I just don't see it as being a particularly good example of what a true PC game should be. Games like Oblivion and Final Fantasy VII were vastly superior, imo.

The key difference between The Witcher and the games you mentioned is the idea of choice and consequence. To me, that's the most important part of any RPG and why Oblivion and JRPGs fail completely as RPGs. They didn't really provide any choice or consequence. In The Witcher, you are often faced with morally ambiguous choices that have far-reaching consequences. That's what really set the game apart for me. I'd actually have to sit there and think about my choices instead of picking whatever option would get me the best short-term rewards. I'd have to consider the potential long-term repercussions of any given choice because they all had the potential to greatly impact the game later on. This is a far cry from Fallout 3, for example, where you are given a lot of choice but none of it really makes any difference in the long run.

The individual mechanics of The Witcher weren't all that great. The combat was overly simplistic and easy, the character development system was too minimalistic, secondary weapons were useless, etc. However, I could easily forgive all of that because the game offered meaningful choice and consequence, something which most games do not.