I finished the main story of CP2077, I think I got the good ending, took me about 40-50h. I had no desire to do the side activities afterwards (freaks, random quests, etc). I was done with the game and I was disappointed, I expected something better. Never came back to it.
So what if Dying Light 2 takes 500h to finish? Doesn't mean it will be good. Nowadays all open world titles decide to spam world map with endless markers as a way to "engage" the player. Sooner or later it all comes down to fetch quests, kill bad guy, get reward etc. I'm just tired of it. Even something as simple as Forza Horizon 5 has the entire world map covered with activity markers, to the point that you're simply overwhelmed by them. You can pull of a great story and experience with a fairly linear world, if your storytelling and gameplay is good enough players will play the damn game. You don't get extra money for the time player spent in game, at least not in singleplayer games.
I couldn't have said it better myself. A game has to be engaging first and foremost. All other attributes only contribute to adding to or taking away from the engagement factor.
I, for one, like games with a strong identity. A game needs to have a solid message of what it is and what it represents. When a game tries to be everything, like the new Assassin's Creed games (and probably Forza Horizon 5 based on what you said), it only results in information overload, which eventually leads to frustration and boredom. You're trying to finish a quest not because it's interesting, but because you want to jump to the next one. And the next one. The cycle never stops. Then you realize that you've spent 100+ hours on a game that you didn't even enjoy.
The Witcher 3 is a game with a strong identity. It's all about a great story (/stories), fighting monsters, the dark but beautiful nature of a medieval-themed fantasy world. You can focus on all, or any of these aspects and you'll lose yourself for hundreds of hours.
People like to criticise modern shooters for how short their single player campaigns are. I think the main problem isn't that, but the fact that they have no identity, and offer very little new content when compared to another game of the same genre (or the previous iteration of said title). A new gun and a new player skin don't count as content. Shooting hordes of faceless enemies in the future instead of shooting hordes of faceless enemies in WW2 doesn't count, either.
Doom (1994) is a game with a strong identity too. It's a shooter for sure, but the weapons, enemies, the environment, the music, the game style, everything is iconic. Everything has character. Everything is a distinct piece of the puzzle. It's art. It isn't much longer in play time than a modern shooter, but it's fun because of its distinctness. The replay factor is there.
One can say what they want about Cyberpunk 2077, but it has character too. The way the game communicates it isn't always flawless, but still.
Conclusion: game length doesn't matter much. Bragging about it is like comparing penis sizes. You can write reviews about it, quantify it all you want, but that won't say much about each person's own experience.
But that was good. Damn.
I actually did start Oblivion a few days ago, again. The difference in story and writing is night and day. The world seems more interesting for some reason. It grabs me a lot more than Skyrim ever could, even modded. I think I tried that over a dozen times, never did stick.
,
