Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Hearts of Stone isn't a huge expansion, no, but Blood and Wine is the size of a full game.
Witcher 3 has two expansions, so 50% of them are huge and neither is tiny.
PS. Quality over quantity also applies here. I think Hearts of Stone is better than any TES story DLC even though some of them are longer.
of course if you still count CoD as a AAA game
Hearts of Stone is definitely on the shorter end, that‘s true (Took me about 7-10 hours for the main story and all side quests). But considering the quality it provides it‘s more than worth it. The witcher expansions also don‘t have the classic „open world - occupational therapie“ that Bethesda or Ubisoft games have. So quests that have no story and are just there to keep you busy are pretty much non existent. (It makes the playtime shorter but at least for me it improves the overall experience).
The high quality might also be a reason why Hearts of Stone or Blood and Wine feel shorter than they actually are.
Time flies when you‘re having fun.