Dragon Age too, no matter what you do really in the end you go through the exact same quests, the only difference is who your party members are and who will join your side. The different endings are just which person in your party had to be sacrificed, if at all.

Having said that, it does offer replayability, though jrpgs usually cover that with new game+. I guess the difference is just really, slightly different story vs more difficult same old same old.

I must admit though, having to select a dialogue choice in games like KOTOR and DA:O can get pretty annoying.

It's funny, I used to love JRPGs when I was younger. Not so much anymore, except for the really unique ones.

In Western movies, particularly US movies, you have the following structure:

1 - early lock of the conflict (i.e. who is who and what needs to be done and what will happen if you fail)

2 - you then have a number of challenges to overcome that take you closer and closer to resolving the conflict

3 - You then have resolution

Every Western RPG like Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3, etc. I've played has used US movie template for structure.

So in Mass Effect in the first mission the story is set (the conflict is you have to catch up with Saren and stop him), a few clues are sprinkled (what is that strange ship), you then have a series of linear challenges that take you closer and closer to the end while revealing the plot, then a big resolution that wraps everything up whose basis is essentially you finally catching up with Saren as 'locked' right at the beginning of the story.

Side quests are just that, side quests which are either small or if larger (say the big side quests in Oblivion) then they have their own arc which uses the same structure.  In Mass Effect however, the side quests are frankly a bit rubbish, and are not large enough to warrant more than go here, get this, fight these guys and return.  In Oblivion and Fallout 3 though, there are larger side quests which essentially repeat the formula - for example the Theives Guild side quest in Oblivion.

If you look at the main story in most Western RPGs is basiclly operates like a Hollywood film in terms of how the story is told and the structure used.

Dragon Age I think from what I've seen (I've yet to get it for PC but will soon) looks like it will try and evolve the narrative a bit more.  Fable 2 tried as well, with okay but uneven results.

In the end, as someone who studies film, I see games improving but its still apparent the skillset of those setting the narrative are still somewhat lacking compared to other entertainment industries - but this is improving steadily, and for games that want good dialogue, narrative, etc. I only expect things to improve.  Of course, at the same time, you're going to see more and more titles like Modern Warfare 2 go what I now think of as the Transformers 2 route - cut everything required for a real narrative or story of depth, rely on sterotypes and focus on nothing but the action that takes place between events.  But I doubt RPGs will go this route, thankfully.

IW have always done a better job at making exciting set pieces than telling a good story.  RPGs always had deep storytelling as a selling point, especially BioWare games.  What will happen is that there will be games than tell good stories and other that are basically hollywood blockbusters like Transformers and then games that are both like James Cameron films.  The same thing has happened with films and even books, the "definitive" storytelling medium.

i believe that JRPGS are better than WRPGS in all

Have you played Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Valkyrie Profile 1, Demon's Souls, Shadow Hearts, Ar Tonelico 1, 2? Games with extensive sets of choices that affect everything from stories and even endings. Chrono Trigger i believe has around 12-13 endings affected by multiple choices you make throughout the story. Chrono Cross has about 10+ endings based on your actions, and iirc one of the endings you can actually do it about halfway or less from the actual game (something to do with Lynx, it has been a long time). Valkyrie Profile has 3 endings based on several sets of choices you make Bad ending with Freya doing her thing (don't wanna spoil hehe), regular ending by following the main storyline in a linear way and the best ending by doing many different things from visiting places to talking to certain characters and performing certain actions. There are also actions that don't affect the main storyline but may give you extra character background, story, etc (such as Brahm's castle). Demon's Souls has 2 endings (that I know of), but also many choices you can make, whether you do sidequests for Mephistopheles who doesn't like patches the hyena, or you can betray patches the hyena after he gives you an item. Decisions with Surt, the silent chief, biorr of the twin fangs, etc. Shadow  Hearts has 2 endings and although not as in depth as the other mentioned games decisions to fight certain things in a certain order or just ignoring it alltogether can alter things. Ar Tonelico series has several endings and can alter the ENTIRE story early in the game based on something with the Revytails, who you dive into, how deep you dive which determines which get what powers all that altering the entire story, including places you visit,etc. I believe Mana Kemia follows something similar. Oh yea Legend of Mana, Star Ocean: Second Story, I believe Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, etc. Everything from the story being altered in many ways as well as the endings you get.

