I'd like to clarify some things, because the screenshots look awesome and the "open-world" is tempting, but I am worried about the "action" part of this action RPG and the emphasis on "hack-n-slash", because I prefer classic RPGs like PS:T, Arcanum, Fallout or BG.

So my questions:

Can quests be solved in multiple ways, involving non-violent ways?

Is there a diplomacy skill in this game, are non-combat skills checked in dialogue and ways to solve quests?

Are there choices and consequences? Does the game world remember some of your decisions along the timeline of the game?

How much can you interact with the scenery? Here referring to Ultima 7 or Divinity:OS, where the world around you is very dynamic, you can re-arrange practically anything except building walls and heavy furniture, you can combine a lot of items, harvest stuff etc.

Thanks!

Pillars of Eternity sits over here :-P

Let me start off by saying that you're playing a predefined character, so your roleplaying options are and always will be limited to what makes sense for that particular character. So, for instance... Quests can absolutely be solved in multiple ways, but you are playing a Witcher who's a professional monster slayer. While combat with human opponents can often be migitated or even skipped to some extent, Geralt is generally considered threatening, and is treated that way. There is a skill which effectively functions as a diplomacy skill (think domination from Vampire the Masquerade), but that's it. The game does not even contain base attributes and it does not check any other skills in conversations. Yes, the game is fairly heavy on choice and consequence. Often, consequences of your actions will come to your aid (or bite you in the ass) in times you'd never expect them to. There are explosive barrels. That's about it for direct interaction. There is, however, one exceptional way in which Witcher 3 allows you to interact with the world itself - as you clear out the world, it slowly gets repopulated by civilians. There are locations which are specifically marked "abandoned settlement" which'll get resettled right away after you clear out all threats, but even many bandit camps are later repopulated by refugees, shrines see traffic from townspeople after you make their surroundings safe again, that kind of stuff. It's really nice and immersive, but other than that, the game certainly lacks in ways of directly influencing your environments.

Thanks for the reply.

I played Pillars, and while I do appreciate the effort of Obsidian for making an RPG infinity-engine like, with beautiful 2D maps and reactive dialogues, the combat is somewhat boring and Baldur's Gate is still more fun.

So am I to understand that Witcher is more of an action game, with limited role-playing elements.

Let me put it this way: If roleplaying a Witcher named Geralt is what you're after, you won't find a better roleplaying game. Writing and quests are directly catered towards the main character and the game gives a lot of morally ambiguous choices which would not really function well with a different protagonist. However, you need to come to terms that you'll be confined within what makes sense for Geralt.

The combat is very action oriented, in many ways similar to Dark Souls series (even moreso Bloodborne), but I would not call Witcher 3 an action game per se - there's a lot of focus on storytelling, both via direct dialogue and environments, and consequences of your actions will haunt you in this game. How much of a "desirable RPG" this is to you then largely depends on what is it that you're looking for.

I absolutely agree with Fenixp. He answered your questions better than I would have.

But with a such game, you also have to consider that it could affect your requirements about RPGs and video games.
It could easily become one of your standards, in a way you didn't expect to.

That said, I highly recommend you to try Witcher 1 and 2, too. They are absoluely wonderful games, which could both please you a lot.
You can actually buy both for nearly nothing. It would be a crime to not give them a chance, given your expectations.

Well, it's an Action RPG. What you can read from that is that the outcome of battles is defined by your ability as a player more than placement of stats and dice rolls. Since it's a RPG, there's of course some choice on skill placement that is distributed by points gained from leveling up. But you'll never win a challenge because of how you did distribute your points, what really matters is your skill as player when fighting.
Since people already mentioned Dark Souls, Witcher 3 clearly learns from a lot of design decisions that Dark Souls made become a standard in videogames. But Dark Souls stat placement plays a much bigger role in the game than it does in Witcher 3. In that regard expect Witcher 3 to be more into the "Action" spectrum of the the "Action-rpg" than Dark Souls. Also you don't really distribute"stat points" in TW3, what you distribute for leveling up is skills that improve the actions Geralt can perform since the beginning, with a few additions.
Leveling up is it's own kind of thing too. Don't expect a game where you can grind and farm experience in order to be stronger to overcome obstacles. Level in TW3 is a feature that is used more to determine the pace of the game and which areas you can venture into at each portion of the story, instead of being a core mechanic of it (like other, "more classic" rpgs). The vast majority of the experience you obtain will be from the main quests of the game, a very smaller portion will be from the side quests, and an almost null portion will be from slaying monsters. Because of that you'll always be more or less around the level range the developers intended you to be for each portion of the story. Like i said it falls more into the "action" spectrum.

