Why does every RPG receive so much hate?

[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?

 

[Vern5]

I think the problem with that "change for the better" statement doesn't really disclose what defines better. And one person's version of better could be another's idea of worse. For example, let's say I make a game and 85% of people who played it love it and the other 15% thinks its deep-fried failure down to the marrow. If I were to make a sudden, drastic change in the core game mechanics for the sequel just to appease this 15% then I would risk alienating the majority that actually enjoyed the game.

It is extremely hard to predict what game changes will provoke ire instead of joy. Better to experiment than to stagnate.

 

[dmase]

Dragon quest moved to the nintendo systems, thats about it. I mean seriously i wanted to see quest on the ps3 but yeah go right ahead make a game with half the ability you could. I mean that because the formula has been dumbed down in the most recent dragon quest when they put it on the DS, not just graphics.

There is always gonna be the favorite FF or favorite TES and thats part of it.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

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?

If you find an example of someone being hypocritical then please do share and allow them to respond. Otherwise I don't see the purpose of this other than as a blanket smear on people who disagree with you.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Because many fans of the genre desire to be able to pick up and immediately love any game of the very large genre, reacting with intense hatred to anything they themselves wouldn't enjoy, regardless of whether or not they've actually played it. This hatred is also almost always directed at fans of the game, for some reason.

 

[RollForInitiative]

I like your style. Direct, simple and logical answers are always appreciated.

Then you can discuss it with them.

Very true, and we do. That's what our forums are for. It's a shame that it's as difficult to get civil discussions with the gaming community going as it is but we try.

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

Also true. The issue is that most people don't provide an analytical critique as much as they provide prepubescent whining and tantrums. The former tends to be much more valuable to the development process.

Who's "we"?

Developers in general, myself included.

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

Of course. The catch is that there are only so many ways to measure reaction before release. No designer is going to make a concerted effort to make a game worse; they seek to improve through refinement and/or change. The former is often mistaken for "dumbing down" and the latter offends the delicate sensibilities of the hardcore fanbase.

People don't seem to understand that "worse" and "different" are not synonymous. Innovation is born of experimentation so, yes, developers are going to change games if they feel the overall effect is positive, regardless of how whiny it's going to make the hardcore audience -- which is what we're seeing with many releases over the past few years, hence this topic and my post about people crying for innovation while condemning change.

I think that takes us full circle.

If you find an example of someone being hypocritical then please do share and allow them to respond.

I've been in the industry for years and seen it happen more times than I can count. Why would I need to lay it on a specific individual? It's a market group mentality in the first place.

Otherwise I don't see the purpose of this other than as a blanket smear on people who disagree with you.

Disagree with me about what, exactly?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I've been in the industry for years and seen it happen more times than I can count. Why would I need to lay it on a specific individual? It's a market group mentality in the first place.

Groups are not all of the same opinion and people are allowed to change their minds and if they have a good reason then I don't see any hypocrisy. A group of people might want to go outside for a barbecue but if it starts raining then it's hardly hypocrisy if some then decide to go inside.

Disagree with me about what, exactly?

That's what I want to know. You think people are hypocrites, I want to know why.

 

[Technopath]

Ok sit down people this is going to be long.

The main problem "RPGs" get so much hate is because "RPG" isn't even an actual genre if read as written.

"Role Playing Game"

Ok then, Halo is a game where you play a role as a space marine, Starcraft is a game where you play multiple roles as commanders of various races, you get the picture.

When people think "Role Playing Game" they basically associate it with "Level up" in fact that's pretty much the ONLY defining trait of an RPG.

Think about it, let's say I took Final Fantasy Seven, and removed basically all of the level up system. I hid it in the background, you had no idea you were getting stronger, there was no "level up" and so on.

