The Witcher 3 and future RPGs

[Danbo Jambo]

Well, after the sublimely fantasic Witcher 2 I was all geared up to sink my teeth into what has been almost universally praised as an even better sequel. I remained sceptical, but everything people were saying was exactly what I wanted to hear and quelled my fears of how TW3 would go. Sadly, here I am, almost having finished the game after forcing myself to the bitter end and only having actually enjoyed about 20% of that experience, with the rest of it feeling like a dull, bloated slog.

The combat? Fine. Not perfect but serves it purpose, I liked it. The graphics? Wow, utterly stunning. But the game? Ye gads........

The story was just dull as hell. They've built up the Wild Hunt as if they're a big deal, hell the game's even called it, and you don't hear hide nor hair from them for about 40 hours. There's the odd noteable highlight and good bit (the Baron, the drunken use of the megascope, the quest "possession" to name those I can remember), but that's nothing in comparison to the amount of quests which I've larely forgotten through sheer boredom. I must have fallen alseep something like 10 times whilst playing this game.

You see, the open world aspect IMO really, really hurts the game and doesn't add anything to it. The villages and areas all consist of the same things - shops & noticeboards - there's no natural feel of progression, it's all very mathmatical. Running between locations does nothing for the game and you spend more time looking at the minimap than you do the screen. It's all aesthetics, with little of anything interesting beneath the surface. Almost everything you loot is junk, quickly replaced 10 min later by another loot.

They praised the questing setup in this game, and I can see a POV why - you do use senses etc - but the same routine is followed in almost every quest, and almost the whole game still has this copy-paste problem so many big games suffer from.

I'd say that in TW3 there's around 60-70% of the quality content we got in TW2, but that it's also spread so thinly over such a long period of time it really hurts the experience.

The reason I'm annoyed about this is because so many people have praised the game for being a "true RPG". It's not. It's Assasin's Creed with a handful of choices and leveling options added, that's all. I didn't feel immersed or engaged at all.

Where do those of us who love deep, genuine RPG experiences such as TW2, Dragon Age: Origins & even ME1 turn nowadays? More games seem to be getting this treatment, and it's totally killing any enjoyment I'm getting out of them.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Where do those of us who love deep, genuine RPG experiences such as TW2, Dragon Age: Origins & even ME1 turn nowadays?

Oh geez. You can like what you like and hate what you hate but DO shut up with this nonsense. Don't lionize your tastes and pretend they make you special. I listened to Ultima fans whine about the shallowness of Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate fans whine about the shallowness of KOTOR, and KOTOR fans whine about the shallowness of Mass Effect, and now I'm listening to Mass Effect fans whine about the shallowness of Witcher 3. Games change. Different games have different strengths. Trends are cyclical and there is a wider diversity of play styles and genres available now then at any time in history. If you can't find much of value in Witcher 3 that's sad for you, but don't use it as a jumping off point for a rant about the "death of the RPG" or how the good old days are behind us forever, because your good old days are the very recent past, and calcification of one's tastes in media shouldn't be a point of pride for ANYONE.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Where do those of us who love deep, genuine RPG experiences such as TW2, Dragon Age: Origins & even ME1 turn nowadays?

Oh geez. You can like what you like and hate what you hate but DO shut up with this nonsense. Don't lionize your tastes and pretend they make you special. I listened to Ultima fans whine about the shallowness of Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate fans whine about the shallowness of KOTOR, and KOTOR fans whine about the shallowness of Mass Effect, and now I'm listening to Mass Effect fans whine about the shallowness of Witcher 3. Games change. Different games have different strengths. Trends are cyclical and there is a wider diversity of play styles and genres available now then at any time in history. If you can't find much of value in Witcher 3 that's sad for you, but don't use it as a jumping off point for a rant about the "death of the RPG" or how the good old days are behind us forever, because your good old days are the very recent past, and calcification of one's tastes in media shouldn't be a point of pride for ANYONE.

I can find value in it, I just think it's way out of balance and that the balance of other such games is way more enjoyable. Only my opinion of course, if others enjoyed the balance I'm happy to hear why.

To me TW3 feels like a 15 track album with 3 good songs and a boat load of filler. Games such as DA:O & TW2 feel like a superb 10 track album, with 7-8 classic songs, and 2-3 fillers.

