The Witcher 3 Can Take Over 200 Hours

People always ask me the same thing every day. “Gera, when will we get a game that is so long it’s in the realm of possibility I will die before finishing it?” they sigh. “When will the day come where I can finally stop using clocks and interpret the passage of time entirely through the medium of game hours?” For fans of time, this is a reasonable but oft-ignored request.

The good news is the kindly folk of CD Projekt Red have presumably stopped sleeping in order to provide their The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt [official site] with over 200 hours of content.

This comes according to senior game designer Damien Monnier, who said on Twitter that this length encompasses “everything” – from side-quests to, I guess, the romantic act of marital Ploughing.

Comparatively, The Witcher 2 clocked in around 50 hours if you include milling around pubs and looking at birds. It’s a heck of a growth spurt. The studio’s already said the new game will feature a main storyline that’s around 50 hours long. While not a mathematician, as someone who’s watched Countdown I can confidently say “everything else” in The Witcher 3 will take around 150 hours to finish based on maths. To put it another way it’s about 1,000 hours long in dog years.


  1. Paul says:

    The focuse on length is stupid. There will be speed runners that will finish it under 10 hours and there will be connoseurs who will clock 500+.

    • Eery Petrol says:

      Many people want an indication of content amount. How would you quantify it? Megabytes? Quest count? I think a time estimate of how long it would take to see everything on an average pace is nice and elegant.

      • Denzus says:

        You’re exactly right, the focus on the length of a game isn’t so much the focus of the passage of time, though it can give an estimation of the average playthrough. It is usually better understood as an abstract usage of “length” represented with time, to give a sense of the content population of a game. It does however sort of begin to become an increasingly meaningless measurement when you look at open world games like Skyrim, multiplayer openworlds like GTA V, or even games with solid mod content. However it is still an accurate representation of content for single player experiences of all genres.

      • dsch says:

        The focus on quantity is incompatible with the demands of an artistic medium. CDP have always been entertainers rather than pushing at the boundaries of the medium.

        • Yglorba says:

          It’s not necessarily incompatible. A vague description of a game’s length tells you a lot about what sort of game it is; a 10-hour game is a very different beast than a 200-hour game. Not necessarily even worse, but it tells you something useful about what you’re getting into in a way that’s relatively easy to express so people know if they should spend the time to go over more in-depth reviews and descriptions and the like.

        • Cinek says:

          Yea, so let’s have 2 hour games to make them more “artistic”! What a nonsense comment.

      • April March says:

        All of the alternatives you offer are stupid, but they are just as stupid as ‘time taken’. Time just seems more sensible because we’re used to it.

        ‘Number of quests’ and/or ‘number of levels’ actually sound like way more sensible ways to measure a game, even if they have obvious problems.

        • jrodman says:

          To me, the stupid part is putting a number on something that is not a quantifiable concept.

          Content-rich is not numerically measurable. Describing the kind of game it is in words is far smarter and more useful than saying “200 hours”, which makes me think it’s tedious.

      • melnificent says:

        How about Fun? It seems to be a forgotten concept in the age of IAPs and season passes.

        • wwwhhattt says:

          “The Witcher 3 will have more than 200 fun” – CD Projekt Red

          • Hedgeclipper says:

            Aw man that’s too much fun, there’s no way I can deal with that much fun. Why can’t they be more like those other games with 8 or 10 fun?

          • CantankerousDave says:

            But is that in metric fun or imperial fun?

          • darkhog says:

            @CantankerousDave Neither. It’s obviously Sumerian fun.

          • Shadowcat says:

            Surely “metric fun” is a contradiction in terms.

      • Holysheep says:

        The ammount of megabytes is certainly not a good indicator at all. All it says is “My game is hella unoptimized/I’ve put all the languages files in it for you to download/I have huge, uncompressed textures on hundreds of different models.”

      • Jimbo says:

        Open World game length should always be estimated using the Time Minus Floral Padding equation: (Total Time – Time Picking Flowers). So, for example, DA: Paddinquisition may take 150-200 hours total, yet impressively only achieves a TMFP value of roughly 25 minutes.

        I don’t know how Witcher 3 will compare in terms of TMFP, but we can only hope and assume that it will be better.

    • rebb says:

      Agreed, most of the time i find myself getting quite tired of most games after *insert varying timeframe based on gameplay quality and magic*, with some exceptions like the Souls games. I think even Witcher 1 and 2 got to that “uuugh make it stoop” point.

