It's like a group of D&D high school virgins got together and made a video game

[Lady Dragonfly]

When somebody says, "a great story", the compliment should be paid to Sapkowski, not to the devs.

The story indeed becomes more interesting after a while. What does not change much is the amount of cutscenes, non-interactive "dialogues" and obscenities. When you hear an obnoxious sentence concerning a close relationship between "your mama" and a "dwarven cock" repeated over and over again, you get tired. Even F-word you hear in the non-human quarter all the time sounds more refreshing. Does Sapkowski use a lot of vulgar language in his novels?

The dialogues are truly disappointing.
As much as I admire Geralt's cynical attitude (and his wonderful husky voice), I wish I had more control over his interaction with other NPC's. Most of the time, when some NPC is pissed off, all it takes to get back in his/her good graces is to leave the house and re-enter.

My biggest disappointment so far is with the RPG elements: it seems like one of those games that gives only the illusion of choice and customisation.

The conspicuous lack of customization makes this game more like an action/adventure than a true RPG. I am not saying action/adventure is bad though.

It may be a bad game in one person's opinion and a good game in the other so who is right? It's all down to opinion and much as I respect other people's opinions I don't respect people posting insulting remarks about games just because they don't like the game. Fair enough if you don't like it but why make childish remarks?

What exactly do you consider "insulting remarks" and "childish remarks" and what particular games are insulted, in your opinion? The Witcher, Oblivion, or Dungeon Siege?

[Xandax]

<snip>
And the descriptions of the spell effects smell suspiciously as though the big bosses are going to be immune to them, which will make them mostly useless in the most important and most fun battles.
I wish RPG makers would stop making the same silly mistakes
Of course it could turn out I'm wrong, but it's looking very unlikely. And most of that was off-topic so I'll now go and rant to myself in the corner...

Well, in that aspect you are wrong.

[Ulfang]

The problem is the "adult" elements seem to have been thrown in simply for the sake of making the game more adult, and are so poorly done that they have the opposite effect from the intention of making the world more real.

I'd disagree with that. I find the sexusal content quite fun in the sense that you basically collect those tarot style cards like achievements. I don't think it's supposed to be taken so seriously and these incidents happen so rarely that it doesn't affect the game in the slightest for me. And you usually have an option to avoid such an encounter so I don't see it being an issue at all personally.

What exactly do you consider "insulting remarks" and "childish remarks" and what particular games are insulted, in your opinion? The Witcher, Oblivion, or Dungeon Siege?

"It's like a group of D&D high school virgins got together and made a video game "

I don't think this was meant as a compliment

The conspicuous lack of customization makes this game more like an action/adventure than a true RPG. I am not saying action/adventure is bad though.

And what do you consider a TRUE RPG out of interest? Many people consider the likes of Diablo and Dungeon Siege RPG's but I don't consider them as such. Baldur's Gate is considered as one of the best RPG's and does have that tabletop feel to it but it has little customisation options in it and it doesn't give you the feel of playing the ROLE of a character more of an RTS feel so that's open to debate. For me a true RPG is a game that immerses you into the character you are playing and into the game world. Makes you feel as if you are playing that character and this game does that to a certain extent.

[fable]

Baldur's Gate is considered as one of the best RPG's and does have that tabletop feel to it but it has little customisation options in it and it doesn't give you the feel of playing the ROLE of a character more of an RTS feel so that's open to debate...

In all the years we've had the BG forums, I can honestly say I have never seen anything like this expressed opinion. To the contrary, it's always been said by enthusiastic players of the BG series that it really does feel in the game as though you've assumed the part of that character--party interactions, party NPCs taking over the leadershp, motivations for all quests being solid instead of "hey newbie, how about looking for my +6 atom bomb?", extensive "historical" background, well-developed non-party NPCs, distinctive areas, personalized touches (like the statue of you that appears in one town after you've saved it), etc.

I know of nothing in the BG series that plays like an RTS.

Off the topic a bit, perhaps, but if you haven't played the games, you owe it to yourself to try them. Especially since they, and PS:T, are considered by many the modern classics of computerized roleplay gaming.

[Jurosementalistile]

Well, in that aspect you are wrong.

I really hope so

[Ulfang]

In all the years we've had the BG forums, I can honestly say I have never seen anything like this expressed opinion. To the contrary, it's always been said by enthusiastic players of the BG series that it really does feel in the game as though you've assumed the part of that character--party interactions, party NPCs taking over the leadershp, motivations for all quests being solid instead of "hey newbie, how about looking for my +6 atom bomb?", extensive "historical" background, well-developed non-party NPCs, distinctive areas, personalized touches (like the statue of you that appears in one town after you've saved it), etc.

