/newuser_big.33.png)
And if you want to go with what the majority of people think, then I assure you that the majority of people and the majority of reviewers love this game. Reviewers rate it higher than TW1, which hits your oh so precious 50 hour mark
Lenght =/= quality
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2011/06/669295a67dac7e49a16c597f6c3527dd6a959576_t.jpg)
I said it was TOO SHORT at 35 hours. How is that so hard for you to understand? Is being such a fanboy cloud your objectiveness?
Tell me this. Who thinks chapter three was as long as it should be? Who thinks that chapter three was just as good as chapter one or two? Who thinks that chapter three wasn't rushed? Who thinks that chapter three was at the same level of quality as one or two?
By doing chapter three at the same level of detail and quality as one and two they would have reached the 50+ hours.
Your logic is flawed. Act 3 is indeed rushed, but you assume that that has something to do with the game being short for 35 hours, while they are two completely different things.
If act 1 and 2 had been shorted by 2 hours each, and Act 3 been 4 hours longer, with more quests and a better narrative, the game would have been just as long, but act 3 wouldn't have felt rushed.
The problem with act 3 and it being rushed isn't how much hours the game totals by the end, its how uneven it feels compared to the other chapters, how the narrative doesn't feel as cohesive.
Witcher 2 is an awesome game and I felt that it length was great considering the quality of it all.
Post edited June 27, 2011 by Kitad