Regards the trend, it's a trend that's putting me off modern gaming big time. More-so, my real gripe is that we hear so many claims that games such as TW3 buck those trends, when in reality they don't. All the additional hours I've sunk into TW3 in 1 playthrough compared to 1 TW2 playthrough was essentially a boat load of Assasin's Creed tyle roaming and filler.

I don't hate TW3, I'd rate it an OK 6 or 7/10. But I am asking if anyone out there can see any more traditional style RPG's, or better still RPG franchises, which obtained the balances which DA:O & TW2 had being released?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't hate TW3, I'd rate it an OK 6 or 7/10. But I am asking if anyone out there can see any more traditional style RPG's, or better still RPG franchises, which obtained the balances which DA:O & TW2 had being released?

Without knowing what you're talking about, it's very difficult for me to suggest titles that correspond to your specific predilections. You can throw around buzz words like "deep" or "rich" but that doesn't mean much without knowing what context you're applying to it. I've been playing RPGs since "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" on the fucking Intellivision, and I'm not sure I know of a "richer" game than Witcher 3. What are you looking for? Mechanical sophistication? Difficulty? Narrative linearity? Heavy character customization? Seriously man, the list of things people thing are essential to a "proper RPG experience" is endless, and everyone selects a few things off it before making the latest No True Scotsman argument about why RPGs of their preference are the bestest and RPGs that run against their preference are trash.

I liked Origins...quite a lot, actually...and I think Mass Effect is one of my favorite series of the modern era and possibly one of my favorite series of all time, the lamentable third chapter notwithstanding. I also think Witcher 3 roundly embarrasses both titles in terms of overall quality and ambition, particularly Dragon Age (which has been getting shamed by The Witcher in general since both series were started). I can't tell you that you're wrong for preferring them, but without knowing why I can't tell you where to look for more of the same. What is a "traditional" RPG to you? Because DA:O is a "modern" RPG to me, which succeeded largely on the basis of borked combat balancing at launch (that accidentally made it hard) and combat mechanics roped in from MMO conventions. Mass Effect is a shooter hybrid with borderline adventure game narrative trappings. Neither is remotely "traditional". Some people consider Baldur's Gate "traditional" but I'm old enough to remember Scorpia mocking it for being a brain dead pretty boy that lacked the depth and sophistication of the prior era of RPGs. What's "traditional" to you?

 

[Zhukov]

I listened to Ultima fans whine about the shallowness of Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate fans whine about the shallowness of KOTOR, and KOTOR fans whine about the shallowness of Mass Effect, and now I'm listening to Mass Effect fans whine about the shallowness of Witcher 3.

Oh, that made me laugh.

When I was a few years younger and a bit angrier I used to get pretty combative about people saying games I liked were shallow and dumbed down compared to the glittering jewels of yesteryear.

Then one day I saw someone hold forth on how military shooters today are all shallow and simplified and dumbed down and blah blah blah and that Ghost Recon 2 was the glorious peak of the genre. Then I remembered that when Ghost Recon 2 came out people whined themselves into soggy knots because it was dumbed down compared to the original Ghost Recon. Which in turn caused me to remember how when the original Ghost Recon came out there was a fuss because it was apparently dumbed down compared to the Rainbow Six games.

And thus was I touched by the great hairy hand of Perspective.

...

OT: The Witcher 2 was shit. Shit controls, shit combat, shit interface. I'm pretty sure the story was shit, but I can't be sure because hardly any of it proved worth remembering. I'm ambivalent at best about TW3 (plenty of quality content, never quite came together as a whole, combat wasn't meaty enough to sustain its length) but it was a lot better than its predecessor. If TW2 is a "deep, genuine RPG experience" then I won't be mourning the passing of such.

 

[Bombiz]

gonna be honest OP I remembered more of Witcher 3 then DA:O.

 

[The Madman]

I liked Witcher 2 and all, but to say it's some paragon of the genre while Witcher 3 is somehow worse just seems... weird. Especially given Witcher 3 is basically just 2 except bigger and, by most measurements, better.

Besides which if you didn't like Witcher 3 and want a more ye-olden school rpg there are plenty of those around. We're in the middle of a little mini rpg-renaissance right now on the PC with titles like the Legend of Grimrock games, Divnity Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity, the recent Shadowrun titles, Wasteland 2, Age of Decadence, and indie rpg like Underrail, Neo Scavenger, or Dex, which I recently played and found to be pretty good all things considered. There's even more on the horizon as well with the upcoming Torment Tides of Numenera and Tyranny among others.

