It has a bit more main story content, more side quests, more fleshed out environments and also provides players with more choices and gameplay diversity.I´m pretty sure the game is longer when going this route.What I think is somewhat problematic in relation to the game´s length is item and character progression - "pacing" and balancing of these two elements doesn´t account for the pacing of story elements and the game´s overall length too well.Best items are usually acquired near the end of a chapter only to be quickly replaced by better ones available ïn the beginning of the next one (draug armor is particularly hilarious). The Witcher games are obviously not about huge freeform worlds - and so I can't really blame them for not changing the basics for my sake.I'm a great believer in a freeform structure, and I honestly think you can combine a strong narrative with a less linear progression - but I understand that it's a big design/QA challenge, and that most people don't agree that it's truly possible - or even much of a plus.Considering there are two substantially different versions of the second half of the game, I think the shorter length per playthrough is understandable and personally I have no problem with the game´s length per se.I also think chapter 3 wraps things up nicely story/character-wise, especially given the amount of possibilities how it can play out.Maybe a part of the problem is the "chapter" label which creates mislead expectations?That said, I feel the two main branches are not fully equal in quality - I think Iorveth path provides overall more even, fulfilling and better paced experience. Still, overall I think it must have been 30-40 hours all in all, and the fact that I wanted more is a very good signI remember REALLY wanting DA:O to be over near the end, and that's not really a preferable situation.I think my main problem with TW2 length was the structure - and I knew I would likely have that problem, going in.
...
0 kommentar(er)
