Why is it that RPGs get criticised for being derivative, but FPS games don't?

[migo]

When Red Orchestra comes out having the small difference of not showing how much ammo you have left, it's not criticised for having a small change and otherwise being similar to other WW2 shooters. Insurgency and Operation Flashpoint don't get criticised for being unoriginal.

There's a reason for it, there's a pretty good formula that has been figured out, you carry a gun in front of you, look down the sights, try to shoot someone else before they shoot you, pick up ammo, and so on. Each game has its own tweaks, but at the core, that's what FPS fans like in their games, even though there isn't a huge difference between games running on the Quake 2 engine and running on the Unreal 3 engine.

Now with RPGs, it seems you have to be entirely original. If you use a turn based combat system that's fine for playing FF1 even (it's the open world with complete lack of direction that's the problem with it), and works great in FFX as well, it's a mark against the game. If you have a linnear story with cut scenes it's considered a mark against the game, and if you use a character with amnesia it's considered cliche.

But there's a reason people like turn based combat - it lets them think about what they're going to do - if you don't have quick reflexes it's nice to be able to slow down and think, and it takes everything about your own skill out of the equation except for strategies, so it lets you really put roleplay (to the extent that a computer allows). The cinematics are great, the visuals are usually awesome, and the story is usually good (and even if we've seen the story before, that doesn't stop people from watching a new version of Narnia or Lord of the Rings, or watching Harry Potter despite there already being books), and when it comes to amnesia, it's a good way of putting you on equal footing with the character and getting into the game. The other way is to have the main character leave their hometown (in FF8 you leave Balamb Garden almost right away, in FFX you're ripped out of Zanarkand into the future with a completely foreign land, in Tales of Vesperia you leave Zaphias right away and have never left the borders - all of them do this so that when the character discovers something for the first time, you discover it for the first time, and amnesia does the same thing).

FPS games have good reasons for being relatively unoriginal, and RPG games have good reasons for being relatively unoriginal. What is it about RPGs that gets them heavily criticised for it?

 

[Terminate421]

Its just about what is there to do after you beat the game? Thats the thing that most people critisize.

I like RPG's but Im still limited on variations due to replay value. (Pokemon, Mass Effect, and Fallout (1+3) are a few examples of what I like)

 

[WanderingFool]

Im only saying this because of you example of FF games for RPGs, even though I could be missing the point completely. The only JRPG ive played recently and enjoyed was Resonance of Fate, something about it is so original and enjoyable to me. I love that game.

 

[Terminate421]

FPS players don't really ask for originality, whereas RPG fans do.

Sorry, that kinda got on my nerves.

I fucking love Halo 3, Left 4 Dead 2, and Battlefield: Badcompany 2 (Which I play each weekend)
They are all sequels but they all built off from their predescesors, isn't that what sequels are about (Besides going on from the story line)

Also change is sweet, why else am I looking towards Halo: Reach which is SO much different than any FPS Ive played (Other than maybe Halo: CE)

 

[migo]

Well, I disagree on your first point, there's actually a lot of differences between Red Orchestra and other shooters, and Operation Flashpoint, when it was released, was totally original. In fact, all games in the OpFlash series besides Operation Flashpoint 2 (A sequel in name only) only copy off previous titles in the series, they're not like any other FPS.

The difference between Operation Flashpoint is about as minimal as the difference between Infinite Undiscovery and Final Fantasy XII. You can say they're completely different, but there's more that's the same than that's different.

I think FPS games do get due criticism for unoriginality, but not from the majority that buy them. The majority market for them is people who don't like change. However, the market for RPG's tends to be slightly more sophisticated than the vast majority who only play FPS games (The reason CoD still sells), and demand deeper experiences and more original features. Basically, what I'm saying is, it's not the same audience for both. FPS players don't really ask for originality, whereas RPG fans do.