I can understand people not liking Witcher 3, it ain't for everyone, but the whole doom and gloom of the rpg genre thing is a bit out of place and silly.

...Also Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect are now the old school deep rpg? Oh jeez, that makes me feel old.

I must have fallen alseep something like 10 times whilst playing this game.

So does this actually happen to people or is it hyperbole, because it seems to be that if you're collapsing into a coma while in the middle of something often enough as to be able to keep count, then maybe something's wrong. Playing a game is a bit different from falling asleep on the couch watching Judge Judy reruns after a few drinks, y'know?

 

[Silence]

gonna be honest OP I remembered more of Witcher 3 then DA:O.

I probably remember some things of DA:O because they are blatant LOTR-ripoff.

And I ... no, that's DA2. A much better game.

@OP: I've learned one thing: You hate ALL open world RPGs. That's good if you want something else recommended. Because there is no other Open World game which comes even close to the sidequest variety of Witcher 3.

(sorry, but I have to say that ME1 is a pretty shit RPG, to pile on the things others have said)

In any case, try Witcher 1, Gothic maybe. Like the old, and really, good stuff (alright, that's Witcher 1 is not that good, I'm just playing with the 'good old' thing here).

Also play Planescape: Torment. You are not allowed to talk about RPGs before playing that.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I wonder why almost every time people claim that an RPG is shallow they point to an older, clunkier and poorly designed game as an example of a "deep RPG experience". There's nothing deep about unintuitive UI, clunky combat and poorly designed skill system. There's nothing deep about first Mass Effect compared to the second and third one, nothing deep about The Witcher 2 compared to the third one etc.

I'll grant you that Dragon Age: Origins is a deeper RPG, but that's because Dragon Age is not a mix of several genres. It is pure old-school RPG. But what I will not grant you or anyone else is the idea that pure deep RPG is somehow intrinsically better than any other kind of RPG and that it is something that every RPG should strive for. It absolutely isn't, and thank god for that because we need more diversity in gaming, not less.

 

[Redryhno]

I'll grant you that Dragon Age: Origins is a deeper RPG, but that's because Dragon Age is not a mix of several genres. It is pure old-school RPG. But what I will not grant you or anyone else is the idea that pure deep RPG is somehow intrinsically better than any other kind of RPG and that it is something that every RPG should strive for. It absolutely isn't, and thank god for that because we need more diversity in gaming, not less.

Eh, I'd argue that Origins is sorta a blend of old and new. As much as I like it, the fact that you have to put points into Persuade to progress through half the game with half a clue is sorta bullshit. Doesn't help that the majority of the other skills aren't really worth it and that some playstyles were just ignored in favor of others either.

But I'd argue that a deep RPG, or at least one with meaningful options and choices that aren't limited to the story, is what we should aim for. If people want a shallow RPG, they can just play an adventure game these days. I mean, part of why I will go back to PoE instead of any other ARPG is just how much depth there is to the web. you can run a Chaos, bow, dex/evasion, elemental, resist tank, or trap build and do just as well as a totem maurader if you look at your points.

Personally I'd love a bit of a a return to turn-based RPGs, they're very rare these days outside of JRPG's for handhelds.

OT: The Witcher 2 was shit. Shit controls, shit combat, shit interface. I'm pretty sure the story was shit, but I can't be sure because hardly any of it proved worth remembering. I'm ambivalent at best about TW3 (plenty of quality content, never quite came together as a whole, combat wasn't meaty enough to sustain its length) but it was a lot better than its predecessor. If TW2 is a "deep, genuine RPG experience" then I won't be mourning the passing of such.

Naow you listen 'ere BOAY!

 

[Trunkage]

Where do those of us who love deep, genuine RPG experiences such as TW2, Dragon Age: Origins & even ME1 turn nowadays?

Oh geez. You can like what you like and hate what you hate but DO shut up with this nonsense. Don't lionize your tastes and pretend they make you special. I listened to Ultima fans whine about the shallowness of Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate fans whine about the shallowness of KOTOR, and KOTOR fans whine about the shallowness of Mass Effect, and now I'm listening to Mass Effect fans whine about the shallowness of Witcher 3. Games change. Different games have different strengths. Trends are cyclical and there is a wider diversity of play styles and genres available now then at any time in history. If you can't find much of value in Witcher 3 that's sad for you, but don't use it as a jumping off point for a rant about the "death of the RPG" or how the good old days are behind us forever, because your good old days are the very recent past, and calcification of one's tastes in media shouldn't be a point of pride for ANYONE.

