Why does every RPG receive so much hate?

[Cavan]

Serious answer: Roleplaying is an intensely personal thing by definition.
Troll answer: haters gonna hate.

 

[JasonKaotic]

I think it's just because nowadays we're getting a lot more gamers, and most of the new ones are people who just want games with excessive blood and violence through every step of the game. Any games that have even the slightest brief moment of peace are nailed to a wall and pissed on by them.
My brother's a great example.

 

[drunken_munki]

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.

Exactly, you buy a new car and it doesn't work - you want your money back.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

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.

That was a very interesting vid, thanks for sharing!
Completely agree with you. I am one of those people who liked both Fallout 1/2 and 3, and Dragon Age 1 and 2. I feel completely left out, like every1 hates me for not taking sides

Also, what's all this about Baldur's Gate? I was like 6 when it came out. I'm pretty sure at least half of the people constantly going on about it, never actually played it either. Maybe it makes you look smarter and more important if you say it?
"Yeah, I played Baldur's Gate, and it was like, the best RPG ever. They will never make a better game." - guaranteed chick magnet. Or so some would wish, lol

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.

Exactly, you buy a new car and it doesn't work - you want your money back.

And that's why they make updates for the game.
1) Download patch
2) ?????
3) Play the game for profit

If your only argument for hating the game are the bugs, then you shouldn't hate the game, because those bugs are fixed.
Though I have to agree it is incredibly sad they keep releasing games that shouldn't have left beta-status. Some of the bugs in New Vegas were indeed game breaking, or ridiculous (like the first guy you see, his head starts turning 360 degrees. Seriously. No testers?)

 

[Vaccine]

Breaking News:
- People like different things.
- Wannabe trolls who dislike something are more vocal.
- People enjoying games have a "Who gives a fuck?" mentality.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

Breaking News:
- People like different things.
- Wannabe trolls who dislike something are more vocal.
- People enjoying games have a "Who gives a fuck?" mentality.

I always wonder if there actually are that much trolls, or we're just seeing a few trolls making many accounts.
I mean, I could make 20 accounts on metacritic and give a game 0 or 1 points. It can't be very hard.

Yeah, I really don't give an F about those haters out there. I don't really mind people having different opinions, as long as I'm free to express mine.

 

[Popido]

I miss RPGs. Whatever happened to them?

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Here's my opinion:

- The crash of the Classical JRPG that seemingly happened when the 7th generation came to existence. Bad sales, less JRPG's for home consoles, trying to make JRPG's look more like WRPG's to try a conquer a greater market - this, of course, not to the liking of loyal fans.

Ex.: NIER, White Knight Chronicles, ...

- The desperate attempt WRPG's have shown to implement elements from other genres, which causes more core RPG-elements to be neglected. It can open ways to new experiences, but be honest, Mass Effect 2 - despite being a great game - tipped to the wrong side of the RPG/TPS fence.

Ex.: Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol, ...

- And, last but not least, RPG's are a genre for people who are really 'into gaming'. Playing an RPG - doesn't matter which type - requires more dedication than playing 'bland shooter #214' or a casual game for the iPlatforms. Have you ever heard someone complain about the negative aspects of Angry Birds?

(And when it comes to games by Bethesda - e.g. Fallout and Elder Scrolls - it really is more of a stupid 'oldfag versus newfag' thing, so just don't pay attention to those petty squabbles.)

 

[valleyshrew]

There's a different reason for jrpg and wrpg. JRPG's had the biggest budgets in the past and were able to create deep experiences that stood up to the quality of other much much shorter games. Shooter budgets have increased by a magnitude that rpgs are far far behind. FFXIII cost less than double what FFVII cost 12 years before, despite games as a whole costing far far more to develop because of increased graphics etc.. GTAIV cost maybe 20-50 times more than the original. 10 hour shooters have $10-$50m budgets now. It's next to impossible for FFXIII to include the depth that the previous versions did because of this. They said FFVII would take 10 years to remake and they weren't exaggerating. Pre-rendered backgrounds really saved a huge amount of money for them on the ps1. On the ps2 they had to resort to smaller more linear level design with less locations and far less interactivity. FFX had 1/2 as many locations as FFIX and no world map. FFXIII had less than half as many as FFXII. They're cutting corners in every way. Party sizes and summons have shortened to just 6 and no optional ones. Number of characters fallen from 50-60 per game, to 20. Battle variation has been lowered significantly with spells like throw, bribe and even the important steal being taken out. Levelling + interactive ability systems taken out and replaced with a tedious linear ability system. The very important limit breaks system which was one of the most interesting ways battles changed each game got discarded because it would take too much time to design and implement. Battles become a bunch of generic spells and extremely formulaic. You no longer even select spells based on enemy weaknesses when autolibra + autobattle takes care of that for you.