I know of nothing in the BG series that plays like an RTS.

Off the topic a bit, perhaps, but if you haven't played the games, you owe it to yourself to try them. Especially since they, and PS:T, are considered by many the modern classics of computerized roleplay gaming.

On the contrary I have played them and enjoy them. I wasn't suggesting anything was wrong with them I merely meant that the isometic view of BG is RTS style. Grab n click which is a bit old fashioned these days. The First person view, third person or over the shoulder is a lot better if you want to "feel" the world but of course this isn't possible in a game where you are playing more than one character unless your associates are controlled by the AI.

As for customisation it is a bit of a diverse word so I'm merely asking what customisation we're talking about here? I remember that you could make a few changes to the look of your character in BG but why do we need to change anything in the Witcher? We have a single character who is based on the character in a book so we can't change his look so why is customisation a big problem?

I realise there are fears of going off topic here but the suggestion about customisation was directed at other games. Feel free to PM me your views on other games to carry on a discussion about other games not related to The Witcher

[fable]

On the contrary I have played them and enjoy them. I wasn't suggesting anything was wrong with them I merely meant that the isometic view of BG is RTS style.

You did said the BG series didn't give you the feeling of playing a character role in an RPG, and were rather like RTS games. This seems to imply that, since the games were touted as RPGs, something was fundamentally flawed in their development.

As for an isometric view, that was first employed, I think, in Ultima VI, an RPG. I could be wrong. It was certainly popular in a raft of games, including war games, but I've never heard before that it was associated specifically with RTS titles.

Grab n click which is a bit old fashioned these days.

IMO, what defines fashion is not what defines genre or content. An RPG made in 1986 such as Phantasie is no less nor more an RPG for using what we would consider extremely outmoded game design elements than it was when initially released. Phantasie hasn't become an RTS over time.

What has changed is the bar that suggests to us immersiveness.

The First person view, third person or over the shoulder is a lot better if you want to "feel" the world but of course this isn't possible in a game where you are playing more than one character unless your associates are controlled by the AI.

So you mean that the game feels less immersive because it isn't first-person? I can see why you might consider the first person as such, though I think it is only one component of many that makes for a sense of RPG immersion. And when it comes to leading a party, I personally don't think a first person view makes any sense, at all, because of the tangle that results. -Unless you can switch between first and third person, and pause to give orders. Those instances that do this, such as the KotoR series, are ironically far less immersive to me than, say, BG2, because of undisguised linearity, generic, non-interactive surroundings, and numerous non-creative game design elements (every planet has the minimal number of cities and each city, the minimal number of businesses, etc).

It sounds like you think the Witcher is more of an RPG than BG2. If that's the case, what leads you to that conclusion? Just swapping viewpoints?

[Ulfang]

You did said the BG series didn't give you the feeling of playing a character role in an RPG, and were rather like RTS games. This seems to imply that, since the games were touted as RPGs, something was fundamentally flawed in their development.

I didn't make myself very clear. I mean't the control system in the BG series, being isometric, feels more like an RTS game these days. BG is still up there as one of my best CRPG experiences saying that but I find that system a bit dated now and prefer the 1st/3rd person view so I can see the world rather than look at the ground.

It's all down to personal preference again. I've been playing RPG's since the PnP variety and imagination is a big part but I like to see the world I'm playing in through the eyes of my character. There aren't too many CRPG's out these days (as in newly released ones) that allow you to control a full party. Most are single character or Single Character with AI party members (such as NWN2).

As for an isometric view, that was first employed, I think, in Ultima VI, an RPG. I could be wrong. It was certainly popular in a raft of games, including war games, but I've never heard before that it was associated specifically with RTS titles.

It probably was. I remember Ultima VI and was the only Ultima game I enjoyed until Ultima IX: Ascension.

IMO, what defines fashion is not what defines genre or content. An RPG made in 1986 such as Phantasie is no less nor more an RPG for using what we would consider extremely outmoded game design elements than it was when initially released. Phantasie hasn't become an RTS over time.

What has changed is the bar that suggests to us immersiveness.

I don't believe I argued that games like BG were not good RPG games? I'm just saying I've moved on and prefer first or 3rd person CRPG games as long as the CRPG in question is quality.

And when it comes to leading a party, I personally don't think a first person view makes any sense, at all, because of the tangle that results. -Unless you can switch between first and third person, and pause to give orders.

