Personally, something I would like to see from RPGs is encounters with more solutions. I would much rather play a game with with very few encounters, but where each one is of a higher quality, rather than the tedium that is endless random battles that all feel the same.
I’m actually going to use an example from Final Fantasy X here. Please don’t crucify me. XP
Right at the start there’s a battle where you’re outnumbered and surrounded, and you’re trying to reach the other end of the highway - in order to press forwards, you must attack the enemies in front of you. You are being attacked from all directions, but to get through the fight you don’t need to kill all your enemies - you just need to make it across the highway. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but just the addition of of the nice animations (it does this scene - including the movement - all within the battle system) and an actual context for the battle, with a goal other than “win the fight!” made it so much more involving than an average random battle.
This, and one or two other battles, stood out as moments that were actually engaging in a game that otherwise consists of walking down a very long, random battle infested road. =/
Another example.
Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne had a wonderful art direction, a really intriguing setting and an interesting plot - unfortunately, I’m not sure where that plot goes, as I’ve not been able to finish it. Huge, sprawling, boring dungeons full of endless random battles managed to kill my interest before the end. I do intend to go back to it, but the idea of facing all those random battles is really putting me off.
I guess the point I’m making here is about variation. We all get sick of endless random battles that feel exactly the same. Abadd, I believe, pointed out that as great as Skies of Arcadia was, you could cut most of the random battles and it would actually be a better game. I personally think Skies contained enough interesting boss battles and puzzles in the dungeons that you could cut all the random battles, and it wouldn’t hurt the game. But maybe that’s just me.
In the future, I’d like to see more RPGs that have less encounters - but make each one much better thought out. It’s much more interesting when an encounter has an objective - and how you achieve it is up to you. If someone is trying to kill you then simply not dying would be the objective - and how you achieve it should be up to you. If you think the smartest thing to do is to run away - then not only should it be an option, they should make the battle system include a system for it that is as well thought out and interesting to play as the option to fight. It would use different skills from the combat option, and when you succeed you should get the same reward experience wise for completing the encounter in your own way. Too many Western RPGs nerf non-combat characters, because they quite simply don’t get experience, because they don’t fight.
A good thing that Western RPGs do (and JRPGs usually don’t) is keep conversations interactive - story sections feel far more like part of the game, rather than tacked-on movies - when there’s a system behind the conversations. It’s usually much harder to work this sort of thing into a plot with a main character who is simply a viewpoint character for the player - and has his own personality - rather than a plot where the main character’s personality is up to the player, of course, which is why this doesn’t usually feature in JRPGs. Still, it’s possible to add dialogue options that allow you to make decisions for the character, but keeping it within the sort of thing that character would ask about, and not letting the player choose exactly how it’s said. Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy, for those outside Europe) had a rather good system that was somewhat like this.
I’ve heard a lot of people saying games that leave the main character’s personality up to the player are superior to simply having a viewpoint character, and vice versa. I don’t think that either is superior to the other - they’re just different methods of story telling in the medium. It’s sort of like arguing that books written in first person are superior to ones written in third person. While you may have a preference, both are equally valid ways of telling a story, and I don’t think it’s a good mentality to think that all games should do it one way or the other.
Oh, and as a side note - I’m really looking forward to Mass Effect. Bioware are working on making a really compelling conversation system for it. It’s nice to see developers looking to improve aspects of their game that AREN’T the combat system.
My theory on good game design is that the more you can keep interactive, the better. It’s what sets video games apart from other mediums. If something is being put into a cut scene - I think the developers should ask themselves why. If the scene could be playable, they should make it so. At least, that’s my take on it.
As for video game plots - while it may be true that really deep narratives aren’t as common as they should be (although I maintain that there are more than you might think) - I reckon that the average plot in a video game such as Final Fantasy is better than your average Hollywood movie. Seriously, at least FF has fleshed-out characters and always make an attempt at symbolism. While they might be fairly amateur, which would you say is better? Final Fantasy, or the latest Vin Diesel action movie?
@ Alex, Geoff and Kadamose.
Totally on Alex’s side for this one. It’s not laziness on the developers part that they get saddled with a bad project. In fact, it’s proof that the developers really care about what they do that the latest crappy football game looks so good and features great physics. As Alex said, devs quite simply DO NOT get into video games purely for the money - with the same qualifications there are FAR more lucrative jobs out there. Don’t blame the devs for working on these games - blame the state of the industry that demands that developers produce only “safe” games in order for a publisher to show any interest. If the developer doesn’t already have a large enough fan base and an established franchise to fall back on, then anything that could be deemed risky has very little chance of ever seeing the light of day. And the alternative to developing games that actually will get published is to go out of business.
Planescape: Torment 
