Anyway, I have two questions about your preferences when it comes to CRPGs:

1. Do you tend to gravitate toward WRPGs or JRPGs? (This question is mainly for context.)

2. When developing an RPG, there are two different approaches that are not compatible with one another. One is to tell a story, with lots of cutscenes and dialog, and make sure that the player doesn't wander off and break things by doing things out of order. The other is to give the player an open world and the freedom to explore, going wherever they want (perhaps running into situations they can't handle, depending on how the developers decided to balance things, but that's another topic). Of these two approaches, which one do you prefer?

For me, the answers are:
1. JRPGs, since that's what I grew up on mostly.
2. Open world/freedom. I would rather be free to explore than have to sit through hours of cutscenes just to get through the main story.

(I suspect my particular combination of answers might not be typical.)

So, what is your preference here?

WRPGs and story within an open world.
Gothic did it quite well, so why incompatible? Tempted to say also Arcanum, for an even older one possibly Betrayal at Krondor too in the sense of being able to go all over the main area from the get go if you so wish.
Still, if I'd HAVE to pick, I guess I'd go with story, but still allow for a fair amount of freedom, choices, large areas to explore between story "hops"... Obviously, this requires lots of testing and mitigations for what the player may break.

1. When I was younger, I prefered JRPGs. As I get older, I'm being more entertained with WRPGs.
2. I really don't care, there are enjoyable games with both approaches. For me, the main question is whether the world reacts to your actions, whether I can feel that your character in any way matters or affects the environment.

I've always been partial to WKRPs myself.

1. WRPGs. But mostly due to the average art style and combat system I expect in JRPGs vs WRPGs. I'm a bit prejudiced against JRPGs in that I expect most of them to be long, linear, repetitive/grindy with many random battles, and that the combat is menu based and separated from the game world you explore (e.g. with a menu option "flee" in order to get back to the main world, instead of allowing you to flee directly and use your environment to your advantage, maybe come back again later to the same battle etc.)

2. Depends on the story. I am interested in games with a good main plot, but not many RPGs actually offer that. I do like exploration a lot, so I also appreciate freedom and open worlds. But I wouldn't really enjoy an RPG without any kind of story, I think. My favorite approach maybe would be a free open world without a "save the world" main plot, but many small scale stories in the form of interesting quests that you can take on while exploring the world, or even just intriguing encounters and environmental story-telling. Either way, I don't really have a strong preference towards one or the other, for me the more important thing is that it isn't all just repetitive combat without context.

Interestingly, many of the reasons you give for preferring WRPGs are the reasons I have for preferring JRPGs.

(One problem I have with WRPGs is unnecessary complexity; I don't like having to micromanage things like positioning, food (when present), and pointless weapon durability (like in TES). I also happen to like the turn-based menu-based combat; that's actually what got me into RPGs in the first place, and if a game doesn't have that, it does not really feel like an RPG to me. Also, I could point out that non-ancient non-MMO JRPGs actually don't require you to stop and "grind"; if you play through the main game, you will be strong enough to beat the main story.) Out of curiosity, do you feel that way about non-RPG action games, like Mario or Doom? Usually, in the context of story-heavy RPGs, the game world reacts to actions that you are forced to do because of the story (a cutscene might have your character doing something that affects the world), but not actions that you, as a player, choose to do. How do you feel about that?

Excellent thread. Gonna get a lot of hate from that comment :3!

1. I grew up with "jRPGs" (I was 14 when CT came out and played most FFs until today). But since Morrowind it shifted a little bit towards the "wRPG" side until Skyrim, which basically made me an even greater "wRPG" fan so to speak.

2. I pick the path of freedom rather then scripted narration. Being able to create your own story is one of the greatest things ever in video gaming. Its why DIY games like Minecraft are so popular. Most elements in story driven wRPG rather serve as detriment towards its gameplay which again bases its design philosophies on what you want to do as a player rather than someone experiencing a strict set of elements that comprises a story (dialogues, plottwists, general random banter, that sort of thing).

As an example on why "the experience" can be detrimental in the long run so lets take The Witcher 3 as an example. The general lack of random banter/ability to talk to people is also the largest criticism I have in regards to it. As much as it tries to be an open world game, the depth of which the player can interact with the world is rather narrow. Out of the ten thousand or so non-hostile NPCs that roam the lands, only less than 1% of them have more than 2 words to say. As an example you can't even ask people for directions inside one of the supposely largest cities in the world, which would've been amazing if you play the game without an UI. After you've "experienced" the games story it basically turns itself into a checklist of things you can do, which is fighting and collecting items. So 90% of any sort of collectable is stuff you don't even need after you already finished up the main and DLC questlines. For being such an amazing game, its lack to create atmosphere post game without incentivising players to actually explore make it not the perfect role playing experience. If thought further its not difficult to see that outside of the scripted story events/quests where you can pick dialogue trees and the general possibilities to play Gwent with some people the game simply becomes almost MMORPG like in its gameplay loop. I'd even go so far and say that even The Witcher 3 outside its questlines becomes a soulless chore that doesn't even reward exploration. Note that its still a very well made game thats very worthwhile spending 60+ hours in with every playthrough.