Agreed but few modern RPG's offer the control of a party like BG did. KOTOR allows you to switch between character and control them all in combat but isn't similar to the BG system, there are a lot more first person RPG's such as the Elder Scrolls and Dark Messiah as well as 3rd person games such as Gothic.

It sounds like you think the Witcher is more of an RPG than BG2. If that's the case, what leads you to that conclusion? Just swapping viewpoints?

Not what I said at all (or at least not what I was trying to say lol). I said that I prefer the immersiveness of The Witcher in the game world than what BG offers. As much as I like BG I prefer to be able to see the world through my characters eyes. Both are good RPG's. I was simply using the example of BG toward people arguing that The Witcher didn't offer much in the way of roleplaying. In my opinion it offers as much as any other game out there.

[Bod3k]

Well I really haven't read all of the threads but I simply must comment on the topic.

I am not going to say why I so much adore the Witcher, cause it would take months to describe, but I am a great fan of not only the game but also books. Due to that I feel offended when someone says that sex, violence and language used in this game is, to say the least, premature or nerdlike. They are simply an irreplacable part of Sapkowski's world, and build up the unique and hilarious atmosphere of the books. Specially in the dialogs, which compared to those of any other fantasy stories, like Tolkien's, Haydon's, even Prattchet's make them dull and shapeless. More to that, I fail to find any other fantasy RPG which presented this kind of "realism". You think that centuries ago people weren't drinking, swearing or having sex? If you do, than go back to overlord, dungeon siege or any other baldur's gate and stay in your perfect, little, imaginatory world.

What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion this is the first game with balls, which shows a real medieval world, not another beautiful, sweet, filled with buterflies and sheep copy of Tolkien's creations. And suddenly when you come across something closer to the world outside your window you are shocked. You don't allow that image to be created in your mind so you dissmiss the game and compare creators to any shamefull person you had opportunity to meet. By doing that you fail to see that all those disgraceful things were implanted in the game with purpose and with a great precision. Many characters would become meaningless without them, or at least would be impossible to distinguish. You can recognize dwarfs cause they swear in a characteristic way, bandits and other low life cause they never stop swearing and sniffing drugs. You can see how some people change in a different situations based on the vocabulary they use (see Talar for example). Show me another game using similar methods to differentiate NPCs and has mastered it to that level.

Concluding, I think that the Witcher is 18+ not only to protect young players, but also to underline wich social group will enjoy this game.

[Jurosementalistile]

How many times are we gonna have to say it:
Our problem is not the fact that there is sex and swearing, it is the poor quality of the implementation.

This is not the first game to implement these concepts. People keep mentioning BG as a comparrison, but remember, you got laid in that game too. Another good comparrison would be the Fallout series. Sex, violence and language, yet all very well done.

[fable]

Specially in the dialogs, which compared to those of any other fantasy stories, like Tolkien's, Haydon's, even Prattchet's make them dull and shapeless.

Hyperbole much? You realize that you lose a great deal of credibiilty, not by knocking any of these authors with explanations, but by arbitrarily dissing them (with contextually meaningless words, such as "dull" and "shapeless") to make any one you like look that much better?

You think that centuries ago people weren't drinking, swearing or having sex? If you do, than go back to overlord, dungeon siege or any other baldur's gate and stay in your perfect, little, imaginatory world.

This is what happens when you don't read a thread, as you pretty much admitted at the top of your post. Because nobody is making this argument. So you're attempts to knock down a strawman achieve nothing.

Please go back and actually read for content. See what people are saying, and then respond to them honestly.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Ulfang

And what do you consider a TRUE RPG out of interest?

We are at risk of slipping into the discussion more suitable for another forum (RPG discussion). You can find plenty of threads on the topic over there.
But just to answer your question in short, a true RPG, or classical RPG, IMO, is about a highly customizable character playing a role in a highly interactive world, preferably open to free navigation. A good story is highly desirable, but not genre-defining.

As for customisation it is a bit of a diverse word so I'm merely asking what customisation we're talking about here? I remember that you could make a few changes to the look of your character in BG but why do we need to change anything in the Witcher? We have a single character who is based on the character in a book so we can't change his look so why is customisation a big problem?

Customization is not about "changing a look". It is about playing a different role every time you play and advancing the plot through the use of different means, according to the role you play. Hopefully, a thief and a paladin would choose a different approach. That is how things are done in a classical RPG.