  2. Klatu says:

    Ooh that’s a long one you’ve got there Geralt! Phwoar!

  3. Frank says:

    I’m not surprised.

    By the way, “Gera” is almost “Geralt”; they’re right to ask you.

  4. DanMan says:

    Are you the one they doomed to hold the fort during the holidays, Emily?

    • Axyl says:

      The fort needs no holding. Castle RPS is impenetrable.

      It’s just Emily’s turn to use it as a Weekend Holiday Home this Easter.

  5. mavrik says:

    Oh… please no. Not another type of padded Dragon Age: Inquisition style borefest.

    This has now really lowered my expectations of this game… you just can’t make 200 hours worth of meaningful content without resorting to severe simplification.

    • drinniol says:

      Why not? BG2 almost did it.

      • Cinek says:

        BG2 took roughly 100 hours to complete. P:T is roughly 50 hours.

    • blastaz says:

      I’ve got this great series of games you shoul try. The first one is called Arena and there are five of them. See you in a thousand hours…

    • Xzi says:

      CDPR is not lorded over by EA. Thus the difference in the quality of their games.

      • montorsi says:

        The Witcher games are pretty ass but EA is a weird barometer to use for quality.

        • Xzi says:

          He mentioned Inquisition, made by Bioware and thus made shitty by EA’s influence.

    • Lukasz says:

      BG Trilogy took me 200 hours to beat and that includes pretty much doing almost all of the quests available in both games.

      Witcher 2 took me 38 hours single playthrough according to the steam count.

      200 hours for everything is a lot. it is a lot of work required to make that 200 hours interesting. if it takes 20 minutes to ride from one side of the map to another, 10 minutes to beat a monster, 20 fedex quests like that make 10 hours of gameplay…. (20min to get to new place, 10 minutes for fighting a monster, quick travel and get the reward makes half an hour of gameplay)

      i really hope that is not the case but open world games often mean pointless travel time.

    • Hauskamies says:

      This indeed. I don’t want a game that takes 200 hours. Are they trying to ruin everything I liked about the Witcher 2? I actually do like Dragon Age: Inquisition but I also realize the game is way too long and after 40 hours of playing it I haven’t touched it for a while. The game would be so much better if they just removed half of the useless quests.

      • horrorgasm says:

        and of course you can’t just grow a shred of self control and just not do all those entirely optional side quests that you don’t even want to do, right?

        • airmikee says:

          It’s not a self control issue, it’s an attention span problem.

    • jrodman says:

      I think it’s definitely possible to make 200 hours of meaningful content. It’s also possible to do it without a huge budget. Playwrights do it, and so do novelists.

      I don’t think they *will* of course.

      I would certainly say I got more than 200 hours of legitimate fun out of World of Warcraft, for example. The problem on that front was it was buried in more than 2000 hours of less-fun. To your point.

      • Darth Grabass says:

        When was the last time you went to a 200 hour long play? Or spent 200 hours reading a novel?

  6. Clavus says:

    Not really planning on playing this game exploring every nook and cranny. It’s nice if there’s a lot of content, but it’d need to be unique and interesting enough to make me complete it all.

    The Witcher series has been pretty good at this so far though. In the first two games nearly every quest had its own story bits and was tied into the lore.

  7. Melody says:

    There’s a nice ethical question here: are you-developer so confident that your product/game/story/experience is worth 200 hours of my life; and, if you focus on the narrative, which the Witcher likes to say it does, do you really need 200 hours to say what you want to say, or conversely, do you have enough to say for all that time?

    I mean, if I think about the kind of things I could do with 200 hours, just to mention one, I could get to decent level in a foreign language from scratch. Or, to remain in the realm of “free time”/entertainment, I could experience 200 short games that are full to the brim of different ideas, games by different people in which each minute matters to convey something without overstaying..

    I honestly can’t imagine 200 hours of interesting content, I don’t believe it for a second. So, the question is twofold: why do the devs feel the need to make something like this (it’s obviously a huge cost for them), and where do they get the confidence of “demanding” 200 hours of my life for their game, how can they spin this as a positive, as a feature? To me it just looks like a huge drawback. You can’t value games just according to the amount of content they have, if you have to evaluate them through a formula, it should be based around “interesting stuff per minute/hour”.

