@Phelaidar: I'll be moving from my current home office into a 'on-site' office soon, so I might use the opportunity to try a wide-screen. Why not use a work expense to do gaming monitor research, eh?
@TuchLawson: I think alot of people would agree with you. Given the quality of each, I would have preferred a lot less fighting and more talking and choice making. Fighting is much cheaper to make though. I think the highlight of the game for me was the wedding from the expansion.
@handofkain: You could have it so players were just anonymous Witchers from all the different schools, and each school was vying for supremacy over the others. And you could let people also play as witches from different Lodges.
@Keaze_: The problem with Crystal Caves, as with quite a bit of the post-Lord Vessel content, is that it is just a path to a boss with a side path to an ember. It would have been cool if it was something more fleshed out like the Catacombs, or gave the player time to see more of Seath's creations.
@velcroboy: Life outside your PC? You got a PS4 or something?
I get that, too. I like playing a wide range of games (I bought about 40 new games last year, though many only took a few hours to play), so when something comes along that claims to have some ridiculously large amount of content, it does make me question whether it is worth spending that much time with one experience. I think Witcher 3 took me about 70 hours, and I thought it was basically all time well spent, so that worked out. And there was a lot that I did that I didn't have to do to finish the game.
Ambitious is such a nebulous term to use. All it really means is that you hope to do more than you know for sure you can accomplish. Ultimately though, I think Witcher 3 was a great success, and narrative-wise is the closest any RPG has come to reaching the depth and complexity of the great cRPG's. I hope that when they say it's 'bigger' and 'huge' they are talking about its role-playing depth, not just the size of the map or amount of 'stuff' to do.
Either way, looking forward to their 'ambitious' marketing.
@deviltaz35: If the next generation of GPU's can handle the workload and >60fps 4K monitors exist I will definitely be jumping on that. I've never used a monitor with a higher refresh rate than 60. I decided to go with 4K/60 over 1440/144 (similar price and performance between the two) because I think 60fps is very acceptable for the genres I tend to play, and I guess it was easier for me to quantify the benefit of nicer looking pictures over even smoother gameplay.
As an aside, I find the drop from 4K to 1080p when playing on PS4 quite okay, but the drop in frame-rate hampers my enjoyment of the gameplay, so if I was used to 144fps I'd probably hate it.
@Phelaidar: I've not spent much time with an ultra-wide, probably only a few hours all up. I found I had to move my head too much to collect information from the sides of the screen. I had considered a 1440p UW, though.
jecomans' comments