Been noticing a trend lately with new releases. On a game that uses procedural generation of the game world, someone will point out that detail and say "No, thanks."

Why?

I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I'm interested to know why some folks avoid it.

because mostly procedural generation = no creativity.

I happen to be a fan (I find it makes a lot of games more replayable, but I'm also quite fascinated by the programming behind procedural content) but I think the usual criticism is that it is more bland and boring then traditionally designed levels. Even the best procedural content will feel repetitive at some point, and more often than not procedural games aren't the best so they can be very repetitive indeed.
Also I think the degree of randomness involved can mean success can sometimes be more down to luck than skill.

Can you elaborate?

Unless procedual generation means something different now than it did originally, then I'd say quite the opposite. It takes lots of creativity to procedually generate nice levels.

That said, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that procedually generated levels = random levels. Indeed. Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Raid#Technical_design

We once studied how this was done. Pretty impressive for its time.

Yeah, I was going to add to my post that procedurally generated doesn't necessarily need to be random (though I find when it's touted as a selling point for a game that is what they mean) Yup. My (incredibly overly ambitious) ideas for games all involve huge worlds that would take up massive amounts of memory to save as is, so I'm always looking at ways to generate a world from a given seed so all I need to store are a seed and the algorithm to turn it into a world.

So imagine it works a lot better for some genres than others. For instance, a PG point-and-click adventure game would be tough to get right but it should be fine for something like Age of Empires or other RTS games.

Could a 'true' RPG pull it off?

I'm a fan of a strong story, which you can't really get in a procedurally generated game. For some games though (like Terraria) the randomness of every world is a requirement.

Depends on the game really. For 4x games procedurally generated maps work very well as they give an infinite combination of maps and replayability. It also worked well in Diablo for example. So i don't see why it should be a problem. Of course depends on what you expect from a certain game.

I would say point and click games would be quite tough to do right (and next to pointless for the amount of work required to make something passable)

Depends what you class as a true RPG. I'm fairly sure all of the Elder Scrolls games are procedurally generated. Random maps in RTS games are too.

Daggerfall had such quests, didn't it? A few specific ones being non random, but its dungeons were random from what I recall. Not sure if "procedurally generated" or not though.

There is almost never truly random levels because you'd end up with blocked exits for example or walls in the middle of the path. Mostly there is some procedural generation at work to at least enforce some basic rules.

The main game world of Daggerfall, scenery, land and most towns, were all procedurally generated.

I like personal touches to games (like a good narrative). Infinite replaybility is meaningless to me since I don't play each game that much that I want them to last forever, I prefer variety. Nowadays I even want games to not be too long. I also don't like RNG that tends to be a part of games that utilize it as a main mechanic rather than merely a way to create a large world for the sake of it.

Depends on what your building blocks are. Usual case is you have basic rooms, and then see how they are connected. So you start with one of X possible entrances, then connect one of the Y possible blocks to each of the entrance's connections.
Then again, that is probably what you mean by "basic rules".