W2 is Action-Adventure, not RPG

[Turbo Nozomix]

In order to influence the role of a character, the game must allow decision dynamics that can craft a flowing evolution of choices. The dialogue also must be meaningful, both to the player, and to the characters in the game who receive it.

In Witcher 2, decisions come down to hard For versus hard Against, Black vs White, path 1 or path 2, allowing no reflection of detailed consideration of events. Also, the events decided upon are often regarding opinions of distant matters, and not the player making directly-pertinent determinations that reflect player character.

Also, the dialogue is dull in general, and most of it is to trigger action-based quest progression, without the dialogue itself being important. Lots of the dialogue can be skipped through without the game experience being affected much by it - because the dialogue is often irrelevant, tangential, hard-polar, and placed there to trigger quest progression rather than unique quests emerging through thoughtful dialogue decisions.

On top of being boolean, and unrelatable in its choices hard-polarity, The dialogue expressions seldom represent well the choices that the player makes, and the outcome is random.

Also, the quests are basic in design, generally one-step action-based completions, and then return to sender. The game pretenses otherwise by having some quests linger through acts before they can actually resolve, but they contain no tasks giving direct involvement along the way, so they just sit there until completing the other independently-assigned quests amount to those parent themes also closing.

All these things mean that the Role-Playing in Witcher 2 is not more than any of a great slew of Action-Adventure games, and is even less than some. It certainly doesn't quality Witcher 2 for a classification of RPG - a person can also imaginatively Role-Play in a FPS, if they choose, but it's the details which a game supplies on its own and not those a player projects onto it that determine its classification as RPG.

Witcher 2 was branded "RPG" for a lowest-common-denominator-gameplay conditioned console generation, but it is not an RPG, then or now.

[FloodFetter]

Taking a neutral position on your consideration (RPG vs. non-RPG), I would say that the same argument would apply to many games labelled RPG. Whether it is marketed as such or not, now (at least on Steam) users can tag games with such labels, which naturally widens the scope a bit.

That being reality, I don't think these labels are as strict as your analysis (at least not anymore). Maybe you are correct, or maybe not ... I don't think these labels are taken as seriously these days such that people feel they have been misled. If they're that concerned, I'm sure they read reviews, and perhaps ask for the feedback of others. I'm sure some would say this is Action-Adventure and RPG (not currently tagged as both on Steam). Over-tagged maybe, but that's how it seems to be now.

[Turbo Nozomix]

I agree with you that the same argument does apply to many other games labelled as RPG.

I think that choice of labelling is a marketing decision in those cases, grabbing the attentions of a more popular demographic while simultaneously drawing in those looking for Action-Adventure gameplay.

But I think it's valuable to recognize the classification as not genuine, because otherwise the ideals of a genre become lost and non-relatable to successive crowds of gamers who associate its label with rudimentary mechanic interactions. The effect is loss of quality standards and ideals, and things becoming homogenized by capitalistic interests at the loss of gaming industry ideals and more complex gaming experiences.

[FloodFetter]

Originally posted by Driving-School Piccolo:

I agree with you that the same argument does apply to many other games labelled as RPG.

I think that choice of labelling is a marketing decision in those cases, grabbing the attentions of a more popular demographic while simultaneously drawing in those looking for Action-Adventure gameplay.

But I think it's valuable to recognize the classification as not genuine, because otherwise the ideals of a genre become lost and non-relatable to successive crowds of gamers who associate its label with rudimentary mechanic interactions. The effect is loss of quality standards and ideals, and things becoming homogenized by capitalistic interests at the loss of gaming industry ideals and more complex gaming experiences.

Well this is predictable. It's analogous to labelling music as "Rock", or "Country" or whatever. It's all marketing. Those terms mean nothing about music compared to what they originally did. Everything is marketing, always about money. I guess labels aren't the best thing in my opinion anyway.

[Avenger Grim]

Opinions...