Do RPG fans really ask for originality? Given the amount of hate FF8 gets it would suggest they don't ask for originality and prefer for things to stay the same. It almost strikes me that non-fans of RPGs are asking for RPGs to change into something they like, and when that happens they complain it's unoriginal.

 

[the_tramp]

I see your point, and I do agree with it a lot. However I think this can be answered in one word: Hype. Remember when Modern Warfare 2 came out? It was heralded as the second coming but was still disliked by a lot of the community who spend way.. WAY too much of their time enlightening us as to why they're right.

Now, take RPGs for example. More often than not RPGs have their own fanbase that learn about the games and subsequently little advertising (/hype) is placed upon it (bar Final Fantasy though, damn that had a lot of TV time!). I don't want to go down the road of saying that RPG fans are *smarter* whilst FPS fans are *dumber* and thus lap gun-gun-shooty-bang-bang 26 up as I don't want to start a flame war, but consider this angle:

Generally FPS's are liked by a lot of gamers whereas RPGs still have a stigmatism upon them in the same sense that playing Dungeons and Dragons, LARPing and watching anime is considered geeky and sad. As a result MW2 has a million and nine reviews, of which the more developed, and lest I say educated, reviews are drowned out by the "I shoot things and they go dead YAY!" reviews whereas the more developed reviews for RPGs are written better, weigh up the pros and cons as well as comparing them to others from their past.

I don't know, I'm rambling so I'll stop now.

p.s. Looking at an FPS with little to no hype placed upon it at release called Alpha Prime that I bought on Steam for £1 a while ago I see that it has a review on Metacritic stating that 'Flashy weapon effects partially mask the mediocre gameplay, and to the untrained eye, Alpha Prime could almost pass as "Doom 3". I trust that PC Gamer readers are smart enough not to be fooled'. This may help confirm my theory that advertising/hype equals better reviews whereas this game was labelled as a game that, for all intensive purposes, was a Doom 3 clone.

 

[Ashsaver]

I think either people who plays RPG are just more critical, or people who doesn't play RPG are just love to smear RPG.

FPS are fine with aiming guns and shoot things,it's a formula that works for decades, so that's why nobody complain about it. If it isn't broken, then there's no need to fix it, so someone say.

 

[migo]

I see your point, and I do agree with it a lot. However I think this can be answered in one word: Hype. Remember when Modern Warfare 2 came out? It was heralded as the second coming but was still disliked by a lot of the community who spend way.. WAY too much of their time enlightening us as to why they're right.

Now, take RPGs for example. More often than not RPGs have their own fanbase that learn about the games and subsequently little advertising (/hype) is placed upon it (bar Final Fantasy though, damn that had a lot of TV time!). I don't want to go down the road of saying that RPG fans are *smarter* whilst FPS fans are *dumber* and thus lap gun-gun-shooty-bang-bang 26 up as I don't want to start a flame war, but consider this angle:

Generally FPS's are liked by a lot of gamers whereas RPGs still have a stigmatism upon them in the same sense that playing Dungeons and Dragons, LARPing and watching anime is considered geeky and sad. As a result MW2 has a million and nine reviews, of which the more developed, and lest I say educated, reviews are drowned out by the "I shoot things and they go dead YAY!" reviews whereas the more developed reviews for RPGs are written better, weigh up the pros and cons as well as comparing them to others from their past.

I don't know, I'm rambling so I'll stop now.

p.s. Looking at an FPS with little to no hype placed upon it at release called Alpha Prime that I bought on Steam for £1 a while ago I see that it has a review on Metacritic stating that 'Flashy weapon effects partially mask the mediocre gameplay, and to the untrained eye, Alpha Prime could almost pass as "Doom 3". I trust that PC Gamer readers are smart enough not to be fooled'. This may help confirm my theory that advertising/hype equals better reviews whereas this game was labelled as a game that, for all intensive purposes, was a Doom 3 clone.

