3 ms·

The Witcher 3 took me 150 hours with all the DLC, I enjoyed every minute of it and didn't want it to end. I don't understand "I don't have time for a 100 hour s

The Witcher 3 took me 150 hours with all the DLC, I enjoyed every minute of it and didn't want it to end. I don't understand "I don't have time for a 100 hour story", if you enjoy the game why do you want it to be short?

dusted 5y ago
Because even if it was actually 150 hours of densely packed, highly entertaining, engaging story, there's no version of the universe where I'd be able to keep all that in my head when it's chopped up into about 100 short evening sessions. Sure, if I had all the time in the world, sure, but even if people enjoy grinding, nobody is going to convince me that these games provide 150 hours of intense, solid entertainment, they "merely" take 150 hours to get through. I've gone through long games back when I had the life to waste, and of course I enjoyed that, but I'm under no illusion that there was generally more "work" in them.
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  Witcher 3 has a robust quest system, an in game encyclopedia, and a lot of great use of narrative and dialog options to remind the player where they are in the trilogy of games storywise. It's something than can be improved with practice. I can now read a few dozen books at a time and have no trouble keeping them straight, and I'm sure I've benefitted from that in other ways in my day to day life. Remember that humans relied on oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years. Give yourself some credit!
  - dusted 5y ago
    Thing is, I also enjoy the satisfaction of having been through a story, having the feeling that that I know the story well, that I've been there and enjoyed myself and seen the end. I don't get that when I spread it out too thin. I enjoy movies and tv shows for different reasons, and often, for story-based games (as opposed to multiplayer games and pure-skill games) I enjoy the "movie" version more, "short" sweet, dense and intense. For the other types, I play OSU! and whatever the popular FPS is at the moment it's Apex Legends, but those I play for different reasons than games with a good story.

dusted 5y ago

Because even if it was actually 150 hours of densely packed, highly entertaining, engaging story, there's no version of the universe where I'd be able to keep all that in my head when it's chopped up into about 100 short evening sessions. Sure, if I had all the time in the world, sure, but even if people enjoy grinding, nobody is going to convince me that these games provide 150 hours of intense, solid entertainment, they "merely" take 150 hours to get through. I've gone through long games back when I had the life to waste, and of course I enjoyed that, but I'm under no illusion that there was generally more "work" in them.

washadjeffmad 5y ago
Witcher 3 has a robust quest system, an in game encyclopedia, and a lot of great use of narrative and dialog options to remind the player where they are in the trilogy of games storywise. It's something than can be improved with practice. I can now read a few dozen books at a time and have no trouble keeping them straight, and I'm sure I've benefitted from that in other ways in my day to day life. Remember that humans relied on oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years. Give yourself some credit!
- dusted 5y ago
  Thing is, I also enjoy the satisfaction of having been through a story, having the feeling that that I know the story well, that I've been there and enjoyed myself and seen the end. I don't get that when I spread it out too thin. I enjoy movies and tv shows for different reasons, and often, for story-based games (as opposed to multiplayer games and pure-skill games) I enjoy the "movie" version more, "short" sweet, dense and intense. For the other types, I play OSU! and whatever the popular FPS is at the moment it's Apex Legends, but those I play for different reasons than games with a good story.