Mass Effect is not an RPG

[Nfritzappa]

You're right. Mass Effect is not an RPG, its something way better than an RPG. Its a Sci-Fi epic with great lore, story, characters, choices, missions, gameplay, and an overall aesthetic experience that is beyond any RPG I've played. So whatever it is, you're right. Its too good to be an RPG.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

By your standards Half-Life 2 is an RPG then - since in ME you really don't get the kind of character freedom a lot of people claim [you're still clamped to the story after all and Shepard can't dot hings to out of chaarcter] whilst in Half Life the player is meant to project their own image onto Gordon Freemon. Hence the problem with this argument, and indeed any argument, that an RPG is a game you specifically "role play" a character in...

Gordon Freeman isn't a role. He's a lamppost with legs. A role has a personality, a lamppost does not. So when you play as Cmdr. Shepard you determine his/her personality and that changes how the characters in the story react to you. It doesn't change the game entirely, because to do that would mean writing obscene amounts of extra scripts and codes that 50% of the players would never see, and hence isn't feasible (yet?).

Case in point, ME2 is a role-playing game. If you're not happy with it, play Dragon Age where the RP is even more in-depth at the price of a dull story and world. If you're not happy with THAT....well lower your standards or stop playing RPGs.

 

[UberNoodle]

To fixate too much on the "brush strokes" and not on the whole, is to miss the big picture entirely. Too heavy with the metaphores? Let's say that picture is of a whole lot of trees, ie a forest.

Mass Effect is an RPG. It's as simple as that. Is the same kind of RPG as Dragon Quest or Baldur's Gate? No. But then again, are those even "true" RPGs? Growing up with pencil and paper RPGs and text based RPGs on computers, I really wonder if they are, truly. *sarcasm designed to draw perspective*

 

[CatmanStu]

My take on this great franchise is that it is a fun game that is trying to sit on the fence to gain the biggest audience.
Yes it has RPG elements, but those elements have been diluted to the bare minimum for the second game to make it as accessible as possible to the non RPG crowd. As Xaositect has succinctly pointed out, the levelling aspect is now little more than improved ways to kill people from cover with guns.
My biggest concern with ME2 is the fact that the plot is as diluted as the gameplay (not to say the plot is bad, just a step down from the first). It feels like IJ & the Temple of Doom; the production values are better, but it doesn't have the spirit of the first.
Is it a good game; yes. Is it an RPG; only in the same way that garlic bread is a pizza.

 

[Xaositect]

At this point I'm going to throw down the gauntlet. Tell me precisely what effect the loss of granularity in the leveling system had upon the game. I have already made a case for why this loss did not fundamentally alter the choices available to the player so, please, tell me why I am wrong.

Mass Effect 2s levelling system is "choose one power which you dont want to max out".

Mass Effect 1s levelling system is "choose from this list of powers where you want to specialise".

I already mentioned in a post above, I specialised in medical, tech, and minor biotic support for the rest of my squad.

In ME2 I maxed out all powers other than cryo blast and overload I believe (they are cloned as heavy weapons anyway), and spammed tech armour and used the assault rifle the game forced into my hands (or shotgun or sniper had I chosen them instead).

Are you saying that the quality of character interaction is dependent upon said interaction taking place in a unique world space? Because if that were the case I would be forced to roll my eyes.

Im saying the characters in ME2 are poorly developed and are interchangeable.

Youve got Miranda reviving Shepard, and Mordin making the defense against the seeker swarms.

Other than that, you simply need a tech expert (Tali or Legion), a Biotic expert (Samara or Jack) and a loyal goon to escort any survivors. Bingo perfect ending.

All other characters occupy precisely NO unique role in the plot whatsoever. They hardly even acknowledge the suicide mission in the dialogue. Most of their character revolves around completing an option errand to get your squadmate working right.

From a plot perspective, you could swap most of the squad with specialised mechs and it would still pan out the same way. They are "objectives", not real characters occupying a unique role in a storyline, unlike in ME1, where Wrex is Wrex, Liara is Liara etc. The only time such banality occured is Ashley and Kaidan occupying the same role on Virmire, but even then it could force a unique outcome.

