Why does every RPG receive so much hate?

[Kae]

Probably because it's one of the most if not the most ill-defined genre there is.

I'll go with this too, I mean what makes an RPG an RPG? What do you expect from it? it does not really have a defined quality I mean how should it play? What features does it need to be classified as an RPG? and things like that, people probably epect very different things since it's so loosely defined.
Also fanboys who hate every minor change made to a game of they're beloved franchise.

 

[FalloutJack]

Why does every RPG receive so much hate?

They don't. You're hearing a one-sided argument while the other side can't be bothered for enjoying themselves too much.

 

[FirebirdXR]

I don't see as much hate for western RPGs as I have seen with JRPGs, including Square Enix staples like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest. Even with an incredibly loyal fanbase, there are quite a rabid amount of haters.

What is interesting is that even thought FFXIII gets SOOOO much hate I still find it enjoyable, not because I'm a fan boy or because I have some sort of weird obsession with female characters (-.-)

FFXIII may not have been the most in-depth or challenging FF however it was by far the mostly visually stunning one to date.

And yes gameplay is a HUGE part of a game, however I think it made up for that with character development and polt.

Huh, that's quite the opposite for me, I liked the battle system, and it's quite a fair challenge at times, but, I found nearly all the characters insufferable (Fang and Sazh notwithstanding) and story horrible. Matter of taste, I presume?

But at least I agree that it was one of the most beautiful games from Square.
Though I just wished that some of the characters and attacks at least carried a little more weight....

...would it help that this game didn't make me feel like an 8-year old girl playing with a Barbie at times?
Or that the attacks felt like I was swinging an oversized pixie stick?

 

[Carlston]

Mostly the only cry I mostly don't get in RPG's is

"What? I have to wait my turn to attack, but I can do the hydoken fire ball 80 times before the computer attacks again!?"

Which of course if you real timed combat, the CPU making the 11 million instructions by the time you click a button once will win.

 

[mikespoff]

Mostly 4.

It's like a movie version of a book - generally the fans of teh book are disappointed to see that a certain character isn't the way that they imagined them - only the fans don't agree which one is wrong.

Early RPGs (especially tabletop or text-based) required a lot of imagination to provide the visuals, and everyone has a slightly different idea of how that should best be translated to a live-action fully-visualised environment. Which doesn't even start to get into how the gamers from other genres feel about all the confusing RPG elements which they may or may not like.

 

[Kalabrikan]

Aside from a few examples, the exact opposite of 3 is occurring.

It's mostly an issue of getting less content instead of more which is what a sequel is supposed to do. This is why so many people don't like Oblivion and Fallout 3; much of the interesting lore established in Morrowind and the first two Fallouts was stripped away or simplified with little added, and much of the gameplay was either repetitive or featured less than a predecessor. When you make a sequel, you expect either more from the gameplay or a different or more involved story, both of which got downplayed in the two games.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I'm reminded of MovieBob's Big Picture on "Fair Game," which can be seen here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

-If you prefer new-school RPGs, you're a graphics-whoring, ADHD-having 12-year-old simpleton.
-If you prefer old-school RPGs, you're an archaic, pretentious, elitist hipster douchebag.

-If you prefer turn-based combat, you're just too slow and dim-witted to think on your feet.
-If you prefer real-time combat, you're just too inept and superficial to appreciate strategy.

-If you prefer more action, you're too damned shallow to grasp nuance and proper storytelling and are impressed by shiny things.
-If you prefer more dialogue, you're clinging to outmoded, dry, boring delivery-system at the expense of fun..

-If you prefer cut-scenes, you're just too damned lazy to figure out a story for yourself.
-If you prefer text, you're doing it wrong and should just go read a book.

-If you prefer JRPGs, you're obviously a weeaboo/pedophile who either hasn't hit puberty yet, or can't remember it since it was so long ago.
-If you prefer WRPGs, you're a thick-headed asshole who has no imagination or depth, likes Michael Bay and whose favorite color is gray.

And God help you if you somehow prefer Final Fantasy XIII to VII, Daggerfall to Oblivion, Fallout 3 to Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect, or even Fable to Chrono Trigger.

God help you.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Well, the acronym RPG means Role Playing Game.

Admittedly, this can be applied to anythign sincey ou are playing the "role" of a character in a game.

The thing is, a role playing game should immerse you, make you the character of the game. For us Tabletop DnD fans, this means being able to control most if not every action of your character with story and such thrown in. Most RPGs though lack this aspect of it being your personalized character that you gave backstory and significance to. By robbing this aspect it no longer seems like it should be deemed an RPG any more IMO.