Japan is far behind in tech terms. I can't even think of japanese made games that use parallax mapping, so all textures look plastic. Western games are much more advanced and efficient. Fallout new vegas manages more than 100 times more characters and 7 times more locations than FFXIII, yet it took a mere 18 months to make (FFXIII was 4 years) with a 1/4 as many developers. And there's emergent gameplay, radiant AI, real-time physics with thousands of modelled items etc. that FFXIII doesn't have. Even GT5 doesn't have it, and despite the high polygon cars, the environments look like ass.

Now for why WRPG's get hated. The fact is, rpgs (along with games like GTAIV which imo are far more rpg than FFXIII is) offer far far more complexity than any other games. That means there's inevitably going to be far more flaws too. It's really not fair that you can create a simple game and everyone calls it perfect (braid, ico, portal, sotc, okami, limbo, etc.), despite being less than 1% as deep as an RPG. There's negligible story in those games. Story is one thing that peoples taste in varies wildly. I enjoyed mass effect 1 a lot, but not so much mass effect 2 because of the worse writing. Others feel the opposite. GTAIV is the most hated game I have seen talked about on the internet, despite being imo the greatest single piece of entertainment of all time. If it was a more simple game like twisted metal, there'd be very little hate. But because it offers the most detailed entertaining world yet, there are people who were turned off by the realistic seriousness of the story (despite being by far the most humorous game ever made) and diversity of interaction with minigames, dating, computer terminals, tv etc. when they just wanted to go on killing sprees and blow things up.

 

[Sylveria]

Think choices 1 and 2 are the most appropriate. Yes some people will reject change but more often than not those changes have just been awful (see Final Fantasy 13) and make the game suck.

On a side note, I think they're trying to shoehorn what used to be "proper" RPGs into the "action" genre to make it more appealing to the broader western audience and, again, they usually screw it up (FF13...again ). Oh and I just had to respond to this:

DustArma[]

I think it's because RPGs are slowly turning into action games. Those of us who don't have ADD, and like to be pushed to think during our games are getting annoyed that there are fewer and fewer games for us each year, replaced by games for the boobies/explosions/"duuude!" crowd.

I registered because of this post, and I'll probably get a probation/suspension/ban for it, but, whatever.

That post has to be one of the most ignorant, most self-entitled, full of ridiculous elitism I've seen, and I frequent the BSN forums.

What's wrong with action games? Do you have to have the ability to pause a game otherwise you can't make a decision? Do you lack the ability to change your strategy on-the-fly because something didn't go as you planned? Can't you THINK WHILE YOU PLAY instead of having an artificial game mechanic holding your hand so you can take a breath?

I don't even want to know how you'd fare on a RTS game, or a heavy team based FPS game, oh but wait, you must also have a complete hatred for anything multiplayer too.

I really don't know what's fucking wrong with the RPG crowd, I tend to find the most elitist of the elitist douchebags there, and you only help to feed that notion.

Oh, I know, it's YOU and PEOPLE LIKE YOU who are what's wrong with the RPG communities.

Good day, sir.

Its not that there's something wrong with action games. It's that we didn't want an action game. How would you like it if the next Halo was a turn based strategy game or Bioshock 3 was a Japanese dating sim game? When they slap a 2 or a 3 or a 13 on the end of an established genre, the players expect what they loved from the first one(s) with a new adventure and maybe some fixes to the games old mechanics.

And where do you get this idea that RPGs need to be "paused" for people to think? the Active Time Battle was introduced in what.. 1994? The Action-RPG has been around since the NES days if not earlier. I'm honestly not even sure which form of RPG player you're raging against since there's about 12 different kinds anymore and you're being so vague.

You're also bashing people who either don't like or aren't good at RTS or FPSs? God how dare people like or dislike certain genres. Talk about ignorant and self entitled. You're far more of an elistist douchebag than anyone in the RPG crowd.

You clearly have no respect for anyone whom's tastes differ from yours or for anyone who expects quality and loyal sequels. It's you and people like you who are what's wrong with the gaming community.

