Is really The Witcher 3 more for an RPG than Cyberpunk?

[ElsonsoJannus]

Ok, it seems that most people who consider TW3 more of an RPG than CP, is because your actions have more consequences in the world. This generally seems to be important for alot of people here to consider the game an RPG. I completely disagree. If anything, the genre were your actions affect and have the deepest impact in the world are strategy games. Other than that ANY story driven game with zero RPG elements can be based around a choice and consequence system.

Also consider the fact that many old table top RPGs (and pen and paper, and video games) were simple dungeon crawlers where your "choices" had no impact at all. The objective was to loot and survive the dungeon.

RPG is more about your character (or your team). How you progress and develop your character to deal with the problems you face against the scripted content. The game should give you different options on how to do that, depending on YOUR choices in how YOU have built your CHARACTER (or characters if it is team based) . Your actions may have zero impact on the world state or the progression of the story. But you get to complete the story on your terms, (with the game providing you different ways to do it, a.k.a RPG, but your choice shouldn't necessarily affect the world state or the story, as wasn't the case on several if not most old pen and paper/tabletop RPGs.). On said dungeon crawler a rogue could avoid traps, other characters will have to deal with them, and combat itself will be handled in various ways depended on your character, or avoided altogether. Just a few examples.

These elements exist in CP. I played a melee tank/dps character. I couldn't hack. I did not hack anything. I did not use stealth at all. I did not even shoot. I butchered everything on my way to complete the game. I used several shortcuts since i had the strength required to open doors. I avoided several fights because i was intimidating enough for people to fear me etc. On the Witcher every single encounter, you had to handle it like a swordman. Sure you could have some variation if you were more focused on signs, but Geralt is a swordman through and through.

I consider TW3 to be more of an RPG despite the fact that the actions have no real consequences. It is not that Geralt can change the outcome, it is that the game makes the player feel like the decisions mattered. The roleplaying is an illusion, as it is in almost all CRPGs. The player must stay within the bounds of the assigned role. TW3 holds that illusion better.

V's reason for being is to collect money, gear, and implants. As I see it, how the player answers Dexter's question is pivotal, whether or not they tell Dex the answer. One answer follows the main quest to a predetermined ending with very little illusion that the role is anything but destiny. The other answer avoids it, and really has no ending. The player gets to do as they please, but without any real support from the game in the form of an ending. The latter probably results in 100-200 hours of playing crime fighter on the streets of Night City. Eventually, all the fixers will stop calling. No matter what the player does in this game, V is one type of failure or another.

Again, for CP2077, it goes back to how Dex's question was answered. That is the real role playing decision that makes a difference. I don't see combat style having much to do with anything. Fun, yes, but not a significant decision, and not one that is recognized by the game.

As for dungeon crawl table top, that tends to be roll playing. The best table top RPG games that I played were not dice-bound, and even the GM had no idea how it was going to turn out. The game system did not matter. It could be anything from Runequest to Ars Magicka to AD&D. What the characters did mattered and could change the outcome. This is very hard to replicate in a computer game, so we end up with very limited choices.

The bottom line is that there aren't really any good computer roleplaying games. They are all different levels of not being an RPG game. As a former table top role player, I know that both games aren't really RPG games. They are simulated RPG games, which is the best we can do until Diamond Age tech comes along. I still think that TW3 is a notch above CP2077, but CP2077 has unrealized potential that could have changed that.

 

[TouPoutsou]

It is not at all about how the WORLD behaves to you or how you influence the state of the world or the story in any way. It can be but it cannot as well. Somebody mentioned Baldur's Gate which is one the greatest Western RPGs of all time. Many RPGs have a fixed quest that you have to do, and you either succeed or you don't.

It is how YOU interact against the world. How you shape your character to go against scripted content. You have a choice of what your character is. Dragonborn in Skyrim is an empty slate that has to defeat Alduin and that's it. But you get to choose what the dragonborn is. He can be a mage, he can be a thief, he can be a warrior, he can be an assassin or a combination. V is a mercenary, but you get to choose if that mercenary is a shooter, or a katana wielder or a net runner.

