Having areas open up accessibility to keep the player from being overwhelmed isn't the same as put on a rail. If you name those CRPG's that do put the player on a rail, it's probably an adventure with RPG elements -- not an RPG any more than adding cars to an RPG makes it a driving game. Deus Ex? Ultima IX? Most the Final Fantasy franchise, and in fact just about every Japanese or Asian 'RPG'? Not RPG's. The last ones especially are responsible for most of the confusion between RPG and adventure-with-RPG-elements. Many excellent games, but as an RPG fan I'm not going to blindly say, "I like this game so much and therefore support its definition as an RPG" as so many of you seem to be doing.The original poster's complaint is just one example of the unnecessary confusion created by marketers grasping for the RPG-label to sell with. Add to that the number of people on this board who have said, "I don't like RPG's but I love this game," and you can see that there's a dissonance going on between what's being sold and what people are expecting. I repeat, It doesn't have to be an RPG to be a great game!
That could just as well mean that this is a d*mn exceptionally well made RPG.DokEnkephalin said:
eace:You could also say that it's a damn exceptionally well made game without further qualification. But if you're insisting it's an RPG, I'm going to have to challenge you to explain what makes it an RPG.Fiskrens said:That could just as well mean that this is a d*mn exceptionally well made RPG.
When one person has a definition for something, and everyone else agrees on a different definition, guess who's wrong?The entire point of language is communication.Buy a toy, and it requires 6 AA cells; It has one battery.The correct phrase is a battery of cells.That's not what people mean when they ask for a battery.Now I play real RPGs. I sit at a table with books, paper, and dice. I put on an accent. Sometimes I even dress up.CRPGs are not RPGs.But .. trying to claim that Final Fantasy is not a CRPG, anywhere, will make you a laughing stock.
Exactly. People shouldn't mix CRPGs and RPGs. What makes NWN an crpg and not the witcher, just because you can customize you character at the beginning of the game? That's silly.DokEnkephalin:Tlazolteotl said:
But this is true for so many crpgs, in fact of all the games I've played and finished only Fallout 1&2 (brilliant) and Morrowind (boring) weren't like that and perhaps TOEE (but never finished this game, so can't claim it).
No point in bashing games like Oblivion and Fallout 3. They're both great games that just have a completely different style compared to the Witcher. About why the Devs kept Geralt, I agree with lovely_psycho that they likely wanted to capitalise on the European fanbase as much as possible. Also, the story of the Witcher novels mostly revolve around Geralt and his companions. It's different from the Lord of the Rings where the world has a much deeper, detailed, multi-layered history and where the focus lies in exploring it more than on the hero's own story.
I'd rather say: capitalise on really extraordinary protagonist and story. All made in name of love for The Witcher.Reading Sapkowski you have the same impression as with Tolkiens world - immersive, lively and vivid. Only difference is A.S. didnt write all the back stories and history of the world.And is the generalisation and labeling really necessary? You do have the chance to choose a path for your character, right? So you do have a chance to roleplay.About pnp RPG...in all those years i've been playing I had the occasion numerous times to play with pre-defined characters; statisctic and background alike + a portrait. Done in ALL systems and settings here and there. So stop argiung about that, its silly.The only thing that is valid is: what is fun for one, is a turn off for another. Opinions and preferences, thats all.@ lovely_psychowhat an elaborate post you wrote theregodkingofdivineroad said:
Me likes you ;DThe franchise would be fine with Geralt as the main character. However, I think there is potential for another game set in the Witcher-verse sometime in the future in which the player can choose from different races and classes of the Witcher world NWN style. A witcher, knight, bounty hunter, sorceror etc.
D'jinni kind of gives that ability for single, third-party campaigns, within limits. Though I stand by my definition of this as an adventure game and not an RPG, it has an excellent foundation for one. Throw in a co-op or competitive multi-play and people could really fill in the world with their own characters. Geralt should still be the main character of the single-player story, but there could be more flexibility in character generation and building skillsets for other characters in multiplay and/or mods.
