I have a different issue with it; because your stats don't grow during the gane (unlike, say, Bard's Tale or Wizardry), whatever stats you roll are what you're stuck with for the rest of the game. This encourages spending time rerolling, which I consider to not be good game design, before the player even has a chance to play the game. It also requires the player, having never played the game before, to make a bunch of permanent decisions before even starting the game. (Basically, it's the same reason that I dislike skill point systems, except that you have to do everything before you even *start*.) It also means that, if you make a mistake in character creation, there's no way (sort of things like hex editing or cheats) to fix is later in the game.

(Random thought I had: Would you play a remake o BG1 or BG2 which kept the plot and many of the gameplay elements (the most recognizable spells, items, and enemies would definitely be retained), but whose game mechanics were completely different, and more like a JRPG (misses being rare, defense reducing damage, stats gradually increasing and eventually reaching the low triple digits, ext.)?)

I enjoy the Temple of Trials in Fallout 2.

I find Blighttown in Dark Souls to be one of the most enjoyable and atmospheric areas in the game.

I thought Xen in Half-Life wasn't that bad; not as fun as the rest of the game, but a pretty interesting environment.

Ah! That reminded me of one. "Dead Money" is the best Fallout: New Vegas DLC (though I love all). While I value player choice in games (particularly RPGs), being taken out of your comfort zone as a player and forced to play a different way temporarily can be extremely enjoyable and challenging. I also love this about a certain set of levels in Tomb Raider III.

Sure, I'd love a turn-based Baldur's Gate as long as it's not dumbed-down. I feel if a game expects you to assign scripts to your party members, it's gone too far in terms of micromanagement. I don't like RTS-style combat with multiple units to control.

That if an RPG has only one feasible build to not die repeatedly or not fully explaining what would happen if you do something to piss off NPCs and then turn around and label it as “hard” you should not be making games, I am looking you Age of Decadence. Don’t get me wrong I like hard games like for example Paradox Interactive Games, XCOM-like games and I like RPGs but if a developer does this it’s really shitty because I feel that they really did not fix this so that people can use different builds ones that they actually want to use.

What if the game only offers one build to use in the first place? (Examples include Dragon Quest 2 and Wizardry 4, though the latter often feels more like an adventure game that's disguised as an RPG.) Both those games are known to be hard, and both don't offer any choices in character builds (though Wizardry 4 lets you choose what monsters to summon, and there are plenty of viable options (even in the couple spots where you need a specicfic monster to solve a puzzle)).

...I have not finished the game yet but to my knowledge non-combat builds are viable in The Age of Decadence. In the playthrough I had begun, I was using one. I think TAoD is kind of a unique example as I do not know many other games which delve that realistically into roleplaying. In other words it is realistic that my cunning merchant character, with next to nothing invested in combat skills, would not survive even a one-on-one fight. Because that is likely how the same encounter would hypothetically go in real life. My character has to act wisely given the very dangerous world around them, which means trying to anticipate consequences and not angering other people in the game. The issue is that most roleplaying games still allow the player character to have amounts of power beyond a realistic scale (which granted is fine in fantasy settings). Personally I wish there were more games in the style of TAoD :)

I really have no problem with that it’s just the ones that say that the game has multiple classes but only one of them is actually usable or you can mess around with the base stats but only one combination of the base stats won’t get you killed or actually allows you to progress in the game. Like Age of Decadence has both of these options but in reality, it really only has one build that you can choose from. I also have said that if the game has only one viable build that allows you to progress, which I mean that there are multiple builds that you can choose from, but I guess that it was my own lack of wordage on my part.

What if there are multiple options, most of which are good, but there's at least one that's intentionally poor? (I'm thinking something like the Shepherd class in Ultima 4. Granted, that game did have an issue with the Fighter class being rather poor (no magic *and* no ranged weapons that work in the final dungeon), but all the other (non-Shepherd) classes are at least viable.)

I could also mention Dragon Quest 3's Goof-Off class, but at least characters of that class can eventually turn into Sages without needing a certain special item.

So basically a joke class that the developers had put in. I have no problem with it seeing as it is ment as a joke to the developers and not a oversight on the developer when they were making the game. Its just when there are mulitply classes and only one is a viable option is when I have the issue with a game and then the fans of the said games is that it was suppose to be like this. Sorry but if I have to consult with a guide just to build my character that is when I run into trouble with the game.

Age of decadence has lots of viable builds...I've played through all the backgrounds multiple times, e.g. did a thief focused on combat, one on stealth, and one with a bit of talking, all worked.
It's true that the game can be frustrating (its creators have themselves acknowledged that it isn't perfect), but it's made pretty clear already at character generation that you have to focus on a few skills and can't spread skill points in everything. And the game is also quite short and meant to be replayed anyway, so botching a character is not that much of a loss in time investment.

I actually liked The Witcher (the first game)'s combat system.

Seconded. And that even though I'm not a fan of jump'n'run parts in first person games, unless they specifically designed around it (like Mirror's Edge or Dying Light, which are amazing).

Same here, still like it. I hated the combat system of Witcher 2 until I finally installed Full Combat Rebalance which suddenly made it amazing and fluent.

Also:

I actually like the melee combat system of Gothic 1. It feels clumsy at first, but once you get the hang of the moves and rhythm it is actually a lot of fun. Also gaining levels in combat always feels like a tremendous improvement, you really have the feeling of learning how to fight.

Well apparently me saying Baldur's Gate series is rather flawed and merely above average RPG is unpopular.
Who would have thought?