To ruin it, there's a scene where you meet your girlfriend in the game. Nothing big, mind you. It seems like a simple task.

She asks you to sit on the couch and you watch television with her for as long as you like. Later, she is executed in front of you for your crimes against the family. Normally, you wouldn't give a shit. But that one moment on the couch and Jenny's voice acting actually makes her a real character to the player.

It's really quite poignant and brilliant given the general feel of FPS games. The rest of the game is mediocre at best but that's one of those moments where interactivity is really shown in its glory because you had to actually connect with the character on a subtle level and when she dies, you are actually invested in that moment.

It's sad how one rather annoying moment on a couch turns into one of the most powerful moments I have seen in gaming in quite some time.

I have played Xenogears and I know RP. I doubt it would change his opinion. I loved Xenogears, but like most anime, its story is a bit overdone. Still a great game (except for the point where you can tell the team had their budget cut), but it is just a good story in a sea of mediocre JRPG stories (yes, JRPG stories are just like anime stories, 95% mediocre to poor with overzealous fans that try to polish brass into gold). MGS stories go from being decent to mediocre with a healthy group of fanboys that standby with polishing rags.

Some of the best efforts by a Japanese dev to make games that really use the medium of games to have the player feel emotion and have you feel characters without obnoxious lengthy dialog come from Team ICO. ICO and Shadow of the Colosus are much better works of art than most games. It does stand to reason though that many times the games that have the best story or go for the more artistic approach may not sell that well. Movies are that way and books can be also. Its great that people try to make those games, but they are not for everyone.

The reason people may get more emotional about video game storylines is that they are already involved in the game by interacting with it. People can be drawn into mediocre stories if the gameplay is decent. This doesn't mean the story is great, but it's doing it's part in the game to make you feel immersed. Take the story out of the game and you may see how laughable it really is. This doesn't make the game bad either, unless the story is so obnoxious that you sigh whenever a character speaks, but just remember to put it in proper perspective.

I have played Xenogears and I know RP. I doubt it would change his opinion. I loved Xenogears, but like most anime, its story is a bit overdone. Still a great game (except for the point where you can tell the team had their budget cut), but it is just a good story in a sea of mediocre JRPG stories (yes, JRPG stories are just like anime stories, 95% mediocre to poor with overzealous fans that try to polish brass into gold). MGS stories go from being decent to mediocre with a healthy group of fanboys that standby with polishing rags.

Some of the best efforts by a Japanese dev to make games that really use the medium of games to have the player feel emotion and have you feel characters without obnoxious lengthy dialog come from Team ICO. ICO and Shadow of the Colosus are much better works of art than most games. It does stand to reason though that many times the games that have the best story or go for the more artistic approach may not sell that well. Movies are that way and books can be also. Its great that people try to make those games, but they are not for everyone.

The reason people may get more emotional about video game storylines is that they are already involved in the game by interacting with it. People can be drawn into mediocre stories if the gameplay is decent. This doesn't mean the story is great, but it's doing it's part in the game to make you feel immersed. Take the story out of the game and you may see how laughable it really is. This doesn't make the game bad either, unless the story is so obnoxious that you sigh whenever a character speaks, but just remember to put it in proper perspective.

I agree with most of what you say, most JRPG developers do not know how to incorporate the story into the gameplay; they keep almost all of it in the cutscenes. That's why WRPGs are usually superior to JRPGs in storytelling. Comparing the Xenogears to Planescape: Torment:

In Xenogears, side-content is pretty banal, vulgar, undistinguishable. Square used(and still does) the standard linear story, all-on-cutscenes galore approach. Leaving the side-quests giving a mere.... non-related feeling. The main story I already talked about it, it's good for an JRPG, but average at best against the best WRPG stories.

In Planescape: Torment, to let the player experience directly the Nameless One's Immortality strongly adheres to the atmosphere and cohesion of the Story; The recollection of his memories, and try to pick up those few pieces often leaving the player wondering about his origins (how old is he?.... what is his name?...) strengthens the bond between them; Giving the player first-hand seat on the evidences and clues his the Nameless One's past lifes as he encounters those who knew his past identities; Everyone's sins, thoughts, emotions, Morte's search for redemption, only being able to decrease his own torment if Nameless One (the player) forgives him. I could go on pointing more. .. most of it is optional, but all of it makes Planescape: Torment a surreal experience.

I agree with your point that interactivity usually provides little artistic merit.  But I do not think that this is an inherent problem of interactivity, but rather I see it as a problem of its implementation. 

You're correct to imply that game developers embed interaction into their games in a trivial way where the majority of players' choices (and reaction from environement) have only a marginal impact upon story development and help little to identify with their characters. 

But I believe that this is prevalent simply because developers have yet to devise a way to exploit interactivity to its potential.  I simply don't see any inherent limitation within interactivity itself that would constrain developers from implementing it better. If there is, I'd like to know.  

What makes it difficult for them to implement interactivity better is the inherent incompatibility between control and choice that game developers face.

Delivering a narrative generally forces creators to take control of how things turn out.  The extreme case is the traditional media, such as novel and movie, where authors/directors take total control of how stories and characters develop and audience passively receives messages. Interactivity, on the other hand, is to insert some degree of choice (and feedback) into narrative, unless of course it's entirely open-ended. 

What this balance between control and choice means is that by giving player a number of choice developers have a hard time to constrain the number of paths story and character develop.  Imagine there are thirty branching point in game and at most of them players have to make very important decisions; important in a sense that their choices meaningfully change how their characters develop, how players identify with their toons, how story changes, and how ultimately they end up with different endings. 

It's a nightmare for developers to maintain a healthy degree of control while simultaneously giving many meaningful alternatives at branching point.  The easiest, and most abused, solution for them is to structure interactivity in a trivial way so that players end up with a bunch of less-meaningful go-left-or-right choices that provide little merit.  If developers need to regain control, they simply insert cutscenes.  This is not a very clever approach.  Relying on cutscenes is a narrative heavy technique as they urge players to understand characters, but do not exploit the merit of interactivity that only gaming could accomplish better than novel or cinema.

But then again, this is not a problem of interactivity itself, rather the issue of how developers embed the sense of choice into controlled settings.  If it's done right (and I do believe that is possible), I presume interactivity could lead to better character identification and better immersion in story. 

Though I have yet to see a successful case, I try to be hopeful about it.