Mass Effect is not an RPG

[MetallicaRulez0]

I think BioWare cut out a bit too much of the customization and RPG-elements from ME1 to ME2,but I also feel that ME2 is a better game overall. It's impossible to overlook just how much better the combat system is in ME2, even if they made a few blunders there as well, like Biotics not going through armor (really, wtf?).

For ME3 I really hope they bring back some form of inventory system including weapons and armor, and bring back the experience system from ME1 as well.

 

[newwiseman]

I think the answer you're looking for is in this link below...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8501-Critical-Miss-A-Parable

But in regards to that I would amount the removal of the inventory to that of the turkey, for a pure shit sandwich, or maybe one of the slices of bread.

Immersion in RPG's is as important as the plot, mechanics, and settings. How am I too feel immersed when previously my character could use any weapon (even if not very well) and now they can only use one of 3-5 weapons with mediocre differences. Can't even customize ammo load-outs, now guns fire magic bullets that burn or freeze instead of the infinite ammo variety.

Because in the future limitless ammo is developed to prevent running out, then ammo is re-developed to prevent over heating. At least if in the third installment they had both variety and you could only use specialized ammo with ammo needing weapons or something... sigh. Also what every force in the universe decided unanimously to move back to using ammo, even the geth?

Then let's not forget the last choice the game gives you will either max you good or bad regardless of previous decisions.

I want to rant more but most of it's already been posted.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

It's not tedious, it must not be an RPG, blargh!

No. It is an RPG, it just is not a traditional RPG. People get terrified when things don't fit their exact specifications. The most important aspect of a Role Playing Game is that you play a role... Anything beyond that is a variation.

For example, FPS games are often known for sacrificing good writing for action packed scenes and fast-paced combat, but does this mean that Half-Life or Portal don't count? Of course they do. The core aspect of an FPS (it's in first person and you shoot...) is still there, thus it is still an FPS.
Same with Mass Effect as an RPG.

I'll just agree with this guy and leave, because this argument has boiled down to:

"It's an RPG! It has all the gameplay elements of an RPG!"
"Yeah, but they're not RPGy enough."

Actually there is no arguement involved in this. It's not an RPG.

Actually, there is no argument involved in this. It's an RPG.

And no, the bullets don't always go exactly where your targeting reticule is pointed. This is why there are upgrades that improve the accuracy of your weapons. While your first shot while generally go pretty much where you aim, that's because the player character is a military special ops veteran. You still have to be careful when firing because of recoil, something which is improved through upgrades made to your team/character's weapons.

I'm not going to bother with your lengthy and irrelevant second and third paragraphs, because I already said I don't care about this topic anymore. I'll just say that I don't like it when people try to say that Mass Effect isn't an RPG because the genre is daring to diversify from it's basic roots.

PS. If I get another message because someone's quoted me, I'm just going to delete i t without reading it.

 

[Danpascooch]

If you have a name, a story, and a leveling system, it's an RPG.

It may also be other things, but it's an RPG.

 

[Danpascooch]

It's not tedious, it must not be an RPG, blargh!

No. It is an RPG, it just is not a traditional RPG. People get terrified when things don't fit their exact specifications. The most important aspect of a Role Playing Game is that you play a role... Anything beyond that is a variation.

For example, FPS games are often known for sacrificing good writing for action packed scenes and fast-paced combat, but does this mean that Half-Life or Portal don't count? Of course they do. The core aspect of an FPS (it's in first person and you shoot...) is still there, thus it is still an FPS.
Same with Mass Effect as an RPG.

I'll just agree with this guy and leave, because this argument has boiled down to:

"It's an RPG! It has all the gameplay elements of an RPG!"
"Yeah, but they're not RPGy enough."

Actually there is no arguement involved in this. It's not an RPG.

If you have a name, a story, and a leveling system, it's an RPG.

It may also be other things, but it's an RPG.