Producers misrepresent games, music, books, etc all the time, but it is doing one thing: making labels a bit less important. RPG? Not an RPG? Does the category make the game less or more enjoyable? I should hope not. I'm going to go for the example of one of my favorite bands. Opeth is often called a death metal band. Is that classification true? If you go with a narrow view of what is death metal, Opeth does not at all fit in that categorization. However, if you stayed with that same strict view, only a handful of albums would be /real/ death metal. In fact, contemporary albums from classic death metal bands would not be /true/ death metal. However, if you look at the evolution of death metal and view Opeth songs and sections of songs under that scrutiny, then Opeth is a death metal band. They just get a nifty little sub-classification tacked on.So, obviously, there are excellent arguments on both sides of this Witcher debate. And because of this or in spite of it, in the end there will be no real consensus due to the fact that different people will always have different interpretations of what makes a game an RPG. I, for one, love the game, and the only classification I need for it is this: great game.
Returning to the first post of this thread: I understand why the question. I was first too reluctant to even to buy the game because not being able to create my own character. I rarely play games like that at all. But now I am glad I bought it, because it is one of the most interesting games I have played after Baldur's Gate 2, and that is lot said coming from me.Yes, without having read the books, it is a bit hard to get into the role of Geralt at first, especially since I am a woman myself, and Geralt is pretty masculine male obviously. Even though I have played men before in RPGs (even in PnP), Geralt was at first a person I could not relate to much at all. But as the game goes on, I have found myself to get into its world more and more, and it is easy enough for me to relate to some other characters in the game (how I would have loved to play Triss btw, or perhaps even Shani).What makes this game a RPG (even if one made for computer) for me? Its the atmosphere, and the thing that the npcs are so real, and that Geralt can react to them in different ways, and they react to Geralt according to what he says. A RPG for me is not only the actual deeds and actions happening in the game, but the ideas and thoughts those make happen inside my own head. If a game does not that to me, I usually don't bother to play it to the end.For me The Witcher is like an interactive novel. I get to be the main character, and I get to do things inside it. Along the way I make up small side stories in my mind, and hop inside the heads of the side characters too.Have to say though, that without Shani and Triss and some other female characters in the game I don't know if I had enjoyed it as much. Merely killing monsters and solving puzzles without any kind of interaction with different people, or without any kind of femine touch doesn't interest me much at all.
I see the witcher as a very tantalising introduction into a new game world. I would still call this an rpg. i acutally really liked this. i never felt like i was TRAPPED in a cetrain role, such as warrior only, mage only etc. i felt free to focus on combat, or magic or whatever. or mix how i wanted. and for me it turned out great. i followed a set interesting storyline, and could customize my character along the way a bit.
I'm late to this conversation, but I'd like to add that Thief3 is an RPG where you can't customize the character, and it's one of my favorite games of all time. I would like to see Garrett have some more side quests, but that game had such a rich story line that it was a joy to play.I wish to high heaven there was a Thief4, but I believe the company creating it went out of business.Cheers,FAM
Thief3 is also an excellent example of the of the player being put into the role . Great game and I thought the asylum level in Thief3 was one of the most disturbing levels I have played maybe it was more because of the child ghost . I don't think the developers betrayed the rpg definition by putting you in the role of Geralt . Any way you slice it it is role playing so what if it is not an image of your making you are playing a role . Try Summoner if you can find it same type of role playing game as Witcher . ( windows 98 or 95 not sure been a while )FAM said:
A class system for Geralt sounds like a good idea as long as they don't completely make it generic and the same as Dungeon's & Dragons. That would ruin how unique it is compared to other games of the same genre, thus destroying the fanbase because I'm sure most fans like how unique it is. They would have to make it similar to the traditional classes with the difference laying in abilities exclusive to only The Witcher, not just different names but different animations as well. They could also make Geralt specialize in all fields of combat and be all classes in one, but that would be a little overpowering even on the last difficulty setting. Unless they make it available only through a certain quests towards the end of the game and have to fight a mega boss in order to obtain all that power. I am content with the way the game is now and no class system doesn't mean it isn't an RPG, it's just a unique one. It bases it's roots on the traditional RPG's but it remains unique and excels in it's own way.It wouldn't really destroy the balance of the game or change it if there was a class system either, it would just provide more options to fighting enemies instead of being limited to one. You could just stay as how Geralt regularly is which would be a freelancer, or maybe a warrior who uses magic. The game is still good reguardless and it is one of my favorites so far. The whole world of it is mystical and spiritual, when you walk around you can sort of feel that kind of aura.