And again I shall throw down the gauntlet and demand an explanation that tells me precisely what choice I lost in the exchange as I have already made an argument that asserts that the fundamental choice inherent to sorting through one's inventory and applying silly little upgrades remains.

Youre wasting your time here. Like ME2 all you want, but dont deny its dumbed down, streamlined, simplified, whatever, but the point is most of the game has been ripped out and replaced by cover shooting TPS combat.

Regardless, the choice you lose is taking a weapon you have found, and gathering an assortment of upgrades and saying "right, I shall use this for this weapon". You could outfit an assault rifle for accuracy and synthetic killing. Outfit a shotgun for maximum power (using frictionless materials and explosive rounds was amazing). A pistol that negates radar jamming. A sniper that will massacre organics. Thats customisation in upgrading, and choice.

In ME2 your choices are:

Do I use the shitty mining mini-game to gain an arbitrary incremental increase on said pistol/sniper/health, or do I ignore it and carry on just fine without it.

Dont bother denying it, those are the facts of ME1 and ME2. Flaws or no, those are the choices both games offer.

The original game was dominated by it's combat mechanic.

Absolutely. And that combat mechanic offered more freedom than "play me like Gears of War". Thats the issue here, and one that you should probably give up arguing against, because youre simply wrong.

What's more, both games give you enormous agency over the narrative and the character(s) of the world.

No, neither games do this. Mass Effect 1 gives you agency over which unique characters will die. (3 of them to be precise)

Mass Effect 2 gives you agency over with interchangeable characters will die. (All but 2 of them if you want to survive, if not everyone is game)

I have yet to see a compelling argument defends the notion that an RPG must be defined by it's mechanical elements as these elements vary wildly even in games that are universally accepted as being classified as an RPG.

Every single fucking game is defined by its mechanical elements. Its why we have genres in the first place. Its why there are romance films, action films, drama films.

Its why there are RTS games, FPS games, and RPG games. You can get all cosmopolitan and trendy with genres if you like, but that defeats the entire purpose. I was assured by the devs that their constant trumpeting about improving the shooter mechanics did not mean the rest of the game lost out on anything. They fucking lied.

This game completely failed to satisfy my RPG needs in what was sold to me, in 2007 and 2010 as a hybrid that has strong RPG leanings. What I got was little more than a TPS with minor RPG trappings thrown in as an afterthought.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

*snip*

Thats not even counting the loyalty missions, about 90% of which follow the same formula, and again, N7 missions which are the same.

*snip*

I'm sorry, but the loyalty missions were more of the same? In Samara and Thane's loyalty missions you literally don't engage in combat once. You spent the better half of Kasumi's loyalty mission trying to break into a vault. Plenty of the other loyalty mission had combat in them, but that wasn't the focus of it. For example, Mordin's mission focused on the morality of his actions when he was part of the Salarian special forces. Garrus' was about his need for revenge, and you spent most of Jack's wandering around a deserted research facility.

Heck, you failed to mention your time on the Normandy which can only be spent talking to people and upgrading stuff.

I hate to cop out of discussion like this, but I agree with what this guy said.

I mean come one, Mass Effect 2 has character levelling

Which is dumbed down from the first game, instead of improved upon.

Except that most of the skills in Mass Effect 1 were useless, so there was always an obvious choice of what to pick. Warp? Who wants that? The fact alone that you had to choose which way you wanted to improve your powers when you maxed them out makes it a more interesting choice than Mass Effect 1.

large scale exploration

...... No. It doesnt.

You can explore a few optional extra shooting galleries, a rare one or two not actually needing much if any shooting, but mostly they are the same as the rest of the game: linear shooting galleries.

But you miss out on a lot of stuff if you don't bother exploring, both on the galaxy map and within missions. You'll miss weapon upgrades, credits and resources if you don't look around. The game rewards you for exploration.

significant NPC interaction

Well, you had more characters than the first game, but they all said less, so it cancelled itself out really. Coupled with only two occupying a unique but brief place in the story, Id take ME1s quality over ME2s quantity any day.

The thing is, apart from a few party characters much of the Mass Effect 1 cast wasn't really memorable. Plenty of the characters had good writing, not just party members; Aria for example, or Dr. Okeer. EDI was another, with Joker getting a bigger role in the game.

upgradeable weaponry

Again, dumbed down from the 1st game. Instead of choosing from multiple upgrades, you simply complete the "list" of minor, incremental upgrades. None of which are either necessary, or that helpful really. You can complete the game with the same gear you start it with no problem.