The problem is that people act as if these definitions (RPG FPS ect.) are mutually exclusive, when you consider the most widely accepted definitions, there is a lot of overlap, technically you could have a game that's an Action RPG FPS Strategy, it wouldn't be easy to do, and I don't know why the hell you would do it, but it could be done.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Hmmm... Now, I remember making a very similar thread like this a while back, pro-RPG of course. Allow me to quote myself:

Yesterday, I was talking with a few friends of mine, and I mentioned that I had Mass Effect 2 to finish. That led to a discussion on what games we currently need to finish, then led to talks on RPGs in general. After a brief reminiscing of the original KotOR, friend of mine made the statement that he couldn't really think of some top class RPGs in the last five years (Oblivion and Fallout 3 being close seconds). I suggested the original Mass Effect to be a candidate. He responded that Mass Effect was more of a shooter with an RPG twist, that it was a space opera if anything else. Not arguing that it wasn't a good game, he followed up with, "It's what modern day shooters should strive to be." Now that in itself is a worthy debate indeed, but let's focus on the immediate matter.

I made it clear that I disagreed with his classification, but I didn't want to push the issue since everyone was getting ready to leave at the time anyway (we had also just talked about a guy we know who constantly argues with people on games). But, I can't help but disagree with him, thinking that he wasn't paying attention to the bigger picture. The way he put it, he segregated the gameplay into two parts: the third-person shooting combat and the story dialogue choices. The problem is, it goes much farther than that, I think.

I mean, what defines an Role Playing Game? I know a lot of people here would disagree with this, but both me and my friend agree that the proof is in the title. Role Playing. You're character is your own. The games story bends and twists at your actions. The exact type of thing that KotOR does. And that's my argument.

In terms of the RPG gameplay and layout, Mass Effect has the exact same role playing gameplay as Knights of the Old Republic. They are not the same game. They do not have the same gameplay, story, concept, atmosphere, art style, any of it. And, I'm not even going to go into the second game, because in all honesty I really don't know how to classify it in today's game industry. Mass Effect 2 transcends any genre I can think of, so I'll just say it's in a complete league of it's own. But let's get back to Mass Effect and KotOR.

In Mass Effect, you create your personalized character. At the beginning, you choose his looks (assuming you chose to be male, of course), and then decide what his profession is and what your character will specialize in. KotOR does this as well. Hell, Mass Effect goes one step further by letting you assemble his backstory (what his childhood was like, and the deciding event in his life that made him the man he is today).

You have a dual moral system that does not require you to completely follow either side, letting you define your character the way you want. And, that is the truth for both games. The word "chaotic good" comes to my nerdy mind. Hell, I even know some people who played KotOR all the way through as a good guy, only to do a complete 180 when he found out he was actually the most feared warlord in the galaxy.

In terms of gameplay over story decisions, you have an inventory system, you outfit all of your allies the way you want, you take your preferred group with you on missions, you have stats and skills, you choose what abilities you want, you can stop time for strategic purposes. What is the difference between these two styles of gameplay? What is the defining factor that distinguishes KotOR as an RPG but not Mass Effect?

... In KotOR, you click on your enemies and wait, hoping you hit them. In Mass Effect, you manually control the holes you put in your enemies.

Am I missing something here? Seriously, am I? Is that really all it takes? Well, shit, I didn't realize that Fallout 3 was only an FPS in disguise. I didn't realize that the entire Elder Scrolls series was actually just medieval FPSs with stats. Kingdom Hearts? Secret of Mana? Oh no, you're actually allowed to determine whether your swing hits someones face or just flail wildly into the air, so they must not be RPGs as well.

Huh, alright. I'm done with the sarcasm. It just rubs me the wrong way when you limit RPGs to such a narrow point of view. I feel like by focusing so much on the stats and rolling dice that we're not letting RPGs grow and reach their full potential as true Role Playing Games.

Anyway, just throwing this out there, want to know what people think.

Point is, the game is pretty much KotOR, yet because you physically shoot at the enemies instead of just clicking on them, people seem to believe that classifies it as something other than an RPG. I'll rarely say this to anybody since we all have our own opinion, but you're wrong, sir. You are just plain wrong.

 

[bojac6]

It's not tedious, it must not be an RPG, blargh!

No. It is an RPG, it just is not a traditional RPG. People get terrified when things don't fit their exact specifications. The most important aspect of a Role Playing Game is that you play a role... Anything beyond that is a variation.

For example, FPS games are often known for sacrificing good writing for action packed scenes and fast-paced combat, but does this mean that Half-Life or Portal don't count? Of course they do. The core aspect of an FPS (it's in first person and you shoot...) is still there, thus it is still an FPS.
Same with Mass Effect as an RPG.

