The Witcher 3 had over 100 hours of gameplay, not to mention its several substantial DLC expansions Blood and Wine and Hearts of Stone. If The Witcher 4 is going to have just as much content as the previous game, then it should hit the sweet spot between too little and too much to do.

In a recent interview with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla’s main story is nearly 20 hours longer than Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. Although more of a good thing might not initially seem like a bad idea, I can see several benefits of keeping The Witcher 4 at a similar runtime as its predecessor.

The Witcher 3 Was Big Enough

The Witcher 3 Had Multiple Large Regions

In of both runtime and the actual size of its map, The Witcher 3 did a very good job managing its resources. The world is sectioned off into several large regions, with a smaller introductory region for players to get a feel for the game. Despite being sectioned off, no region of the world feels too small or empty. Simply walking from one side of the map to another in both Velen/Novigrad and Skellige takes about an hour without even exploring all the nooks and crannies of each map, and that’s not mentioning Touissant from Blood and Wine.

One of the most important aspects of an open-world map is that it doesn’t feel limiting, despite the need for boundaries. While playing The Witcher 3, I never felt trapped by the map, and it took a long time to run out of new and interesting places to go. It helps that most parts of the map in The Witcher 3 were used for quests or had something to hunt. I worry that if the map for The Witcher 4 was any larger it would risk losing that same feeling.

An Overly Large Map Would Make Witcher 4 Feel Empty

Too Much Room Between Objectives Can Make A World Feel Empty

A map as big as The Witcher 3’s is good for giving an open-world game a sense of adventure. That said, there is such a thing as too big of a map for an open-world game. As much as I enjoy games like Breath of the Wild and Red Dead Redemption 2, there is a lot of empty space on both maps. While this is thematically appropriate in Zelda and Red Dead’s beautiful sights make up for some of its emptier areas, I still prefer to have a map that is more densely packed with things to do.

Between things like bandit camps, monster nests, and guarded treasures there was very little space separating things to do in The Witcher 3. I wouldn’t really want The Witcher 4 to expand its map just for the sake of saying it's bigger if it just meant spreading out the things I can actually interact with in some way. Keeping The Witcher 4 to a more reasonable size could also help CD Projekt Red avoid some issues they’ve had in the past.

Keeping The Witcher 4 A Manageable Size Will (Hopefully) Prevent Launch Issues

CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077 Had Major Launch Issues

CD Projekt Red’s last big launch, Cyberpunk 2077 was a disaster. The game had been hyped up for years, but when it came out it was nearly unplayable due to a variety of bugs. Since The Witcher 3 already created high expectations for the series, it would likely be just as big of a disappointment if The Witcher 4 was released in as broken a state as Cyberpunk 2077 did.

By keeping The Witcher 4 around the same size as The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red will hopefully have a better gauge of what it takes to get the game ready for launch. This means that players won’t have to worry about game-breaking glitches or having to wait an extended period to actually be able to play the game. Were The Witcher 4 a much larger project than the previous title, the developers might not have as strong of a model to follow which could lead to some potentially dangerous territory.

As a big fan of the games CD Projekt Red puts out, I would also really hate to see it deal with another PR disaster like Cyberpunk 2077. Though it is now considered one of gaming’s best comeback stories, the game’s disastrous launch will likely stick in the back of many players’ minds until the company releases its next big game. If The Witcher 4 had just as many issues as Cyberpunk, it could be bad news for one of gaming’s most exciting studios.

A Smaller Game Is Better For Replayability

Large Games Can Be Intimidating To Revisit

Even if an open-world game doesn’t feel too big the first time through, its overwhelming size can make it hard to come back to. I recently tried replaying Red Dead Redemption 2 but gave up on it partway through. Although my first time through the game was one of my favorite gaming experiences of all time, the thought of investing the same number of hours into it again after having thoroughly explored the map just didn’t feel worth it. In contrast, I’ve played The Witcher 3 several times because it always manages to hold my interest.

Replayability is always something to consider with a game that offers choices like The Witcher 3. I always want to experience the different outcomes of the game’s branching decisions, but if a game is too big or has too much downtime, I don’t find it worth revisiting. The Witcher 4 will likely have options similar to The Witcher 3, so I appreciate it retaining its replayability by not trying to be too big.

I can understand the impulse of wanting a game to be as big as possible. Not only are games expensive, but if they’re good, I sometimes find myself wishing they would last forever. It’s that feeling that drove me to complete even the most tedious side quests in Final Fantasy VII Rebirth. However, in truth, there is such a thing as a game that is too long or too big. If The Witcher 4 staying the same size as The Witcher 3 means it’s also as good, I will be much happier than if it was bigger but worse.

Source: Skill Up/YouTube