I am not saying we should change Geralt's appearance. I am saying this is not a true RPG. It is a solid action-adventure game with RPG elements.
If you remember The Redguard, there was no any customization whatsoever. It was a great game, one of the best action-adventure games I've ever played. A great game, but not a role-playing game, RPG.
However, The Witcher is dubbed RPG, so I expect more RPG.

@Bod3k

What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion this is the first game with balls, which shows a real medieval world, not another beautiful, sweet, filled with buterflies and sheep copy of Tolkien's creations.

With all due respect, this is not a real medieval world. This is a game world with generic architecture, generic interiors, generic “nature”, generic “elves and dwarves”, generic cussing, generic you- name-it. The game world is not interactive. Unfortunately, not many games offer this high level of interaction with environment present in Ultima, Divine Divinity or Gothic, to name a few.
I prefer an interesting story to pretty graphics any time (though The Witcher’s interiors are so poorly done, it is almost unacceptable) but, as I said in my previous post, the compliment should be paid to Sapkowski, not to the game devs.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

I prefer an interesting story to pretty graphics any time

I completely agree with what you said here.

I am not saying we should change Geralt's appearance. I am saying this is not a true RPG. It is a solid action-adventure game with RPG elements.
If you remember The Redguard, there was no any customization whatsoever. It was a great game, one of the best action-adventure games I've ever played. A great game, but not a role-playing game, RPG.
However, The Witcher is dubbed RPG, so I expect more RPG.

Still, you should be giving more credit to the production team. Remember, compared to other greats like BioWare and Bethesda, they are relatively new. This is a decent effort and if they can improve in the future, I certainly will be looking forward to their ventures.

[Xandax]

<snip>as I said in my previous post, the compliment should be paid to Sapkowski, not to the game devs.

Ehh no it shouldn't. Sapkowski created the setting in his books, but he didn't write the story for the game. He was consulted so the developers/writers did not break or contradict the setting, but he didn't write it.
This has been mentioned in some of the interviews etc.

For instance from the GameBanshee Q&A part one:

Mr. Andrzej Sapkowski accepted the storyline of our game. Additionally, we consult with him on a regular basis whenever any concerns about the scenario and the plot arise. Not so long ago our Senior Designer contacted Mr. Sapkwoski to debate on various ideas, not only the crucial ones, but some background ones too

Credit is given where credit is due.

[Ulfang]

We are at risk of slipping into the discussion more suitable for another forum (RPG discussion). You can find plenty of threads on the topic over there.
But just to answer your question in short, a true RPG, or classical RPG, IMO, is about a highly customizable character playing a role in a highly interactive world, preferably open to free navigation. A good story is highly desirable, but not genre-defining.

You still don't seem to be giving a game example. Not wishing to go off topic either so feel free to PM me but I hear a lot of talk about how poor the Witcher's RP option are but I've not seem you give me an example of a game where the RP is better? I would assume you feel BG is better in that aspect but I've played the BG games and well as most other RPG's and the options are very limited in those games too and I've not noticed a huge difference between the RP option in the game. The Witcher lets you make decisions that affect the story further on into the acts and I find that very good.

Customization is not about "changing a look". It is about playing a different role every time you play and advancing the plot through the use of different means, according to the role you play. Hopefully, a thief and a paladin would choose a different approach. That is how things are done in a classical RPG.

Well this is more of what I was looking for as the phase "customization" covers a wide range of possibilities so thanks for explaining yourself properly

As there is only one role you can play in the Witcher additional possibilities between different classes isn't possible so it's a bit unfair to compare it to the likes of a multi character game like BG in that respect but as I said before I've played many CRPG's and none have been much better in the area of conversation responses and few CRPG games out there give a great deal of RP options. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see that but I just think it's unfair to claim the Witcher is sadly lacking when there are few other games out there offering what you're suggesting it should have. I've also played the Fallout series and as enjoyable as they are they offer little more than BG did and neither of those game series' offers much more than the Witcher in my opinion.

As I have pointed out I'm not having a go at Baldur's gate or any other system. I enjoyed the BG series as well as Fallout but am simply saying the comments against the Witcher are unfair when other games out there that are commended don't offer a great deal more.

[dragon wench]

Later on I'm going to end up blaming chronic insomnia for venturing into this fray but...
OK, I have not yet played The Witcher, but I will within the next few weeks, thus I've been following the non-spoiler threads in this forum, as well as reading all of the snippets that come through GB News.

My impression is that the game is probably something of a crossover in terms of genre, and would probably fit into a RPG/Adventure sort of category.