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

like with films sports etc when many people love something they want you to love it too and will slate anything that is different until they find a new love.

this wont always adhere to a single game but can be significant enough to have an impact. I'm sure we're all guilty of this in one form or another at some point in our lives, i know it took me quite a while before I would even consider playing an FPS that didn't have mouse support. As DrWilhelm said gamers (and I'd say humans in general) are extremely tribal its in our nature to form alliances based around what we perceive as important cultural icons. Be it sports teams, religion, politics or games there is always an "us and them" mentality that is routed in human psychology.

 

[theheroofaction]

Personally I think it's just because many RPG fans are in it for the fantasy world.
Look at Our big western rpg producers, the two B's

On Bioware's side you've got your dragon age and your mass effect, or 1 fantasy and 1 Sci-fi.

On Bethesda's side You've got your fallout and your elder scrolls, again 1 fantasy 1 Sci-fi.

For example: many people are against DA2 using the conversation wheel, While most of these people have actual reasons, some just hate it because it came from a Sci-fi game.

 

[Neonit]

nerd rage. they will always complain about old games being better. i believe yahtzee explained this quite well.
tbh i loved baldur's gate, i loved icewind dale, i loved neverwinter nights and yes, i also loved oblivion, dragon age 2 and im pretty sure i am going to love skyrim. i understand that things that worked out 10 years ago, are outdated, and changes are a must.

besides, people who complain about changes, often complain about games being clones (that is, no changes at all). so ask yourself. do you care about what hypocrites think?

(how can you roleplay when in any given situation you can pause, think about your next step for 10 min, and then press play? stress is an part of human experience my friend....)

 

[Soveru]

Everyone has an opinion. The only thing is that haters are louder

 

[Ice Car]

Of course, you know about the Fallout Franchise. THIS GAME SUCKS BECAUSE IT HAS GLITCHES AND BUGS FIX PLEASE OR IMMA REFUND MAH GAME LMAO.

It's all stupid, just ignore it.

I don't know what bizarro world you came here from, but here in the real world, we like our games to work properly right when we buy them. We shouldn't have to suffer through countless game breaking bugs and glitches at launch or wait a few months until some of the most severe bugs are patched, making the game at least playable, but still riddled with lots of little bugs that are likely never going to be fixed. For $60 a pop, a game should be working at launch, not in a state of "sorry it isn't finished yet, stay tuned for the patches!".

The only thing that's stupid and should be ignored here is your assertion that people shouldn't be upset about game breaking bugs and glitches in their brand new games they just paid $60 for. A game you buy at launch should be finished and polished, not a fucking beta test.

I didn't say there was no problem with the glitch/bug fest that it is. I find that a huge problem, but all I see everywhere is people complaining about it like it's something that has been unsaid. THIS GAME IS FULL OF GLITCHES. Well no shit Sherlock it's full of glitches.

What I was mainly saying is that every game receives it's fair share of hate.

 

[veloper]

It's because action RPGs will always have shitty combat.
Stats defining what your character is good at, get in the way of the player's skill.

RPshooters always have worse shooting bits than pure shooters like Serious Sam.

Third person action RPGs have worse action parts than action games like God of War.

Such cRPGs can still be very appealing because of the potential the RPG has and the features they promise, like choices with consequences. Ofcourse they never fully deliver, because that's just impossible without a storyteller capable of full improvisation.

Some of these games are still fun despite the shitty combat and poor-man's C&C, looking at the Witcher and Bloodlines, but they always remain flawed.


Turn-based RPGs can be great because the RPG was originally just a tabletop war game, but on a very small scale. So turn-based tactics with stats.
This is perfect, for gamers who like that sort of thing.

Most attempts still suck however. Consider Fallout 1. Good RPG, worst turn-based combat ever designed and saved by partially fulfilled promises of freedom.


The best RPGs ever, filling all the criteria and checkboxes, were made a long time ago and aren't even called "RPG" by their makers, but strategy games.
They are UFO:EU and Jagged Alliance 2.

That's pretty damning for the whole genre.

In short: fans of the genre, or the idea of the genre, always have to settle for low grade to get their fix.

 

[silasbufu]

You're just hyped out about the DA2 thing and now EVERY RPG receives hate..which is totally false of course.
You should remember that trolls and elitist really are a minority , but they just express themselves more often and louder( alot more ). If every Oblivion, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 fan would fill the forums with how much they like these games ( I just stated those 3 because they got more hate from elitist fanboys ) then the trolls wouldn't even be noticed.
It's like the news, you get to see all those bad things people do and say omg everyone is an insane criminal wanting to get me, you don't see people making much news about those who save lives, do volunteer work, charity etc.
So you just enjoy your games, sit in your bench and don't feed the trolls

 

[TornadoFive]

I think that most western RPG's have been great over the past few years. It's just that the people who don't like a game tend to be more vocal about it than the people that love it to bits.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

1) Every RPG from the last 5 years has been truly awful

While I think you might be able to find people that would agree that every RPG in the last 5 years was weaker than those in the past, only a troll would agree with your statement as is. What is true no matter what your opinion on the quality is that RPGs have undergone significant changes in recent years, from mechanical (with a move towards active participation rather than action selection), to technical (most if not all dialog in such games is voice acted).