Its like looking at the Elder Scrolls series. Daggerfall people complained about the simplicity and lack of story from Morrowind and that has continued right up the ESO. I went back to play Daggerfall last year and Morrowind a little bit before that, and they are pretty much unplayable and that writing people keep talking about is not really good.
Yes you can game break the older games but the reason not to do that is in the title. You cant do anything with the storyline anymore. I'd be more into the alternate route to get the favour of the house like in Morrowind but they had that with the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim. I'd prefer the game force me not to kill important NPCs than a message about how killing this person will break the prophecy. I found it less gamey and experience breaking.

Personally, I like the idea of developers trying new ideas because everything that people venerate in older RPGs weren't really that good. The new systems maybe be worse but stopping innovation will lead us nowhere.

 

[Joccaren]

I wonder why almost every time people claim that an RPG is shallow they point to an older, clunkier and poorly designed game as an example of a "deep RPG experience". There's nothing deep about unintuitive UI, clunky combat and poorly designed skill system. There's nothing deep about first Mass Effect compared to the second and third one, nothing deep about The Witcher 2 compared to the third one etc.

It kind of depends on how you define depth. Polish isn't depth, generally the number of ways you can interact with the world is what constitutes that, and ME1 had far more of that than 2. Weapons mod systems, a variety of abilities you'd actually use rather than a shared cooldown so only 1 ability ever gets used sort of deal, XP for your actions, rather than per mission, ect.
A lot of it sure as hell wasn't polished. The inventory system was a mess, getting a ton of loot every time you killed a generic mook was just not at all thought out. The Mako had its handling issues, the shooting controls could have used with some work, and a whole bunch else.

There were a lot of different ways to interact with the game, half of which carried over to ME2. They essentially took the RPG mechanics out of ME2, and turned it into Gears of War in space with some dialogue options, and then in ME3 turned it into basically just Gears of War in space.
The series also changed its writing style from good details-first sci-fi, into poorly executed drama-first sci-fi. That isn't to say drama first is bad, but its not detail first which many liked about ME1, and Bioware executed the drama-first story poorly. Shamus Young's got a good 50 part series on this change on his site, most of which is pretty accurate.

All round, it got 'dumbed down', while also getting streamlined. Depth was removed, and the story was focused more on moment to moment action and character drama, than on mysteries and internal consistency, and many mechanics that added to the first game, but were unpolished, were removed entirely rather than improving upon them. Some mechanics were also streamlined, reducing complexity without sacrificing too much depth, but that wasn't all that happened to the game. The same goes for most games where depth is a complaint. Some things were streamlined, others were removed. Imagine having the weapons mod system in ME2 [Which they somewhat bought back for ME3], still having a looting system of sorts to acquire a number of items and have a resource management aspect to equipment, rather than just a straight upgrade system, but instead of enemies dropping a ton of loot, they may drop their weapon which you can swap to in-field, but nothing else. At the end of the mission the game tallies up how many of each loot 'item' you acquired, of which there would be a smaller number with few just direct upgrades, with some mods being rare, and the only ones dropped correlating to what enemies you fought and loot boxes you opened, and what they would have contained. At that 'mission end' screen you get the option of selecting how many of each you'd like to personally keep, and anything else is automatically sold for you. You inventory manage much like you do in 2/3, but each now has a limit on how many of each weapon you can equip. So you can pick up a rare Widow sniper in game, rather than randomly get given one by the Collectors, but you might only find one, and organically be able to equip it to anyone, without having enough to give to other squadmates.
Imagine having missions in ME2 where you could drive a vehicle that actually handled well around, and have more missions like ME1s where you had sections of travelling long distance in vehicle before reaching the smaller local site of a mission. Hub worlds like Tuchanka are actual hub worlds rather than separated little instances, with pre-scripted missions you actually drive to.
Imagine having more range than 10 meters on any weapon, and at times open terrain, where an infiltrator could actually start sniping enemy positions before the squad is in normal weapons range.

