View Single Post

Default 

June 17th, 2013, 13:13
Anyone else concerned with there only being 100 hours for a thorough play through? If the witcher 2 took about 35 hours to beat and the witcher 3 game area is 35 times larger, 100 hours seems really low.

I hope that doesn't mean that we are going to have a bunch of large empty areas with nothing to do in them. The witcher series has never had rewarding exploration. Sure there's areas to explore but generally there's not much to see or find in these areas. The constant back and forth through large relatively empty areas was my main gripe with the witcher 1.

To me the reason skyrims world works so well is because even though it has some large areas, it never seems like I can go to long without finding something interesting to do. After almost 400 hours I'm still finding things to do or see that I haven't done or seen. Skyrim isn't just big it's loaded with content, I hope the witcher 3 can manage the same. At only 100 hours for a thorough play through I fear that might not be the case.
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch

#8

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,178