(er..I have played Witcher 1)

Either way, Witcher 2 is better!.

If one takes up the time it takes to complete all the branches/content in Witcher 1 and uses the same amount of time to play Witcher 2, I would still say that would be quite far from experiencing the entire game.

No I am not talking about repeated content (the boring stuff), I am talking about unique quality* experience.

(I wrote up good stuff to post here, but I was unfairly relieved in doing so....as someone in the local power station decided to jerk off in the dark by switching off electricity for a few minutes; as quoted in anger by someone I know)

Witcher 1 is a long tree, with few branches and some leaves; Witcher 2 is a tree (a bit shorter in comparison) with many branches and leaves, there by looking vibrant. This can apply both in real world..as well as in the game decision tree of those individual games in the flow(flowchart).

Just look up the old CDPR presentation which shows the games entire tree, that is what Witcher 2 IS*. If the game was to be as long as Witcher 1, then I doubt if many* would even reconsider replaying the sections not encounter earlier and would be just too Boooring to play.

-Edit-

I also think...even if you take the repeated content, into comparison of the time it would take to complete Witcher 1 entirely and use it to play Witcher 2, Witcher 2 would still be incomplete.

I'm saying this it IS a stretch. Why would I post another message explaining why it's NOT a stretch? That makes no sense at all.

Why? Is simple Theorem science. Statistics 101. To proof one thing you disprove the opposite.

I've never 'lost focus' while listening to music. Because I am never -only- listening to music. Who does that anymore? Most video games have background music. Do you lose focus on the game because there is music in the background? The problem with your claim, and the claim of the author of the article you cited, is that you've confused 'focus' with 'attention.'

Our attention span is not 'decreasing.' On the contrary, it's being -stretched- and -expanded- in the ecology of new media. As I am typing this reply into this box, my web browser has multiple tabs open. I am checking Facebook, reading other forums, Googling for information on some random subject, checking my email, downloading a torrent in the background, and against the backdrop of noise and images emanating from the 6'o clock news on my TV, and oh, the phone just went off--I am -multitasking-. I am simultaneously -attending- to a lengthy list of activities which has captured my attention--which, contrary to conventional assumptions as espoused by the rather ignorant Mr. Snow, is not actually 'decreasing' or 'shrinking.'

A single campaign in turne-based strategy games like Civilization V can easily span several months of gaming, but does that require intense focus or undivided attention? No it doesn't. I can fold laundry, make dinner, chat on Skype, or any number of other daily activities while playing such games. There is no logical links between shorter games and supposedly shrinking attention spans.

I agree with those who say longer is not necessarily better.

The last really long game I played was Dungeon Siege II. I just got sick of it and have no interest in ever playing it again because it was so bloody long.

Witcher 2 on the other hand, has enough variation to make me want to play through several times. Once I am done this playthrough (second) I will probably it again to focus on the swordsmanship tree (been focusing on signs).

I think Witcher 2 has quality gameplay, multiple options and has been trimmed of the fat to make for a streamlined, fun and replayable experience compared to other RPGs I've played which pad out the time with long, dull grinding sections.

People who enjoy listening to music? Who actually open up to it with full attention and awareness required to respectfully appreciate just about anything in life?

Don't get me wrong, multitasking is a great thing. But I personally try to focus on just one thing from time to time, it's refreshing.

Yes but a lot of The Wicher was running from one end of the map to the other on fetch quests.

As much as I love the game, that gets old really fast.

Well you're the archetypal "modern" man. Doesn't have any idea what being present is. Is constantly in his head and only knows about technology. When was the last time you read a book or did something that was actually creative? He also thinks or assumes that technology is the end all be all of humanity.
When was the last time he had a quality intimate moment in his life and was really present and connected with someone. Quantity over Quality is his anthem and he passes through life while life avoids him.

Just try reading the Republic by Plato and understanding it and see if you don't puke.

Well you're missing a main point that you didn't addressed in your initial reply. Even though all your analysis may prove valid you are forgetting one point, or at least you didn't mentioned it: adaptation. In the sense of permanent changes.
Most people prefer to do modern multitasking activities as you so well indicated with your skype/strategy game example than to do other things that allows them to be present more often. Some other people simply have to because of the demands of "modern" life. By the way you're also taking my points out of context to proof your point which leads to my next point. I don't consider playing video games an intimate moment, just another example of those things that require multitasking and put you in your head. Therefore the conclusion given my own experience "too much video games is bad for you, if you wanna learn how to be present".
Here's the conclusion, when you live in an environment that requires you to multitask constantly instead of focus in one thing with all your being your brain adapts, therefore gradually losing the ability to focus for a long period of time. The more you multitask the more you lose your ability to focus as your brain has to reconfigure itself for the new tasks. There is a plethora of actual scientific articles about the issue that you should read. Use google.
You should also never read "just one" article to draw a conclusion on whether or not the points are valid and then dictate "You're wrong and I'm right". That's cheap pseudo science.

