I wonder if this is a side effect of having more and more game developers trying to make video games be "just like the movies". So the story structure lends itself to short runs. And the players are expecting it to be a short thing they could blow through in a night or something.
OT: I'm hesitantly optimistic about this game, as I love me some cyberpunk/shadowrunny stuff. If they can make a massive sandboxy style city sprawl for me to prowl around in, I would be super happy. To be able to just wander around, locate a building/office that looks ripe for hacking, find a nearby junction box to jack into, and deck my way into their mainframe for fun and profit? Hell yes I'm all for that.
I wonder how much diversity we'll have with classes. Will there be Riggers? Deckers? Will everyone be a Street Samurai "because combat"? That's the kind of info I want, not how big the map will be. I mean, yeah, it's cool to think they might have some massive map to explore, but I'd like to know more details about the game and what I can play personally.
It varies depending on the dev, for CoD it's probably both trying to imitate movies and to cut costs and keep the game "fast" paced. With Bethesda (since I already mentioned them) on the other hand, it's simply because Bethesda's shit. Just take a look at this complaint about their UI design: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.882874-What-do-you-want-to-see-in-Fallout-4#22260405
It really summarizes Bethesda well, they just don't understand a fucking thing. People go on about how nail the setting and atmosphere of Fallout in Fallout 3, but it's not even post-apocalyptic. The vast majority of the buildings are blatantly liveable if dirty, there's no plant life except in Oasis because Fallout 3 tries to invoke the image of a desert like in Fallout 1 and 2, but forgets they ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN A DESERT, AND EVEN THEN STILL HAD FARMS AND MORE WILD MUTATED PLANT LIFE ANYWAY. And that's not even getting into the story.
And finally, if I made a post-apocalyptic game, I wouldn't make children invincible, I'd make a fucking point of letting them suffer. Bullets, bombs, burning, it doesn't matter. Children aren't safe in real life and I'm not going to whitewash that fact.
The point is people need to not be so reluctant to simply save the fucking game and go do something else for a while.
the quotes made me thing its going to be bigger in terms of features, choices, ect not in terms of map size. but of course its too early to tell now.
Not to mention that "Map size" in and of itself might also be deceptive. Witcher's fantasy world could be larger in length and width, but Cyberpunk's could be a lot denser with apartments and office towers in a very dense urban environment.
OT: As someone who barely heard of the Cyberpunk series before this, my initial views on this were more aligned with Shadowrun (the tabletop game, not the video games of quality ranging from acceptable to deplorable). While I'm sure this game will probably not have the magical elements like shaman, orcs/elves, and presidential dragons, the feel I get from the teaser suggests the neon futurescape I've been looking for in a game.
What do I need games 'Far bigger' than the witcher 3 for? I never got around to doing everything in fallout new vegas. Many of the individual sidequests in that game were lenghty for my tastes. And I really liked fallout new vegas. These days I hardly get through storydriven games even if they are short.
Perhaps other people have a higher tolerance for such lenghty games but does anybody really see it as a good thing that games feature 400 hours of content. Who is going to play even half of that?
"Coming: When it's ready"
I don't even like The Witcher but there are reasons I love these guys regardless
This game is intriguing to me, and I can't wait to see some gameplay demos, but the size they're talking about has me concerned about filler and stretching out the story. I think that much space should be balanced by good PACING: have enough stuff happen in each area to really get your money's worth.
"Far larger" or "much bigger", not "Far bigger." Goddamn, internet.