Who you choose to be might have an influence on the story, or the world state, or how the world reacts to you, but also it might not. However it should have an impact on how you deal with the objectives you have to do to complete the story/quest/mission etc. Someone also mentioned Disco Elyssium. You don't influence the outcome, but depending on how you build your character you influence how you deal with the objectives.

That's what people get wrong. The fact that you "Feel" the role of Geralt means that the game has a strong character and strong writing. Not that it is an RPG. On the other hand, on strategy games, how you shape the world, and the story, and how the world reacts to you is everything.

 

[eidius]

It is not at all about how the WORLD behaves to you or how you influence the state of the world or the story in any way. It can be but it cannot as well. Somebody mentioned Baldur's Gate which is one the greatest Western RPGs of all time. Many RPGs have a fixed quest that you have to do, and you either succeed or you don't.

It is how YOU interact against the world. How you shape your character to go against scripted content. You have a choice of what your character is. Dragonborn in Skyrim is an empty slate that has to defeat Alduin and that's it. But you get to choose what the dragonborn is. He can be a mage, he can be a thief, he can be a warrior, he can be an assassin or a combination. V is a mercenary, but you get to choose if that mercenary is a shooter, or a katana wielder or a net runner.

Who you choose to be might have an influence on the story, or the world state, or how the world reacts to you, but also it might not. However it should have an impact on how you deal with the objectives you have to do to complete the story/quest/mission etc. Someone also mentioned Disco Elyssium. You don't influence the outcome, but depending on how you build your character you influence how you deal with the objectives.

That's what people get wrong. The fact that you "Feel" the role of Geralt means that the game has a strong character and strong writing. Not that it is an RPG. On the other hand, on strategy games, how you shape the world, and the story, and how the world reacts to you is everything.

I can build my kit different in call of duty.

Is call if duty an RPG?

 

[TouPoutsou]

I can build my kit different in call of duty.

Is call if duty an RPG?

You are still a soldier. Geralt still a swordman. See my point? The shaping of your character should have some depth. You deal with objective by shooting. There is no other way.

 

[eidius]

You are still a soldier. Geralt still a swordman. See my point? The shaping of your character should have some depth. You deal with objective by shooting. There is no other way.

So to you Call of Duty is an RPG.
Glad we ironed that out.

 

[TouPoutsou]

So to you Call of Duty is an RPG.
Glad we ironed that out.

No???

 

[Aasimar-X]

is this now getting of to a lawyer thing?
because he said she said?

what i dont understand is, why people who clearly dont like the game, are still here and complain what could have been
get over it, the game is what it is, maybe some stuff changes with DLC, be glad if it dose

everyone is entiteld to their own opinion

i love the game, and noone can change that... period
some dont like the the game.. and i cant change that.. period

is Cyberpunk and RPG, i think it is. what makes an RPG? well there is realy big wiki post about what rpgs are...
and there are many subcatergorys of that genre
also, who cares...
if you like the game, good, if not good...but move on and dont waste your time any longer with a game you dont like

 

[eidius]

is this now getting of to a lawyer thing?
because he said she said?

what i dont understand is, why people who clearly dont like the game, are still here and complain what could have been
get over it, the game is what it is, maybe some stuff changes with DLC, be glad if it dose

everyone is entiteld to their own opinion

i love the game, and noone can change that... period
some dont like the the game.. and i cant change that.. period

is Cyberpunk and RPG, i think it is. what makes an RPG? well there is realy big wiki post about what rpgs are...
and there are many subcatergorys of that genre
also, who cares...
if you like the game, good, if not good...but move on and dont waste your time any longer with a game you dont like

No one is trying to change your mind.
This isn't about you. People are also voicing their opinions about something they feel strongly about.

If you like the game so much I suggest you stop wasting time here and go back to playing the game.