Oh and the whole concept bioware wants to tout as revolutionizing on how your saved game affects the rest of the trilogy isn't anything new. Suikoden did that, Dot Hack games do that I believe (decision based games also, pretty heavy on it too). 

So before you want to mention the linearity of the JRPG's you probably want to expose yourself to more of them. Maybe you have been playing to much Final Fantasy?

After reading some responses it does seem to me that alot of posters haven't played ALOT of the JRPG's out there. Yes I played KOTOR, Jade Emprire, Advent Rising, Baldur's gate series, Icewind Dale, etc. If there are any open minded individuals left out there, I expect someone to post in the following week about how they finally played Chrono Trigger or Chrono Cross and how amazing the stories were and how so many different things affected their story and endings. I love Ar Tonelico 1 and 2 but the lack of alot more difficulty (spoiled by Demon's Souls) and Ar Tonelico 2's game breaking Raki glitch may or may not turn people off who knows.

All games offer the illusion of choice in some form, while actually offering a limited freedom.  I think western RPGs do make more of a point to seem to give choice, but that is down to narrative goals and cultural preferences rather than better/poorer gameplay design.

Western RGPs are more focused on making you feel in control of the character and their assets (am I a marine, a spy, etc, am I good with firearms or explosives or whatever) - however the story is the same.  In Mass Effect the choice you mention I'd argue is actually pretty trivial.  The context makes it seem important, but it isn't really.  It changes nothing much in the end with regard to major outcome.

JRPGs as I said use metaphor and symbolism more, which limits the ability to customize character, etc. greatly.  In a JRPG its important that character X looks and behaves in a very specific manner as it will be tied to the themes that character is intended to convey.  This inherently limits.  Think, as a neutral example, of Greek myth.  You can't change the character of say, Icarus, without affecting his symbolism.  He has to be the way he is to function within that style of narrative.

Western RPGs are no more flexible in story so far as I've seen, but as in the West it is now fairly unusual to have overly symbolic characters or heavy use of metaphors, it is easier to allow for character customization and the like and therefore this is now common.

TBH the best dynamic story I've played is actually Silent Hill 2, because it's not simple choices at specific times, pick X or Y stuff, but subtle choices made through gameplay that affect the ending - which can be dramatically different, as will your emotional response.

In Silent Hill 2, if you play a certain way and make certain subtle, non telegraphed choices, your character will commit suicide at the end, and it fits perfectly within the narrative.

On the other hand, if you play another way (again, very subtly done) then your character will instead find redemption and survive both uplifted and released from their guilt.

Most games struggle though because they are either too afraid to really commit you to choices that affect the narrative or because they only offer the illusion of choice (such as the one you mention in Mass Effect) which actually doesn't affect the game much at all in the true sense of the narrative, simply alters a couple of cutscenes and how is left standing after the exact same resolution - or what team selection choices you have in a following game.

Rofl seems noone bothered reading my posts let alone play those games. I would be surprised if people knew what Demon's Souls, Legend of Mana, Dark Cloud 1 and 2, as well as Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger are.

I've played a few JRPGs as well as WRPGs. All the Final Fantasy games (main series), a few from the Starocean series, Chrono Trigger, Golden Sun, Tales of Phantasia and the first 2 Grandia games. Chrono Trigger was easily one of the best RPGs I've played. I've yet to play Demon's Souls but from the sound of things it plays more like a WRPG and to be honest I thought it was one when I first heard about it.

I also notice how the majority of games you mention above are relatively old (not current gen). Recently the storytelling in the JRPGs I've tried, haven't evolved in terms of storytelling beyond that of the SNES and early PS1 era JRPGs and in certain cases, the stories are now more off putting. I much prefer the direction storytelling in WRPGs have been going recently as it seems to be developing more in terms of player influence.