Mass Effect 2 definitely lacked depth, since they added more depth back in to mechanics like weapon mods and class weapon variety in ME3. ME3 also took out some features though, and lacked some things from ME1. A lot of stuff was also improved, but lets not pretend that nothing was lost in that process. And that stuff which is lost, the good stuff that is discarded rather than polished, is what people complain about and think fondly of in the older games. Not the clunkiness and worse UI, but the potential behind those mechanics had the clunkiness been removed but the functionality kept.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Eh, personal preferences and all that. I usually hate open world RPGs and prefer the older more linear style like DAO, but The Witcher 3 kept me interested for all 108 hours I spent on it. Dragon Age Inquisition on the other hand, made me miserable as I forced myself through it out of loyalty to the franchise and the developer, only to be left utterly disappointed and disillusioned by the experience (yeah, I took DAI pretty hard).

As for the proposition that Witcher 3 is less "deep" than older RPGs, I don't know that I agree with that. It has lots of meaningful choices that change the story, and lots of different gear and skill builds to play with. About the only thing it doesn't have is the ability to create your own character (which is entirely understandable in the context of what the game is). Having said all that, I think Witcher 3's story could have been told more succinctly and engagingly through a linear approach ala Witcher 2. My own view is that open worlds are anathema to telling any kind of story that includes urgency as an element of the plot; the tendency for the player to just meander off and do side quests for tens of hours in the midst of the story will invariably kill whatever tension is being built up in the narrative.

 

[deadish]

I can't play it. The input lag thanks to the realistic animation killed it for me.

 

[TT Kairen]

It kind of depends on how you define depth. Polish isn't depth, generally the number of ways you can interact with the world is what constitutes that, and ME1 had far more of that than 2. Weapons mod systems, a variety of abilities you'd actually use rather than a shared cooldown so only 1 ability ever gets used sort of deal, XP for your actions, rather than per mission, ect.
A lot of it sure as hell wasn't polished. The inventory system was a mess, getting a ton of loot every time you killed a generic mook was just not at all thought out. The Mako had its handling issues, the shooting controls could have used with some work, and a whole bunch else.

There were a lot of different ways to interact with the game, half of which carried over to ME2. They essentially took the RPG mechanics out of ME2, and turned it into Gears of War in space with some dialogue options, and then in ME3 turned it into basically just Gears of War in space.
The series also changed its writing style from good details-first sci-fi, into poorly executed drama-first sci-fi. That isn't to say drama first is bad, but its not detail first which many liked about ME1, and Bioware executed the drama-first story poorly. Shamus Young's got a good 50 part series on this change on his site, most of which is pretty accurate.

All round, it got 'dumbed down', while also getting streamlined. Depth was removed, and the story was focused more on moment to moment action and character drama, than on mysteries and internal consistency, and many mechanics that added to the first game, but were unpolished, were removed entirely rather than improving upon them. Some mechanics were also streamlined, reducing complexity without sacrificing too much depth, but that wasn't all that happened to the game. The same goes for most games where depth is a complaint. Some things were streamlined, others were removed. Imagine having the weapons mod system in ME2 [Which they somewhat bought back for ME3], still having a looting system of sorts to acquire a number of items and have a resource management aspect to equipment, rather than just a straight upgrade system, but instead of enemies dropping a ton of loot, they may drop their weapon which you can swap to in-field, but nothing else. At the end of the mission the game tallies up how many of each loot 'item' you acquired, of which there would be a smaller number with few just direct upgrades, with some mods being rare, and the only ones dropped correlating to what enemies you fought and loot boxes you opened, and what they would have contained. At that 'mission end' screen you get the option of selecting how many of each you'd like to personally keep, and anything else is automatically sold for you. You inventory manage much like you do in 2/3, but each now has a limit on how many of each weapon you can equip. So you can pick up a rare Widow sniper in game, rather than randomly get given one by the Collectors, but you might only find one, and organically be able to equip it to anyone, without having enough to give to other squadmates.
Imagine having missions in ME2 where you could drive a vehicle that actually handled well around, and have more missions like ME1s where you had sections of travelling long distance in vehicle before reaching the smaller local site of a mission. Hub worlds like Tuchanka are actual hub worlds rather than separated little instances, with pre-scripted missions you actually drive to.
Imagine having more range than 10 meters on any weapon, and at times open terrain, where an infiltrator could actually start sniping enemy positions before the squad is in normal weapons range.

Mass Effect 2 definitely lacked depth, since they added more depth back in to mechanics like weapon mods and class weapon variety in ME3. ME3 also took out some features though, and lacked some things from ME1. A lot of stuff was also improved, but lets not pretend that nothing was lost in that process. And that stuff which is lost, the good stuff that is discarded rather than polished, is what people complain about and think fondly of in the older games. Not the clunkiness and worse UI, but the potential behind those mechanics had the clunkiness been removed but the functionality kept.