I suggest you watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o

Regarding the I'm right and you're wrong statements.
and read this:
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2011/07/why-i-hate-scie.php

Lastly, try reading The Republic again and tell me how easy it is to read now.

In a different but related subject the only allure The Witcher 2 has for me is Geralt's character. How solid you can chose to be with him. But suddenly I've realized is better to accomplish those things in real life than to go out and "play" to be manly in a simulation. No matter how cool it seems to be or how it can stimulate my imagination. It is NOT real. Gee, the more I think about this game the more I realize I don't need to play video games anymore. The need is gone.

It just became apparent to me that English may not be your primary language, not intending this as an insult, but as an attempt to understand why you seem to consistently miss the point of our conversation.

First, I am not sure why you would think I missed the point about 'brain adaptation.' The whole point I made about 'stretching attention' is to show that our habits, our bodies, can be retrained and reconditioned by (new) media. I think we are in agreement there? But you keep diverting attention away from the original question that yourself had raise din your original post. Are you defending Blake Snow's conclusion in the article you cited? I am unclear on this.

You raised the question whether video games are becoming "shorter" (as in less content to cut down on the amount of time player would spend 'completing' the game--since there is no clear correlation between the rate of game completion and how many copies a game sells--at least I haven't seen any empirical studies that's made this correlation--I don't see why anyone would think that game development would adopt this as a 'industry trend', since we all know game publishers and developers must fundamentally aim to generate profit as their primary motive). You cited -one- CNN article by a freelancer writer who, I contend, has no clue about videos games other than possibly having played some games, to support this claim. When you say "cheap pseudo science", are you critiquing yourself? I am not clear on this.

Then you cite three sources that further elaborate on the argument of 'brain adaption': One from a motivational speaker, one from a random post on some dude's blog titled "Why I Hate Science", and Plato's Republic. Then you tell me to 'Google' for information (about what, exactly?). These are not 'reputable' sources, and this is not 'research.'

My point is that the author of the article you cited in your original post is clueless about new media and video games (do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why). I can provide you with texts from academic, peer-reviewed journals in the discipline of Game Studies or Media Studies regarding the points I raised (specifically around the concept of 'attention' and how it is changing in the new media environment). I am certainly not the originators of these insights.

Lastly, I fail to see how reading Plato's Republic can unveil any new insights in this discussion, since I don't recall that he ever mentioned anything about 'New Media' in the Republic. The closest thing I can recall is Socrates discussing his disdain over the proliferation of 'writing' as a communications medium. But if you can point out the specific passages of the Republic that you think is relevant to our conversation, I am all ears. I have a copy of the Republic on hand and I will certainly look up the passage and engage your interpretation of his work.

I think you need to get a better command on the english language. If you wanted me to "proof" one thing by disproving the opposite, the question you should have asked was, "Can you tell me WHY it's a stretch then?" The question you asked before was asking me to prove your point instead of mine, which makes no sense.

A bullshit article considering the conclusion they support. If a game is 100 hrs and I can't beat it, it only means I don't have the gumption to stick with it. People want more instant gratification now. they don't have the patience to follow through and they are more easily bored. Lack of time has nothing to do with it. Just play the game a few hrs in each session till it's finished. But really, they are referring to action-based popular titles. and those gamers aren't interested in an epic haul anyway.

By the time TW2 hits consoles, each path may be a solid 45-50 hrs. That's not a short game.

ME2 wasn't short at 30+ hrs. Fallout 3 and Oblivion and Ego Draconis - all huge games. The article doesn't take into account the type of person they are profiling.

(Not related to the topic)

That portion could have been written up as "You must have been misunderstood", or something similar.

Not everyone is well versed in English, including me (I multi edit my posts sometimes to correct mistakes)..so please refrain from using the 'Language' barrier next time. If someone were to mention that to me, I would feel insulted even if they did mention its not so.

TY,

I kinda agree.. the game is really short. The only replayability game has is the 2 paths (Iorwerth or Roche). The 16 endings was kind of marketing gimmick to me though.

I felt the only replayability the game has is the main story and plotline. Besides that, the game is real short on sidequests and not much combat and depth.

I'm just speaking for myself by the way.