The Witcher 3 Main Storyline to Take Roughly 50 Hours to Complete

The Witcher 3 Main Storyline to Take Roughly 50 Hours to Complete

The Witcher 3

CD Projekt RED claims The Witcher 3 will take players 100-120 hours to complete the game entirely with side-quests, and will have 36 different endings.

Looking forward to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt? If so, you'd better clear up your schedule as the game's main storyline will take "roughly" 50 hours to complete according to CD Projekt RED. Speaking to IGN, studio co-founder Marcin Iwinski revealed that figure and added that if you want to finish every side-quest in the game, it will take you 100-120 hours of gameplay.

We're looking at roughly 50 hours for the main storyline depending on your gameplay style and the difficulty level. If you do most or all of the side quests, you're looking at anything between 100 to 120 hours of gameplay.

If that wasn't a daunting enough figure, Iwinski also that there are 36 different endings to Wild Hunt, and adds, "We have an internal debate if it's 36 or more, but I can tell you that there are many, MANY different endings. You will definitely want to play this game more than once."

Does that mean there are different variations to each ending or there will be 36 different end game cinematics? It's unclear at this point, but based on Iwinski's statement, you might need to allocate more than a few hundred hours if you want to see every ending Geralt's latest adventure has to offer.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is set for release later this year at a still unannounced date for the PC, Xbox One and PS4.

Source: IGN

Permalink

Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

Ported to what?

OT: I'll just assume I'll get through it in 40 with side quests.

Are you serious? 50 hours? Thats just.... just....

image

But seriously if they can pull this off then im going to be much less forgiving to people like Bioware who have massive budgets but make 15 hour games maximum

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

Don't count on it.

The Witcher 1 had WOW style of combat. Except it takes it to the extremes. Controllers can't handle that.

Even the inventory system is impossible without a mouse and keyboard.

Its hot key city, or you will die when the game throws hard as hell fights at you.

Witcher 1 also takes 60 hours to beat. Counting me just giving up, and cheating through the final boss fights so it will finally be over.

The combat relies on potions, and those potions need ingredients that you need to grind for too. You need to maintain every potion for every situation or risk getting stuck on a boss.

It throws so much grind at you that you just want it to be over when you get to chapter III. You need this grind because everything is turned into a boss fight straight out of WOW. When you finally get to fight the antagonist, you need to have finished pretty much every single quest in the game up to that point.

At 60 hours, I still had multiple uncompleted quests.

When Yahtzee said the witcher 1 was an MMO single player game, he wasn't kidding.

The game also did not age well in terms of graphics, and the art style is all over the place as well as the story itself. Put this together with a control system ripped out of an MMO and you get a game that won't ever be ported without rebuilding the game from the ground up.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

Ported to what?

OT: I'll just assume I'll get through it in 40 with side quests.

In this case, PS4 and Xbox One. It would suck to have to start a massive story at the end.

spartandude:
Are you serious? 50 hours? Thats just.... just....

image

But seriously if they can pull this off then im going to be much less forgiving to people like Bioware who have massive budgets but make 15 hour games maximum

Did you just breeze through the all the dialogue in DA: Origins? That game is about 40 hours long.

that reminds me i still have to start witcher 2. i finished the first one a month ago and ive had that for years

Pillars of Eternity, Torment and The Witcher 3... Even if you're on the fence with regards to questionable-quality developers like Bioware and their upcoming Dragon Age 3, there's enough unambiguous greatness on the horizon to say with confidence: this is going to be a good year for RPG fans.

I love The Witcher and CD Project, but they repeat the same stories as news every few months. We've known about this since they announced the game.

So how long with the kind of buggy crashing that plagued Witcher 2? I still haven't gotten out of the first town because of the random crashing. And I bought the game on it's release.

Seriously? Iwinski? Now there's a name made for multiplayer.

50 hours eh,well I don't know if I'd even bother with the entirety of the storyline since I've not had the great pleasures of playing 1-2.

Still though it sucks for those few that got to play 2 on the 360 but won't get to play play 3 unless they have the one or 4 and can't play 1 unless they have a PC.

If they sort out the inventory system, which just seems overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated, I would give it my money.

I like long RPG's but I had a little play of witcher 2 and it was just horrible for the above reason and the combat was in the same vain (if I remember correctly). I watched a lets play and it seemed like a decent game bogged down by my perceived problems.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

Ported to what?

i would hope...given this is supposed to be the last Witcher Game...and their love of "Enhanced Editions"...and "The Witcher" in general...that we might be able to convince CD Projekt to port them to "the newest engine".

after all given all the world building undoubtedly involved in this more open world Witcher they will have plenty of art assets to hand and they will have all the scripting, music and voice work etc from the previous games...it would also allow them to sell a collected "HD" trilogy as a lasting finale...

they could perhaps even endeavour to join up the chapters more fluidly and tweak the storylines etc..."tidy up" basically.

and ofc the combat mechanics would be the latest iteration.

i would certainly pay well for something like that...

even though i already own the previous games.

and i suspect many others would too.

