Whether the game is too short or long is really dependant on how the player chooses to play. Alot of folks not just here but on other boards will say game X is too short when they chose to just do the main quest and ignore all the side stuff. It is a mixed bag really if the developer made it so that you had to do EVERYTHING in EVERY act just to pump up the time played hours people would bitch to no end, with complaints as to why do i have to desrtoy 7 harpy nests instead of pushing on through. It is not any different when the choice is presented in a game to use the gun/sword/bow of Over Powered Ass Kicking when it is pointed out that if the game is to easy use the Wet Noodle of Ineffectivness the cries of "self nerfing" and the indignation expressed will drown out an AC/DC concert.

The developers really have only one choice which is to put those decisions in the player's hands and yet even then there will be more bitching about it than at a Convention on PMS. Play at your own pace using what gear you want and be thankful that there is a choice. For all my complaints about TW2 i supposed it could be worse it could have been some on rails interactive movie with no replay value Mafia 2 type experience.

Asai

And yet you base the entire community of cRPG players finishing their game on you and your couple of RL friends. How simplistic is that? Just look at the threads on this site. Can you honestly say that they didn't finish the game? Of course you can't so that proves the basis of your argument is wrong. Since the basis is wrong that means anhy conclusion derived from it are wrong or at the very least suspect. Learn 2 use logic then come back.

I just think it needs more side quests.

What I love about the Witcher 2 is choice matters. Having to choose between the two factions completing changes the game. That is fantastic. Bravo CD Projekt RED! You really should play the twice in order to see the whole story. However I agree overall the game is too short. It's Chapter 3 that feels incomplete or rushed. But overall I love the game.

I agree with you. TW2 needs MORE side quests, bigger maps, more exploration, more secrets, more monsters to fight with and a deeper skill progression tree.

At the moment, Geralt can gain few levels (correct me if i'm wrong) when he complete certain quests. The level progression this way seems ARTIFICIAL to me.

If CDPR can make a bigger, SEAMLESS (dynamic loading) world in TW3 that would be awesome.

Flawed argument here. I am in first third of act 2 at 35 hours. Projects to 45 -50 hours. 30 hours might be for those who rushed through?

Hmm not really, I finished the game in 35 hours, on Iorveth's side, and I did all side-quests without rushing through.

The amount of hours isn't the point here. Would you prefer to play a game that's twice as long but has fetch quests, boring environments, etc?

If the answer is no, and you feel that you got your money's worth for $50, then there is no reason to say the game is short

The game is short, but replay value is high. It's a trade off. I still want more side content, monster contracts, etc..

The replay value is playing the game twice. Once for each path in chapter 2. This is not much different than standard cRPG two play throughs where you are good then evil to get the two different endings. Or DA Orgiins that have the different races/starting points. And of course many cRPG's give you more NPC's then you can use in just one paythrough.

So the argument that WE2 is super great because you have two playthroughs is kinda bogus. To be honest I don't know a single decent cRPG that didn't offer a valid reason for a second or more playthrough.

And the argument that you have the option of 35 hours and nice playthrough OR more hours is based on a false premise. Why are they exculsionary? Why can't you have a good game and longer hours. Heck the game itself shows that this was indeed possible and should have happened.

I have yet to hear anyone who claims chapter three didn't seem rushed. And no one has yet defended how chapter three resolved the story lines. The vast majority of posters in fact say that CPD could have and SHOULD have spent more time in chapter three. Almost every singe review makes mention of the difference in the first two chapters and how the game played out in chapter three.

So by actually flushing out and treating the story lines in chapter three the same way they were in the other two chapters would have added another 5-10 hours to the game. This alone gets you to a time length that is more in synch with other games.

Another decent and valid way to expand the game would be to add a little exploration to the game. Take the search for the banner in chapter two or the search for the herb in chapter one. You have one and ONLY one place to go for it. And it is real close to get to. Not much to do going there and not much to do when you get there. These could easily have been expanded by including more caves/tombs/crypts to explore with clues hints leading you to the final place. Adding more mobs to fight also adds to the game. The map would have been increased in size and you have more to explore. Things that easily add a few hours of gameplay without hurting the quest.

Each person plays at their own speed but then you have to compare the hours played for the different games at that person's speed. On average most reviews say WE2 takes 35 hours. This compares to reviews of many other games in the 50-60 hour range. So if a person (you) takes 50 hours in WE2 chances are you took 70-75 for those other games.

Bottom line is that the fact remains the game not only seemed short but was indeed short. And there have been comments by reviewers and people in the know that CPD did hurry up and rush chapter three. And the look and feel sure do support that assertion.

"And the argument that you have the option of 35 hours and nice playthrough OR more hours is based on a false premise. Why are they exculsionary? "


How is this not obvious? Its because a developer has limited time and resources to make games, and obviously fetch quests and repetitive environments take a lot less effort to make!

I also mentioned this before but the problem with the ending isn't how much it lasts, its that the narrative loses its pacing.

Just because a game is longer does not mean its better value. DA:2 may be longer, but it has repetitive environments, bland choices and consequences, etc. I get much more value of Witcher 2 in which every hour playing is great.

I was stunned by how much the game changes when I sides with different factions or made different choices. I also loved the character of Geralt of Rivia. He was a role I liked playing. His world was one that drew me in and, even though it was a gritty place, I didn't want to leave it. Fallout 3 was like that to me,
I had 132 hours total in the game with two play-throughs (human and elf factions) and all the side quests I could find. They do need to add some more quests to Act III and could do it with DLC.

Did you even read my post or do you just like to argue the opposite?

Do you not see how obvious it is why quality and length are exclusionary?