RPGWatch Feature: Worst RPG of 2010

BillSeurer said:

As usual this sort of list is just silly. Many of the "worst" ones were only really "bad" in that people either expected something different (Arcania), had overblown expectations (many), or weren't "pure" enough (ME2). I doubt many, if any, of us played the truly atrocious games that were produced because they died ignominious and deserved deaths off in some back alley.

Note that that doesn't excuse the people who produced them from doing doofus things like slapping "Gothic" on Arcania.

Click to expand...

Do you know what the sad part is spellbound is making more rpgs that will turn out the same.

I just can't grasp the idea that people actually enjoy playing turds like Arcania. I understand that games like mass effect 2 and alpha protocol can turn people off just as much as the opposite. For example Alpha protocol was the game of the year if you ask me. It was orginal, fun and clever. That being said, I can understand that timed dialogs werent' for everyone.

But Arcania? even if we discard the entire Gothic sequel angle, the game manages to suck on it's own. Graphics are nice, but rest of the content is mediocre filler.

And i would asume that people don't play Arcania because of great storyline. So the saving grace would have to be the combat. Nothing wrong in that If it was good. The game is just so stupidly easy and the whole combat aspect isn't satisfying in any manner. You don't have to use tactics or even fast reflexes to win. So I'm wondering what is the catch?

Dez said:

And i would asume that people don't play Arcania because of great storyline. So the saving grace would have to be the combat. Nothing wrong in that If it was good. The game is just so stupidly easy and the whole combat aspect isn't satisfying in any manner. You don't have to use tactics or even fast reflexes to win. So I'm wondering what is the catch?

Click to expand...

Kind of like grinding levels alone in your standard mmo threadmill. The story sucks, combat sucks, no reflexes needed but atleast you get another level, items and gold.

Dez said:

I just can't grasp the idea that people actually enjoy playing turds like Arcania. I understand that games like mass effect 2 and alpha protocol can turn people off just as much as the opposite. For example Alpha protocol was the game of the year if you ask me. It was orginal, fun and clever. That being said, I can understand that timed dialogs werent' for everyone.

But Arcania? even if we discard the entire Gothic sequel angle, the game manages to suck on it's own. Graphics are nice, but rest of the content is mediocre filler.

And i would asume that people don't play Arcania because of great storyline. So the saving grace would have to be the combat. Nothing wrong in that If it was good. The game is just so stupidly easy and the whole combat aspect isn't satisfying in any manner. You don't have to use tactics or even fast reflexes to win. So I'm wondering what is the catch?

Click to expand...

I liked Arcania - and yes I did discard the whole Gothic angle. As far as why some of us here liked it, well that's like asking why does someone like this one kind of food when it is clearly horrible.

Sometimes all an RPG has to do is simply transform you to a new world. The story might be lame and the combat might be off but If the game get get me to move me to another world, then just about all is forgiven. And I liked playing in the Arcania world.

I liked it as well, but I had ditched the idea of it being a Gothic long before I even tried it. That probably helped a whole lot.

Overall I liked the combat, graphics, some of the areas (especially the mage tower) and a few of the characters (mainly Diego).

Well, I liked Arcania for a long while - but stopped being interested once I had the powers I wanted for my character.

I love building characters in new games, and especially open world games.

So, I liked Arcania because it was very immersive in terms of the world, and it had just enough elements of exploration to make it enjoyable for a time.

However, it suffered from incredibly bland writing - and the world wasn't actually open, but rather rigidly divided into regions. I didn't like that.

Combat balance was a complete joke as well, and I didn't like that either.

The actual combat system, though, as in the flow of combat - was satisfying and felt pretty good.

But, once I'd built my character somewhere around halfway through, I simply lost interest. But it should be noted that I had other games to distract me at the time, and if there had been nothing else - I'd probably have finished it just on principle.

Overall, it was pretty meh and mediocre. But there's no way I can call a game I enjoyed for ~15-20 hours a terrible game.

I'd rather have a game like Arcania, than another mindnumbingly predictable shooter like Call of Duty or Dead Space. Those games might be better in their respective (very limited) genres - but they put me to sleep if I play for more than an hour at a time. I hate being guided down rigid linear corridors - and I don't care how amazing the setpieces are, if they can't produce an original line or moment in the game. I crave freedom when I play, unless the story/characters are REALLY something special - and they never are. Beyond that, I HATE knowing exactly when something will happen - which is the norm when I play such games.