 

[Mr. Socky]

It's not that we're all elitist haters, but that we are THE most vocal gaming group, positive and negative.

Exactly. The Hardcore RPG crowd often overlaps with the hardcore forum crowd. If you pay any attention to forums then you will get start seeing strong, numerously repeated opinions from the Hardcore RPG crowd. A crowd that has been left behind by the gaming industry since, well, they just aren't numerous enough to get good sales. It's simple, unfortunate math. I fall into the awkward place of both enjoying hardcore RPG's and enjoying stupid action games. It means that both crowds pretty much hate me, as they seem to hate anyone who takes a middle-ground and won't immediately concede that either Halo or Planetscape (depending on the group) is the greatest game in the history of ever. Of course, it also means that I can enjoy both Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 on their own merits.

...I'm just glad I can post that here, where it's safe. The Bioware forums scare me right now. It's a big freakin' warzone.

 

[Zacharine]

DustArma[]

I think it's because RPGs are slowly turning into action games. Those of us who don't have ADD, and like to be pushed to think during our games are getting annoyed that there are fewer and fewer games for us each year, replaced by games for the boobies/explosions/"duuude!" crowd.

I registered because of this post, and I'll probably get a probation/suspension/ban for it, but, whatever.

That post has to be one of the most ignorant, most self-entitled, full of ridiculous elitism I've seen, and I frequent the BSN forums.

What's wrong with action games? Do you have to have the ability to pause a game otherwise you can't make a decision? Do you lack the ability to change your strategy on-the-fly because something didn't go as you planned? Can't you THINK WHILE YOU PLAY instead of having an artificial game mechanic holding your hand so you can take a breath?

I don't even want to know how you'd fare on a RTS game, or a heavy team based FPS game, oh but wait, you must also have a complete hatred for anything multiplayer too.

I really don't know what's fucking wrong with the RPG crowd, I tend to find the most elitist of the elitist douchebags there, and you only help to feed that notion.

Oh, I know, it's YOU and PEOPLE LIKE YOU who are what's wrong with the RPG communities.

Good day, sir.

Its not that there's something wrong with action games. It's that we didn't want an action game. How would you like it if the next Halo was a turn based strategy game or Bioshock 3 was a Japanese dating sim game? When they slap a 2 or a 3 or a 13 on the end of an established genre, the players expect what they loved from the first one(s) with a new adventure and maybe some fixes to the games old mechanics.

You clearly have no respect for anyone whom's tastes differ from yours or for anyone who expects quality and loyal sequels. It's you and people like you who are what's wrong with the gaming community.

Good show, and exactly my thoughts.

I like shooters - Painkiller is one of the best games ever in my consideration and I have played the majority of Call Of Duty series.

I like strategy. I like RPGs. I can tolerate fighting games, but they aren't really my thing.

So when I consider for example Mass Effect 2, I think it is a good shooter-RPG hybrid. But as such I do not consider it a good RPG in the same sense that I consider Planescape:Torment a good RPG.

I would have liked Fallout 3, if it had been called Apocalyptica: Wasteland Survival or something like it. But I didn't like, because it had the title Fallout 3, while having almost no resemblance to the original Fallouts. I had expectations, and those expectations were not met.

Does this mean I hated Fallout 3? Of course not. I simply did not think it deserved to have the name Fallout followed by 3 as the title. Why then do I personally tend to disparage modern RPGs? It's not because I hate them. It's just that almost all modern WRPGs are action-based ones, and I'd like a spiritual successor to Planescape:Torment for example. Some more variety would be nice.

 

[RollForInitiative]

I find it amusing that people whine about lack of innovation but slate games as soon as they deviate from their original formulae. Not too hypocritical, hmm?

 

[Jdb]

I don't like RPGs because I think most of them are too easy. I don't like easy games. I've tried self-imposed challenges, but finding one that feels "right" takes too much of my time.

 

[Something Amyss]

It seems that every AAA RPG to come out the last 5 years has gotten such hatred on the various forums, Dragon Age 2 only the latest example. Why? Here are some possibilities.

1) Every RPG from the last 5 years has been truly awful
2) Early RPG games were so perfect, the modern ones just can't stand up
3) RPG's are trying to evolve and the fans refuse to accept any change
4) RPG fans want so many different things you just can't make them all happy
5) All the hate comes from evil trolls who should be banned

Personally, I think its 4. Oblivion, DA2 and Fallout 3 all made big changes to the normal RPG formula. All got hit very hard after news of those changes leaked out but before they got released. I agree none of those games enacted those changes perfectly, but we didn't give them a chance. People were furious because those developers dared to change a formula they considered carved in stone.