Of course it can go the other way around as well but thats the fun of it. The problems with freedom is letting the player decide to tackle any quest whenever they want means that things can break really easily and so developers must make compromises in order to ensure the game still works and that the player can still progress. So its also easy to see why some people don't like this sort of approach in favor of a sweet and well thought out story instead of a freedom focused role playing experience. Skyrim also is a good example. Some liabilities the developers had to make are also become detrimental towards the role play experience. And while some of the sidequests are great and the devs clearly focused more on that part rather than on the bad main questline there its easy to ask yourself why they didn't improve it the way they should've done it. Personally I assume its because to let people go wild with modding stuff around it, taking the main questline as a sort of canvas for modders. Gothic is one of the greatest games of all time and I agree that you can have both, but the game has to become rather specifically structured (for the lack of a better term) in order to pull it off. Gothics largest flaw is that you're thrown into the world while the pacing takes you out of stuff you think you should do next. It requires perhaps a little too much patience while offering not too many rewards in the process. Its not wholly the truth but its very easy to get lost into the confines of a game like Gothic. It really depends on the player willing to tackle the beast that are Gothic games.

An interesting question. I like a lot of different aspects about RPGs and obviously there is no single game that is the best in all of the things that I like. I think I would rank the different aspects like this.

1. Atmosphere. (Graphics, music, sound, text)

1. Interesting game mechanics, like many possibilities in character development, combat (especially turn-based) and non-combat mechanics. Planning ahead is fun!

2. Freedom in exploration, problem solving and character advancement .

2. Realism. What I mean is that although most RPGs are set in a world wholly different from our own, such a world feels much more believable when there is an amount of realism in them. Thinks like attention to detail, consistency, things that make sense are good. Some people think that realism is the enemy of creativity and fantasy. I totally disagree with that. A certain amount of realism will help you to be more creative and it will also help to make the more fantastic things in your fiction to be more believable.

2. Creativity in the non-mechanical aspects of a game. I think that a lot of games today are not very creative in their design. I suspect this is because many of the people who makes games today read very little books, and maybe they do not even watch much films\series either. These type of people will often have a very limited creativity and will mostly be influenced by other games rather than anything outside of the world of games.

Do you want to be more creative? Read more fiction. But also read more facts! Why did Tolkien have such a fantastic imagination? Well one of the reasons for this is that he was a great scholar.

3. Story. Also very cool in a RPG. Especially if it is good. But sometimes a minimal story is better, because if you don't have a good story to tell, it is better to let the players use their imagination.

4. Creativity in game mechanics.

8. Interface. A good interface makes the experience better.

20. Technical quality of the graphics. A high resolution is nice. But does it matter much? No.

As you probably can guess from my preferences, typical JRPGs in the vein of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy aren't the type of RPGs I like the most. I do consider Western RPGs as superior to Japanese RPGs. (But Japanse action games from the 8 and 16-bit eras are superior to Western action games from the same time.)
I do like JRPGs though. Final Fantasy 4, Dragon Quest 4 and Phantasy Star 4 are all really good games. Even though their game mechanics aren't terrible exiting, it is fun enough and the music is excellent. And the story and graphics is really charming. One thing I can't stand about JRPG's is the kind of voice acting that is used when modern JRPGs are translated to english. I haven't played many of these yet, but I would choose the Japanse dub any time just because it isn't so horrible and immersiveness-killing as the American dub often is. It is not that the Japanese voice acting sound very good, it often sounds very silly and exaggerated which is what I guess people like, but they never sound as ear-killing horrible as some of the American dubs I've heard.

Whatever is fun.....Iike a game with a good amount of story/lore, but it can be told through books/texts, dialog, and other means and not just cutscenes.

Also a game such as an RPG CAN allow some free roaming between the start and finish with regard to order of completion of tasks/areas and be more open and less confining in that regard as well...some RPGs have actually done just this.

Example: Kingdoms of Amalur(spelling might be off) on xbox360. Also Dragon Age series.

I don't like managing food and item durability either, but I don't remember playing any WRPG where it was a big deal. Most didn't have either, and in those who had it was just a minor nuisance. I admit I haven't played Morrowind though. I tried once but soon lost interest in it.