[Kaneko]

Then please illustrate us, what game can be defined as an RPG??? Please tells "You the one that spend 10 hours playing the Witcher 2 and have an educated opinion"

[NZPorterDJ]

Problem is, OP, that no computer game can every really attain the level required by your definition -- and mine, for that matter -- to be really classed as a true RPG in the sense of the old-style pen & paper systems.

Quests ARE simplistic by neccessity, and if you analyse any great actions from mythic history, they can be boiled down to 'delivery', 'fetch & carry', 'kill x -> fetch & carry' or simple permutations on these themes.

As to dialogue... well that is usually where most games fall down. Usually it is just extra fluff that adds very little to gameplay. Some games do better than others, but as a gross generalisation, most dialogue can be skipped without penalty to the player. I know I'm guilty of escaping out of dialogue as soon as possible. My time is limited and I'm sure as not going to spend time reading a wall of text. Well done voice acting can hold me for a bit longer as long as it is progressing the story and not just reiterating the already known quest mechanic in effect.

A simplistic relabelling of RPG to Action-Adventure wouldn't solve anything, as A-A is already an overloaded catagory to begin with.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Kaneko:

Then please illustrate us, what game can be defined as an RPG??? Please tells "You the one that spend 10 hours playing the Witcher 2 and have an educated opinion"

Why should having 10 hours on W2 have something to do with it? Though it is my second playthrough, it's all the hours that I have playing games that carried a strong presence of role-playing that means something.

Any game whose quests are non-dynamic, which are offered only as mechanisms to push the action forward is not an RPG, that is exactly what an Action-Adventure is.

For role playing, the dialogue must be flexible enough to allow for reflection of the person playing the game, and their choices be shown as reactivity in the game.

That fulfills the "Role" part of Role-Playing Game, whereas W2's Action-Adventure-style choices do not.

[Asterio]

Second playthrough in 10 hours? You can't reach chapter 2 in 10 hours...

Anyway, W2 got quests that fulfill all your requirements.
To name a few off the top of my head: King Helselt's climax (roche), Loredo's fate (iorveth), Stennis' fate (iorveth), the troll quest, chapter 1 path decisions, Triss/Anais/Saskia choice.

All these quests makes the player think about the implications of their choices and the options makes a direct impact on Geralt, on characters close to him and on the world.
And there's not a single bad or good choice. All the options have balanced outcomes and it's up to the player to decide what's the "lesser/greater evil". And theses outcomes are pretty clear, before choosing, if you had properly read the dialogues and notes related.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Asterio:

Second playthrough in 10 hours? You can't reach chapter 2 in 10 hours...

No, though a person can be playing it a 2nd time and have 10 hours so far put into that 2nd playthrough.

[Kaneko]

Originally posted by Driving-School Piccolo:

Originally posted by Asterio:

Second playthrough in 10 hours? You can't reach chapter 2 in 10 hours...

No, though a person can be playing it a 2nd time and have 10 hours so far put into that 2nd playthrough.

Give it up boy... you are full of s*** and you know it... You didn't like the game... fine, but play it on hard and finish it first before trying to convince someone at least you tried.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Kaneko:

Give it up boy... you are full of s*** and you know it... You didn't like the game... fine, but play it on hard and finish it first before trying to convince someone at least you tried.

What prepube thing is this about? This would be my 2nd playthrough on hard - not that it matters. Fyi, W2 is not a Steam exclusive. Also, even if someone had only put 10 hours into the game, they'd know its design by then. Whether a person liked or didn't like the game would have no influence over the merit of this discussion. I could have had only 5 hours on it, and hated it, and the OP would stand just the same. So, you may be the only person tuned into whatever you're on about.

Originally posted by Asterio:

Anyway, W2 got quests that fulfill all your requirements.
To name a few off the top of my head: King Helselt's climax (roche), Loredo's fate (iorveth), Stennis' fate (iorveth), the troll quest, chapter 1 path decisions, Triss/Anais/Saskia choice.

All these quests makes the player think about the implications of their choices and the options makes a direct impact on Geralt, on characters close to him and on the world.

