Amen brother :)


I personally love the Kayran fight. It does retain the easier difficulty on higher levels which is a shame but can be forgiven. The QTE I didn't mind in this case, not normally a fan but I think these sequence was better than say, when you are running on the bridge from the dragon in the prologue. With the kayran it actually felt relevant, like there was a small window of opportunity you could take advantage of, and if not, cut off his next tentacle and try again :)

It would be good if on harder difficulties the scripting was a little tougher, like his attack sequence changed or became more aggressive, to avoid learning the simplistic formula that is challenging the first time but repetitive later - this said I still really enjoy the entire sequence and appreciate the epic feel of the fight. Actually I like it how it is - you can still imcrease your damage etc with talents, and I think it is more thematic this way, ie, some are an inherent nature, your 'toughness' or 'magical affinity' others are more about skills and techniques. The str/dex etc system was never a favourite of mine, it seems to hard to get a balance between gameplay and realism when restricted to that type of system.

Not to say I don't think the character should have a complex system of attributes, but I think Geralt still does have this - 3 pages on abilities/talents and attributes proper, but hey, the more the merrier :)

I actually like the blending of physical/mana energy in vigor as well, as it seems to me it would stem from the same internal source, but each to their own :)

lol, good point :)

I think both are important. Who your character is, those statistcs and which strengths they have, which way they have developed, is an important part to me of actually playing a character and adding depth to that character, rather than being a more passive director like an FPS or action game.

So ... Frogger and LA Noire are role-playing games, then?

Furthermore... (Wikipedia comments).

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

So in the end acting out a role is what role playing is all about... the numbers simply decide if you have succeeded or failed with your plan/action/behaviour and not whether you can actually attempt it...

It really depends how much thought you put into them and how you approach them does it not?
Do you change your behaviour to fulfil the role of a frog? Probably not. Do you change your behaviour to fulfil the role of a police detective? Some do, they get into their games :)

I disagree with your inference there. How your character develops and evolves is an important part of the depth of that character, and adds a lot to the experience. Role-playing is not really what we're talking about here, but a crpg which is a specific instance, not a general.

Well, if you play a fighter in D&D and attempt to cast a fireball, you're either an idiot (or have a necklace of fireballs).

@brother-eros
you are the most sensible forumer i'd came across :). yeah.. i don't see adding str, dex, magic is in ANY way negative towards Witcher 2 seeing that Witcher 1 has it.

strength for more damage and geralt can carry heavier weight (i failed to see why people will not like this?

dexterity adds chance to evade and increase vigor regen (again i faled to see why people who don't like this when there are tonnes of complains lying around that the game is so hard and they die in seconds swarmed by nekkers?)

magic for increasing mana regen and more signs damage (again why not?)

it's a win-win situation as you mentioned it :)

Good point :) I just edited my reply before I saw yours, trying to make it more specific. I think your definition would be fine for role-playing in general.
Lol, well now you've won me over :)

Well, there ARE well-defined terms ...

Neither theatre sports nor freeforms are rpgs.
Because there is a difference between "role playing" and "role playing games," which these games are not, even though they are games and are almost exclusively role playing.

I think the relevant question here is, "what is considered a NON VIDEO role-playing game?"

I actually agree with you Archaven, it is a win - win situation, the point of difference here is I do not call that role playing... I call that game mechanics :)

I DO agree with you too about what role-playing means if you read my earlier reply to you :P. But what Danceofmasks said it's also true as the general audience portrayed RPGs differently where statistics, skills and combat mechanics are RPG elements :)

So... then... what are we disagreeing about? :)

I disagree that i was termed in turning the game to D&D lol.. I don't see adding these RPG mechanics (Character attributes: Str, Dex, Magic) is any way turning it to D&D :P

so dex would increase roll distance? :P

The term "RPG" implies both roleplaying from a psychological AND game mechanical standpoint.

While I prefer more complex and deeper RPGs mechanically, the Witcher 2 seems to work alright without str/dex etc stats. It is not a trivial thing to simply throw in a bunch of stats: the more complex you make things, the harder it is to balance the game. Since the game currently is questionably balanaced, AND they ran out of time on Chapter 3, I think wishing for more stats in TW2 is low on the list of priorities :)