Positioning in combat I do like, a lot. It adds a bit more tactical depth, IMO. Menu based combat feels clunky and restrictive to me, like I could just let a simple script run the combat, as I mostly click the same options again and again each round. I do occasionally play games with this combat system if the setting is fun, but I usually prefer others.

I knew you would contest my use of the word "grind"; what I mean is not necessarily grind as in being forced to do the same battles over and over again, but just that there's so much slow and repetive combat that it feels like a grind or a slog. Hm, to a certain extent, I think, yes, I actually do. Mario and Doom style games don't give me that much of an incentive to fully play through them, and in fact I'ver never played through a Mario game. Doom ony recently and only the first game, in several shorter sessions. I think I generally do like story shooters and story-oriented Metroidvania games better than level based action games. That being said, sometimes I also enjoy action games that have hardly any story. But the difference to RPGs is precisely that the combat in these action games is fast-paced, thrilling and fun, not slow and tactical, and that you can play these games in short bursts while RPGs are usually long and not that well suited for players to take longer breaks from them. They're bound to quickly overstay their welcome with me if they don't offer anything but combat.

And I know you have a different definition of RPGs, but for me it's that they offer a wide mix of different but recurring gameplay elements, combat being just one of them. If an RPG is only about combat it would feel more like a tactics or strategy game to me than an RPG.

A fixed story is great so long as the story is compelling. ChronoTrigger being a prime example of it being done right. (Breath of fire was livable but not as well done, though then there's Phantasy Star 4 that started me on RPGs, very good too once you get it down and can survive through so many combats)

Other games with fixed stories like Kotor, i didn't find nearly as riveting and engaging (Perhaps because i am not a Star Wars fan)

As for open world games with a main quest and sub/side quests, Morrowind and Skyrim are the two i've played and beaten and loved (though loved Morrowind more than Skyrim).

MMO's and others may go more open world, but more likely are 'Grind, story, grind, story' type of games, and you can't just progress the story it has to be hard to get too far too quickly otherwise you could blow through all the content way too fast... hence 'go get 10 bear asses' quests...

Ultimately it's a delicate balance. Too little choice and it's a hallway, to much choice... wait... can you have too much choice? No, too much gatekeeping and it's a grind fest to artificially slow you down to make it seem like a longer story/experience than it really is.

Two of those games, Chrono Trigger and Phantasy Star 4, actually are relatively light in terms of the amount of time spent in cutscenes, at least when compared to its contemporary Final Fantasy 6.

Then again, Final Fantasy 6 is an interesting game to mention as far as this topic is concerned. The game starts being heavily story-focused, with lots of cutscenes (at least for the time), but after a certain major cataclysmic event, the game opens up, becomes non-linear, and the lengthy cutsenes stop (well, after you get the second airship, anyway).

Of course, I could point out that Chrono Trigger also switches to a non-linear style, once you get a certain upgrade to the time machine. Phantasy Star 4, on the other hand, remains linear with only a few side quests throughout.

(If only Chrono Trigger didn't have that one button mashing section...)

In this case, it can be frustrating and make the game seems hollow for me.
Old JRPGs usually don't offer many choices to the player, but advancing the story in a game like DQ IV feels rewarding, because the townspeople recognize your deeds and you can see the world changing.
Another linear JRPG, Trails in the Sky, makes you search for secrets or hidden quests and every detail makes some change to the world, even if minimal, but these details that make the world believable and motivates me to keep searching and doing stuff.

But I keep my expectations low if the sub-genre doesn't make me expect for this. For example, in 1st person dungeon/world crawlers like Might and Magic or Shining in the Darkness, I tend to play for the combat and mapping, and take the world building/changing as a bonus.

Ultima 7 is one WRPG where food becomes a nuisance, requiring busywork to feed your party while not really adding any challenge.

Durability in Morrowind and other TES games is not fun because it doesn't really add anything (except for giving magic items limited charges in Arena and Daggerfall); stronger weapons won't break in the middle of a dungeon (not even in the infamous mating octopus Daggerfall dungeons) if they start fully repaired, and repairing equipment (excluding Daggerfall magic items) is trivial. If you're going to put in weapon durability, it needs to actually matter, and to act as a limiting factor for stronger weapons; SaGa 1 and 2, and most Fire Emblem games, are better examples of it. (SaGa Frontier 2 is not, because it's too easy to escape the system.)

By the way, in Morrowind you can escape the weapon durability system by enchanting some accessories with Cast on Use effects, including one that has a Bound Axe spell (so you can get a weapon when needed); accessories don't have durability, and for whatever reason magical charage regenerates on its own.

I grew up with mixed crpgs tending to favor jrpgs for the stories. As I get older, I began to favor wrpgs for the freedom and mods. I want to explore and find new places. Jrpgs don't seem to like mods?