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.
Agree to a large degree.
But the most important part you have left out.
As a DM you make the players want to follow your plot by tying their motivation to the plot.
They want to follow the plot because you make it appear that their wishes, goals and morals are challenged by the plot.
I like how the Cthulhu rpg describes tension:
Some cult is about to summon a elder god. - players meh...I guess we want to save the world?
Cult captured a players sister and is about to sacrifice the world. - at least one player will try to stop them if possible.
Cult wants to kidnap and sacrifice the players to bring the end of the world. -every player wants to stop them.
From a "game" perspective they all fight the cult.
But the reason why changes.
I think at the core of a good rpg is being able to follow your own fantasy and chasing after your personal goals.
We don't care about V.
We don't know V.
V doesn't have anything left to live for, besides staying alive.
We don't see a caring family around V.
We don't see V caring for others.
Jackie would have made a better protagonist than blank slate V.
Yes...he is rough around the edges, but he has believable dreams.
He wants to prove to himself and the rest of the world, his mother, that he is more than a Heywood Boy, that is a ganger that will end up in a ditch like his siblings.
He loves Misty and wants to provide an adequate life. Even against the wishes of his mother because he loves her more.
He is the last son left in the family.
To him survival and achievement of his goals is paramount.
But where stands V?
Money? Fame? Why does V risk his/her life?
Why should we players care about V?