CD Projekt are on the ball dudes (imo at least) and apparently big "RPG fans" themselves.

i think they very well might do such a thing.

in fact i'd be quite tempted to bet on it...

"RPG fans" are going to know of the cravings for such things ;)

so i guess to answer your actual question...hehe..."next gen" consoles and PC...but using "the newest engine" etc as i mention.

This game is going to devour my life like Witcher 2 has (finished it 5 times) and I welcome it with open arms.

This game can't come soon enough. Since I already have my Witcher 2 saved games ready to be imported the only thing left for me to do is go and read the books and hope to finish them in time.

Ultratwinkie:

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

Don't count on it.

The Witcher 1 had WOW style of combat. Except it takes it to the extremes. Controllers can't handle that.

Even the inventory system is impossible without a mouse and keyboard.

Its hot key city, or you will die when the game throws hard as hell fights at you.

Witcher 1 also takes 60 hours to beat. Counting me just giving up, and cheating through the final boss fights so it will finally be over.

The combat relies on potions, and those potions need ingredients that you need to grind for too. You need to maintain every potion for every situation or risk getting stuck on a boss.

It throws so much grind at you that you just want it to be over when you get to chapter III. You need this grind because everything is turned into a boss fight straight out of WOW. When you finally get to fight the antagonist, you need to have finished pretty much every single quest in the game up to that point.

At 60 hours, I still had multiple uncompleted quests.

When Yahtzee said the witcher 1 was an MMO single player game, he wasn't kidding.

The game also did not age well in terms of graphics, and the art style is all over the place as well as the story itself. Put this together with a control system ripped out of an MMO and you get a game that won't ever be ported without rebuilding the game from the ground up.

imo the Enhanced Edition of Witcher 1 has fairly nice graphics :) tho the non-enhanced version.. yuk!

Also i have Witcher 1 & 2 Enhanced Edition both of them, and ive never had problems with any of them crashing like some say further up, ive played through Witcher 2 3-4 times now, and ive modded it a bit now also :) love it. cant wait for openworld in Witcher 3 ^^

But crossing fingers, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Dark Souls II, (maybe Cyberpunk 2077?) this year.. wauw ..

Have they stated whether or not the decisions made in the previous game will have any impact Mass Effect style?

As much I enjoyed The Witcher 2, I felt the ending was a bit lackluster. In fact the whole final chapter felt a bit rushed.

ron1n:
Have they stated whether or not the decisions made in the previous game will have any impact Mass Effect style?

As much I enjoyed The Witcher 2, I felt the ending was a bit lackluster. In fact the whole final chapter felt a bit rushed.

Witcher 1 saves moved into the witcher 2. On consoles, that is not possible because the last game was never ported.

It is up in the air if saves could be moved from one to the other on a console. The consensus is no.

However, PC has been stated to get preferential treatment when it comes to save transfers. Devs have been very clear on that.

Ultratwinkie:

ron1n:
Have they stated whether or not the decisions made in the previous game will have any impact Mass Effect style?

As much I enjoyed The Witcher 2, I felt the ending was a bit lackluster. In fact the whole final chapter felt a bit rushed.

Witcher 1 saves moved into the witcher 2. On consoles, that is not possible because the last game was never ported.

It is up in the air if saves could be moved from one to the other on a console. The consensus is no.

However, PC has been stated to get preferential treatment when it comes to save transfers. Devs have been very clear on that.

Well they started as a PC exclusive developer until the point where they actually took 1 year to port Witcher 2 properly to the X360.

Since Witcher 3 won't be on last gen consoles it's quite obvious that if you want to import your saves from 360 it won't happen, because they cant cross gen port the saves. So you are better off playing the game on the PC if you want to import the saves from both games.

I don't know how to feel about this. I mean, obviously more content is generally better, but there reaches a point where I don't necessarily have 50 hours to devote to playing through the main campaign of a game. How much story is really enough? Is Witcher 3 really going to have a story so epic it justifies spending 25 full length movies worth of time just getting through the main quest?

I'm just not a huge fan of game time length = game quality as a measurement. There is such a thing as too short, but once the main campaign gets to that 10-20 hour range, I feel like you probably are at about the right balance between being long enough to tell whatever story you want to tell without just being this endless slog where it feels like everything you do is just a reason why you need to do this other thing.