So, it's more about me liking the CRPG freeform genre than the game actually being a good example. It's pretty bad in terms of that genre.

DArtagnan said:

..However, it suffered from incredibly bland writing - and the world wasn't actually open, but rather rigidly divided into regions. I didn't like that..

Click to expand...

It seems to me a quite good design base, Baldur's Gate 1 for example, even if I can admit that each area should be a bit larger. Drakensang was quite well done with this approach too, better sized area that do usually modern RPG with such approach as DAO for example. The Witcher, and so on, the list can be very long.

For me the problem of one single large area is the almost impossible challenge to build real feeling of a large area and not have ton of holes to setup distances that build a real feeling of a large area.

From few I saw of it, FNV build an interesting solution but quite flawed. The problem of FNV is that it starts on the base of large mildly desert area to setup a feeling of large spaces and desolation, to try build a western end of world mood.

But with the single area approach FNV fails quite a lot because to avoid have ton of boring almost empty spaces the area design reduced distances a lot. Hence the feeling or large desert are is totally failed. And often it's quite strange to quote that the next location is just close at next door.

My primary problem wasn't that the regions were divided - but that the progression was linear between them - with no reason to explore or be in an area once you moved beyond it.

It removes the sensation of freedom, and gives an on-rails sensation that I don't like.

Does seem a bit unfair having ME2 & AP up there, I could see how either might be disappointing but it's a bit unfair to call either actually bad.

I found Elemental both disappointing and bad though (and I'd imagine would have found the same with Disciples III and Arcania). Fingers crossed they pull it back.

DArtagnan said:

My primary problem wasn't that the regions were divided - but that the progression was linear between them - with no reason to explore or be in an area once you moved beyond it.

It removes the sensation of freedom, and gives an on-rails sensation that I don't like.

Click to expand...

Ha yeah, I can enjoy well done RPG doing that but I can understand all the problems this can carry.

Dez said:

I just can't grasp the idea that people actually enjoy playing turds like Arcania. I understand that games like mass effect 2 and alpha protocol can turn people off just as much as the opposite. For example Alpha protocol was the game of the year if you ask me. It was orginal, fun and clever. That being said, I can understand that timed dialogs werent' for everyone.

But Arcania? even if we discard the entire Gothic sequel angle, the game manages to suck on it's own. Graphics are nice, but rest of the content is mediocre filler.

And i would asume that people don't play Arcania because of great storyline. So the saving grace would have to be the combat. Nothing wrong in that If it was good. The game is just so stupidly easy and the whole combat aspect isn't satisfying in any manner. You don't have to use tactics or even fast reflexes to win. So I'm wondering what is the catch?

Click to expand...

Combat has never been a strong point of Gothic games and I didn't expect much in Arcania. I play Gothic games for story, immersion and exploration. Arcania's story was really bad. But in the first part of the game the exploration was great. There was a large word with interesting locations and although the game was not as open as a true Gothic game and linearity was a big problem, I still enjoyed exploring it.
That said, I didn't enjoy Arcania as a whole. The game had its flaws and it turned me off, but there is a fine line between mediocre and bad and Arcania wasn't bad. Alpha Protocol - in the other hand - was bad. Despite all of it's innovations, it was broken, ugly and full of ancient game mechanics. If you have to compare the two and choose the worst game, I'd go with Alpha Protocol.

Speaking of bad RPGs, I wonder if anyone has played 'Dawn of Magic' or 'Ancient Evil'. Those are two of the worst games I have ever played.

blackcanopus said:

Combat has never been a strong point of Gothic games…

Click to expand...

Gothic 3 fighting had irritating details and the auto lock merged to clicking feast was producing an awful result.

But G1 and even more G2+NOTR had the best action sword fighting system ever done in first point of view/over the shoulder RPG.

So weird you quote it as weak… Don't say me it's Oblivion/Morrowind… My bet is more you never played G2+NOTR.

People are pretty upset with a game being called the worst of the bunch. I hate to bring back my beer comparison.

Worst is by definition not the same as bad or terrible.