Yes, because the weapons you found were different, not inherently better. Of course this is so dumbed down from a system of 'bigger numbers=better gear'. Why is it so complex and deep to replace an item with smaller number with one with bigger numbers? How is making a choice over the type and abilities of the weapon you'll use 'dumbed down' from just using the same weapon over and over again until a marginally better model shows up?

Mass Effect 2: Do you want a semi-sutomatic sniper rifle or a bolt action? Do you want a burst fire assault rifle or a fully automatic one? 'Magnum revolver' pistol or one with lower power but higher clip capacity? Flamethrower, missle launcher, grenade launcher, freeze ray, nuke gun or powerful laser?

Mass Effect 1: More powerful gun or less powerful gun?

and side quests

Well, the N7 missions I have covered above. Most other side quests involve either finishing it in the same room, or traveling to a nearby room to finish it. In short, they were pathetic.

Some of them were basically shooting galleries with a theme, but others weren't. The mission where you have to deal with the Patriarch, or the one on the crashed ship on the cliff, or the one where you had to restart the shield generator or the onw ith the mining droid you had to get running.

In what sense is that not an RPG?

In the sense that Ive covered in this post and the one above, that the vast majority of the game is classed as TPS, with only a few minor RPG elements creeping in. Oh sure, it has RPG elements. I think folks are just divided on how worthwhile they are. I mean, even if you class the conversation system as an RPG element, the game is still dominated by TPS combat.

The irony is, I dont want a "RPG" Mass Effect in the same way I want it with other games. I was expecting a "hybrid". Yes, I expected the game to have a heavy element of shooting, but one that I didnt have to concentrate on much.

Instead ME2 shoves its shooter elements in my face from start to finish, and the meagre RPG scraps Im given to play with just dont cut it in any way.

What really bothers me is that you think you can show that it's not an RPG because there is a large amount of combat. Just because it's not the type of combat you associate with RPGs doesn't mean it's not an RPG. Compare most other RPGs and you'll find a similar ratio of combat to other stuff. You say you want a hybrid, but you mark the game down for having the combat system that it's supposed to be a hybird with.

 

[Exocet]

Take a long time to think about the term RPG.Role playing Game.ME2 is a game and you play a role.A role you can choose.
Nowhere in this term does it say you need an inventory,stats,and a skill tree.
Don't get me wrong,I prefered the ME1 style of RPG than ME2,and I love RPGs in the traditional sense,but labeling ME2 NOT an RPG because it doesn't take the same approach as other games is stupid,especially since it stays true to the very name of RPG.

see that does make sense, but technically in blackops you play the "role" of alex mason. so whats the diff yo?

The difference is that in Blops,you play the Alex's character,you do not choose his role.You could argue with the semantics,but at the end of the day,you cannot dictate what Alex will do,you only control him as HE performs his role.

 

[Warachia]

leveling up, inventory, and combat are NOT what makes an RPG, an RPG is theability to ROLE-PLAY, which the game does nicely.

 

[Jeralt2100]

The bottom line point that I am attempting to make an enormous length is this: giving a player a choice means nothing if that choice is not meaningful. What ME2 did was remove intermediary meaningless choices in favor or larger meaningful ones. What the player lost was a bunch of busy work and the important choices generally remained.

But that points just massively inaccurate...

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.

Meaningful decisions? How about Samara or Morinth? Do you reveal the secret of Tali's father or do you hide it, despite the consequences to her? Who you side with in the arguments <if you don't have enough conversation skills to calm both down> between Jack and Miranda, Tali and Legion? Do you let Garrus kill his target, or do you warn the guy for Garrus' own good? We don't know how ME3 will play out, but I'm betting more than a few of these decisions, along with which members of your crew survived, who you chose to romance , which way you leaned after the final battle concerning the Collector station, etc will all come back into play in ME3.