    • Arren says:

      I honestly can’t imagine 200 hours of interesting content […] why do the devs feel the need to make something like this (it’s obviously a huge cost for them), and where do they get the confidence of “demanding” 200 hours of my life

      “Can take” 200 hours ≠ “demands” 200 hours. The article clearly states that this figure includes all peripheral activities in-game, so this doesn’t equate to 200 hours of plot, either.

      “Interesting” is as subjective as it gets, Melody. CD Projekt RED is trying to cater to a wide variety of players, each of whom finds different things “interesting”.

      • Shareon says:

        I signed up to this site to say exactly this, but you beat me to it. I’d just like to add that 50 hours for the main storyline is long, but not terribly long for the genre (Dragon Age:Origins was probably 40 hours for the main story, and thats not including any dlc content which continues the story by another 15 or so). A large amount of content has never been a metric to value games, so I’m not sure why you got the impression it was. However, the variety of non main storyline content, which almost ensures you will find something you really enjoy other than the main quests, is a certainly positive thing.

    • derbefrier says:

      its 200 hours of content. Which in marketing speak probably means 40-50 or so hours of main quests( that people will speed run in 4 hours) and a bunch of time wasting side quest and collectibles and other distractions they can call “content” for people who just cant get enough of the game. there is no ethical question here. These guys made a game and we have to decide if that game is worth our time. Many will just play through the main quest and maybe a handful of side quests and be done with the game in 60 hours (pretty standard for an rpg), some will put 1000s of hours in multiple playthroughs upturning every nook and cranny they can find. Its not saying “dont bother with his game unless you plan on spending the next two years playing it” its ” hey guys we built a big sprawing open world rpg with lots of content to explore if you feel like it!” honestly your argument makes zero sense to me. its all just a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.

    • airmikee says:

      IMO, you mentioned absolutely nothing even resembling an ethical question in your entire comment. Ethics are moral principles about right and wrong, which are completely subjective based on hundreds of variables. If you think it’s wrong for a video game company to make a game that people can spend 200 hours playing there is a very simple solution: Don’t Buy The Game.

      If you were forced to play the game say for a school project that demanded you play through the entire series of games for a grade in order to progress in life then you’d have a real ethical dilemma, but that isn’t the case in this instance. For some people there are plenty of ethical concerns about video games, but they’re certainly not about how long a single player campaign can be stretched out to be, they’re things more like the electricity wasted, or the myth that violent video games lead to violent life choices.

      Personally, I find it disgusting and wrong when game companies take a half assed route to their game and force me to interact with other people to develop a story, MOBA’s and games that are PvP only being examples, or put out a weak single player campaign because the game is focused on PvP. Other people find absolutely nothing wrong with spending their time playing those games and laugh condescendingly when they discover I’ve spent nearly 200 hours in a single playthrough of Skyrim without any DLC, or that I’ve amassed over 1300 hours in Civ5 without a single multiplayer match.

      Your comment applies to EVERY VIDEO GAME, doesn’t matter if it’s 200 hours or 3 hours. What other things could you be doing instead of wasting time interacting with a machine to play in digital environments created for the sole purpose of wasting time? How many paintings could you create? How deep into mathematics could you delve? Why stop at one extra language when there are thousands to choose from instead of playing video games? And most importantly, why did you single out video games as being somehow less than other activities?

      • Asurmen says:

        It’s disgusting and wrong that multiplayer only games exist? Talk about hyperbole…

    • bill says:

      I’m with melody. Advertising your game as having 200 hours of content is more off-putting than appealing. Even 50 hours is pushing it.

      Maybe it’ll be a stunning masterpiece where all 200 hours are filled with wonder and enjoyment… and the time will just fly by.
      Or maybe it’ll be huge amounts of annoying or dull filler.

      I’m playing Witcher 1 at the moment, and mostly enjoying it, but I’m already bored of several parts of it that I’ll have to repeat a few thousand more times before I get to the end. (I assume)
      The way to appeal to me would be to improve the game rather than just make it longer.

      Sure, it’s only (!!!!) 50 hours for the main quest, but in RPGs the side quests tend to be where you get a lot of the experience, equipment, etc..
      I have (often) tried burning through RPGs and just doing the main quest… it almost never works. You find yourself underpowered and underequipped and often missing out on half the story and good bits.

      Besides, if it follows a path similar to number 1 then half of the content is intertwined and you need to do half the side quests to unlock progress on the main quest, and the other half to get information to make the main quest make sense.

