Way too short:

Act 1 - Short but gives you a good intro but come on the level/map is one of the smallest on any RPG.

Act 2 (Roache's path) - Again very small level/map not much to do not much to explore and find.

Act 3 - A bloody disgrace run into the city talk to a few people and kill the dragon. Few side quests.

One of the worst RPGs for longevity I've ever played. No grinding, not exploration, very little to find, killing monsters gives very little XP.

Could have been one of the best RPGs ever made (Graphics are amazing, combat system is nice once you get used to it, storyline is OK) but it's like they ran out of money and just decided to make it linear and put a third of a complete game out.

I know that there are multiple endings and paths but come on! If they had a fast travel option then the game would have been finished even quicker!

It could have been so good but they let themselves down I think!

Grinding isn't fun. Oh, it would make it longer, for sure. You can make sex last longer by putting on twenty condoms and turning it into a marathon, too. Still doesn't mean it's a good idea or enjoyable in any way, shape, or form.

You know that the entire second half (especially Act 2) is completely different if you choose Iorveth over Roche, right? You'll see things and understand things that you didn't on your first playthrough, and that will cast certain events in your first playthrough in an entirely different light. Until you've done both paths, there's too much that you don't know to really consider Witcher 2 "completed." I started with a Roche playthrough first, so I would know :)

I never thought about the absolute size of the maps...maybe I was more wrapped up in events than you were. Overall I was happy with the length of the game and, now I think about it, the size of the maps.

I enjoyed the Iorveth path more than the Roche path for Chapter 2...hopefully tou will enjoy it too.

By the time I got to Chapter 3 I'd read about the short level and was expecting it. It was slightly disappointing but not from a story perspective but more from a "I want to spend more time playing this game" perspective.

You clearly did not find all the side quests. A lot of them aren't listed in the premium guide. I found like 3 new quests on my second play-through in Act I myself. And if you don't care to do side quests then you don't deserve to be complaining about longevity anyway.

Hmm... I believe there was quite a lot to explore. The cavern system with a golem, Ban Ard remnants. The arachnid den. Coastal area. Mountain paths. If you don't push on with the main story, there's quite a lot to find on Roche's side only. And then there's Iorveth's side too. Again, no. If you'd taken your time, there was quite a bit to explore in the city. I didn't even approach Roche until my map was all uncovered but the few inaccessible places. It was one of the few RPG's that made me start it over again right after I finished it. Also, it finally is a true Role Playing Game, without all that damn grinding needed to even dent the next boss' armour. Less about numbers, more about the character. If that ain't RP, then I don't know what is.

It may be I'm comparing it to Fallout:NV or Oblivion. Games where if you choose you can leave the main quest/side quests and go off exploring.

I want to find that piece of armour/sword that is hidden away in some random cave. I want to be able to stumble across a load of raiders and have to take them out an loot their goods, I want to be able to have somewhere to store my items, I want to be able to level up my character to a reasonable standard before I even do the first main quest.

I don't really want to be told what to do and when I should do it. Like I said it is my opinion and I did complete as many side quests as I could find but it just didn't reward me with anything.

Beating 5 people at arm wrestling isn't fun for me and what does it get you...nothing!

Going into the forest and killing the giant ant nests, what does it get you...nothing!

Helping the soldier being accused of murdering the children..what does it get you....Nothing!

Beating the man who is taking steroids, what does it get you...nothing!

It seems that the side quests are there for no other reason than for you to just complete...which once completed gives no reward at all!

The only way to level up properly is to complete the main quests and by the time you have a character who you are happy with the game ends!!!

If you weren't satisfied, you weren't satisfied, I ain't gonna argue. But everything you listed there is in this game, with the exception of storage (darn it).

It's not that I didn't like it, if that was the case I would just say that the game's poor and move on! I really do like the game and that's why I am slightly annoyed, if they made it longer, even open world then it would be one of the best RPGs but to me Zelda on the NES is basically the same game, with the same variety but Witcher has better graphics and that was made over 20 years ago!

I don't like the idea of grinding for the sake of adding more hours to the overall game. I don't want a diluted product. I would rather have the multiple paths in a story that won't let me go than side quests that is run here fetch that. In TW2 the side quests pertain to the character of the witcher which in my opinion helps with the immersion. Overall, I felt like these games just continued where the books ended and that is all I could wish for.

It may not be the open sandbox game that you want it to be but take heart Skyrim is not that far away.

You came in with the wrong expectations, friend. This isn't that kind of game, and it's not fair to fault it for being different than them. I find that the recent Fallout games and Oblivion have weak narrative and that for all your wandering, you get absolutely nothing substantial in return. It's not something I fault them though, because to do so would be to completely miss the point. Freedom is the point of those games. Narrative is the point of this game.

I actually have never heard of someone desiring grinding, lol.

Zelda isn't the same game as Witcher 2 without better graphics and sounds, Zelda on NES is actually like some other game..totally...

Example: To Begin with, lets check the starting of the games...does Zelda game start with Zelda being in a tent with Zelda version of Triss!..has Link or Zelda ever been in a Jail!..

I don't believe Zelda was ever even naked. Not even when she came out of the womb or when she turns into Shiek. Just not possible, bro.

I attached a screenshot of NES version of Zelda, MdotMania I think you are on a different plane of existence where Witcher 2 might be 2D.. :P

Then I may have come into it thinking it was something it's not!

I get it now that TW2 is supposed to be more of a story where you are simply the character in a narrative. You're not supposed to build up your character, it's not a 'realm' or a 'world' it's a linear storyline where you just take part, and for me that is just the same as games that were released on the NES 20 years ago.

Like I said earlier I thought it was going to be a RPG of the likes that have been released for the past 5 years and I 'think' I was hoping for too much! But it is 2011 and I thought video games were made nowadays with more longevity in mind.

And.....

For me just because it adds a bit of sex and swearing, that doesn't make up for the lack of 'things' to do other that side quests and the main quest.

"The second instalment in the RPG saga about the Witcher, Geralt of Rivia, features a thoroughly engrossing, mature storyline defining new standards for thought-provoking, non-linear game narration. "

Above is the marketing blurb which is a complete lie!!
Seeing that screenshot bought back fond memories. A lot fonder memories than I will have from TW2.

It is basically the same game - Kill monsters, upgrade weapons, save the damsel in distress. The only thing the witcher 2 has is better graphics. I would even go as far as saying that Zelda has a better storyline!