I'm not talking about games like The Sims. I'm talking about games with clearly defined story elements (aliens invading Earth, etc) in which the God AI, character AI, and physical laws of the game are so advanced that there won't be 10 endings or 100 endings or even 100,000 endings scripted and changed slightly based on your character 's stats and some flags in the game. There will be literally an infinite amount of endings based not only on what your character does but also based on what the AI of all the non-player characters in the game do as well as the course of events in the game itself.

Also I agree it's not a story in the traditional sense but an interactive story in which you are very much a part of it and help to decide where the story goes. I think that's far more excited than playing some scripted story in which you're forced to go from point A to point B to point C by the developers. Really what is the point of playing an interactive story if your control of events is just an illusion? Why not simply go watch a movie, tv show, or read a book if you want no real control and the biggest benefit of interactive storytelling removed?  I think fans of WRPGs really want the kind of thing I mentioned in my first paragraph as opposed to some fans of JRPGs who may just want the illusion of control.

Bodhesatva: Well this was just the logical progression of WRPG's on my opinion. They have always been alot about making choices and customizing. This is the single biggest difference between JRPG and WRPG. If you want a single coherent story to be told to you, stick with JRPG's, and if you want to make the story yourself to some extent, best go with WRPG.

So in essence I don't see this as the general progression of games, but just the natural progression of WRPG's as a genre.

Bethesda is probably doing the same as in Fallout 1 & 2, meaning after you end the game you'll watch a narration that will tell you the consequences of your actions, and the fate of the ones you've come across. Example, if you helped some town with water shortage earlier in the game, it would tell you the fate of that same town. However, if you instead helped some raiders take control of that town, it will show a different fate and the consequence of your actions.
Hell, if you don't even do anything to that town directly, it will probably still tell you what happens to it, just like in the older Fallout games. ISN'T IT AWESOME?! This just gave me a bit of confidence about the game, but I'm still disappointed at some of the shitty decisions from Bethesda.

@Bodhesatva

It's a different structure of storytelling, in where the player is actually the one that tells the story. IT'S TRUE ROLEPLAY! And of course, the story has to be presented differently than a linear storytelling.
But letting the player make the story does have the potential to have a better story and be more immersive than the linear storytelling used in Final Fantasy. That is why many people think the wRPG Planescape: Torment has the best story and best writing ever in videogaming history. That is why Baldur's Gate 2 has the best romance ever in a videogame. That is why that in Fallout 1 people actually felt sad when Dogmeat (the pet dog) died, and even though Dogmeat was such a weak character I also couldn't part ways with him everytime he died.

It's clear you never played the older Fallout games, and you don't have much experience with wRPGs. The freedom-based storytelling is the best for an RPG.

PS: By the way, Fallout games always had dog companions, so it's no surprise here.

I think what you're imagining, Legend, isn't possible. I don't mean because of current technology, I mean because it's logically impossible. You're imagining a future where the user has more freedom... and yet the developer stills maintains control, simply offering the user more freedom as well. That isn't how it works. Either the developer has power over the story, or the user. The more power you give one, the less the other has. That's why games tend to be less story driven the more open they get. 

The reason why The Sims is an important example here is that it shows the drawbacks of giving the player an enormous amount of freedom with their main character; developer-driven story disintegrates. It is not possible to write a coherent and meaningful story... that also begins and ends in 100000 ways. 

What we'll end up with, in reality, is something like we see with The Sims; there are legions of websites were people tell their Sims' stories, about who they are and what they like, and so forth. The game is so customizable that the real point is to tell your own story, that you make.  You have to think like a developer here, or particularly like a story teller; the developer can't tell a story if you're making it up. And the more freedom you give the user to make the story as he goes, the less able a designer is to tell a story to you. 

In a lot of ways, it's precisely what you're describing, except I think you're imagining it being somehow able to maintain a story driven by the developer (which it is not). It's a game where you decide what the main character looks like, acts like, feels like, gets married to, does with his life, and so forth. The Sims is so open and free that a story written by the developers simply isn't possible. Instead, the story is written by me, the user, and I can post it on any one of the scores of websites devoted to just such story telling. 

Here's a super-futuristic example, Legend: think of the Star Trek's Holodeck. In the show, there were linear stories one could follow (being an old west hero, for example) that had limited interactivity and specific boundaries, but when the holodeck was made truly customizable -- where the user could make his own setting, people, atmosphere and time period -- all semblance of story evaporated. It was just the person on the holodeck interacting with the things he had created. There was no story except the one he made up for himself.

That's the consequence of freedom: the more you give the user, the less the designer has. The truest form of story telling is where the user has no freedom whatsoever, and the designer has as much as he wants; those are films, books, and so forth. The film maker/novelist can tell whatever story he wants. People may not necessarily like his story, but he can decide every aspect of it.

Interactivity and story telling are directly at odds with one another, and as we increase the amount of interactivity, we decrease the ability to tell a coherent story. Again, just to make sure I'm clear: I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all! I'm very much looking forward to greater interactivity in games, and I definitely prefer more open games, as well. I'm just pointing out that this openness comes at the cost of the developer's ability to tell a story.

 Care to elaborate on what decisions Bethesda has made that disappoint you? I'm an old Fallout player, but I haven't been following the development of 3.

I also agree that WRPGs are more about actual roleplaying. JRPGs shouldn't really be called RPGs at all. They're interactive fiction, which isn't quite the same. 

Can I kill children in fallout 3? If so then sign me up. I hope fallout 3 is actually a fallout game, not just oblivion. If its Oblivion with guns I will never buy a bethesda game ever again.