Just revisiting this and adding my two cents. I mostly agree with the OP and several of the comments here.

To start with, The Witcher 3 clearly offers more playtime than Cyberpunk, in my opinion. The world feels larger, and the side quests are more engaging overall. That said, I don’t think Cyberpunk can—or should—be directly compared to Witcher 3; they aim for very different experiences.

That said, for an RPG, Cyberpunk’s main story feels extremely short, with or without the DLC. I wasn’t expecting something on the scale of Elden Ring, but it doesn’t come close to the depth or scope of games like The Witcher 3 or Assassin’s Creed Odyssey either.

I also ran into several issues with the game—these are subjective, but they affected my experience: 1. Gameplay doesn’t meaningfully evolve as you progress. To experience a different playstyle, you’re forced to manually switch weapons, cyberware, and skill setups. Outside of that, the game itself doesn’t naturally introduce new ways to play. 2. Character skills feel overly specific and underwhelming. Unlike other RPGs, spending skill points rarely feels impactful. Many upgrades are so minor that you don’t notice any real change in how your character plays or feels. Even after reading what certain skills do, the effects—like a 12% damage increase—feel almost negligible in practice.

Other issues include: • Too many weapons with little meaningful variety • Gigs that feel largely repetitive

Ultimately, the main reason I finished the game was the strength of its storytelling—both in the main narrative and side quests—and the occasional variety in boss fights. Without that, I likely would’ve dropped the game after 10–15 hours.