The RPG with great gameplay and deep character customization + great combat.
If I want a good story I read a book. If I want C&C I go play pen and paper.
It's the first option. Basically the question is, do you want a book or a game?
Why? Because games are suppose to be interactive above all else. Linear stories are in movies.
I want to play a game, not watch a fucking movie.
Elim, epeli, Innsmouth, Onholyservicebound, I think you all don't understand exactly what a game is, or what it's "strengths as a medium" are. So, I hope you take the debate-bait and read this, along with anyone else who thinks that if there's no interactivity with the game world narratively, then it EDIT: might as well be a movie/book (I originally wrote there is no story, well wtf I guess I was drunk ah well).
The main different between a video game and a movie first of all is that you have a controller (mouse and keyboard are controllers for the purposes of this discussion, they control). Think about it, seriously. How does a movie place you in the plot? Music, visuals, camera work, acting, and writing. Those are the only tools they have. What about video games, what do they have? Music (possibly), visuals (even text adventures come in a certain font, but since there were text adventures before they could chose a font I believe let's say not necessarily), camera work (possibly), writing (possibly), and gameplay. As long as there is some gameplay, and it's a game. I'm sure you don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it is
technically a game if it has some amount of gameplay, but you still think maximizing the strengths of the medium means have narrative interact with gameplay, and you're wrong, at least in how your considering the "interaction".
Best example: Resident Evil. Now, take your pick among 1, 2, or 3 for Resident Evil, but it does Survival Horror amazingly well from the standpoint of the gameplay, and it makes the game scarier. Think about it, how the gameplay affects the plot isn't really interesting, but how the gameplay affects the
tone, it's a freaking masterpiece. What conflicts does your character face? External conflict with monsters and environment. And for the character, their death is a serious issue. They are scared of death. Now, what is Resident Evil trying to make the player feel? The same thing as the character, fear of death. How do they do this? Limited health restoratives, limited ammo, and limited saving. Now, I'm talking about what the game was attempting to do with this gameplay, not what you felt it did. Sometimes you might think that the acting, music, or whatever of a movie is not the best choice, but that does not change the fact that if the music or acting is trying to create a tone than it using the "strengths of it's medium", it's just your personal experience with it in which it doesn't succeed. The reason I mention this is because you might be inclined to say: "Dying searching for ink ribbons isn't scary, it's fucking tedious", but simple fact is it was intended to be scary and even if the execution is off the gameplay was obviously trying to create a tone. Furthermore, I say fuck you I thought it was scary : D. Seriously, I was fucking terrified to die. I didn't care as much about my in game life as the character would IRL probably, but hell I felt
something, I mean you hopefully don't feel just as bad when a mom's kid dies in a movie as you would if your kid actually fucking died! I cared about my life (my in game life), and I seriously played in order to conserve it. So Resident Evil played to the strengths of it's medium. I think there was limited plot interactivity, like a few lines difference depending, but take that out and it still is just as scary, even with usually shit writing compared to even an average horror novel, because the GAMEPLAY set the tone, not the narrative, and it did it WITHOUT INTERACTING DIRECTLY WITH THE NARRATIVE. It played to the mediums strengths, and it makes Resident Evil achieve a fear that is totally different than any horror movie could, I invested in the character's safety in a manner totally different than how I would in a movie. And that is a fucking game. So, CnC is absoluely not necessary to make a game, hell most games have very little, and it's definitely not the the thing that makes it a good game that utilizes the strengths of the medium, it's how the GAMEPLAY sets a tone!
Seriously, actually think about it? What if I create an RPG with incredible CnC where most decisions have an impact on the characters. For example, let's try to get a game where the threat of death of the in-game characters is supposed to be feared. What would happen if I made a combat system where the PC was VASTLY overpowered and could take care of every threat like a fucking boss, and they might as as well have come in riding on tanks with Jesus shooting RPGS. Would that be a game that is playing to the strengths of the medium? No. What if I make a game where every fight could end you if you don't think tactically enough, and dying would result in a serious setback for you like going back more fights, loss of experience, or loss of items? You would invest more in the characters survival here, even if you didn't totally invest in the characters personalities. Now, obviously good CnC could make you invest more in the characters as well
if the gameplay assisted. But without well designed gameplay to back it up, your best CnC is shit, and well designed gameplay will try and mostly succeed in setting the tone.
The game itself obviously doesn't play like a movie, but the narrative does, just a shitty disjointed movie with awful pacing and at it's best "good for video game" writing.
That being said, obviously this shows you were arguing something slightly different Onholyservicebound, but still it is wrong in my opinion. Could you really not imagine a well written game that does pacing well and has not just "good for a video game" writing but "good in general" writing. If that's the case, go play Yu-No: it's a dialogue heavy adventure game which, aside from the occasional silliness of particular lines (and perhaps in whatever sex scene that might pop up once in a playthrough" it has some stellar writing in it, the plot and the characters themselves are very well developed. Grant it, it has some of the best CnC but still even if you were forced down a particular path alone it would be amazing (grant it what constitutes a path exactly might effect it a bit as it involves taking a few to get to the 'true' ending, but since it's a time travel ending it's not such a bullshit attempts to give it replay value and each sub-path to one of the not true endings are also still greatly written and very well paced even, but without the sense of understanding that comes from true completion).
Now, lastly, can I point out the whole CnC terminology missed the mark of most discussions we have about CRPGs? Some people what to talk about narrative choices that have narrative effects, like choosing to say this or that or approach a mission this or that way changes the narrative. Some people want to talk about gameplay choices that have narrative consequences when they say CnC, like choosing to be mage means these people hate you or doing these things gives bad karma/reputation/whatever, although reactivity is sometimes used more accurately to talk about this. Some are talking about different endings, some are talking about the ability to choose at least nearly anything in an rpg as the story, seriously we can't have a good discussion if we're not even talking about the same thing.
Also, shit on the visual novel all you want, but people who play them know how to have a good discussion on CnC. Personally, I like the distinctions made and dislike the terminology however, and like to simply use the branching metaphor as the basis when I talk about CnC: does it have wide or narrow branching (how different can one narrative be from another), does it have dense branching (how many narrative choices can you make), how many distinct branches (branches not connected), and then early or late branching, different starts, different endings, unlockable branches/starts/endings/whatevers, and then all the standard rpg lingo like reactivity, classes, character builds, open world, nonlinear (meaning order does matter, you can have a nonlinear story that doesn't branch), and so on.
Describing a game as being reactive linear narrative with narrow, dense branching and multiple endings is much more informative than saying "It has good CnC".
Also to answer the actual question asked, since I might as well, both can be equally fun, but a well written nonbranching game ("no C'n'C") can be truly legendary. Then again I haven't played Arcanum and it seems to be legendary for CnC but no one agrees on the greatness of the plot so maybe that'll change when I get around to it.