(Obviously some games do great with less time. Bastion and Portal are both fairly short and also amazing)

Is this EVER true? They always say this stuff, but it's never remotely true. Like, I got through Mass Effect in about a quarter of the time people say it's meant to take, having completed every side-quest (minus the stupid ones where you search planets for funny-looking rocks) and not skipped through any of the dialogue. Still looking forward to the game, but I seriously doubt it will last anywhere near this long.

All is good and well to have 100 hours of gameplay, if the gameplay itself is bad, no one will play that.

I got about an hour or so into Witcher 2 and absolutely HATED how it played. From the controls to the ridiculously complicated potion drinking stuff, to spells with names no-one can remember. I found the combat atrocious and barely functional.

I will however give it a shot, although i might borrow it from a friend, a try before you buy thing if you will.

The story and setting of The Witcher series really intrigue me, but never really bothered due to the complex and perhaps a little bit chunky gameplay, as well as the fact that the first one is only for PC.

Euch, double post.

In Search of Username:
Is this EVER true? They always say this stuff, but it's never remotely true. Like, I got through Mass Effect in about a quarter of the time people say it's meant to take, having completed every side-quest (minus the stupid ones where you search planets for funny-looking rocks) and not skipped through any of the dialogue. Still looking forward to the game, but I seriously doubt it will last anywhere near this long.

Witcher games are that long. The Witcher 1 needed around 60 hours for a full completionist play through. 50 for just the main quest + side missions. Witcher 2 was around 30 hours for 1 of its 2 main campaigns.

http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10267

Unlike other modern RPGs, the witcher isn't aimed at the general mainstream crowd. So comparisons to Mass Effect can't really be made.

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

I wouldn't count on it. When try tried porting TW1 to Xbox 360, they sunk so much money into the project trying to get it 'right' that it nearly sank the entire company. The good thing is that it seems that you don't need to have played the previous two games to understand and enjoy what is happening in TW3.

t00bz:

King Whurdler:
Honestly, I'm still waiting for news as to when Witcher 1 and 2 are being ported. I mean, that's got to be in the pipes, right?

I wouldn't count on it. When try tried porting TW1 to Xbox 360, they sunk so much money into the project trying to get it 'right' that it nearly sank the entire company. The good thing is that it seems that you don't need to have played the previous two games to understand and enjoy what is happening in TW3.

I agree with you here, but I still think people should play at least Witcher 2 which is a fantastic game.

I recommend playing it on PC so you can import your saves. If you don't have a decent PC that would run it then I guess you can play it on 360.

Out of curiosity, for those who played the first two games, how much of a difference did the import save system make?

Oh yes! My savegame is ready!

On a related note, I never play games like these multiple times. I don't want to choose based on meta knowledge, I pick what I want to pick at that point of the story. Any replay of the story would diminish my personal experience, because I can't judge freely anymore.

It sucks that I can't play the other 2nd chapter of Witcher 2, but I made that choice, and to me, it matters.
If I did both, my choice wouldn't matter, as if I never chose in the first place.
Silly, isn't it?

Does anyone know how long CD Projekt claims The Witcher or The Witcher 2 are supposed to take? For me they took about 60 and 30 hours doing most of the sidequests.

Shadow-Phoenix:

Still though it sucks for those few that got to play 2 on the 360 but won't get to play play 3 unless they have the one or 4 and can't play 1 unless they have a PC.

So what you're saying is that it's a bad situation for a small number of people who played The Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 and will not be able to play The Witcher 3 (unless they have an Xbox One or Playstation 4) or The Witcher (unless they have a PC)? I ask because I've been staring at this sentence for over 5 minutes and I'm still not sure.

Eldritch Warlord:
Does anyone know how long CD Projekt claims The Witcher or The Witcher 2 are supposed to take? For me they took about 60 and 30 hours doing most of the sidequests.

Shadow-Phoenix:

Still though it sucks for those few that got to play 2 on the 360 but won't get to play play 3 unless they have the one or 4 and can't play 1 unless they have a PC.

So what you're saying is that it's a bad situation for a small number of people who played The Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 and will not be able to play The Witcher 3 (unless they have an Xbox One or Playstation 4) or The Witcher (unless they have a PC)? I ask because I've been staring at this sentence for over 5 minutes and I'm still not sure.

It's split across 3 parts, PC only has Witcher one (ergo Xbox 360 and PS3 only's were not able to play the first), the second was on PC and 360 only (PS3 only fans again miss out on the 2nd game) and then we have Witcher 3 which is going to Xbone,PS4 and PC (those that are still staying with last gen/cannot afford current gen again will miss out).

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here