 

[HarelMor]

is this now getting of to a lawyer thing?
because he said she said?

what i dont understand is, why people who clearly dont like the game, are still here and complain what could have been
get over it, the game is what it is, maybe some stuff changes with DLC, be glad if it dose

everyone is entiteld to their own opinion

i love the game, and noone can change that... period
some dont like the the game.. and i cant change that.. period

is Cyberpunk and RPG, i think it is. what makes an RPG? well there is realy big wiki post about what rpgs are...
and there are many subcatergorys of that genre
also, who cares...
if you like the game, good, if not good...but move on and don't waste your time any longer with a game you dont like

I totally agree with you. I love the game and for me the 147 hours that i played felt like 15. I am surly will make another run. I have a crazy idea for a build... Katana wilder netrunner. I don't know if i will use a firearm, I will see how i will feel about it.

 

[Techno_Core]

I think W3 is a better RPG because while yes, you can only play Geralt, playing the role of Geralt is more immersive and satisfying (IMO of course) than playing your own V because the story and gameplay that surrounds V is so incomplete, missing or broken.

In other words the single role in W3 is so well developed it ends up being better than the open role you're supposedly offered in CP2077

 

[DerHoss]

The whole question is a bit tedious. It quickly decends to the question 'what is a rpg', and this will soon lead to some purist telling you that a game is only allowed to call itself rpg if it matches whatever criteria they just made up.

You can keep it pretty simple and say: CP is definetly more rpg-ish then TW3. If you think TW3 is an rpg, then CP is as well without a doubt. If you think neither is a rpg, then I don't care.

Typical conflict point is the question of: How much choice do you have?
And here is the thing: Typicaly a rpg leaves you a lot of choice on how you want to solve your mission. Do you want to burst in through the front door, or sneak through the back entrance? Guns or knifes? Light armor or heavy? Bribe or threaten?
Only very few rpgs ever leave you even any choice on how the plot will end. Most rpgs have a predetermined story with a predetermined endpoint. Some leave you a few choices.
TW3 had three. FA-NV had 4. FA4 also 4 I think. FA3 only one iirc. KCD only one ending. Skyrim one ending. Dragons Dogma two endings (even though the second is 'I surrender').
Cyberpunk has 7.

In the end, rpgs arn't about choice, they are about the illusion of choice. The story is always written before you even start to play.
And thats not even true only for computer rpgs. I 'worked' as a gamemaster for pp rpgs for over 15 years, did hundreds of adventured with dozend different groups. Shall I tell you a GM secret? Every single adventure, no exception, ended exactly how I had planed it, and no player ever complained about the lack of choice in the end. Because I maintaned the illusion of choice.
Sure, every now and then you'll meet a smartass who will be like 'but my character doesn't want to go to Mirkwood'. Dude, see what it says here 'The necromancer of Mirkwood', thats on the table for tonight. Take it or leave.

 

[Aasimar-X]

its like giving the players an option to choose between 2-x doors
if i,as a DM whant them to enter as specific door...
guess what.. its the door the players did choose

wow
magical illusion of choise

 

[TouPoutsou]

The whole question is a bit tedious. It quickly decends to the question 'what is a rpg', and this will soon lead to some purist telling you that a game is only allowed to call itself rpg if it matches whatever criteria they just made up.

You can keep it pretty simple and say: CP is definetly more rpg-ish then TW3. If you think TW3 is an rpg, then CP is as well without a doubt. If you think neither is a rpg, then I don't care.

Typical conflict point is the question of: How much choice do you have?
And here is the thing: Typicaly a rpg leaves you a lot of choice on how you want to solve your mission. Do you want to burst in through the front door, or sneak through the back entrance? Guns or knifes? Light armor or heavy? Bribe or threaten?
Only very few rpgs ever leave you even any choice on how the plot will end. Most rpgs have a predetermined story with a predetermined endpoint. Some leave you a few choices.
TW3 had three. FA-NV had 4. FA4 also 4 I think. FA3 only one iirc. KCD only one ending. Skyrim one ending. Dragons Dogma two endings (even though the second is 'I surrender').
Cyberpunk has 7.