Having more shit that doesn't add anything to deal with isn't depth either. The inventory was a mess, and was scrapped because it didn't add anything. There were no meaningful gameplay choices to any of it. Can you tell me the difference between the Lancer III Assault Rifle, the Avenger IV Assault Rifle, and the Spectre Master VIII Assault Rifle? No, you can't. Because there is no difference. It was the same "+Weapon damage" upgrade you claim removed depth, but it was the same thing, just more convoluted. Mass Effect 1 had 4 guns. An assault rifle, a shotgun, a sniper rifle, and a pistol. The Katana VII shotgun is not a different gun from the Scimitar II. It's a damage upgrade. Mass Effect 2 had 19 guns. Again as an example let's use Assault Rifles. The Avenger was a different gun than the Vindicator. The Avenger is a fully-automatic, mid range all-rounder, while the Vindicator is a pinpoint accurate, burst fire long-ranger. These are different weapons, and picking between them is a meaningful gameplay choice. Mass Effect 3 had somewhere in the area of three times that number of weapons, as well as modifications that weren't just statistical numbers boosts, but actually changed how you used a weapon, such as cover penetration, or adding a scope to a normally iron-sighted weapon. They had more depth.

The cooldown system was changed because at the start of the game, playing as an Engineer or Adept was mind-numbingly dull. Having to wait a full minute for your ONE power to recharge when your pistol can finish fights in half that time is pretty useless. In Mass Effect 2 and three, they were changed to a universal cooldown system to allow you to use powers more rapidly, and the ability to choose in what way your powers evolved, changing the way you use them. Again, meaningful gameplay choices.

The one point I will totally concede though, is how the world feels less open and more... instanced, in 2 and 3. It makes the galaxy feel small, and since the separation between "talky" areas and "shooty" areas is distinct, it lacks the organic flow of perhaps being ambushed or provoking a fight at any given time.

 

[Amaror]

Sigh.
I allready had my fair share of "Game X is popular. Well I didn't like it! What do you say about that!" - discussions and gotten a bit tired of them.
So I am just going to say that I disagree heavily and leave it at that.

 

[Bobular]

I've been playing Mass Effect 3 again and I noticed my last save was 2012, that made me feel really old as the only two other RGPs I've played in that time have been Pillars of Eternity and Dragon Age Inquisition (I could never get into the Withcer and I'm counting JRPGs as separate).

What I have noticed playing the series again is that Mass Effect 3 has the best combat but Mass Effect 1 has the best story and dialogue. I remember my first go through the Mass Effect series, in 1 I chose a mixture of paragon & renegade options depending on the situation, by the end I was mostly paragon with a bit of a renegade streak, but the second and third (especially the second) I didn't feel like that was as easy to do.

That to me is the difference in depth between the two games, not the UI or the inventory system (I hated Mass Effect 2's inventory system when it was announced for being dumbed down, but after actually playing it I think it is a massive improvement).

The worse part of Dragon Age 2 for me wasn't the repeating dungeons but the dialog wheel, my first character would almost always choose the jokey options because I felt like that was his personality and to do differently would make him have some sort of split personality issues, I would pick the angry options at certain points but it just seemed so jarring between the two.

 

[Schadrach]

In any case, try Witcher 1, Gothic maybe. Like the old, and really, good stuff (alright, that's Witcher 1 is not that good, I'm just playing with the 'good old' thing here).

Also play Planescape: Torment. You are not allowed to talk about RPGs before playing that.

The Gothic series is fantastic, if a bit clunky. One of the few games I've seen where they give you an open world, warn you that it's really dangerous to go somewhere, and then probably kill the fuck out of you should you dare ignore the warning early in the game. My first Orc kill in Gothic involved tricking it into falling to it's death because it could one shot me, and damnit, after climbing up that cliff to see what was up there, I wasn't going to let one stupid Orc keep me from looking around.

Training in your combat skills does more than just give you bigger numbers -- your character actually gets better at handling weapons.

Mobs don't respawn, except at chapter boundaries.

Almost every named NPC is killable by the end of the game -- literally everyone but Diego, Lester, one guy from the New Camp, and Xardas can be killed by the end. It uses an "invulnerable flag" on anyone who is needed for the main plot, but it removes it the moment they aren't.

Nonlethal melee combat with humans is the default (you have to finish them off to kill, and you'll likely get a bunch of early game loot by mugging people).