      Luckily, my PC has no chance of running it. But if it did, I think i’d have been put off trying it.

      (not sure it’s ethical though)

    • DelrueOfDetroit says:

      Maybe the CEO of CDP is a big Proust fan.

  8. Stevostin says:

    Not bad at all for a wanilla. Looks like in the realm of what Bethesda does. To be it’s not first person view, carrier free to choose, so I won’t play it.

  9. TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

    I just need an announcement that says “The Witcher 3 can run at 60fps @1440p on ultra on a 780ti without saturating it’s patethic 3GB of VRAM regardless of the stupidity of making a GPU that’s faster than a stock Titan but has half memory”.

    Pretty please.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      @1440p + max settings, I seriously doubt a single 780ti will keep a solid 60fps.
      @1080p maybe (with small amount of AA).
      I’m hoping the same, so I sympathize with your trepidation.

  10. AngoraFish says:

    “…when will we get a game that is so long it’s in the realm of possibility I will die before finishing it?”

    To be fair, that more or less applies to any game longer than 3 hours.

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      To be fair, if i really had to die i wouldn’t want it to take more than 5 seconds, 3 hours sounds like some serious agony already.

      • AngoraFish says:

        If one was being pedantic, one might observe that death is an either/or state and therefore one either is or isn’t dead. One might also observe that everything following conception is part of a natural progression towards the inevitable end-state of death, and therefore that everyone currently alive is in some sense also simultaneously “dying”.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          Your point makes some decent sense, so i’d say those last 5 seconds should be accompanied by the absolute certainty that something is going really wrong and shit is going to hit the fan in the immediate future, with death as the only obvious outcome.

          WIth that said, 3 hours are still too much.

        • Monggerel says:

          As the great classic of movie cinema, Reservoir Dogs, once put it:
          “He’s alive or he’s dead or the cops got him or they don’t”.
          You cannot reduce life and death into a binary system, because then you ignore the cops.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            That’s sad. You’ll never be able to rest in peace, the cops will be there to ruin your day!

        • DelrueOfDetroit says:

          link to

    • April March says:

      I’m pretty sure it applies to any game, period. Human beings are very fragile.

    • Philomelle says:

      That link is relevant to my interests because I’ve recently started checking global achievements stats on games I play on Steam, just to see how those figures compare to reality.

      Only a half of the players reached the halfway point of Ori and the Blind Forest; 20% of them didn’t even make it past the prologue. The figure is slightly gentler in Remember Me, where 10% of the players found the prologue too hard, a similar half reached the halfway point and only 30% beat the game.

      Only 6.8% finished Outland. Only 5% finished Aquaria; only 17% reached the Open Waters, which is the hub from which you access all other areas of the game. A mere 14% finished Bation; its little sister Transistor did better, with a completion rate of a whole 27% players. Only 33% of the players beat Mom in Binding of Isaac, which would mean even less reached the proper ending. A laughable 30% finished Shovel Knight and Thomas Was Alone; less than a half made it past the first chapter of Cat Lady.

      It’s harder to gauge AAA titles because a lot of them are from Ubisoft and EA, who use their own achievement systems. Still, I can tell you that only 40% finished Call of Duty: Doge, a mere half of Borderlands 2 players reached level 10 (which is around the time you reached hometown), 45% of the owners finished DmC and Tomb Raider, and 10% finished Final Fantasy XIII.

      I could keep going but it still boils down to the same thing. The vast majority of people who buy video games, don’t seem very keen on playing them.

      • Geebs says:

        Bundles and sales confound those figures to a large extent, I think. Games are cheap enough in real terms these days that, in the absence of a demo, a customer can just buy the thing and drop it if they don’t like it.

        Plus, you left out The Sims.

        • Philomelle says:

          I’d sooner subscribe to the idea of people buying the game to try it and abandoning it. While the bundle theory seemed sound to me before, it’s disrupted by such oddities as Ori (3 weeks old, obviously no sales yet) having exact same stats as Remember Me (2 years old, on sale multiple times).

          More so because I’ve actually seen someone raise a stink on Ori’s forums about how the developers are “shills” because no way is he “paying 20 dollars just to try a game”.

          • melnificent says:

            Bundles and sales DO affect the global stats. According to SteamDB I have 832 unplayed games ( link to ) These are bundle and sale games… I do intend to play them at some point, but just haven’t got around to it yet.