In the end, rpgs arn't about choice, they are about the illusion of choice. The story is always written before you even start to play.
And thats not even true only for computer rpgs. I 'worked' as a gamemaster for pp rpgs for over 15 years, did hundreds of adventured with dozend different groups. Shall I tell you a GM secret? Every single adventure, no exception, ended exactly how I had planed it, and no player ever complained about the lack of choice in the end. Because I maintaned the illusion of choice.
Sure, every now and then you'll meet a smartass who will be like 'but my character doesn't want to go to Mirkwood'. Dude, see what it says here 'The necromancer of Mirkwood', thats on the table for tonight. Take it or leave.

This is a post i completely agree. The reason i created this thread is to present my point that TW3 is NOT more rpg-ish as you put it than CP. It is a much better game for me, but the argument that keeps coming up that CP is not an RPG, while TW3 was, is not valid.

Very true about the illusion of choice. Besides i do not want freedom, i want to do an epic quest, that's it. However there is choice and OPTIONS on how you develop your character/hero, in order to take care of the objectives. The mage will deal differently with certain objectives than the thief or the cleric or the warrior or the tank, but depending on the situation, one might be more efficient. If there multiple players and play as a team, it is up to the team to organize who will do whatever, the best way possible in order to succeed.

 

[atomowyturysta]

There's no single and coherent explanation whatis an RPG and what's not. As a PnP RPG player with some 30 yesrs of xp, I say CP77 is definitely an RPG, and a good one for that matter. It is also a Looter Shooter, average at best and a GTA clone, however a mediocre one.

 

[DerHoss]

This is a post i completely agree. The reason i created this thread is to present my point that TW3 is NOT more rpg-ish as you put it than CP. It is a much better game for me, but the argument that keeps coming up that CP is not an RPG, while TW3 was, is not valid.

The reason why I think that CP is more rpg-ish then TW3, is because you have more freedom in your character creation, your build, and based on that, your approach to solve your quests.

In TW3 (which, for the record, I think is atm an overall better game then CP, but that could change in the coming months) you play the witcher Gerald. You can focus on melee, potions or signs, but in the end you will always chop your enemies to pieces with your sword. You are always a melee fighter. You can't pick locks, and you can't equip a bow.

In CP you can chose if you want use a sword or gun. You can use a sniper rifle or charge in with a shotgun. You can use quickhacks, or sneak around and stab them in the back. You can get jumpy-legs and go in through the roof, or gorilla arms and force open the back door. Or you can pick a lock when you put some point in technic.
And of course you can pick how you want to look, what gender you are and so on.

In both games you can't pick your name, but in the age of voice acting thats pretty unavoidable.
I mean, in Skyrim you can pick a name, but noone will ever use it. Thats just as bad.

 

[Aasimar-X]

speaking of consequences.
i didnt know that

love this game

 

[Shaamaan]

I think this sentiment stems from a generic approach to RPGs, especially from a narrative perspective. Because, let's face it - if all one needs are the mechanics of an RPG to be called an RPG, then we can call games such as Borderlands, The Division and many others games "RPGs" purely because they have levels, stats, perks and so on. But this is all superficial.

In theory CP should be more of an RPG than the Witcher - you, after all, are able to build V from scratch, dictating even how they look. Unfortunately here's where the first problem arises - in an RPG the Player Character (PC from here on out) should feel "yours" not just in stats but also in actions. And here V has so few possible responses, and those responses vary so little in delivery and tone and effect that it feels less like an RPG PC and more like, say, Master Chief from Halo or something - another character with predefined lines the player controls.

