The Witcher

[Malchik]

My nephew gave me this RPG as a christmas present. I find it interesting but not really an rpg as I understand it since the character you start with is fixed. There are several choices to be made in game that affect the final outcome and that is interesting, but there is little you can do to get any flexibility as to who you are. My questions are - is this really an rpg and what is anyone else's opinion of it? (I appreciate it has an adult rating so those under 18 cannot reply.)

[ninja_lord666]

I haven't played The Witcher, but I can tell you about RPGs. RPG translates to role-playing game, which is quite literal; the player plays the role of someone else. The common misconception is that, in an RPG, the player should be able to do absolutely everything he or she wants and be absolutely anyone he or she wants. This is a role-playing game, not a life simulation game. In RPGs, the player pretends he or she is the person in the game, so the player conforms to the limitations of the character, not the other way around. The misconception came from D&D where the player can make any character he or she wanted. However, once that character was defined, the player still had to conform to their own set limitation on their character, so a paladin can't steal, for example. In conclusion, yes, The Witcher is an RPG because it contains the key RPG elements, one of which is not free will.

[WoogieMonster]

In addition to what Ninja Lord said, another reason it falls in the RPG genre is because of the traditional way you have to pick and choose which stats you will improve. Also, while they are not blatantly obvious, you do make choices that affect who you are. Talking you way around versus killing everyone that makes a rude comment, helping the non-humans in their plight versus joining the knights, being an upstanding gentleman versus going full-on "Dr Tran" (youtube it) on every woman you meet, being nice and helping people versus telling them all to go suck drowner eggs. No, you have no say in how you look, but there are not very many RPG's (by comparison) where you can. The game falls well within the requirements of being in this genre.

 

EDIT: I think that while both are pure genius in their own circles, D&D and TES have significantly slanted peoples' opinions and ideas of what an RPG really is.

[TheSilverRoman]

I have heard a lot about this game. Mainly that it is a great one and that I should get it^^. And I'm plannig to get it after I got new headphones. Anyway, I have also heard not so good things... The loading times are supposed to be enourmus, the 1.2 Patch either cutting them down or not. I have heard both, that they are still the same and that they changed to almost nothing. Can somebody tell me what is real now and what a lie?

I also heard a few things about the copy protection thiengie, or however it is called. The Witcher uses SecuRom, I believe and apparently is supposed to conflict with Daemon Tools, for example. Is that true?

 

And of course a thank you, already in advance, for all response :biggrin:

[Xeniorn]

I've been writing a large reply and just as I was closing its and using some weird key combination I managed to lose it all. As I don't have the patience required to write it all again, I'll write a short summary instead.

 

I wasn't contented with the way ninja_lord defined it, as it makes it seem as if many games I don't deem to be RPGs fall in the genre, like Hitman, or many adventure games. The second inevitable characteristic of an RPG game is, as I see it, the choice of stat increasing. Those two conditions are what I deem to be the things that make a RPG a RPG.

 

But regardless of the fact I consider that game an RPG I don't consider it a "true" RPG because of a few factors, the quite limited freedom in the game, disability to control the looks, weapons and combat style of the character and, judging by the videos on the youtube, arcade-like feeling of combat.

 

EDIT (because of Woogie's edit): I wouldn't put it that way. I don't think the peoples' opinions are slanted, rather that the genre "RPG" has been redefined to a more narrow circle of game styles. I don't see this as a bad thing. Do you see Splinter Cell as a role playing game? Or Clive Barker's Undying? STALKER? While I can agree that these games can fall in the RPG genre, as the genre is initially defined, I wouldn't call them a "true" RPG, as most people see it these days.

[WoogieMonster]

Final Fantasy, probably the greatest RPG series ever, however in all 12 games (not counting the MMO), you can not:

-Alter you looks

-Change your weapon (swordsmen for example are always swordsmen. You can find prettier swords, but you can not equip that axe no matter what you do)

-Free roam productively (you can walk anywhere anytime, but there's only one place you are supposed to be and nothing is going to happen until you get there)

 

These are things people think absolutely must be in an RPG, however they are not even in the games that define the genre. We can not say that the genre RPG is being redefined and at the same time acknowledge that it is being done so in a way that completely excludes and/or negates its own history. Say you become an inventor and you design a new car, the car of the future. You make it hover 2 feet off the ground so it doesn't need wheels. You add little canards to make it faster and go higher. It's the greatest thing ever, but you did not redefine what a car should be, you just made a little airplane.

[Malchik]

Interesting.

 

BTW, I did not find the load times too troubling but it does crash quite often. Fortunately it autosaves often too.

 

If I go back to the older RPGs I grew up on there was never any choice as to what you looked like but you did choose the 'kind' of character you were and could develop appropriate skills. These were usually pretty basic 'thief', 'warrior', 'wizard' full stop. The actual 'main quests' were by and large linear but there were usually side quests and sometimes these were not open to you if you were a specific type. In Morrowind, a more recent game, there were opposing factions you could not join but that may be exceprional.

 

In the Witcher you can take sides, indeed you have to at some points in the story, and these do affect the way the main quest proceeds but at no stage can you affect the type of character you are. Limited high level skill upgrades mean you cannot maximise every skill and ability which again means making choices but ultimately you are not given the opportunity to alter any aspect of the basic character.

 

This is not a criticism, there are many games like that on the market, and it is enjoyable (though I'm not sure it would be viewed by women) but it is not what used to be called rpg. Perhaps the definition of that term has changed over time.

[Xeniorn]

@Woogie: Final Fantasy is a typical example of something I'd call a "lesser" RPG. Mind that it doesn't say anything about the quality of the game, it implicates the offset FF has compared to what I see as a true RPG. Lead-you-by-your-hand RPGs with such degree of linearity don't make me connect with the role, rather with the plot and I feel as if I was a spectator, watching a good movie.

 

With "choice of weapons" I was thinking about the difference in games where you get gradually stronger weapons (Prince of Persia - the three newest games) and games where your weapon is a matter of choice to that degree that at a certain point of the game, if you were a swordsman, you'd be able to choose between different swords without intense hierarchy that'd render all the all swords useless and the new sword the only thing you can really use.

 

This is not criticism towards FF series - I haven't really played any of them, just FF7 for a few days so I don't feel qualified to speak about FF directly.