In regarding to lore, story, character development (narratively speaking) and whatnot, expect one of the best rpgs you've ever played. It's just too good and EVERY single portion of the game is filled with it. To FULLY appreciate everything this game tells you, you really need to play the other games and read the books. The story is really filled and interconnected like that.

Thanks again for replies.

I have never heard of Dark Souls until now, and from what I read on wikipedia, it's not a genre I would play. I prefer classic, turn based combat RPGs, instead of hack & slash console type gaming. But when a game has to offer a lot more beside combat, I can make a concession and pass over it, such as Divine Divinity for how great the environment is modeled and the freedom of choices, or Inquisitor for the original story and atmosphere.

The RPG elements of character, story, setting, etc - everything thematically RPG - is there and very strong. It outdoes any of the ones you've listed in my book.

What it doesn't do is define most of those things by character stats. Decisions really matter - in dialogue and sometimes outside of it - but with the exception of the overt mind control ability mentioned above, every option is always available; you don't ever get a "Geralt doesn't have enough Charisma/Diplomacy/etc to say this!" block.

You could grab Witcher 2 for around 2-3 bucks since it is discounted now. The gameplay is very similar to W3, although W2 is no open wolrd game. But this way you'D be able to determine whether you like it or not, without spending too much money.

You have never heard of Dark Souls? It sounds like you are fairly reclusive when it comes to gaming since, even if a game is not my cup of tea or a whole genre, I will have generally heard of the reference games. Even Actionfans will have heard of Baldurs Gate and KOTOR or Dragon Age and most RPG Fans will have heard of FIFA and PES as well as NBA 2k. This is not an insult, it is just a bit odd.

Now:

Can quests be solved in multiple ways, involving non-violent ways?

--> like pointed out yes. Although the main quests are different. Parts of those can be solved without using violence but usually you have a combat at the end. You can solve most secondary quests without using violence BUT during the quests itself you might have to fight when getting from A to B since this is an open world game which means you might run into a pack of wolves, bandits or what not. One thing I will say is that no quest is essentially a hack and slash quest. There will always be parts when you have to investigate, talk to people, draw some conclusions, make a decision etc. In that regard it is as far from a hack n slash game as can be.

Is there a diplomacy skill in this game, are non-combat skills checked in dialogue and ways to solve quests?

--->No. There is something similar to the Jedi Mindtrick (These aren't the droids you are looking for). Which has to be upgraded to level 3 to be effective every time it is available and will grant you XP when you use it. It is more of a way to solve a conversation than a whole quest line.

Are there choices and consequences? Does the game world remember some of your decisions along the timeline of the game?

--->Loads. Even Sidequests involve a lot of choices and yes the game will remember them and so will you because most of them will change the world in some way or come back further along the way. I would encourage you to read reviews on the game because this feature has been very much praised since the Witcher 3 basically kills the fetch quest for good.

How much can you interact with the scenery? Here referring to Ultima 7 or Divinity:OS, where the world around you is very dynamic, you can re-arrange practically anything except building walls and heavy furniture, you can combine a lot of items, harvest stuff etc.

--> Well... you can ride through an area that is extremely large for one. North to south you might need 20 minutes riding time, same from east to west and that is just one of the open areas with Skellige being another and Toussaint being added on 31st of May around the same size plus Kaer Morhen and White Orchard which are slightly smaller combined. You can rid the map of bandit camps, monster nests and what not and, the new DLC will actually incorporate this much better since changing the status quo of an area might effect it. By removing bandits monsters might move in or vica verse. You can set enemies ablaze, you can put out campires and candles, you can remove beehives, you can collect flora and fauna which will then disappear, you can kill larger monsters so the area might change in it's population makeup.

I have never heard of Dark Souls until now, and from what I read on wikipedia, it's not a genre I would play. I prefer classic, turn based combat RPGs, instead of hack & slash console type gaming. But when a game has to offer a lot more beside combat, I can make a concession and pass over it, such as Divine Divinity for how great the environment is modeled and the freedom of choices, or Inquisitor for the original story and atmosphere.

--> Personally I would recommand you to change your definitions a bit. Neither Dark Souls nor Witcher 3 is what you would consider a hack & slash game. What you seem to have in mind is something along the lines of Diablo which neither of them is. You don't click with your mouse like 90 times a second you actually engage in very tactical combat which has to take into account the number of enemies, their strength and weaknesses, your strength and weaknesses, their mobility etc. Especially in Dark Souls every opponent requires a completely different strategy of you, the Witcher 3 less so, but still enough especially when it comes to bosses. Dark Souls isn't as story driven by far as the Witcher 3 but that is because it has a hidden story that you can and should discover whereas the witcher is like a tale that has a structure but you fill in the blanks.