            I’m not alone, look at most peoples libraries and there are a good proportion of their games unplayed. Usually bundles or sale games they haven’t gotten around to yet.

          • AngoraFish says:

            As I understand it, Steam does not start recording stats against a game for most purposes (including achievements) until someone actually has time played registered against the game. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link definitively confirming this.

          • melnificent says:

            I’ll have to look into that. Which would be interesting if true/verifiable. But that still wouldn’t allow for idlers that will let the game run for trading cards. I’ve done about 300 games that way.

          • AngoraFish says:

            For what it’s worth, friends who own but have never loaded a game do not appear in the “you have X friends who play X Game” list when looking through your library. That is, “play” means actually played, not just owned. But as you say, card idler would screw the stats somewhat (damn you Valve).

          • airmikee says:

            I have to agree with melnificent. I have 65 installed games on Steam, with 84 games on my ‘Recent’ list, and 203 games in my total library. That means there are 119 games in my library that have never been played, let alone installed. Almost 60% of my library has gone untouched because I haven’t gotten around to playing them yet. I intend to get around playing most of them, and even some of the 19 I’ve uninstalled in the past will get put back into the mix.

            I have a huge backlog of games because games are so cheap today. When I first started buying my own games it took me weeks to save up enough to buy one. A couple decades later and after 4.5 years on Steam, with 20 free games in Origin, and another 20 games from GOG, I’m averaging one game a week. The backlog is also created because when I discover a game I really like to play, I play the shit out of that game, 1300+ hours in Civ5, 200 in Skyrim, 130 in XCOM:EU/EW, 100 in Fallout:New Vegas and Cities XXL. My 96 minutes of play time in Just Cause 2 and 32 minutes in Mass Effect (ME2 never installed) doesn’t mean that they’re bad games I don’t like and don’t intend to play, it means I’ve been playing other games.

      • AngoraFish says:

        When I realise that all those “<5% of players have this" achievements I'm so proud of are probably based, in large part, on only 5% of players having actually played that far into the game, it does take a little bit of shine off my ego.

        • Philomelle says:

          Look at it like this – at least we’re back in an era where achievement points and platinum trophies don’t mean anything, and you can once again have massive bragging rights just by beating a game.

          Although it does make me wonder if the number of people who actually beat games is so low because most modern players simply suck. I’ve seen people write entire novels about unfair and impossible difficulty of games I’ve easily beaten in an evening.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          This sounds worringly true, my rarest achievement ( under 1% i think ) is beating Metal gear rising by S-ranking the whole Revengeance difficulty mode, but then i’d like to know how many people even tried. My ego is partially safe in the knowledge that this is not a thing that you just casually “try”, but still.

          It’s also possible that Steam achievements and in general this kind of thinking in PC gaming are not compatible to most players, possibly even for a variety of reason that has nothing to do with the hate or love for such a thing but because of the way it is presented. This kind of thinking seems more prominent on the PS3/4, even compared to Xbox, so i’m not even sure it’s a console thing, but more about how sony handles the meaning of things like “platinum” and so on.

          • Philomelle says:

            According to Steam, only 79% of Revengeance owners made it past the prologue. A meager 58% beat the first mission and only 50% beat the second. The figure continues to drop up throughout, with the last mission having only been beaten by 37% players. That would mean only 37% of the game’s players have access to Revengeance at all.

            Now, the Stormbringer achievement has been achieved by 0.6% of the game’s players. Considering the 37% figure from above, this would mean one out of every 70 players who beat the game, goes on to S-rank it on Revengeance. (Obviously the 70 number is very rough, but I believe it gets the job done.)

      • Kong says:

        When games cost less than 2 liters of beer in a pub, I buy them just to get a taste.

        With Wasteland 2 it is different. I used to love RPG games. Now in WL2 I got really bored shooting gila monsters. A combat system much less interesting than that of JA2. I will finish the game eventually, so close now yet so many more tiring fights ahead. What an achievement. Nothing I would brag about in the pub, though.

        • Cinek says:

          WL2 was rather poor game, that’s a separate problem. Combat in it was one of the worst combat mechanics I seen in last 10 years or so.

      • jrodman says:

        Or maybe they just have their fill.

        I enjoyed bastion for a while. Then I put it down and haven’t gone back.
        I haven’t stopped playing games, but I’ve played other games when I play games.