2) Early RPG games were so perfect, the modern ones just can't stand up

Early RPGs, played when they were new, have an enormous advantage shared by everything in the past of dubious quality: people tend to forget the bad parts and only remember the good bits. Nostalgia is a word commonly associated with this.

3) RPG's are trying to evolve and the fans refuse to accept any change

This is the paradox of the gaming community. We demand new and exiting things but throw a fit when the new and exciting thing is different.

4) RPG fans want so many different things you just can't make them all happy

This is entirely true. It is seemingly impossible to get people to agree what exactly makes a game an RPG, much less what makes a good RPG.

5) All the hate comes from evil trolls who should be banned

The troll factor is always a problem. No matter what is being discussed, if the conversation goes on long enough and attracts enough people, you will end up with a certain amount of vitriol and bile spewed from trolls. Likewise, given sufficient time, the conversation will generally turn against any game, even ones that only received negative comments from trolls when they were new. Take Halo as a famous example of this trend in action.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Does oblivion fall under hated RPGs? I love Oblivion. I must have like 30 characters. It has a lot of flaws surely (stiff animations, weird NPC reactions, amazingly observant guards, etc) but it does a lot right IMO.

Although, it's the only single player RPG I've played, so I don't have much comparison.

Yes, Oblivion counts. There's a loud group of Morrowind fanboys that hate it for lots of really odd reasons. This picture says it a bit better than I can without writing an article on it.

Spoiler

That's what it's missing! Realistic travel times! Hah, funny comic. I wouldn't touch the game if there was no fast travel.

Yep, Oblivion's fair game, all right. I should know, I prefer Morrowind by a wide margin. There's a variety of reasons why I found Oblivion disappointing by comparision, but that's for another topic. Suffice it to say I found Oblivion far less immersive than Morrowind...and it wasn't because of fast travel

Back on-topic, I think part of the reason is how most modern AAA RPG titles are presented during development, particularly ones that are open world or emphasize "choice." Players hear the devs talking about how you can go anywhere and do anything, which evokes grand visions of what they hope the game will be. People figure that with modern gaming engines, they're capable of reaching the fabled Holy Grail of open-ended RPG gaming, consisting of a game world of near-infinite scale and scope and millions of NPCs, each with their own elaborate backstory and personality. When they finally get their hands on the finished product they realize that you actually cannot "go anywhere and do anything." Indeed, sometimes new titles actually further restrict character choice than previous ones did.

DISCLAIMER: I think Bethesda and Bioware are some of the finest RPG developers in the business. I am huge fans of their respective series. The following is meant to be somewhat satirical, but contains elements of truth nonetheless.

A new game by Bethesda? Bet you they're going to lop off another four or five skills from the previous iteration to make it more "streamlined." Want to explore those mountains over there? Sorry, you can't. They're actually cleverly disguised invisible walls. Want to kill that guy over there? Sorry, he's an important quest character, the best you can do is knock him unconscious. Hey wait a minute, how come lots of people sound the same? Oh, it's because they blew the voice budget hiring Patrick Stewart/Liam Neeson, leaving a total of four voice actors or so. Oops, guess you're going to have to reset the game now because you got stuck on a bookshelf. Guess you should have saved before that, huh?

A new game by Bioware? Oh boy! I can't wait to walk down narrow corridor segments that have been obviously copy-pasted together to create environments. Yep, those are some pretty landscapes in the distance, too bad I can't actually go there. Ah, but dialogue and morality choices are where things really shine, right? Yes, I can't wait to choose between living saint, emotionless robot and total douchebag options. What choice!

To summarize (consider this the tl;dr part), I think option #4 plays the largest role, but perhaps it could be alleviated if the devs didn't get everyone's hopes up so high.

EDIT: I guess I indirectly pointed out some of the things I didn't like about Oblivion after all

 

[Shoggoth2588]

The only RPG I've really been hating on recently was Final Fantasy XIII but in that case I feel I've earned that right since nothing changes once you reach Chapter 11. Then again, I also notice that my copy of the game didn't come with any dopamine.

Not to say I've played every big RPG for the past 5 years.

Dragon Quest IX, Persona 4, Divinity II, Gothic 4, The Witcher, World of Warcraft (or any of it's expansions) are just a few that I haven't at all.