I'll just agree with this guy and leave, because this argument has boiled down to:

"It's an RPG! It has all the gameplay elements of an RPG!"
"Yeah, but they're not RPGy enough."

Actually there is no arguement involved in this. It's not an RPG.

Let me explain something, being an RPG has nothing to do with storyline, dialogue, or moral choices. Those are all things tacked onto the framework. The reason why it's a "Role playing game" is not because you act the part of a role, as much as it's the role your playing that determines the outcome of events. A good way of demonstrating this is the combat. In Mass Effect 2 if you put the targeting recticle over an opponent and hit attack your bullets go straight to the target and do damage. There is no variable there other than your abillity to aim ena dhoot. In Mass Effect 1, the determining factor was the weapon skill of the character. If you were unskilled with a weapon or the opponent has substantial defenses, you could line up a shot perfectly and still miss because the role your playing isn't good enough at shooting to make the shot your trying for. It's that dependance on stats for outcomes rather than player abillity that makes something an RPG. If your a pure action gamer you probably think this idea is stupid, if your an RPG gamer that's what your looking for. There are plenty of people who appreciate both styles of gaming, but many more who look down on the other camp.

I think a lot of the arguement is based around the idea that RPGs have a reputation for being for smart people. This comes from them being a purely intellecual exercise, and the kind of person who can get satisfaction of playing with numbers and seeing the results in a somewhat detached format. Action games on the other hnd are generally accepted as something that any meathead can play and appreciate. The general result has been the dumbing down of RPGs and trying to turn them into action games, and people trying to defend the results, even when devoid of much in the way of RPG elements at all as being RPGs.

The misunderstanding about what role-playing entails comes from conflicts within the PnP RPG community. The arguements between gamers and storytellers are legendary, and have been going on for many years now. Arguements about whether the plot and story are all important when it comes to a game, or whether the stats are equally important in making the game a sort of simulation. Truthfully doing things "right" involves a balance between the two, with a definate slant towards the stats end of things because that's what makes it a "game" as opposed to a bunch of people verbalizing bad fanfiction. You'll notice that as the genere turned more and more towards the storytelling (which is easier to write, and attitudes about ignoring game mechanics means being able to be sloppy in designing them), PnP RPGs themselves wound up gravitating increasingly towards a younger and younger audience. The games started as being the pastime of collegiate intellectuals, with children being a small prescence in the community, to a situation where today the majority of gamers tend to be teens with a few increasingly old fogeys who ramble about the good old days. If you checked out "Dragon Magazine" and it's forums for a long time it was kind of creepy how you saw letters early on about adults dealing with kids wanting to game, amd then you saw the exact same arguements in reverse about adults wanting to play with kids, including some comments about it being creepy about 40 year olds wanting to hang out and play with a bunch of teeny boppers (when really it became increasingly harder to find all-adult groups). Incidently while a lot of things have caused another decline in PnP RPGs, one of the big issues is of course kids losing interest in it for a lot of a reasons, the whole problem with sacrificing a stable market for kids with few financial responsibilities.

I agree with you, mostly. An RPG is about developing a character and a character's abilities, and then applying this abilities. I think that's a fair summation of what you said, please correct me if not. Now, in many games, this is reflected in combat skill, exactly how you described (a dice roll determines if you hit or not). Mass Effect 2 does not have that, I admit. It removed the "to hit" or the "base attack" or whatever you want to call that statistic.

However, it still has abilities that you choose to apply. You choose class and how to build that class. You choose whether to use a grenade, a rifle, or a specific power in a given situation. In that regard, it does act like an RPG. It just removed the to hit roll and made it a function of player skill, instead of character skill. Does that negate it as an RPG? I would say no, because RPGs, especially of the pen and paper variety, are always about player skill and marginally about character stats.