That's an interesting point. I've seen quite a few people mention they think the Red Dead Redemption reviews were talking it up more than it deserved, and I'm also starting to see some commentary on it a few months down the road bringing up some of the technical faults - like that it suffers from minigameitis and that what you actually do disagrees with the narrative.

 

[Kryzantine]

Look at it this way.

If you were reading a great Lawrence Block novel and finished one book that was completely original, had a series of circumstances that you've never seen before, and ended at a unique conclusion; then read his next book and discovered that PI Scudder used the exact same method using the exact same friends to solve a slightly different crime in a different borough of NY and caught or let the Irish mob or Hasidic Jews or Jamaicans or rampaging psychos execute a villain similar in personality, it's nowhere near as entertaining.

However, if you were to watch 2 Michael Bay movies back to back, they'd also be far too similar, but since the scenery and scenario changed, the change in backdrop is all that's needed for the action to remain unique.

RPGs are a medium that revolves around creativity and storytelling, and obvious deritivity kills that. FPS games are a medium that revolves around action and reflexes, and obvious deritivity doesn't kill it outright because there is nowhere near as much emphasis on plot.

Anyway, I doubt that the addition of turn based combat or linear gameplay with cutscenes is criticized in RPGs merely because those are core mechanics of the game. It's like criticizing Halo for not being an open world sandbox adventure that lets you drive-by the Covenant into Compton. But cheap plot elements can ruin an otherwise great RPG. I mean, even Bioware relies on the same character types in every game they make.

 

[Blame]

RPG is a unique genre as it is only about the story. RPG is an all-encompassing umbrella genre that has lots of diversity in it. Wheras the FPS and the Beat-em-up, for example, do not need to be vastly different because, really, they are all just different skins put on the same core experience. It's the core experience people buy in to.

In an RPG the story it is the characters ands the story people need to by into, therefore it MUST be unique and, for me, comparable to real stories that you find in actual books. Regarding the Final Fantasy series, FF9 was probably my favourite. This is because of the vibrant places, larger than life characters, sense of a genuinely huge world and the fact that, for once, the main character doesn't have some sort of selective amnesia. He was just taken from his home when he was very young.

I think the main problem is that RPGs tend to leave you too much time to think about the game, so it's issues become more apparent than a frinetic bout of 'Black'-style smoking-gun body decorating.

 

[migo]

Erm, no, I'm afraid. First off, Operation Flashpoint (The original, and the ArmA sequels which followed), aren't even FPS's, it's entirely possible to play the game totally third person.

That's trivial, UT has mutators to play in 3rd person.

It's got a fully dynamic shooting mechanic, which almost no other game has, as in rather than having a weapon floating in front of your face, the weapon totally relates to how your body is moving. You might call that insignificant, but it totally changes the feel of the game.

Roughly like how Infinite Undiscovery's linking mechanic totally changes how the game feels compared to Final Fantasy XII

Add to that the games have dynamic campaigns, full vehicle and aerial combat.

Sounds like some UT TCs to me.

Arma II has dynamic consequences for each mission, no scripting for enemy behavior, beyond simple move commands, the AI thinks for itself. Basically, the way the games feel, and play and fold out, is distinct from every single other FPS out there.

And yet despite those few things you could list that are different, several of which really aren't that different, there are far more things that are the same about Operation Flashpoint or whichever other FPS you choose and any other FPS you want to compare it to.

Well, FF8 is a JRPG, which is really a separate market. Whereas other RPG's are based on customization and exploration, JRPG's are based on character development and a strict but polished narrative. I think the problem with FF8 wasn't unoriginality, just a terribly ponderous combat mechanic, characters you can't really empathize with, and a lot of just bad design decisions.

The combat mechanic actually works quite well and isn't ponderous at all, you just need to know what you're doing and it takes more knowledge of the system compared to other RPGs. Compared to the differences between FPS games, there's a hell of a lot more difference between FF8 and FF10.

