The time is a real relative aspect. For example let's take going to do the nekker contract in chapter one. You can do this really fast if you run to the tunnels, kill the mobs there and place the bomb. Do this three times and you are done. Or you can take an hour on the quest. Stop and hit Z to look for traps. Fight the mobs and loot all bodies. Stop and pick herbs. Explore the area and fight the nekkers that spawn after a few minutes. Etc Etc.

Same goes for much of the dialogue. You can pick all four options or just pick the one you need. That is why I said "core" game. They did offer many things for immersion into the world. Talking to Zoltan and arm wrestling him a few times.

Here is another example. In your first playthrough time yourself how long it takes to do a few quests. then look at it again on your second or third run. Now was that differeence really due to the game having things to do or just you not knowing WHAT to do? I remember spending an hour looking for that elf girl that lead you to the ambush. But the next time I knew exactly where she was hiding. One took me an hour the other 2 minutes. So which is the real time here?

The first play through is more valid.

Of course, once you know how to do everyrhing and where everything is, skip the books and dialogue, etc. the game is much shorter. Those things that you skipped are part of the game................

IMO, the 'real' time is the time it takes you when you first play it. Partly because many people only play a game once, and partly because knowing exactly where to go and what to do isn't really indicative of how most people play their games.

comparing the game to Neverwinter Night or Baulder's Gate is such an invalid way to put it. How many gigabytes in those games compared to the WC2? If I compare the space the game takes, I will say, the WC2 is 1000 times largers than those old games.

Nevertheless, I think the developers should know their customers taste regarding the issue. Obviously many people don't like a rushed final act and few side quests and refer longer game to replayability.

For me, I am justified. Every ending comes with a complete different sets of dialogues, battles.

To make their game longer, I think:

1. make the alchemy training worthy, probably make the monsters more susceptible with certains oils, booms, like in WC1. In WC2, there is almost no need for potion, and oils.

2. likewise, I dont see any need to do any more crafting by act 3. Furtheremore, lots of crafting material aren't usable until act 3. That is an oversight.

3. mods can make gamers engage in their games longer than its face value, and of course loyalty. MOD MOD MOD MOD !!!!

Or maybe, I haven't learn enought, but at this point, I dont see anyway to add new textures, places, items into the games.


P.S: nevertheless, I think many people don't play RPGs the way it is. They don't play minigames, and don't do crafting. They pursue quests.

But making more quests will need another $100,000 bill at least

My comparrison to Baulder's Gate was tounge in cheek. Of course no one is going to make a 200+ hour game.

I guess the botom line is that it FELT short compared to other games. Maybe some of this was due to me hoping and wanting it to be longer because I enjoyed it. Some of it was due to the ending that was neither a cliff hanger nor complete satisfaction. And some was due to chapter three clearly being shorter than the other two. But in the end I just was left with the feeling that more could and should have been added.
Yes and no. See that elf hid and in many other games there would have been a hint on where she was at. But the map didn't show it so my first time doing it it really did take me over an hour to find here. I ran over every square inch looking for her. This was NOT fun and in my opinion shouldn't be classified as a true length of the game. If it was then a real stupid person or someone who just constanly famrs stuff to get 100000 orens could claim the game is 300 hours long. But we know that isn't the case either.

The thing about the elf hiding where she did was that it was referenced in another quest that you get first. No need to run around for an hour, if you were paying attention.

Probably missed it 'cause your were whizzing through the dialogues............... :-)

Yeah, I see your point. But I think generally, that's how to measure game length. Obviously, there are extremes when people farm for inordinate amounts of gold or to try to get a specific drop. And that quest is a design flaw, IMO. So yes, there's room for adjustment. As a general guideline though, I think the first play through is the best judge of length.

In the end, I don't really worry about game length. I sit back and ask myself "Was this game fun? Did I feel it was worth the money?" If the answer is 'Yes', then game length doesn't matter to me.

Please understand that I enjoyed and still am enjoying the game. Mods are making my other playthroughs even more fun. I just felt it was short compared to other RPG's that I liked. I listed a few possible reasons for this.

Yeah, and fair enough. I just think some people (not meaning you specifically) obsess too much about game length and overlook whether or not the game is fun and worth the money.

Here's an example: Dragon Age:Origins. I really like that game, and felt it was well worth the money. I put 87 hours into my first run and 77 into my second. But overall, I think if pressed I'd say I like Witcher 2 better, and its' not nearly as long. But with DA:O there are a number of things that could have been dropped or shortened and the game would still be as good (if not better).

Having said that, we're obviously talking about opinion here, and yours is as valid as anyone else's. If you feel the game is too short for your taste, that's fair. So far I find it's plenty long (but I'm notoriously slower than many other players). When I see an official estimate for game length, I can usually count on at least 50% longer for me to get through. :p

Hunted: Demons forge is not an RPG in any way from the previews I have seen. Even wikipedia and reviewers are calling it a straight action game.

You should bear in mind that some of the persons who give official estimates are gaming magazine reviewers(or whatever they are called, i may be an American but i've grown up aboard and still living aboard so am not a native speaker) and those reviewers generally play on easier difficulties and rush through the game a bit so that they have time to write the review and check it out a few times which means you should add more than that in the case of a genre like rpg which has lots to do and almost all of those things are optional. I am not a gaming magazine reviewer but i know a bit about how they work thanks to the staff of a gaming magazine in my country.

Actually, by 'official' I was thinking more of dev estimates. CDPR estimated Witcher 2 at 35 to 40 hours. I can see me getting 50+. BioWare devs estimated around 50 hours for DA:O (they did say it could be over 100, but average they guessed at around 50) and I got 77 and 87.

I don't tend to rely on professional game reviewers for anything other than a description of game mechanics.

Length was fine, a single playthrough is pretty short but there's easily more content in the game than in most RPG's these days bar Bethesda games. It's just that you can't access all of it in one playthrough, a design choice that I commend, it's high time RPG's gave us choices that don't just FEEL big and important in terms of how it affects the world, but ARE big and important to the player as well, and affect the path the story takes.

I always felt games like DA and ME let you make choices that affected everyone but your character and thus changing the game very little. The consequences of your decision would be reflected in references here and there, an epilogue or a slightly different ending (only KOTOR really had 2 completely different endings) but the experience would stay largely the same. That's not the case in TW2, it's a game that had me coming back for another playthrough immediately after I finished it the first time, and that's an achievement.

The only thing that really bugged me is how rushed Act 3 feels. Very little in the way of side quests, and you just feel CDP had far bigger plans for it, for me it's evidenced by the fact that you get some of the best equipment in the game right near the end of it with no time to enjoy it at all.

I don't think its fair to list the ME series at this point just yet. They have always said that your choices will impact how things go in the last installement (ME3). And this had the side effect of me playing it many times so I can have at least 4 different saves to see how things will turn out in ME3. Bottom line is comparing Witcher and ME is apples to oranges. Now IF witcher 2 had a big cliff hanger and cliff hanger decision that would change things.