You give two different people characters with the exact same stats, same gear, and put them in the same situation, and one will get through it and the other won't. Nothing to do with dice rolling, and everything to do with player skill. For example, you put up a 1st level mage in a fight against a 10th level fighter. This is not a fair fight, the mage will lose every time if he goes in swinging. But a good player wouldn't fight that fight. He's run away, or set traps, or do something to avoid the fighter's advantage. In a PnP RPG, there is a freedom for creativity that is simply impossible to duplicate in a video game. You can't build a barricade out of furniture when the inside of the building next to you doesn't actually exist. You can't improvise a large shield by taking a door off of it's hinges. And, most importantly, in a video game, you can't say "No way am I invading this cult, they are way too powerful for me, I'm going to go rob some villagers." Instead, if you want to play a video game, you have to play the story set out in front of you. In other words, there is no negotiation with the GM, because the GM isn't sentient.

So how do you balance that in a video game? How do you make up for the severe limits on creativity the nature of a video game puts on a Role Player? I think putting combat skill into there hands is a perfectly acceptable solution. I think it allows the player some creativity ("I have the skill to head shot a moving target from this distance through the slots in the fence, so I'll do it from back here where I'm safe") in how they react compared to forcing them into what is the worst kind of game for either a video game or a PnP: a slugfest. Just press A or roll the die to see if you hit. Repeat.

Gets real boring after a while.

 

[Bebus]

It depends what you want to define a 'RPG' as.

If you want to believe it is a spreadsheet based experience better played in a basement on pen and paper, then Mass Effect is not a RPG.

However, if you believe it is a role playing game, where you play the role of a character and the game world evolves around you as you progress in your own way, Mass Effect and it's sequel are most definitely RPGs.

I like the former kind of game, but I do not believe they are RPGs.

 

[Faladorian]

I always thought of it as an RPG because of the stats and talent trees and companions and stuff. The combat just wasnt Final Fantasy-esque, which is a damn good thing in my opinion

 

[RatRace123]

Ok.
I am seriously weirded out by this site right now.

Theres often a hell of a lot of Mass Effect threads every day and I've noticed that it switches back and forth from fanboys going on about how much they love it to people criticising its shortcomings.

Theres nothing wrong with this though, its just bizarre, one minute love, the next hate.

The second game really divided the fanbase, it made the series more mainstream, and when something's mainstream it will be talked about and debated and loved and hated.

And I rhymed, I'm very very sorry for that.

At any rate, the series is still an RPG, it's just the RPG elements were more "traditional" in the first game, I personally prefer the first game and its RPG elements, but that's just my preference.

No it didnt.
People dont hate mass effect 2 for being mainstream. They hate it because like you said it divided the fanbase, because it was so different to mass effect 1. People who liked ME2 more were on one side, people who hated it because it was no longer the game they loved on the ohter. It happens. Just like oblivion divided the TES community, and fallout 3 divided the fallout community. Or a more recent on new vegas ivided the fallout community. Its because its different to the original, bringing new fans, alienating old.

I phrased it wrong, I meant that the reason it's getting talked about was because it's so popular, I agree with you that the reason for the division of the fanbase was the drastic changes to the mechanics.
Whether these changes are good or not, that's up for debate.

 

[Techno Destructo]

It's pretty simple: RPG=Role Playing Game

You Play the ROLE of Commander Shepard, it's a GAME. . . that you are PLAYING. How hard is that?

You level up, you fight baddies, and at the end you fight the biggest baddie. People are completely over-complicating this. Things like choices and morals are just a bonus

 

[veloper]

Everything is 'RPG' nowadays.

ME2
domain: computer games
kingdom: RPG
phylum: WRPG
class: RPShooter
order: storyfag RPS
family: your mom

 

[KalosCast]

It's pretty simple: RPG=Role Playing Game

You Play the ROLE of Commander Shepard, it's a GAME. . . that you are PLAYING. How hard is that?

You level up, you fight baddies, and at the end you fight the biggest baddie. People are completely over-complicating this. Things like choices and morals are just a bonus

See, this is why trying to argue whether a game is an RPG or not is completely retarded. I'd argue that the choices and the moral/ethical aspects of the game IS the role-playing. The gear bonuses and levelling up, and different superpowers are the game.

 

[goliath6711]

Mass Effect 2 removed any choice from the player, and I don't just mean in terms of the upgrades. There were no tough moral choices to make in Mass Effect 2, no meaningful character interaction [unless you're immature enough to find the phenomenally stupid romance sequences interesting].