        Partly I’m a wimp. If a game asks me to challenge myself and work at improving my skills, I put it down. Working on my gaming dexterity etc doesn’t really turn my crank (and never did, really). There are plenty of game experiences that let me do the kinds of things I like, and for many games, they tend to occur towards the first half of the game design.

        Partly I’ve more things competing for my time, and far more disposable income than when I was young. I have a time-demanding job. I have family. I have errands to run, food to cook, and laundry to to make. When I was young I couldn’t buy games and I barely had to do any of that stuff. Now I buy far too many games, and I frequently sample them.

        Partly I’m old. I’ve seen it all before. A game similar to games I’ve already played just isn’t going to hold my interest to the degree that the first one did. Or second. Etc.

        Partly my gaming energy is going elsewhere. I’m Game Mastering a long running RPG session for the first time in my life (unexpectedly), and the weekly prep takes a lot of focus, imagination, and planning. I think it scratches a lot of the same itches that video game playing does for me. So the energy I have for gaming is reduced, and I play less.

        • jrodman says:

          Another theory is that they might play the game where steam doesn’t believe in the achievements. I tend to send steam Offline so it won’t get angry about “conflicting” sessions between my windows box, mac laptop, and Linux TV system. This means I miss achievements. That’s a bonus for me because I don’t like achievements.

  11. kament says:

    Well, it’s not that hard, really. Skyrim with it’s very limited range of activities took me around 150 hrs to complete (if you can call it that, when you actually just stop wasting your time and get straight to the ending), and I didn’t bother to complete or even discover a lot of its quests. Granted, I played as a sneaky assassin, but still.

    The real question is, will it be worth it to repeat. I tried to get back to Skyrim (yeah, well, what else is out there to compare) many times and bounced right off it. On the other hand, I spent a ridiculous amount of time replaying DA, so…

  12. racccoon says:

    When Skyrim came, the player was amazed by the amount of time they had used to play it.
    I clocked over 400 plus hours and am still popping back in to play, This is why the game was so successful content was massive.
    The Witcher series is ideal for this and if they have done the right thing, this game will take as much time depending on the player.
    I never play a game by time, I spent time to explore, investigating and visually enjoying my surroundings I want to immerse myself in the work that’s taken people years to make.
    Hats off to them for the attempt to place a time but the reality is there will always be someone wanting to smash that time limit now they have placed it, but the reality is most people want to go about enjoying it and not even be bothered by time they may double it +
    The real game player is the player who see’s light and not the one who rush;s through a game just to finish it.

  13. Monggerel says:

    If James Bond is a boner on legs, then Girder is an STD with no genitals attached. I reckon 200 hours is about 15 hours more than I absolutely necessarily require.

  14. Jackablade says:

    200 hours? I don’t have that kind of time. I may need to hire a team to play it and supply a daily report on pertinent details.

    • Cinek says:

      Problem is that we don’t know the length of main plot. It might just as well be only 5 hours.

      • alms says:

        The problem is two-fold, as I said:

        not understanding the meaning of the verb ‘can’
        not reading the whole post

        The solution is “about 50h”

  15. alms says:

    So, read the headline, misunderstand what ‘can’ means and conclude TW3 requires 200 hours to complete.

    You don’t even have 3 minutes to read the post, where the mistake would be quickly made obvious, but you have time to post a comment.


    • SMGreer says:

      I know, right? I’m sure this is all broken down into chunks like “50 hours tops” for the main quest, another fifty or so for side quests and then the extra hundred comes from exploration, monster hunting, mini-games etc. Which is to say that 200 hours is far, far from necessary to experience the bulk of the game’s content, let alone finish it.

      So long as there isn’t a “collect 5 serpent stone” quest then The Witcher 3 can do as it pleases.

  16. kud13 says:

    Original Witcher took me about 60 hours each playthrough. 200 doesn’t sound so bad

  17. SuicideKing says:

    Hi Emily! Welcome to RPS! (If this is your first article here, otherwise ignore me lol)

    I sometimes measure passage of time in song length, though…

  18. Turin Turambar says:

    For years they said “50 hours to do the main content, 100 hours to do everything”. Now saying it’s 200 hours it’s… puzzling. Or they have put tons of filler, or it’s a lie.