The Witcher 3 looks absolutely astonishing and the world itself is probably one of the most beautifully crafted and believable in any RPG to date and shows what can be done with Open World if you really aim to fill out this world. Personally I would advise you to read the novels and then decide. Start with the Last Wish, go on to the Sword of Destiny, Blood of Elves, Time of Contempt, Baptism of Fire and then the one just being translated in English: The Tower of the Swallow. This will actually help you decide much more whether this game is for you than playing the Witcher 1 or 2. Geralt of Rivia, the main character, is such a huge part of the game and so are his friends and the fate of his daughter that you should really go and read or listen to these books beforehand so you actually have a clue whether he is in any way a sympathetic character to you and you would enjoy spending 150 hours and more being him. Because that is how long this game is if you do all the side quests plus the first DLC. It might be up to 200 hours long when Blood and Wine comes along and a lot of it's charm and power comes from it's characters. I would really advise you to read those books to get familiar with the lore and the character.

I would not however advise you to play the Witcher 1 or 2. The Witcher 1 has aged terribly from gameplaymechanics to the looks and it's combat system is probably the most hack n slay in the whole series. Witcher 2 can be fun, but compared to Witcher 3 looks terrible now and still has a really bad combat system for someone who does not enjoy action combat. After reading the books or listening to them (the audiobooks read by Peter Kenny are amazing!) go and watch a video that summarizes the first two games in details.

Seriously, if you are unsure, read the books, watch the videos, get into the lore and then decide. From my point of view I will tell you however that the 49.99 you would spend for nearly 200 hours of gametime are probably the best you can spend hands down in gaming today.

*clap* *clap* *clap* .

A little mistake, though (penultimate paragraph): "The Witcher 2 has aged terribly from gameplaymechanics to the looks and it's combat system". I guess that you meant Witcher 1 here.

I would actually encourage him to play TW1, specially because of his appraise for classic rpgs.

TW1 offers a few different ways to play the game, but the best one is the topdown perspective / mouse gameplay. It feels like an iteration of what CRPGs were and the fact that it was made on the Neverwinter Nights engine makes even more sense to play it like a CRPG.
And, it will showcase how choices matter in The Witcher and how the stories unfolds. Will also introduce important characters and might help develop the interest in the franchise. The only thing to keep in mind is that TW1 is a game from 2007 and it will look like a game from 2007

Regardless of your preferences I can highly recommend the game. I would recommend the game even to people who have never played RPGs of any kind - or die hard RPG fans who hate "hack and slash". Witcher 3 is an epic experience and it is - hands down - the best game I have ever played. If will never be my most played game or anything like that, but the gaming experience is unlike any other. Simply just try it... the storytelling is just SO good.

Anyway: Those are my two cents. Regarding the first two games: I loved them, but I would never call them "epic" in the same way as Witcher 3. I absolutely love the Witcher books and games, but out of the three I would only recommend Witcher 3 to "non-fans".

Yes Thank you, I did edit it!

I wouldn't precisely because of the look and because of the endless loading times and simply put because for someone who likes tactical rpg's the combat is terrible... clicking a mouse button in rhytm is basically as stupid as clicking a mousebutton 200 times a minute.

He can get better acquainted to the characters via the books in my opinion.

Here are your answers:

1) Yes.

2) Essentially; you can level up Axii and use it's level three significance to alter dialogue outcomes to permit nonviolence. There are also many simple diplomacy options where standard dialogue without use of Axii can solve problems without use of violence. These two options are plentiful and I use them more often than not, as they usually provide bonus experience for solving problems in the most efficient manner.

3) This game has the best choice/consequence implementation of any game I've ever played. Except for it's prequel, Assassin of Kings. This system is so well done that decisions you make from the first game released in 2006 impact things that happen in The third game released in 2015. It's coherence and consistency is unrivaled.

4) The world is semi-dynamic. Mostly, the dynamic pieces are destructible ones that are meant for adding visual enhancement to combat. However, the use of bombs that emit ignitable gases and oil that you can also ignite are part of the strategic element to the game. But mostly the environment is in stasis as a dynamic set piece. Like trees and brushes blowing in the wind. The Witcher 2 is a much more streamlined multi-path storytelling experience with slower and more strategic combat than The Witcher 3. They are very different games. I love them both but not equally. Assassin of Kings will always be my favorite experience due to it's brilliant storytelling focus above all else.