Now the main argument I've heard against this is the whole magic system but I tend to disagree there to. You can see your HP? Well you can in TF2 too. Mana? In TF2 they call that bullets. An attack that does minimal damage but takes no mana? That's call a melee attack. Really the only engine deference now is that you play from a first person controlling one person, than a third person controlling 3 (or was the headcount 4 in FFVII).

When I think "roleplaying game" in a way that actually stands out as "roleplaying" the only game that comes anywhere close to mind is D&D...the tabletop game.

In D&D there is a common term in it called "railroading" in which basically no matter what you do the Game Master will FORCE you to play his plot. "I'm sorry you can't go west, there is an unclimbable mountain. East? Monsters that will spot and kill you instantly regardless of how you get there or use stealth. North? I'm sorry the guard won't let you over the bridge, and he's the only level 20 person in the whole village. South? Let's go!"

Face it, this along with the inability to program physics well accurately....well... AT ALL in video games is why I believe we should stop calling them RPGs and start calling them "Level up games". You don't play a role, heck in most RPGS the protagonist is defined as who he/she is, and is mute most of the time so you can't even change the story. If my DM made a story that was pretty much Final Fantasy Seven's plot, at least we would get to pick our characters. Heck in one campaign we had a bloody worshiper of the devil's princess daughter (he found her hot) on our side because "if there's one thing devils hate more than angels, it's demons". And even then I picked his dialog, what he did, and a lot of the time got pass encounters not with "spam attack button" but by cleverly manipulating the area around him (seriously guys how many times have you faced a boss on a bridge when you have say a spell/item that lets you fly, and have to fight it even though there's nothing stopping you (besides the crappy engine in theory) from flying upwards, blowing up the bridge the tank is on and watching it fall to it's doom.

In most RPGs you don't play a role more than you play a role when you read a novel that's written in first person most of the time. The story is set in stone so you can't change it, you're a mute hero so you can't define your personality, and a lot of the time you can't even choose what you look like. Heck a lot of the time your powers are set in stone too.

"Wow this RPG has my main character be a male with a sword and medium level magic abilities!"

Wow, original...at least in my D&D camps there's nothing stopping me from instead playing oh say, an antro-morphic scorpion princess with a halberd who is trained in forgery (seriously play any RPG and count how many checkpoints you could get by with a forged note of decent quality). Or a crime lord who aids the heroes because "this is my city and I'm not letting some lycantrope infestation ruin my income."

Now there ARE good RPGS, heck there are great ones that are fun to play. But the reason that they get a lot of flak is the stories. They're basically considered to be "the story genre" the one genre where you can't have a game without it having an epic tale, where if you basically switched the engine out. The RPGS that are tore apart for bad stories, would become masterpieces of storytelling in the new genre.

In fact I think it's pretty much the only genre that's like that. Almost every other genre, has little to no story, or is so much about multi-player most people ignore the single player to a very large degree. (Or is just about addicting game play, an arcade or puzzle game doesn't really have story, neither does simulation.

The RPG engine however is a good one I think. But it's basically just too restrictive, given the form of storytelling power we have. It's much easier to screw up a plot than a game engine (especially since a lot are just being reused now with small mods). I almost think just selling the game engine to people and letting them make the plots with it would be a better way to work with the genre.

Oh...wait..they do do that...it's called "tabletop".

The only reason RPGs get so much hate is because people put their expectations so unrealistically high. It's basically just hype backlash.

 

[RollForInitiative]

That's what I want to know. You think people are hypocrites, I want to know why.

Put simply, I find it hypocritical for people to condemn games for not innovating while condemning efforts to do precisely that as well. It's a sentiment that's been noted with great frequency on various gaming boards during my career.

If people want innovation, they can suffer some change. If they don't, then stick to games that remain relatively unchanged with each release. People need to stop asking for change and condemning the results. A little patience for change will go a long way towards generating new innovations.

It really is that simple.

 

[i64ever]

I complain about mass effect and dragon age a lot. Even though I loved mass effect 1 and 2 and dragon ago origins, when I'm on the forums I only want to talk about the bits that bugged me. Don't know why.