In that aspect Geralt, while a completely predefined character (disregarding gameplay-related stats of course), held up a much better illusion of having a player-drive personality. Perhaps it's because, by definition, Witchers are a bit lacking in emotion to begin with, so this is easier, or perhaps it's just a manner of giving more options to the player - I don't know. I haven't done any statistical analysis or anything.

Secondly, the aspect that is mentioned a lot of the time - consequences. In Witcher (at least Witcher 3) your choices mattered (or at least held the illusion much better); from minor things like getting jumped by a bunch of bandits for having angered their boss or something, to the fact that sparing or killing a character will cause them to later appear in another quest, either their own little thing or, perhaps, the big battle for Kaer Morhen. That Kaer Morhen battle was a very strong moment in the game, so the fact that it was "customizable" via story-choices made a huge impact. Additionally the endings were not dependant on a single last-minute choice, but rather a result of the various things the player did through their playthrough.

In CP77 there's one particular quest that feels adequate, and that's the one from the 2018 demo. It has a nice branching path that makes it feel like what the player does matters. (I'd add that even that isn't fully realized as it should... the door locked behind a 20-body skill-check is, frankly, insulting!) Had the rest of the game been on this level, then I'm sure people would have been thrilled, and the lack of variance in Vs responses wouldn't feel so bad as it does right now. Unfortunately CP77 has SO many things going wrong, that they all combine into this one big mess where one can point at pretty much ANYTHING and say it's broken... and they'll be technically right!

IMHO it would feel a lot better if V was a pre-made character, much like Geralt - scrap the character creator entirely, give the player one character with some stat tweaking, and off they go. This sets up the expectation that it's not really an RPG-style PC, it's a premade character with a specific emotional approach, and as such the lack of varied responses stops being such a problem. Even linearity stops being a problem in that case, as it's now closer to a purely linear action-adventure game.

 

[wright1978]

For me choice and consequence is what i consider RPG. So i'd argue both are.
Cyberpunk feels similar in terms of choice but at times its the consequence difference that feels like it doesn't come across quite as well. Delamain quest ending for example. I still like the game a lot and am hoping quality dlc/expansions can add to it.

 

[Mentos3]

speaking of consequences.
i didnt know that

For finding a body in the water?

 

[eidius]

The reason why I think that CP is more rpg-ish then TW3, is because you have more freedom in your character creation, your build, and based on that, your approach to solve your quests.

In TW3 (which, for the record, I think is atm an overall better game then CP, but that could change in the coming months) you play the witcher Gerald. You can focus on melee, potions or signs, but in the end you will always chop your enemies to pieces with your sword. You are always a melee fighter. You can't pick locks, and you can't equip a bow.

In CP you can chose if you want use a sword or gun. You can use a sniper rifle or charge in with a shotgun. You can use quickhacks, or sneak around and stab them in the back. You can get jumpy-legs and go in through the roof, or gorilla arms and force open the back door. Or you can pick a lock when you put some point in technic.
And of course you can pick how you want to look, what gender you are and so on.

In both games you can't pick your name, but in the age of voice acting thats pretty unavoidable.
I mean, in Skyrim you can pick a name, but noone will ever use it. Thats just as bad.

At any point in CP2077 did you have a quest like the red baron?
Choose a skellige heir and make them king.
And of course how to punish the usurpers.
Choose who becomes the king of the northern kingdoms by supporting whichever side of the plot to kill Radovid.
Make various decisions to more supportive, unsupportive or over protective of a character which each would have a different reaction from the NPCs and ultimately the ending.

I am not saying Witcher 3 was perfect but it allowed me to have some agency.
Even the things I described were not straight forward I had minor decisions that induldged the NPC for better or worse and when the consequences of that minor decision catch up with you the characters also react to you and your decisions.

I was looking for a game that innovated on the witcher and unless its about player movement controls I have not noticed any innovation. CP2077 doesnt seem to not innovate but regress.
At least in my observations.

The most inventive quest was the one from the 2018 demo and thats the only one of its kind in the entire game as far as I have noticed. Even though the quest in the live version is a watered down version of what was previewed.