Regardless, the points regarding weapon and armor interaction are inaccurate. Whilst you're correct in stating that they simplified the system you ignore the reason as to why the previous system was more interesting to the player. The fact the guns weren't alike, yet could still be modified [which isn't the case in ME2 you just add "damage upgrades" rather than any meaningful additions], thus allowing for chaarcter customization. You instantly assume all players will select the gun they choose to be the "best", but again, this is inaccurate. In the first game guns were different enough from one another to warrant experimentation, thus player will no doubt have come to different concepts on the "best" gun. In Mass Effect 2 this process is done in such a fashion that the player has no say in the matter, they're just given a generic gun from a list - the guns don't feel different bar those that fire differently - they don't really seem to change much based off the stats. In all, in "streamlining" this system they remove any form of characterization and feeling of ownership from the character customization of Shepard. ME2 should have improved the customization system with more weapons, and more choice - because some players enjoy experimenting with different weapons and armor builds - Mass Effect 2 should have expanded on the first game and given players more reason to do so. Instead we get a cut-down version of the system with less options to change and less meaningful decision to make in the game altogether; thus turning the experience into a shallow RPG.

You actually have the nerve to say that Mass Effect 2 doesn't give you any choices? Let me show you how you are telling a BOLD FACE LIE!!!!!


Spoiler Alert:


Mass Effect:
You can choose whether to have Garrus or Wrex never join your party.
You can choose whether or not to kill wrex close to the end.
You choose whether to save Kaidan or Ashley, leaving the other to die.
You can choose to save the council, earning their gratitude, or let them die and have humanity take over the council.

Mass Effect 2:
You can choose to leave Grunt in his tank, or free him. After that, you can choose to recruit or kill him.
You can choose to keep Legion, or send him to Cerberus.
You can choose to let Morinth kill Samara and replace her.
YOU CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE EVERY CHARACTER, INCLUDING YOURSELF, DIE AT THE END!!!! You can choose not to get the upgrades you need or gain the loyalty of the squadmate you need to survive the final mission! That's still a choice!

And if you think the romance sequences are "phenomenally stupid", then YOU'RE the immature one.


P.S.: I do think that both games ar very much RPGs as I am playing the role of a character I crafted.

 

[JoeThree]

Why is is not an RPG? RPG means "role-playing game". You assume the role of Commander Shephard and, if anything, it's one of the most true "RPG"s around, as you actually get to determine or "play" the "role" of another individual.

Sure, it's not based around some angsty, androgynous twat, nor does it have turn-based combat, but that just means that in addition to actual role-playing, the game's also fun to play.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I've played it about an hour, and might get it another try, but it better get good. BioWare's writing is bland and boring, and it is starting to end up the same way as Dragon Age did with combat that is a joke.

 

[D_987]

Mass Effect 2 removed any choice from the player, and I don't just mean in terms of the upgrades. There were no tough moral choices to make in Mass Effect 2,

You actually have the nerve to say that Mass Effect 2 doesn't give you any choices? Let me show you how you are telling a BOLD FACE LIE!!!!!

I can tell right away you didn't read up until the section I quoted because that would tell you all you need to know about the point I was making. I wasn't literally claiming the game gives the player no choice, but that the game offers no "difficult" moral choices, unlike the first game. The points you make later on are inconsequential because, unlike the first game there's no threat of a character death lest you specifically order them to die. As in, if you don't select the "recommended" character for the final mission, then yes, they might die, but as long as you don't go out your way to kill them - it's not going to happen...

And if you think the romance sequences are "phenomenally stupid", then YOU'RE the immature one.

Why is that? In Mass Effect the characters aren't effected by my actions as personally as say, in Dragon Age. They simply respond to my Paragon or Renegade levels, not how I reacted to moral decision X or Y. As such when you're "romancing" these characters you're just selecting the correct places on the conversation wheel, it's not personal, it's not well done and it's not interesting...

It's phenomenally stupid because it's thrown in there to appeal to the lowest common denominator...

 

[Addicted Muffin]

All games are RPGs....in every game, you play te role, or roleplay, a certian character or something...
every game falls into the genre of RPG

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Mass Effect is a story-driven action-TPS. It is not an RPG.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

All games are RPGs....in every game, you play te role, or roleplay, a certian character or something...
every game falls into the genre of RPG

This tautological view of the genre is far from useful and like most tautologies the result of a naive interpretation.