Now, RPG's aren't one of those genres that needs new features to survive, Dragon Age proved that, but they're certainly appreciated. Plus, RPG fans are generally a lot more serious in their hobby than average FPS players, so may expect more from their games.

I dunno, FPS players stab people when they're unhappy, that suggests they get pretty serious.

 

[migo]

Anyway, I doubt that the addition of turn based combat or linear gameplay with cutscenes is criticized in RPGs merely because those are core mechanics of the game. It's like criticizing Halo for not being an open world sandbox adventure that lets you drive-by the Covenant into Compton. But cheap plot elements can ruin an otherwise great RPG. I mean, even Bioware relies on the same character types in every game they make.

You should read some RPG reviews, because they get criticised for exactly that, and that's what I find so bizarre.

 

[AtmaPhil]

I though it was because the RP letters in RPG implied that you would do exploration, talk to towns folk to get clues on whats next and have the characters act out the gameplay in a semi-open environement instead of having them act it out for you in a cutscene. I though action/adventure games was where you'd have the cutscene acted out for you and linear gameplay.
Combat system =/= RPG and Stats/leveling are not exactly needed in an RPG.
But yeah FFX probably got bad critics as an RPG because the category doesn't work for it if it's an adventure/strategy game. (Also from the glimps I caught of the game... the overall story was pretty bad.)

 

[Dexiro]

I never got why people always say RPGs are derivative. At the roots they have a lot of similar features, some more than others.

Complaining that most of them have turn based combat for example seems to me like complaining that Platformers all have platforms. They might all seem similar at first glance but there's a ton of flexibility surrounding it.

Maybe i just haven't played that many RPGs but they all seem to have their own unique features to me.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Why do people criticise RPGs and not FPS? I assume we're talking about JRPGs here based on the talk of Final Fantasy and turn-based combat?

Because people can't accept that others have a different opinion then they do about a specific genre. Because they can't understand how someone can enjoy turn-based combat and random encounters. Because they're different. Because they don't like grinding. Because they don't like the anime style a lot of them use. And most importantly of all, because they don't actually play them.

How many people that go into JRPG threads and bash them for being unoriginal, using turn-based combat and having angsty, androgynous teenagers as characters have actually played a JRPG made in the last 10 years? The most common response you'll get is someone saying that the last JRPG they liked was FFVI and that they stopped playing them entirely around the time of FFVIII. That's a hell of a long time to not have played a JRPG for and leaves the vast majority of people making ignorant, oft-times moronic, arguments against a genre they know almost nothing about.

So to put it simply, it's because people are asshats that attack them for not being the type of game that they themselves like.

On a side note, I do find it hilarious that a number of people that say everyone is entitled to their own opinion turn up in JRPG threads and borderline flame everyone that says they love such-and-such game. It's almost like they think that another person's opinion is wrong.

 

[Zhukov]

Wait... FPSs don't get criticised for being derivative?

They should. Because they are.

Although that isn't exactly a criticism. Derivative methods are the norm of the games industry.

 

[ElectroJosh]

I am going to respond, as many have already said, by asking if this is actually true. As a person who plays RPGs and FPS games I find that FPS games get slammed a lot for being derivitive and unoriginal just as much sometime for different reasons and sometimes for the same ones.

I'll explain what I mean:


Settings

FPS game settings are things like Space Marines in a Sci-Fi setting, Soldiers in either WW2 or Modern Warzones, and Lone guy going up against alien/supernatural forces on earth.

RPG games settings are often a Medievel-like Fantasy world or, in the case of JRPGs, a world where magic and technology combine to encourage people to have bad haircuts.


Characters

FPS games tend to have similar characters; bad-asses (some are silent, some are wise-cracking and some are serious professionals).

RPGS have similar characters; Noble Heroes, thieves with hearts of gold, sassy buxom women or emos. Also: lots of scottish dwarves.


Those are the two main ways I see people complaining about each game type anyway.