Yeah for me games with a super long dev cycle just kind of sit on my watch list with me pretty much assuming they're abandoned until they prove otherwise. If the dev has a history of massive updates that I have to wait a year and a half for that's fine. If I have to wait 2 years for a minor update then it's basically a dead game. So whether the dev cycle is long or short doesn't matter as much as the amount and quality of content produced per unit of time.
A more frequent dev cycle is better if the quality and quantity of content is identical, but I would take a longer dev cycle over a shorter one if it meant content with more depth and/or quality (which it frequently does for the best long dev cycle games). You can't do a big, in depth update in a week. It's just not possible. So a game with a super short dev cycle is almost always going to a less complex story. It could still be good, but it's less likely to be a story intensive game.
This game hasn't had an update in so long that I don't even remember any of the story (I've only played through 1 version of it and only once). I seem to remember thinking the quality was good, but where's the new content? So I still have the game on my watch list but I'm not really expecting to ever see an update.