However, that being said, with regard to customisation, Planescape Torment did not allow for as much as "classic RPGs" either, yet I don't recall anyone ever questioning its RPG credentials. You were the Nameless One, that was non-negotiable, and you unrolled his story as you played through the narrative. Sure, you could decide whether you wanted the NO to become a Mage, Thief or Fighter, and your actions determined your alignment, but beyond that, there was no choice. Race, gender and appearance were already defined. Moreover, there was a limit in the ways you could role play the game. For starters, there were only three possible classes.
Now, don't get me wrong, this is not a slur on PS:T; I think it is probably the finest RPG *ever* created, but I just wanted to make mention of this.

Yes... this post also goes off topic, but no more than the debate about cut scenes and cinematics

[Ulfang]

Ahh some Wisdom at last

To be honest I'm sick of "discussing" it now. We're just going round in circles so I'll lay this to rest by saying I love good and entertaining CRPG's and have played many over the years. Baldur's Gate was the one that stood out for isometric games as well as Neverwinter Nights but since a lot of RPG's became 1st and 3rd person I've come to love viewing the world through the eyes of your character and find it difficult to go back to the old isometric view. Even NWN2 allows you to have an over the shoulder view although it's difficult to manage.

I also enjoyed the Elder Scrolls series even though that might start of a few "for shame" comments. Admittedly Oblivion was dumbed down a little but I love the experience system of having to actually use a skill in order for it to improve and I also love the non linear system.

For me the entertainment is paramount and Elder Scrolls and The Witcher provide me with plenty of entertainment and have already repaid me for the money I spent on them in entertainment value. There are also plenty of CRPG's I haven't enjoyed such as Lionheart, Divine Divinity, Dawn of Magic, Final Fantasy and Dungeon siege (if it can even be classed as a an RPG) to name but a few.

That's the last I'll say on the subject.. in this thread anyway

[Lady Dragonfly]

However, that being said, with regard to customisation, Planescape Torment did not allow for as much as "classic RPGs" either, yet I don't recall anyone ever questioning its RPG credentials. You were the Nameless One, that was non-negotiable, and you unrolled his story as you played through the narrative. Sure, you could decide whether you wanted the NO to become a Mage, Thief or Fighter, and your actions determined your alignment, but beyond that, there was no choice. Race, gender and appearance were already defined. Moreover, there was a limit in the ways you could role play the game. For starters, there were only three possible classes.

Three classes are better than one, if we are talking RPG.
Three classes vs. one, interactive dialogues vs. non-interactive, wisdom vs. stamina, charisma vs. sex appeal, alignment vs. none, conversation vs. smut. Real medieval.
Perhaps this game is RPG. Everything is RPG now. Talking about Torment vs. Witcher, there are similar areas (The Hive springs to mind). Similar, yet different.
There is a lot of things to like and dislike in this game. When you will start playing The Witcher in a few weeks, you will see for yourself. I will not spoil it for you.
Oh, and this is a matter of taste and personal preference after all.

@Xandax

Ehh no it shouldn't.

OK, I misunderstood something. I haven't read the novels, so I can't judge how much was borrowed. Still, at least the world, the history, and the hero belong to Sapkowski, as the Star Wars universe and Jedi knights belong to Lucas.

@Ulfang

You still don't seem to be giving a game example.

I did not realize you wanted me to give you a specific name. It does not matter now, since you are sick of the discussion, and I'd rather spend my precious leisure time playing.

[dragon wench]

Three classes are better than one, if we are talking RPG.
Three classes vs. one, interactive dialogues vs. non-interactive, wisdom vs. stamina, charisma vs. sex appeal, alignment vs. none, conversation vs. smut. Real medieval.
Perhaps this game is RPG. Everything is RPG now. Talking about Torment vs. Witcher, there are similar areas (The Hive springs to mind). Similar, yet different.
There is a lot of things to like and dislike in this game. When you will start playing The Witcher in a few weeks, you will see for yourself. I will not spoil it for you.

Oh, I'm sure I'll find things to like and dislike about the Witcher...
It really would not surprise me if there were similarities between The Witcher and PS:T. They already each have a similar beginning (amnesia), but more to the point, I seem to recall reading that the people who made this game were also responsible for translating P:ST and the BG series into their Polish versions. So, it it would not at all be a shock if they were influenced.
Regardless I'm immensely looking forward to trying "The Witcher," and several other games. I'm getting a spanking new gaming computer..first machine in 7 years, so objectivity when I play may be initially lacking. *dances a jig*

[VonDondu]

Based on what I've read so far, I think I would like to play The Witcher. Even if it is indeed "like a group of D&D high school virgins got together and made a video game", it sounds like a lot of fun.