The Witcher- reactions?

Click here and disable ads!

Awesome button makes it more awesome.

They both have really flawed combat for different reasons.
First: A single-character Knights of the Old Republic with a forced rhythm game (not a QTE).
Second: Clunky cinematic context-sensitive Arkham Asylum-wannabe with none of the polish.
I still think they're pretty entertaining adventure games though.

I don't roll around all the time. I use trap signs, throwing knives etc. Just because one option is considered 'the most effective to you' doesn't mean alternatives aren't available.

Actually the combat in TW2 is what you make of it - f.e. if you go the Quen route...

You don't play TW for it's combat anyway...

How the fuck can something the core gameplay of which is not built around solving puzzles be an adventure game? The games that are frequently called action/adventure around here are in core gameplay terms farther from adventures than they are from rpgs (as opposed to actual action/adventures, the gameplay of which is the hybrid of action and adventure, like Alone in the Dark). What is the core of adventure gameplay? Solving puzzles. What is the core of rpg gameplay? Character development, performance in the gameworld controlled by the characters stats (the extent of which is greater in pure rpgs and lesser in arpgs). Although rudimentary, the latter is still more present in these games than the former.

But wait - they are action/adventures, because, hey you control a dude who has all sorts of adventures in them? Brb, gonna play the role of a space marine in the arpg Doom.

Whether you're called an asshat or an assburger doesn't change the fact that you're frothing over box label terminology, bro.

Just seems weird when people make an effort to call Oblivion/The Witcher/whatever action adventures in order to emphasize that these games are not rpgs, when they have less in common with the core gameplay of adventure games than that of rpgs.

Action adventure is a widely accepted name of the established genre. Without delving into the merits of the name, one can positively claim that games like The Witcher and Dragon Age 2 belong to this genre (Oblivion is not an action adventure, but regardless of that fact it is a bad game).

The Holy Wiki Article about adventure games speaks:

So, I'd say you and your opposition are both correct. TW is certainly an interactive story that's driven by exploration, though not so much in the puzzle solving department except if you consider what dialogue choices will lead to boobies a puzzle (which I do)

Oblivion is Action RPG. [insert half trolling, half serious smiley here]

The RPG and action parts of the Witcher games are god awful. The enjoyable parts involve running around and talking to people and in no way are Geralt's character stats involved (those pathetic dialogue skills in 2 don't count) therefore it's adventure gameplay.

The reasoning behind my first post itt was like this:

Solving puzzles is adventure gameplay. The only thing that can be construed as a puzzle in The Witcher is the autopsy. Talking to people is not a gameplay element characteristic of adventure games if it's isolated from solving puzzles or gathering clues for solving puzzles, and talking to people in Witcher is not connected to solving puzzles, disregarding one particular instance (the autopsy). Therefore talking to people is not commonly applied in The Witcher the way it would have to be applied in order to make it adventure gameplay. Interaction with npcs for story/exposition purposes is common in both, rpgs and adventure games, therefore when untied to either rpg or adventure core gameplay, it is neutral. Simply having the element of talking to people does neither make the game an rpg nor an adventure game.

Although action combat and rpg characterization in the Witcher are rudimentary and strongly watered-down, they are generally present throughout the game, and if we are to label a game, it would make sense to do it based on which gameplay elements are generally present throughout the game, not present only in one particular instance.

But what janjetina said is also correct, I forgot that action/adventure can be used in the wider sense as a more generic label.

i remember getting stumped on adraste's ashes quest puzzle in DAO...hah. Good times. Bioware's been inserting those lately in their games.

W1 is basically an action-adventure with some weight shifted from action/adventure to rpg elements. It's not a conventional one (like f.e. LBA ), so what? The character building is almost non-existant and the role-playing is minimal as you're playing Geralt. If you compare it only to modern RPGs it may look like one though. You can name it as you want, as long as you use your brain when analyzing the gameplay

W2 has more weight on character building (since you can max only one "tree" and this choice changes how gameplay looks on harder difficulties), combat and has more options for role-playing.

Not everyone understands The Witcher. Its a spiritual thing. A body thing. A soul thing.

My review five years too late:

"Say... Gothic 2 is pretty fun, but don't you think the combat is way too natural, thoughtful, and intuitive? There're way too many ways to fast travel so you sometimes can't backtrack the same route five times per quest. Also way too little of fighting the same enemies over and over."

The Witcher = Le Turd.