And there's not a single bad or good choice. All the options have balanced outcomes and it's up to the player to decide what's the "lesser/greater evil". And theses outcomes are pretty clear, before choosing, if you had properly read the dialogues and notes related.

These are still examples of what I said:

"In Witcher 2, decisions come down to hard For versus hard Against, Black vs White, path 1 or path 2, allowing no reflection of detailed consideration of events. Also, the events decided upon are often regarding opinions of distant matters, and not the player making directly-pertinent determinations that reflect player character."

Good / Bad is only one form of blunt dichotomy, and I didn't specify Good / Bad as meant by Black / White - but one side versus the other. It's a sociopathic form of choice, where neither is better than the other, but is based on Us vs Them mentality, where the player gets to choose who the Us is.

The outcomes to dialogue choices are not explicit while choosing the response. The possibility of where it leads in conversation is also murky. It can be chosen that Geralt responds with some doubting thought, and when he voices it it changes from a contemplative issue he has to a "♥♥♥♥ off!"

It's simplistic design in the quest system, and in what the actual words said represent - they neither represent much at all, other than pretentious dressings to make generic action-based 1-point-stop quests engage, and fulfill.

[Avenger Grim]

What game would be a "proper RPG"? Because in the world of computer game, "RPG" doesn't have the same standards as the original "definition" of the genre, stop being so narrow minded, "RPG" doen't have a unique definition, unique standards, this is no science... Same goes for "Action-Adventure", you categorise games as if they were elements, guess what, it's not that simple. -_-

[Praetos]

Ok, it´s your opinion, but can you name some true RPG games?

[urartu]

First of all, Witcher games are not about roleplaying your own character, it is about roleplaying Geralt of Rivia which has already an established character with his own story. Of course, he is a conflicted character: Such as he is not entirely human, but his duty is to protect humans from monsters while trying to avoid politics. Though he cannot avoid politics entirely... All players roleplay a particular Geralt of Rivia which does not stray too far from "the Geralt of Rivia" model. Still it provides a good narrative, choices and consequences.

And if we are to follow OP's logic, everything can be reduced into fetch quests, kill quests easily. But there is a BIG difference between "Fetch me 10 green herbs" and "The battle cannot continue if someone does not lift this mist by gathering some relics from the last war" (Which is loaded with huge amount of lore, choices, investigations and combat). Guess then we should be glad that Witcher 2 has "good fetch quests"

Originally posted by Driving-School Piccolo:

Also, the dialogue is dull in general, and most of it is to trigger action-based quest progression, without the dialogue itself being important. Lots of the dialogue can be skipped through without the game experience being affected much by it - because the dialogue is often irrelevant, tangential, hard-polar, and placed there to trigger quest progression rather than unique quests emerging through thoughtful dialogue decisions.

On top of being boolean, and unrelatable in its choices hard-polarity, The dialogue expressions seldom represent well the choices that the player makes, and the outcome is random.

You are writing quite fluently, yet I call this utter ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ because if you actually listen to the dialogues, read some of the lore in the game and have a critical eye you can easily discern what kind of ramifications your choice could have. That my friend is the core of matter in a story-driven RPG.

***SPOILER***

Such as if you worked with Sile on Kayran, heard some rumors about Henselt being unable to produce an heir and his deeds as a strong leader...you can easily understand that letting Roche kill him will cause civil war in Kaedwen. If you do not kill him, well his position will be solidified. That looks like an unimaginative choice if you isolate that choice from its roots, but actually it has a lot of build-up before reaching to that "binary choice". Forcing you to do hard calls from time to time is the most delicious part of Witcher games.

***SPOILER***

That was only one of the examples. Of course, no game will be able to match the ideals of a RPG purist.

Still, all your arguments are as good as "All games are same, consisting of 1s and 0s". Next phase is to reduce humans to hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. Some people can't have enough reduction :D

[FloodFetter]

Originally posted by urartu:

...Next phase is to reduce humans to hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. Some people can't have enough reduction :D

Gonna need Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur too...but I digress...