But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

6) It's taking valuable development time away from another shooter for me to fap over.

>.>

Though I think you're exaggerating.

 

[Vern5]

I don't think EVERY rpg from the last five years was that bad. It all depends upon what you were comparing these games to as well as your own personal tastes in RPGs. Some people like the cRPGs such as Baldurs gate and Neverwinter Nights. These folks probably like the depth of analysis required to carefully craft their characters into specialized, tactical powerhouse teams.
Others like the idea of personal customization from games like Morrowind and Oblivion. Sure, there are aspects of these games that faltered terribly but you could literally play the game any way you wanted. To change or take away these things from the people that enjoyed them seems like an overt slap in the face from the developers.

I personally think there's a big crowd of fans eager to get their hands on something that will stimulate their nostalgia. I find it weird that only Bioware seemed in the mood to throw this crowd a bone with Dragon Age: Origins. Maybe this is where all the ire is coming from: jaded fans who have been watching their favorite genre mutate into something they despise.

Also, the gaming market seems to be stuck in this downward vortex of similar "realistic" shooters.

 

[Axolotl]

I find it amusing that people whine about lack of innovation but slate games as soon as they deviate from their original formulae. Not too hypocritical, hmm?

Perhaps they only like change when it makes things better?

 

[Nimzar]

Also, what's all this about Baldur's Gate? I was like 6 when it came out. I'm pretty sure at least half of the people constantly going on about it, never actually played it either. Maybe it makes you look smarter and more important if you say it?
"Yeah, I played Baldur's Gate, and it was like, the best RPG ever. They will never make a better game." - guaranteed chick magnet. Or so some would wish, lol

I'm assuming this is in response to my earlier comment that I feel (read: this is my OPINION) Bioware has yet to make a better game.

I don't believe that it is impossible for them to do better; I actually find myself hoping with each release that they will have finally surpassed it. I find that to not be case time and time again, but this hasn't tainted my enjoyment of their more recent games.

I personally think there's a big crowd of fans eager to get their hands on something that will stimulate their nostalgia. I find it weird that only Bioware seemed in the mood to throw this crowd a bone with Dragon Age: Origins. Maybe this is where all the ire is coming from: jaded fans who have been watching their favorite genre mutate into something they despise.

This is something that probably contributed to my overall high opinion of DA:O--and probably is the cause of much of the DA2 hate. Since BG2 we really haven't had an RPG of that particular flavor come out. So DA:O scratched a very particular itch for a very particular audience. I really enjoyed DA:O--at least on my first pass. Level scaling, a terrible loot system, shallow character customization, generic WoW-like sidequest, and somewhat lack luster combat have all delayed my second play-through. As I haven't played any DA2 (outside of the demo). I can't really comment on how DA2 compares to DA:O or BG2 but I could see being somewhat disappointed if DA2 moves too far from DA:O in the wrong areas.

 

[RollForInitiative]

I find it amusing that people whine about lack of innovation but slate games as soon as they deviate from their original formulae. Not too hypocritical, hmm?

Perhaps they only like change when it makes things better?

That's awfully subjective. Better to whom? What if you don't like it but others do? What then? Besides, how do people expect innovation if they won't let developers experiment? I suppose we could just keep making the same game over and over again -- works well enough for Call of Duty, after all -- but we like to try new things.

If that means that people that liked the previous game don't like the next one, so be it. Every game has its own audience and stagnation is the only future for games that don't try to change.

 

[Axolotl]

I find it amusing that people whine about lack of innovation but slate games as soon as they deviate from their original formulae. Not too hypocritical, hmm?

Perhaps they only like change when it makes things better?

That's awfully subjective. Better to whom?

The people who are complaining?

What if you don't like it but others do? What then?

Then you can discuss it with them.

Besides, how do people expect innovation if they won't let developers experiment?

How are they supposed to improve if nobody critisises bad features?

I suppose we could just keep making the same game over and over again -- works well enough for Call of Duty, after all -- but we like to try new things.

Who's "we"?

If that means that people that liked the previous game don't like the next one, so be it. Every game has its own audience and stagnation is the only future for games that don't try to change.

Once again, isn't change for the better preferable to change for the worse?