Being a mage, barbarian or whatnot changes nothing in TW beyond pure combat mechanics, they do not change the personality of your character, you can't give Geralt an "edge" for example make him a scoundrel by choosing a Rogue class, a recluse by making him a Druid, he's always the same and those class distinctions mean nothing to the aspect of role-play.

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent game as an interactive cinematic experience, but the choices leave the players with no sense of immersion like it was your choice. It just feels like reading a book.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim, you said TW is one of the greatest role-playing games of all time, but you cannot even play the rudimentary role of a character which a name you choose, a profession you choose, and a story you choose. Yes, I know it's hard to realize in this day of fake RPG's everywhere, but an RPG is supposed to keep the text events as gameplay oriented as possible and let the “story” be created by the players actions.

In the TW it's the other way around, turned on it's head, the story is not created by whatever actions the character makes, the story dictates pulls you along and you're only choice is to react to it, because no matter what choices you make the game will still force you into the next Chapter, and you can't even return to the previous area. That's a straight line, it's linear.

For example, of all the choices TW gives you in dialogue options, the decision not to make a decision doesn't exist, to simply ignore the events and go on your merry way. It forces you to take part in telling this story.

On many occasions it does give you a choice of not making a decision, and then you are faced with consequences of your ignorance / neutralness. First game moreso than the second. Just saying.

Anyway, basically: You go play your Elder Scrolls, but do not insult people who claim Witcher games are an RPG. In my opinion, and I played pretty much every major RPG since Fallout (and, by your definition, Planescape Torment is not RPG as well), this is just a different take on the genre, and works very well. So, yeah, go play RPGs with a lot of choice and character customisation. There's a lot of those. And leave our minority of story-based RPGs alone.

Personally I see Witcher games more as action adventure than anything else. I just don't get any deep RPG vibe from them.

I CAN'T BELIEVE POOL OF RADIANCE: RUINS OF MYTH DRANNOR ISN'T YET AVAILABLE ON A WEBSITE CALLED GOOD OLD GAMES!!! :P

Oh, you do know how to push my buttons;)

Nothing you mention here constitutes an RPG. Basically in role-playing games the "role" you play is not the personality or appearance of your character. It's the interaction of the character with the world he's in and how your stats and abilities allow you to succeed or fail in a specific interaction.
This new idiotic definition of RPG is I think bioware's achievement and their moronic insistence on calling every game they make RPG even though they have left this genre of games for almost a decade.

Now to clarify something. In P&P RPGs, the games I'm basing my definition of role-playing, you could role play the personality of your character and I'd be damned if it wasn't the most satisfying sessions I ever had. But that was not a requirement at all. You could roll the dice, make a warrior/mage/whatever and start playing a very fun adventure with your character completely devoid of any kind of personality. Simply by using the game's mechanics and rules. You would still play an RPG in all it's glory, if that was what you'd prefer.

So in conclusion your reason why TW2 is not an RPG is completely failed... even though ironically TW2 is still not a proper RPG. Just not for the reasons you claim.

The definition of RPG has evolved. If it hadn't, we would all just play the same old pen and paper Dungeons & Dragons or old school Ultima until the end of time. And you're still free to do that if that's your kink, but it doesn't mean that Bioware games or The Witcher 2 are not RPGs, and good ones at that.

I really think that you guys are looking at the entire problem from a completely wrong perspective altogether. Developement time and funding are always finite and there is only so much you can do within this frame. You can make a game that is as open as possible, while your actions and consequences are very limited, like The Elder Scrolls series. Or you can go with the other extreme and make a game based entirely around choices and consequences, however the more complex this system is, the more linear the experience will be. There are, of course, games 'in between,' but I have never played a game that would do both properly.

I think that what you are overlooking here is that even in The Witcher, where you play Geralt of Rivia, the White Wolf, you STILL play as yourself, and your decisions reflect this - everything from preferring signs to swors to the most important choices. My Witcher will surely not be the same person as your withcer, as proved by his choices. So while you cannot adjust your character by his appearance and by his profession, you can very much change his fundamental personality and beliefs. You won't actually get that in games like Morrowind, the best you can do is imagine it - however, the world will not react to you as such.

So, basically, I believe that both Morrowind and The Witcher are proper RPGs by the same merit - both are just fundamentally focused on something else, and saying that this focus is what doesn't make them RPGs would be completely wrong.

Fallout New Vegas? Arcanum? The first two fallouts?

(a bit off topic but the open world aspect of Fallout new Vegas makes it hard for me treplay because of all the monotonous jogging. Would much prefer having zones like the first two fallouts. 3d open world games have a tendency to bore me so I rather developers just focus on smaller scale areas which have more stuff to do rather than larger more boring areas. Come to think of it Arcanum have a similar problem even though it is 2d. I find the game awesome once I'm talking or interacting somehow but some areas such as tarant are just so huge that getting around drives me crazy. lol)

So... Ummm... Which of these have such a complex system of choices and consequences as the Witcher series, including reactions of the game world? Because I have finished all of those games. Arcanum, I won't even talk about. Chunk of the game is unfinished, and it most certainly doesn't do either aspect perfectly. As for Fallout 1 and 2, they're more open, with quests only having very limited consequences (yes, outro is cool, but that's mostly all you get.) New Vegas, you get a huge world to explore ... Which is mostly empty. Again, resources shifted to story and writing. Sure, it was cool, but nowhere near the level of the same aspect of The Witcher series, where you can -feel- the impact of your decisions, and they are often tied together and lead to entirely different storylines.

I'm going to call BS, RPG came from pen and paper games, the various game play mechanics in these, even back in the day, spanned the entire gamut of everything we call RPG today and then some. The Witcher 2 is a RPG in the most basic sense of you play it for the same reasons you play any other RPG and get many of the same feedbacks.

Now, don't conflate mechanics with the essence of the game (otherwise we'll have to confer the title of RPG on BF3, it has a leveling mechanic, after all). The essence or core of TW2 is RPG in nature (for whatever the term is worth, it's so damned broad).
Agreed, those games have decent writing and a cohesive narrative, but said narrative doesn't much include you beyond various scripted elements that are, all in all, rather inconsequential compared to the overall narrative (at least with regards to elements that vary based on your actions).

Given the fact that he is a Portlander, I take anything he says with a grain of salt.

No offense Orcish :P

Oh you mean we could organize an all out assault on Bissel's favorite coffee shop? Clearly his problem is bad weed and/or coffee.

And no offense taken, we're all a bit cranky around here due to the bad weather.
Is that a chastity belt for kissing?:)

I don't know, but if I can keep it on for the next sex scene, I'll snap some pictures and let you know. :P