Well, I understand why you don't like the early access games but the problem is that the idea of early access isn't bad. I mean, you're talking about EA, they're the definition of creating empty shells for games lol

True :) I dont play EA games for that reason.
But EA if I try them out then most of the time they just ruin my excitement for the game with the bugs and limitations.
And even if the game is released I still have that meh taste from EA.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree, at least when it comes to Witcher 3. Yes, from a mechanical standpoint what is usually associated with an RPG (stats, skills, rng - and good riddance to that last one) is barely present or not very important. On the other hand, the game is all about playing the role of Geralt. Inhabiting the character, immersing yourself in his situation, interacting with the world and other characters the way he would (or at least you think he would) It is much more focused on actual roleplaying than many games that are overflowing with stats and skills and tables and all that Player's Handbook stuff, but the player character is more or less a blank avatar for the player and never can grow beyond that, except maybe in the player's imagination.

lol

I understand where you're coming from and I'm less adamant when classifying it than I used to be, but I still feel like it'd be more accurate to call it an action-adventure game with RPG mechanics. To me, a game where you play as a fully set-in-stone protagonist doesn't really fall under the RPG title. By the logic of "you're role playing as Geralt", we could say that nearly every game where you play as a character is an RPG because you're role playing as a character. Anyways, that's just my take on the classification of the genre.

Yes, by that logic every shooter game is also an RPG game cause you roleplay as soldier :D
Rpg games should offer you choices of what and how you want to do things.

There's a big difference between a game where you actually have to interact with the world and characters and make choices based on who the pre-set character is, and who he is logically becoming as you play him throughout the game, and games where you're just told your characters name, maybe background, but really you are just a passive observer of his pre-determined actions, and you just get to shoot stuff as him, or solve puzzles as him or whatever.

I don't really think the character being pre-set or not determines whether we are dealing with an RPG. In fact, I might lean towards saying that a pre-set character forces people to actually roleplay, inhabit a particular character and make decision as him, rather than play as yourself, in the role of yourself, but with a sword.

I do tend to "roleplay" pretty much every game where you create a character, it's true, but in most cases it's just in my imagination which creates sort of an "imaginary overlay", where the character is so much more than the game actually allows me to express.

I disagree with the first of these points, but agree with the second.

In particular, Final Fantasy (1) could reasonably be considered more of an RPG than The Witcher 3 (though, with that said, I haven't played or watched any of The Witcher games, so I could be wrong about their genre).

(Also, keep in mind that whether you can stand a JRPG has no bearing on whether such game is an RPG.)

Aw, come on, man. Jedi Fallen Order wasn't that bad, was it?

Wait, you're saying that games like SaGa Frontier and SaGa Fronter 2, which would be best classified as JRPGs (unless you want to make a special category for SaGa games), look similar to each other? I would beg to differ about that.

This sounds like an adventure game, rather than an RPG, to me.

(The notion of what a CRPG is doesn't actually have anything to do with role-playing, despite the name. In fact, role-playing would fit more as an element of adventure games, rather than of role-playing games. A similar issue is with cutscenes used to tell the story; while common in CRPGs (particlarly JRPGs), they're really a visual novel element, not an RPG element.)

To me, whether you play as a fully set-in-stone protagonist has no bearing on whether the game is an RPG.

(If you were to define RPG solely on that basis, you end up including games like The Sims in that category, and I'm not sure that's what you want.)


That includes games like The Sims and Stardew Valley, which have you creating your characters but are not usually classified as RPGs, right? In fact, these games are certainly good for role-playing, despite the fact that they're not RPGs.

Maybe? The only Star Wars games I played were Jedi Academy (adn that other one, can't recall the name), the Kotor games and The Force Unleashed 1 and 2 (these two are the only Star Wars games I actually finished). :P


I agree.


And while I'm at it, I prefer Saints Row over GTA.
In fact, GTA is as boring as it gets.

I agree.

IMO there are simply two kinds of RPGs -- one kind where you play in the role of a predetermined character and one where you play in the role of a character you create. Both have skill allocations and play-style choices and modifiers.

Interesting way to classify things, as it has some curious consequences, like perhaps classifying Dragon Quest 3 and 9 with games like Morrowind (if it counts as an RPG) instead of with other DQ games.

(Anyone who's played both Dragon Quest 3 and Morrowind will know that they play *nothing* alike; DQ3 plays more like other DQ games, and Morrowind plays more like Daggerfall, and might be closer to The Witcher 3 than to DQ3.)

(Another thing: Skill allocation isn't required for a game to be an RPG; many RPGs don't have skill systems (or have skill systems but not skill points, like Morrowind), and you could probably find some non-RPGs that do (Jedi Academy sort of has something like this?).)

The Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 3.

I find that the third game is way too bloated by the open world, causing the story and quests to be far too spread out. The more concentrated content of Witcher 1 is more approachable and prevents the tedium of wandering around from setting in.

I don't like long games, I prefer my games to be short and sweet as opposed to dull and long.

You must have a lot of time on your hands, because while TW1 is a lot shorter than the 3rd one - I'd never call it a short game (I finished it in 70-80 hours).

I know, "short/long" is all relative - some people play some games for 1000s of hours (often online and/or strategy games).