Maybe I'm just a fanboy, but The Witcher games are by no means woefully inferior to your average book. And more importantly, the medium has no limitations when it comes to story telling ( not that books do either). As the industry evolves, the writing will get better.

My point was that computers are much more suitable for handling the combat aspect of RPGs than the storytelling part. Much of the appeal of table top RPGs is that it is so freeform and with a good DM your are not forced along a linear path. A computer game with its linear story and limited setting can never replace a good DM, but it can resolve comples battle that would take hours to resolve on a table top in the fraction of a second.

And wood is more suitable as fuel than for carrying information :-P But yeah, I get what you're trying to say.

The more options you have in a story driven game, the more watered down the writing will be, and it will be like those old choose-your-own-adventure books.
Games should be more about setting than story IMO. Give the player a large world to explore and to do what he wants without being to much hamstrung by the story. Too much emphasis on story and the game becomes just an interactive movie.
Oblivion was much more enjoyable when just ignoring the main quest, for example.

Well, I haven't played The Witcher, but I understand the writing was actually done by a professional writer, and not the average hack that writes for most games?

Agreed!

apart from that real stinking Nirnroot seach and collect quest that was a real pain in the ass.

Exactly! What I said, I think in THIS thread (but may have gotten deleted as my posts sometimes do), story is something that ANY genre of game can do about equally well. It is true that RPG mechanics make storytelling more fully realized but it is those MECHANICS that are corer to the genre's definition. Not the story which is a side effect at best and the story in say Planescape is hardly better than the best stories of some FPS, point-n-click adventure, etc. If you are really fiending for good story then read Gene Wolfe's science fantasy books.

Yep that's true ever played Laxius Power I, II and III it's like final fantasy on the snes. With more adult undertones.

Which is not a bad thing, mind you. The reason why interactive movies were largely unsuccessful was because the technology wasn't flexible enough - you just couldn't produce enough quality content with branching story. Videogames make this much easier. After all, Planescape: Torment was just a little more than an illustrated interactive book - and look at it's success!

Again, look at the sheer ammount of text in Planescape: Torment. Did it seem watered down? And most modern games don't any longer need a description of what's going on, which clears up a lot of writing space. And that can be used for quality dialogue.

It was an average hack, the professional writer wrote The Witcher novel. Writing in the first Witcher game is actually fairly poor for the most part, but the overarching story is very solid and choice and consequence system rise the game far above average. Writing improved dramatically in the second game, and it kept the good bits.
Yes, they also offer all those ways you can get trough that story, sometimes there's even like two! ... As compared to about one bzilion in Planescape. This is what defines RPG: Choice. No matter whether is within combat or story.

See, this is the bit you guys don't quite get: RPGs offer an interactive approach to story. It's not comparable to reading a book, since you can't rewrite a book and then pretend it's canon.

That I can agree with. :-)

I would make another thread but why not here

What would you guys think would make the Ultimate MMORPG

Starting with no monthly fees and no in game shop using real life money

EDIT: I think one thing you guys you guys would like in MMORPGs is make all the quest and Bosses unique but that sounds almost impossible

That sounds like a very sober and objective definition of JRPGs void of any generalizations. ;)

You make some interesting observations and I can see a certain truth in them, but I bet one could just as easily write up something similarly dismissive about Western RPGs. They cater to an audience with a different taste, but it's not really that more exquisite as many make it out to be. You could claim Western RPGs also have the "same" artstyle, in that most try to be realistic in their depiction of (caucasian) humans, most have a very generic setting with dwarves, orcs and elves and a story about some unknown hero saving the world, most choices are only superficial, the "true" RPG mechanisms are designed for math fetishists to get off to, interaction equals frantic mouse-clicking or watching as the computer rolls dice for you, and they ALL have epically pompous names like "Sacred Quest for Divinity 2: The Magic Scrolls of the Mighty Overlord". :P

That being said, for me a great rpg is original and fun to play, and if it fits these criteria I don't care if it's Western or Japanese. Heck, I don't even care if it would be a real RPG in your book, I only care if its great. Categorizing original games is a hopeless endeavour anyway. The better you can categorize something, the less interesting it becomes, IMO.

Two words: inventory management.

I don't care about stats or skills or character progression or personal choice or storytelling or interesting settings or interesting characters or romance or plot or an organic experience. I only care about item weights, bag space, and magnificent TETRIS. It is a sad state indeed when RPGs have moved away from their glorious inventory management sim and puzzle game roots, and into a world of unlimited resources and options.

Get Inquisitor, you'll be in for a treat! 4 pages of 8x11 grids!

first off, I like inquisitor and want it badly, but i simply don't have any money. so i'd like it if you stop mentioning it thanks. ;)

and second off,

a story in a movie is presented to you in images and dialoge, and it doesn't do anything different the whole movie. this is the same with books. it is what it is. books however, have such vivid descriptions that you really FEEL the plot.

a game on the other hand, the story can change depending your choices. not only that, but you're PLAYING the story, you have an investment in it. you do something, and then SEE the plot evolve around your actions! not only that, but in games, you can find many many stories aka sidequests. the world really gets fleshed out and feels alive and real.

i find movies to have the funnest story's, books to have the second most fun story's, and games to have the least fun.

however, i like games the best, and i LOVE the story's in games!


its just that, at this point, i've pretty much seen it all. all story's are the same old same old to me.