Regarding RPG games, a break from 40k

From thread; http://tw2.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?topic=31402.60

Ah, I never realized you disagreed with me in the first place.  Your statement didn't oppose anything I said, you simply made a statement that didn't agree with or oppose anything in my post.  So nope, I didn't disagree with you simply because you brought a new idea to the table.  I disagreed because I don't believe the actions possible determine whether a game is complex or overly simplified.  Especially when it comes to an RPG where they've stated the story is the number one priority.  Perhaps in an action RPG it'd be relevant because they'd be focusing on combat as a major part of the game and story would be more of a filler that gets you from one fight to the next. TW1 had very simplistic console-like combat, that I agree with.  But I didn't play TW1 for the combat, I enjoyed it because of it's complex and mature story, which is not a common feature in consoles.  And you'd never be able to tell how good the game's story is by reading the instruction manual.

RPG... it in itself is an overused term. You played TW1 for its storyline? Ok. Take Metal Gear Solid (the original playstation one) and break it down. You play a deep and mature storyline from the perspective of a disgruntled and abused specops soldier. You string melee combos together (admittedly only 3 attacks but that's still a combo) and you have a wide variety of weapons (ie damage types).

So could MGS be considered an RPG? It fits all the catagories, only that you don't get to choose specific conversation outcomes. You are roleplaying David Hayter aka Solid Snake. The storyline is strictly narrative but we see Snake grow and develop as well as become objectively stronger.

Then you get WoW. It's not an RPG. Your character undergoes no development, only advancing through the game and gaining new attributes. There's no story to engage with.

Then you get something like TW1. What was this? Ok so you could use a console controller for the game. That's handy and I've occasionally considered playing it that way (except I get sore hands). More seriously though, you have a character that starts out quite naive and he ends a little jaded and idealistic. Geralt undergoes noticable and tangible character development, which transfers over to his mechanical attributes as well, as he can ingest the werewolf pelt (as an example) or otherwise ends the game a couple of levels higher depending on the number of sidequests he completed. Combat is limited but deeply dependant on underlying stats.

So in effect in TW1 you can manipulate the universe on more than one level depending on your storyline choices as well as how you develop your characters skills and abilities (although they didn't get reflected in conversation or cutscenes, the potential WAS there, and now IS there since you get to do interrupts or whatever).

You say that combat isn't what really defines an RPG. I say it is critical to an RPG. I say so because without the combat mechanics being dependant on player decisions there's no difference between playing Heavy Rain, STALKER or Saints Row 2 and your theoretical game. The three I've just mentioned include combat without reference to player decisions and a storyline (though not of equal significance) without truly being RPGs in and of themselves. Heavy Rain is an interactive movie, STALKER is a survival horror game with rpg-esque elements and Saints Row2 is "like but not" GTA3/4 also with elements derived from pure RPGs.

So from where I'm sitting I can objectively disagree with how you said that combat is "more relevant" to only an action-RPG because having a strong focus on one without the other is like being a one-armed man. The moment you attach the label of "RPG" to a title I personally expect both sides of the equation to be compelling and involving. A lack of development in one area for the sake of focussing on the other leaves one arm underdeveloped or even disfigured for the sake of appearing strong through misdirection.

Remember. R P G.

ROLE: There is a character in a story.
PLAYING: The player participates in the story through a character.
GAME: Typically defined by overcoming challenges with the character.

So when I say that I want an intricate and developed combat system (even if it is conducive to buttonmash spam) as well as an equally developed storyline that revolves around my character (especially in narratives like TW1 where you don't get to generate a character) I think I am both correct and being perfectly reasonable because by definition an ARR PEE GEE involves both of those constituent elements as they are implicit to the design of anything in the genre.