Ex-CDPR devs' new open-world vampire RPG [Blood of Dawnwalker] is aiming for "the quality level of The Witcher 3," but since it's a smaller studio, only about a 30-40 hour campaign
Ex-CDPR devs' new open-world vampire RPG [Blood of Dawnwalker] is aiming for "the quality level of The Witcher 3," but since it's a smaller studio, only about a 30-40 hour campaign
The Blood of Dawnwalker's director doesn't care if you call it AA, AAA, or AAAA
You're viewing a single thread.
To be honest, I'm kind of over 200h behemoths anyway. A concise, focused, high-quality 20-40h experience is kind of optimal I think. Every time as of late that I start a massive game (thinking I'd be really into it and feeling hyped!) I just end up burnt out by the 75% mark and having to force myself to finish it, actively resenting it as I press through to see the credits.
8-10h games are fantastic too. It's just nice to be able to wrap up a game in a couple weeks and enjoy it while it lasts and then move on to the next one.
The only game I wished I had more is cyberpunk 2077. Long games for me are fine, but not at the cost of having a shit story, or by filling it with tedious, boring, repetitive side quests.
So yeah, sometimes less is more
Cyberpunk needs more main campaign, I played for 100 hours, but for 90 of them I was at the last mission just doing sidequests
Although I enjoyed the game, I was shocked at how short the main campaign was. Especially coming from something like the witcher 3
They need more Perales quest too. Tbh cyberpunk had some GREAT side quests
I don't mind long games but if it's an RPG with branching story lines I think I would prefer a shorter game that I could replay. I always want to replay RPGs to see the different paths but never do cause they are insanely long and I don't want to devote my existence to one game even if it's amazing
Exactly this. I liked witcher 3 but I can never bring myself to replay it because of the time commitment. I replayed Witcher 2 a dozen times and its a tight 30 hours.