Saying there are no 'meaningful' decisions is misleading. You have no idea what decisions you made in this game will impact the future of the series as you play it. Some are obvious, just as they were in the first game. Some however, are likely not, just as they weren't in the first game.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

I have yet to see a compelling argument defends the notion that an RPG must be defined by it's mechanical elements as these elements vary wildly even in games that are universally accepted as being classified as an RPG.

Actually, ignoring the fact that I just said I don't care about genre classifications anymore, I think I can provide one here. RPG videogames are not "games where you play a role", contrary to at least one statement in every RPG-related forum thread in existence. They are games supposed to simulate the experience of pen-and-paper RPGs, with the CPU taking over the role of the Game Master. And so, while the CPU throws all the dice and keeps track of the stats, the player is expected to have control over the development of the character's stats and its inventory, as well as keep at least an illusion of choice in conversations and plot (the point that most choices in videogames are illusory isn't much of an argument, since many GMs also tend to give the players an illusion of choice while finding a way to keep them to the main plot).

So those would be the mechanical elements which define an RPG. And yes, I am aware that quite a few games classified as RPGs lack at least one of them.

 

[GiantRaven]

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.

You state that as if Mass Effect's inventory system is more interesting to every player. It wasn't.

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].

To name three:
- The Legion loyalty mission
- The Mordin loyalty mission
- The Tali loyalty mission

Also I personally found the Normandy character interactions to be incredibly interesting. And none of them led to the romance subplots either (which I was eternally grateful for because I felt that would have been incredibly out of place in my playthrough).

 

[WanderingFool]

Spoiler: spoiler block for post size management

It seems people are really ripping into mass effect, particular ME 2 for not being RPG enough so why don't we just say its not an RPG?, allow me to give a little rant in its defense,

I think a lot of people don't call it an RPG [because it really isn't, or at least it's not a good one].

now other than the dialoge people feel that alot of the other stuff was taken out so its just "gears of war with dialouge" (whts wrong with that anyway?) so by RPG elements they mean things like the inventory screen, buying and modding your armour and your crews armour and of coarse leveling

What's wrong with that? Because the first game had a lot of RPG elements players were told were still included in the sequel that just weren't there. A lot of the appeal of the Mass Effect series was that it was different to any other game out there - it was a shooter that was still RPG heavy. Bioware took a lot of that out in Mass Effect 2 - is it really that surprising they alienated a part of their audience that enjoy playing games with more depth than Fable 3?

now other than leveling I didn't think this RPG stuff really added all that much to the game, I mean correct me if I'm wrong but how much can you love managing your squads gear? mabye people mean the part where you drive around in the mako looking for stuff ok then sure

Ok, what? RPG aspects add a lot to the game - managing your squad, your items, skills and so on makes your character play, and feel unique, in a way the sequel just can't create. If you don't enjoy those types of games that's fair enough, but there're more than enough mindless shooter already on the market that it's infuriating to see a franchise with so much potential like Mass Effect to degrade itself to that level.

I feel with ME2 they cut out stuff that wasn't really nesicary, they made the shooting better they gave us more charachters the setting felt more fleshed out

They did? I thought they gave us a universe half the size, if even that, of the original. Characters that were bland and uninventive, a horrible main plot that goes side-ways and achieves nothing and took away any complexity that could be found in the moral choices.

my point is I think its stupid that people complain about ME2 for not being RPG enough, when the first ones RPG elements (other than dialogue) weren't even that great so no its not an RPG stop complaininig thats its not an RPG

The first games RPG elements weren't awful, certainly not bad enough to remove completely, but when a game markets itself as an RPG, and reviewers give it "RPG of the year", it seems the general consensus is that it's an RPG...hence the complaints.

I agree with most of this, specially the characters. Why do ppl think that adding more characters is better? You end up hardly using some, as some characters are better than others, and they all are shallow developed.

 

[D_987]

You state that as if Mass Effect's inventory system is more interesting to every player. It wasn't.

True, but why take away depth and complexity from those that crave it?

To name three:
- The Legion loyalty mission
- The Mordin loyalty mission
- The Tali loyalty mission

Ok, let me rephrase that so you understand what I'm saying. There were no grey moral decisions - none of those mentioned were "tough", it was very black and white as to the consequences and which was right.