  19. jikavak says:

    Too bad it won’t run on my computer…

  20. pasports31 says:

    Ehh, we’ll see what this actually means. I think I remember reading marketing that said Skryim had like 300 hours of content or something, in my last playthrough in August I finished all the quests in the vanilla version, as well as all the dlc, and had multiple large content mods (Wyrmstooth, Falskaar, a few small ones in addition) and it took me about 185 hours to finish all that. I’m sure you can get 200 hours in for TW3 but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of that is some fluff, with really 100-125 hours of real, quality quests.

    • Shareon says:

      The article does explicitly say 200 hours includes romance acts and the such (fluff). So I’d assume you’re right.

      • pasports31 says:

        Well, the article doesn’t really say that though. That was the author’s personal injection based on a twitter comment (which was “if you do everything I’d say its 200+ hours”).

        I’d imagine it does include that, but looking at the source of that injection it’s a lot more ambiguous.

  21. Jabberslops says:

    200 hours for 1 play through to experience I’m assuming 95% of the game? That is just too much time to invest in a game now with so many games available and does nothing to help with my “Steaming pile of Shame”. I put nearly 300 hours into my modded Skyrim and I was getting sick of the game after 200 hours. I never even got around to playing Moonpath to Elswyr or Wyrmtooth. Although that is more to do with my games Hard Drive dying without warning signs literally the week I was going to replace it with a new drive.

    There is a argument to be made about not wanting games that take 100 hours just to complete the main Story. If your saves are not uploaded to Steam Cloud Storage, you could potentially lose everything you were doing If your hard drive dies or your newest saves get corrupted. Thankfully I have an SSD with Windows on it so I didn’t lose anything saved in Documents and was able to recover game saves for most of the games I had been playing on Steam from Cloud Storage.

  22. Dorga says:

    Yes but does it have at least 50 graphics?

  23. olgarWright says:

    ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ ɪs ᴠᴇʀʏ ɪᴍᴘᴏʀᴛᴀɴᴛ ғᴏʀ ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴇʀsᴏɴ.I ᴇᴀʀɴ ᴀ ʟᴏᴛ ʟᴏ ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ ᴛʜʀᴏᴜɢʜ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴊᴏʙs.I ᴇᴀʀɴ ᴀᴛ ʟᴇᴀsᴛ 90$ ᴘᴇʀ ʜᴏᴜʀ,I ᴡᴏʀᴋ ᴀᴛ ʟᴇᴀsᴛ 5 ᴛᴏ 6 ʜᴏᴜʀs ᴀ ᴅᴀʏ ᴀɴᴅ ғᴜʟғɪʟʟ ᴍʏ ᴀʟʟ ɴᴇᴄᴇssɪᴛɪᴇs.ɪғ ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʟsᴏ ᴄᴀɴ ɢᴇᴛ ᴀɴ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴊᴏʙ ᴘʟᴢ ᴠɪsɪᴛ ᴛʜᴇ sɪᴛᴇ ɢɪᴠᴇɴ ʙᴇʟᴏᴡ…….

  24. cpt_freakout says:

    Emily Geralt, huh? This article is obviously biased!

  25. Risingson says:

    More than 30 hours is already too much.

  26. RegisteredUser says:

    I agree with a lot of the comments.

    However, with the particular case of Skyrim I just wanted to point out that as much as you can explore and muck about basically infinitely, the biggest issue of that game’s leveling logic is that you can top out most of your stats, perks etc (its trickier when you get really obsessive about it by using buffs to get even higher) and forge the best armour basically within a long weekend of dedicated gaming.
    At which point the whole thing for me as a progress-wanter kinda tops out. I know this isn’t an issue for the “true” roleplayers or people who mod it to death and so forth, but I wanted to point out the irony that the actual character progression in terms of numbers and stats as opposed to “made up” story and other things is incredibly, incredibly short lived.

  27. darkhog says:

    “The good news is the kindly folk of CD Projekt Red have presumably stopped sleeping in order to pad their The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt [official site] with over 200 hours of overly long cutscenes. ”


  28. mister slim says:

    But how many Peggles is it?

  29. spaceboots says:

    Hope the combat has improved, otherwise 200 hours of it will be too much.

  30. Voqar says:

    I could never get into witcher 2 so I”ll wait for this one to be on sale in a couple years. The whole batman wham bam arcade spam click attack thing doesn’t work for me, and the whole console first design with horrific PC controls and UI doesn’t work much for me either.

  31. scab says:

    A surprisingly well written article, RPS.

    Keep up the good work.