If The Witcher had been marketed as an Action-adventure, would you have enjoyed it more?
Because it is actually an action-adventure with strong RPG elements. Also, one tends to have three possible outcomes for most of the threads that run through the game, so in the sense of "consequences of your actions" the game is not quite as linear as some. This aspect comes out very strongly in the additional adventure that comes with the Witcher Advanced content - The Price of Neutrality. There are a lot of different choices to make, and different combinations bring you about 3 or 4 different possible endings (for The Price of Neutrality) .
No, it's not about a label or marketing.
It's about how a game plays and what features are implemented. If a game "pretends" to be an RPG - then I prefer being able to make my own character - because in an RPG, I expect to immerse myself in a role - though I'm pretty boring, because I always play a fantasy extension of myself - as in an "evolved" me. Not a fortunate thing, because I enjoy the stealthy/assassination type gameplay - so in games that allow that, I end up rather conflicted
Furthermore, I like non-linearity and strong exploration in general - no matter what genre. When I talk about the kind of non-linearity that I prefer, it's basically about the freedom to explore the world without chapters or sequences. There are many kinds of non-linearity - and I generally like them all, but the freedom to explore at my leisure is probably the most important one.
That's something I really want in all games I play, but I've come to accept that most genres just don't have that - and developers have long since stopped evolving and they obviously prefer simplifying and streamlining everything instead. But fortunately for me, they still make non-linear CRPGs - on occasion - and as such I really crave that feature in that genre.
Also, if a game has a lot of combat - and most RPGs do, then the combat system better be entertaining, and I happen to find The Witcher's combat rather unengaging if not downright dull. I felt like I was back in the early 80s playing the arcade Laserdisc version of Dragon's Lair - where you have to time your clicks before you get to see the animation unfold.
There are many other things about The Witcher that really weren't working for me, but I don't think it's necessary to go over them.
I don't see The Witcher as an action adventure, at all. It's CLEARLY an RPG and you can't expect my tastes to change because of how it's marketed.
System Shock, on the other hand, is clearly NOT an RPG - to me - but evidently other people don't agree. It's basically a cerebral shooter - if you will. There are enough adventure elements in there to have that genre join in, but the gameplay itself is mostly just run and shoot. You don't interact with anyone, you don't create or develop your character, you don't make any kind of decision that affects the outcome of anything in the game.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single RPG specific feature right now. One could argue that the sophistication of the "gear" you find is enough to go beyond shooters, but there are many action/adventures with that kind of gear.
That said, I think it's the ONLY shooter I've ever played with THAT level of non-linear exploration and freedom. That's probably a key reason for my love of the game - so there's that. System Shock 2 had strong exploration as well, but it was mostly linear - and the occasional backtracking felt, literally, like backtracking. That's the beauty of System Shock - because the space station opens up in the early stages, and it feels more like the station is at your whim than going back to get something, and then moving on. It's one of the primary sources of inspiration for a "dream game design" I have - that I'll never get to make.
As if this post wasn't already self-indulgent enough, let me go even further in clarifying my tastes.
I also happen to be VERY big on immersion. To me, nothing kills immersion like when you can feel the hand of the developers guiding you around or telling you what to do. That's another key aspect of what I want in a game.
In a linear experience, I tend to feel that hand of the developer grabbing my neck just as I'm about to proceed somewhere and pulling me back with a "no you don't, you gotta complete this sequence first as we've laid it out for you."
That's a big part of what was wrong with Bioshock, for instance, because all levels were self-contained and felt more like individual theme parks that really had no consistency. To add insult to injury, the game also defaulted to big shining golden arrows guiding you around and telling you what to do. When you consider the stunning beauty of the level design, as linear as it was, this was particularly tragic and counterproductive to the overall experience.
The Witcher had this same weakness, and I really disliked knowing what chapter I was in, and knowing that I had to do this and that before I could really move on and explore further.
The beauty of System Shock is that even though there are certain goals you have to achieve, the level and gameplay structure was pretty damn flexible about it. You can do many things in the order you please, and relatively early - you're free to go to what in most games would be the last levels and do things there first. When I take my own preferences and pretty much every other game of this genre into consideration - I can only refer to Looking Glass as a bunch of geniuses.
That's just how I roll, I guess.