With completion times posted in the low 20 hr range, TW2 ranks as one of the shortest RPG's to date. Given that my own personal runs with TW1 were in the 40-60 hr range, this was a let down.

We all know it has great replay value, but was it a mistake to require us to replay rather than stacking content end-to-end? I have a feeling there's a 50 hr game embedded here, but I have to replay it 3 or 5 times to experience it.

Opinions?

There was something special about forming opinions, then changing them as I saw events play out from a different vantage point. Maybe it would be longer if it didn't require multiple playthroughs to see everything, but it's definitely special in the way it delivers the story.

I've only played through Witcher 1 once, and never felt compelled to play through again because there's a certain kind of linearity, there. That's not to say it isn't great, but Witcher 2 compelled me to start a second playthrough immediately after finishing the first, which is more than most games can say.

who gave you that time range in 1 playthrough?

There are minigames, there are materials to craft, there are potions to brew, and long quest summary to read.

And I didn't defeat the Engrega with my bare hands, I have to craft traps or gather them.

People who didn't do any of those things but just rush through the quests, people who didn't read a single line about the quests and books about monsters, didn't play the game. ALL OF THEM SHOULDN'T PLAY RPGs.

Last but not least: the game doesn't allow you to make all possible choices because you simply cannot. You cannot side with 2 people who are at eyes against eyes. You simply cannot rescue your lover and rescue a nation at the same time.

There must sacrifice to make. That is why the game is "thought provoking".

Damn, this game treats you like an adult, so be an adult and stop crying like kids. You are no saint; Gerald is no saint.

P.S: the day the CDPJ tries to please those gamers is the day that they dump down the game. It is not the day they port the game to console. Mark my word!

Its definitely longer than 20 hours because there are at least two major choices you have to make (story and buildwise) that affect your experience. I loved the first and played it through again right before TW2 came out so I could get have a save game to import, but I got frustrated playing through the first again because there is just too much backtracking and too many fetch quests. Sure, it pads the game out, but it starts to drag after a while. And combat didn't really seem to change much in TW1 based on character development.

Would I have wanted more in TW2? Of course! And playing through a second time now after a 25-30 hour first run, I'm quite pleased to discover that things change quite a bit (both quest, story, and lore wise) depending on whether you side with Roche or Iorveth. Also, the talent tree path you choose does make for a considerably different experience. I hardly used bombs/traps or magic as a Swordsman, but I've had to approach combat much differently as an Alchemist (and I'm assuming as a Mage, too).

I estimate my own playtime in TW2 as 30-35 hrs. No, that's not short I suppose, but we get spoiled in other RPG's like ME1, Oblivion, Fallout 3...and most of all, we got damn spoiled in TW1. Also, the side quests in TW2 were excellent, but there were so few of them. I dare say they could have veered toward filler type material rather than making the game so lean.

I know this opinion will be controversial. Keep in mind I'm not bitching here, I'm trying to debate whether the whole non-linear bit was worth it. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure myself.

I would agree that the sidequests in TW2 were excellent. The monster hunting was way more fun than in TW1, and I wish there were more of it! Hunting the endrega queens the first time was so exciting.

have you been reading up on hunted demon's forge? 8 hours or less :P 25+ + 20+ for the mandatory replay = 45-50 hours. that is awesome value for my money!

the other rpgs are long because they're filled with filler content. only about 50 percent of those games are actually worthwhile. me1 for example. a 5 hour game at best extended to 10 hours due to the planet exploration. or fallout 3...basically dynamically generated crap.

Not an RPG though.

I wasn't too unhappy with the gamelength but I would have liked it to be longer. It took me 55 hours to play 1 playthrough + chapter 2 twice. Reasonable length, however one play through should get to the 60 hour range.

The reason I say this is there isn' a major time where I noticed I had drastically improved my character. It was a slow build up and I never had much of an opportunity to use all that great gear and skills I had accumulated. They should have at least increased the length of the epilogue/chapter 3 so you could do just that. I felt like my character 1/3rd of the way through chapter 2 could have easily finished the game had I not leveled at all the rest of the time.

That's cheap. Lazy bastards they are, a reasonable length should get to 155+ hours of the awesome gameplay on the first playthrough. I bet those lazy developers wanted to spend evenings with their families and rest on weekends as if there is no really important things to do like making a game to please ME, pure shame. /sarcasm

I thought the game length was fine. It's comparable to most games these days. I only played through once and it took me about 40 hours which included replaying a few quests to see different results. I didn't feel like replaying the whole thing again except for act III at the end where I did go through a few scenarios before deciding which was the best one so I could save my save game file for TW3.

For me the game length was just fine. Especially considering that there's 2nd playthrough around the corner and I don't feel like it's a "sad duty" but I'm really curious how the events will play out. It's actually the first time I get this feeling in a game.

About the side quests and amount of "filling" content - to me it's just perfectly balanced. The monster hunts are rare but satysfying and demanding preparation. I felt that Geralt on his quest to clear his name and find the true assasins is really short of time, that he has to hurry before another kings get slayed...So there's not too much time for wandering around the swamp and killing 7 nekkers just to earn some cash. To me it was the way the game was designed, to give us a sense of urgency and I liked it.

I do believe a lot of it has to do with the following facts…

Target audience here is a mature population, its members are working, quite possibly in a relationship and certainly have a life to live outside of video games. I know this applies to me and it certainly applies to 4 out of 5 other people who I know in real life play Witcher 2 (I am proud to say that 3 out of those 5 are doing so because I told them to give it a try… and they are loving it).

So the game cannot be overly complex in terms of dragging story because unlike 13yo who spent their whole day playing the same map in Call of Duty I find myself working as a professional who’s mind is concerned with many other things. For me to remember the whole setting and environments of the game for an extended period of time (as they keep getting more complex) can be quite tasking, especially since I demand a very deep immersion during my play throughs.

I must admit I took break between chapters to catch-up on real life as I was playing the game, some of those catch-ups were few days long. So I think that Witcher 2 is in principle of a fine length (at least in my opinion). Sure some would like to see more “fluff” but while one person considers “fluff” an optional extras… I am a completions who considers anything in the game world as a must see.

I would certainly like to see a longer game but it’s style would need to change to really support it, given the situation (at least my situation) as I have described it above.

On the other hand the game does offer a developing story of political manipulation and intrigue and that can only go for so long… before it becomes boring, predictable or simply unrealistic. I suppose in order to make Witcher 2 longer you would indeed need to add more fillers or re-design the story so it supports a longer development period. Perhaps introducing a prologue not so heavy connected with the actual story and transition acts describing events that took place during the trip from chapter to chapter locations.

Think about it for a moment… at the end of prologue you already have two dead monarchs, a number of suspects and a political crisis developing. That can only last for so long before someone decided to act drastically and the whole situation advances to the point of no return, same point during which doing side quest is pointless as you are racing to save the day (so to speak).

it is the same type of game, action rpg :P you need to freshen up on that. from the way it plays out, witcher 2 requires way more work from the devs.

Same with me. That's one of the reasons the length suited me well I guess.Getting my work-life-gaming balance is not always easy :)