Typically I like to give a game a 5 by default and than add or subtract points (-2,-1,+0, +1, +2 etc) based on its further merits or flaws. Too be clear I consider a 5 a perfect average score, it simply lacks the quality and depth necessary to be elevated - originality being a key aspect.
1 point for successfully recycling an unoriginal element, -1 for doing it poorly, +2 for improving upon it
1 point for introducing a new element, -1 if its a critical failure, + 2 if its a critical success
+0 for being merely sufficient, which is a positive. +1', -1s for other general pro's and cons.
This dual criteria is Part of my non bias opinion process - not the entire process.
Witcher 3 is mostly exempt from +2's because it is a melting pot of well received titles despite being the 3rd entry in its franchise.
For comparisons I would bring up Assassins Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim and even Dragon Age; I don't actually consider Witcher a "traditional rpg" because it lacks any of the depth or investment that would bring it into that category - rather it's a sandbox fantasy with some light integrations like smithing, crafting, etc. A spectrum I consider mandatory when a title makes a claim to the rpg genre; to add to this, the majority of western rpg's not even being close to being real rpgs aka level of investment and personalization.
5
My average score for the ac series is 5 to 7. Red Dead Redemption 8. Skyrim 8. Dragon Age I haven't had enough time with but on that note I have played more than enough Mass Effect which is a strong pioneer for western 'rpg' choice consequences. A fairly tired trope that is recycled in Witcher with little to no evolution, however it is more than sufficient enough to be called a qualitative example of the feature. +1
6
Combat gives the player more respect than AC does and subsequently gives the player some room to stretch; however it is 'casual' and demands little more than tapping the attack button even late game on the highest difficulty. This is good because it pads the narrative and avoids messing up the narrative pacing by forcing too much struggle; its inherently relaxing, and has dynamic but is not victim to the abysmal design choices in AC - my closest comparison. Even early game, a simple understanding of a colour coded difficulty caption will guide you through a linear progression of the world. ..i.e 'red is bad.' +0
6
The open world is very large, in this regard - being a contemporary release; more map size is an expectation in the industry. It's zoned; not truly open..but still massive and gorgeous. The content of this world is underwhelming however - its virtually empty apart from some poorly varied mobs, shallow fetch quests and "for the most part" clearly labelled loot locations. Exploration goes tandem with the scope. +0
6
Progression/rpg elements; along with combat makes two of the most critical elements in a traditional rpg - the levelling system is nil; its an extremely shallow perk system that evolves relatively on par with the pace of the story. There is almost no room for individualism, just advance the handful of perks during your time with the game. -1
5
Story and narrative. Arguably lends a lot to the rpg focus of design. In Witcher the exposition, dialogue, context and world building is overwhelming -- cutscenes are more than plentiful and the quality of writing is consistent and commendable. Plots are dynamic and dot the world; the experience akin to a Pulp Fiction Game of Thrones ..of sorts. I personally found there was more potential for dialogue summations. +2
7
Finally graphics, they are excellent and are definitely up to industry standard and then some, we have some great attention to detail..always impressive in an open world. That said its nothing ground breaking for a new generation of technology, merely an admirable effort with artistic merit. I hate to think the game would have been unrivalled visually if it had only been on PC..when we only just received these new consoles. +1
8
Game play/ general quality. Gwent is great, its a fun card game that pervades the entire game world, a little more stimulating and expansive than something you might happen upon in AC. Gore is great, relative to the quality of graphics which are great. Otherwise combat is buggy, animations are buggy..you will clip on a lot of objects and almost consistently get stuck on almost anything you can think of, both on and off your horse, leaving you unable to pivot until you explore every possible option. Character movement is also sluggish. Generally it takes mechanical elements from all of the above mentioned games "which are rather dated now" and puts them in a stew and fails to improve upon them or even match the same quality: "Horse riding/ trail follow, free running, hot keys, inventory etc" UI is only sufficient, really I liked that part.. Additionally we have Witcher senses which is your x- ray/ detective senses, seen in countless other games..and is one of the worst mechanics I have ever seen integrated into the wide demographic "mainstream" portion of the gaming market.-1
7
Artistic merit. Very artistic, fairly generic medieval world, not much variety in npc's, mobs, enemies etc. About an hour into the game you have seen everything it has to offer visually apart from some key characters. Does a great job of adapting lore to the game - its saving grace really. However this world could have had so much for with such outstanding graphical fidelity, there's a handful of small towns..hills, mountains, trees.. Its all done extremely well, its totally gorgeous but excruciatingly empty; with your odd cluster of deer.+0
In conclusion the excellent exposition and narrative pacing manages to dress up the frustratingly basic game play at almost every opportunity. I've never seen so much dialogue prelude and conclude simple events like "50 feet between point A and B, pick up this" and "Go here, fight a couple of scripted mobs between point A and B."
My biased score is a 7, my attempt at an unbiased score 7.4.
I would have criticized levelling progression and combat more but I sincerely believe that they lack enough presence to merit serious review. The games greatest strengths far and away have little to do with it having rpg elements "which are nil" instead its a success in other ways.