I think that's a valid point. I usually don't come home and talk to my wife about all the parts of my day that went as they should. I tell her about the things that pissed me off, even if they were in the minority.

 

[Axolotl]

I like your style. Direct, simple and logical answers are always appreciated.

Thank you. This post gets a bit long at times but Itry to stick to keep it concise.

Then you can discuss it with them.

Very true, and we do. That's what our forums are for. It's a shame that it's as difficult to get civil discussions with the gaming community going as it is but we try.[/quote]Civil discussions are best but they rarely as useful as truly unbridled critisism can be. Obviously somebody just saying "THIS GAME FOR FAGS IT KILLED MAH DOG!" is not helpful to anyone, but I have seen truly insightful comments from game in very rude discussion, it's nicer when people are polite but not always essential.

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

Also true. The issue is that most people don't provide an analytical critique as much as they provide prepubescent whining and tantrums. The former tends to be much more valuable to the development process.

While certainly not the best critisism it does still give the developers direct feedback for features that don't work or at least features that aren't poular. Now a developer doesn't have to take such advice on board but it is good to have a general feeling on what people like and dislike.

Who's "we"?

Developers in general, myself included.

While I'm sure dev's do want to try new things, I know that I as a consumer prefer it when they fix things that don't work rather than overhauling things that do.

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

Of course. The catch is that there are only so many ways to measure reaction before release. No designer is going to make a concerted effort to make a game worse; they seek to improve through refinement and/or change. The former is often mistaken for "dumbing down" and the latter offends the delicate sensibilities of the hardcore fanbase.

Yes but many features that sound good on paper simply do not work. Take say Oblivion's level scaling. Now I understand why they put that in, it addresses one of the key problems of sandbox RPGs. However in actual play it worked horribly, to the point of crippling the game. Now I know the developers didn't put it in wanting to make thieves unplayable and have bandits wearing the magic artifacts but as a player all I see is dozens of instances where the game totally falls apart because of it.

People don't seem to understand that "worse" and "different" are not synonymous. Innovation is born of experimentation so, yes, developers are going to change games if they feel the overall effect is positive, regardless of how whiny it's going to make the hardcore audience -- which is what we're seeing with many releases over the past few years, hence this topic and my post about people crying for innovation while condemning change.

The thing is, for sequels at least, change is bad. If I buy a sequel then probably enjoyed the first game, if it's significant'y changed I may not enjoy it. I may enjoy it more but thats a gamble and given the time/money it takes to play a new game (especially an RPG) then I don't want to risk the chance that I may not enjoy it.

For new titles? Yes innovate, but I don't want to be dissapointed and feel cheated out of my money just because a developer wanted to experiment. Not many people would have complained if the gameplay in DA2 was the same as in the first (okay some would but they'll always be there), if Bioware had just tweaked the mechanics, adjusted the balance a bit then it would have been fine.

Ultimately experiment is good but you need to keep the elements that work otherwise it's just change for change's sake which is just as bad as stagnation.

Personally I just don't feel there is a strong enough culture of critisism in the current gaming community. We have a situation where if a major game gets less than an eight in reviews it's treated as a personal attack on the developers. So only the very worst games get bad reviews, and the really big titles especially RPGs are just given almost wholey positive reviews, I mean the only time I saw big mainstream websites/magazines critisise Oblivion was in the hype for Skyrim. And while this may sound like the whinings of an angry fanboy I do feel that it detracts from games that are made.

I'll use Bioware as an example since they're who started this thread, they have never really been properly critisised by a major reviewer (or at least not to my knowledge). Sure aspects of their games have been critisised but usually it's in a very perfunctory way, usually it's a throwaway comment about AI or minigames. As a result of this their current games (or at least Mass Effect and DA:O) still have many of the same problems that Baldur's Gate had and they show no signs of changing.

TLR Mass whining is agood thing because it can ward devs of what not to do.