If you have two games, and you place them in order of how you liked them. One you are going to like the most (it is the best game of those compared) and the other you are going to like the least (it is the worst game of those compared).

You can even do it with games from the same series.

Is Baldur's Gate or Baldur's Gate 2 the best in the series?

In this case the one that isn't the best, is the one that is the worst. Which doesn't mean it was a bad game (1 out of 5 stars or 4/10 score).

"Even though I only got a D in art class, I had the best grade of the class".

Benedict said:

Does seem a bit unfair having ME2 & AP up there, I could see how either might be disappointing but it's a bit unfair to call either actually bad.

I found Elemental both disappointing and bad though (and I'd imagine would have found the same with Disciples III and Arcania). Fingers crossed they pull it back.

Click to expand...

No one called them 'bad', they were the worst of those they played.

What was the worst of the games you played if you excluded Elemental?

Dissapointing isn't really a good criteria, because games that weren't on your radar can't really dissapoint.

I find it great that many games are on both lists. It isn't an empirical search for good and bad games but a search for what games people liked best or worst. And since it's a taste thing it is logical we will see games in both lists.

If I had to judge New Vegas on it's technical side I would say it is a bad game. But I judged on how I liked the total package, and I liked it so much the technical problems couldn't put a dent in it.

Some of us might have only played good games and therefore might have had to pick the worst out of games that all had an 80+ score in the media. They didn't ask to vote for bad games, but for the worst game.

But we're not picking the worst of two good games here. Unless there were no bad games in 2010 - or among the ones we can choose from (not very likely) , the one considered worst among them will be considered a very bad game. And that's the situation we have.

JuliusMagnus said:

People are pretty upset with a game being called the worst of the bunch. I hate to bring back my beer comparison.

Worst is by definition not the same as bad or terrible.

If you have two games, and you place them in order of how you liked them. One you are going to like the most (it is the best game of those compared) and the other you are going to like the least (it is the worst game of those compared).

You can even do it with games from the same series.

Is Baldur's Gate or Baldur's Gate 2 the best in the series?

In this case the one that isn't the best, is the one that is the worst. Which doesn't mean it was a bad game (1 out of 5 stars or 4/10 score).

"Even though I only got a D in art class, I had the best grade of the class".

Click to expand...

Arcania was bad any way you look at it, imo.

For me, it has nothing to do with comparing it to other games. I would still have considered Arcania terrible even if it was the only crpg released in 2010.

JDR13 said:

Arcania was bad any way you look at it, imo.

For me, it has nothing to do with comparing it to other games. I would still have considered Arcania terrible even if it was the only crpg released in 2010.

Click to expand...

Black and White vision, two categories of RPG, those good and those bad, is there really such frontier?

blackcanopus said:

Arcania: Gothic 4 wasn't such a bad game. It was very disappointing, but not bad. I'd pick Alpha Protocol as the worst RPG of 2010, because if Arcania was an average game with poor RPG elements, Alpha Protocol was a poor game with average RPG elements.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't know how anyone could enjoy Arcania. It is a BAD game, not just because the RPG elements were dumbed-down from previous Gothic games but also because the quests, dialogue, writing and design were all terrible as well. The only things that rate above poor in that game are combat, which is just average, and graphics, which again are just average.

It's a BAD game. On the flipside I loooooved Alpha Protocol. It has some rough edges and a lot of people didn't like the stat-based aiming, but there is a lot it does very, very well like choice and consequence, writing, performance and varied gameplay. Pretty much every complaint people leveled against Alpha Protocol could be leveled against Deus Ex, a best-in-genre staple.

As for Mass Effect 2, of course it is not an RPG. Even if you want to allow any game with story choice to be an RPG ME2's choices are all minor and superficial, the game plays out identically for everyone no matter what barring some minor dialogue.

As is true with every gamer and every game, it is subjective and gleaned from personal tastes and experience as to which ones we enjoy and which we want to get a refund for.

This pole was just a quick selection process regarding what the majority of Watch members thought. If you ran the same pole on other forums the results might be totally different. It sure does stir the pot and get people posting every year.

Arcania was the most polished boring game I've played in quite awhile. Give me a great rpg with bugs and then polish the hell out of it over the next few years. Seems like it has to be that way with the rpgs that I really like.