 

[joshthor]

its an RPG. some people just have more... hardcore (bat-crazy) definitions of what an rpg should be. there does not need to be a complex leveling system, thousands of meaningless stats to throw your leveling points in. however, it has skills you level up , It has quests and sidequests , it has dialogue where you choose the outcome, it has multiple endings, and most importantly, you create your own player and choose your own things.

a game doesnt need to be like oblivion or fallout to be an rpg. if they did they would all suck.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You're right. Mass Effect is not an RPG, its something way better than an RPG. Its a Sci-Fi epic with great lore, story, characters, choices, missions, gameplay, and an overall aesthetic experience that is beyond any RPG I've played. So whatever it is, you're right. Its too good to be an RPG.

Saying something is better then an RPG is like saying a spoon is better then a knife, you may prefer one over the other but you can't define one superior on that.
And the main reason people are pissed is because they were told it was a box full of knives, but lo and behold nothing but spoons, maybe slightly sharp spoons but not what they wanted.

 

[joshthor]

You state that as if Mass Effect's inventory system is more interesting to every player. It wasn't.

True, but why take away depth and complexity from those that crave it?

To name three:
- The Legion loyalty mission
- The Mordin loyalty mission
- The Tali loyalty mission

Ok, let me rephrase that so you understand what I'm saying. There were no grey moral decisions - none of those mentioned were "tough", it was very black and white as to the consequences and which was right.

particularly legions loyalty mission was not a cut and dry answer. to you, maybe. if you even played it. but it was a very deep decision.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The bottom line point that I am attempting to make an enormous length is this: giving a player a choice means nothing if that choice is not meaningful. What ME2 did was remove intermediary meaningless choices in favor or larger meaningful ones. What the player lost was a bunch of busy work and the important choices generally remained.

But that points just massively inaccurate...

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].

Again I disagree. What were the tough moral choices in the original Mass Effect? Off the top of my head I can think of two: sparing the Rachni and saving the council. Mass Effect 2 features a pair of equally difficult (and indeed even thematically similar) choices: how to deal with the rebel Geth and what to do with the Collector Base.

From a character perspective, you are given a single character choice in the original Mass Effect: who you leave to die. At the end of the game Ashley or Tali are going to be more or less the same character regardless of player choice. By contrast, ME2 gives you plenty of moments where you impact major moments in each character's life and in many cases their basic outlook on the world and even their presumed perfect loyalties are altered.

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.

I am not ignoring this point for any reason save this point has nothing to do with the point I was making. That you enjoyed sorting through a list of assault rifles and comparing a few integers has no impact on my point that the choice inherent to this activity was precisely the same as the one available in ME2 in spite of the loss of the inventory system.

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.

Unless you, as a player, want to be less effective at any given moment in a game, the choice in upgrades is hardly a choice at all. The Sniper tree as I have pointed out favors damage above all else. The ammunition choice is a tactical one and burying it in a menu makes this less meaningful than it would be if better accessible. The Shotgun Tree again favors damage above all else. The Pistol tree favors reasonable heat management and damage above all else. The assault rifle tree is the same. One could choose to use an assault rifle that overheats after a short burst but to do so would make the weapon less effective.

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.

I don't assume that a player will do anything. What I am doing is pointing out that a choice between an two things when one is obviously superior is not a choice but simply a calculation. When presented with a calculation to make the inferior decision knowing said decision is inferior is irrational. A meaningful choice in this regard is rather to present a player with a choice where they are not given complete information, where it is impossible to know which is going to be best at the moment.

Mass Effect 2 maintains this exact same calculation. A player can decide they want to use the middle tier sniper rifle as an Infiltrator even though the class' mechanics favor the damage of a single shot above all else.

This can go a hair further. While a given tree favors a particular way of configuring a particular weapon in the original mass effect, all classes can use all weapons. Without the enormous accuracy and damage boost inherent to the sniper tree the sniper rifle no longer truly favors damage at the expense of everything else. Instead a player could rightfully decide that they might need to make additional shots to make up for the accuracy problem or perhaps favor adding accuracy mods. But here we again have a calculation and we find that without the requisite skill tree, using a weapon governed by said tree is largely irrational. ME2 maintains this when we look the generic Soldier, who maintains the ability to carry all the weapons in the game. Suddenly, when no longer given the enormous damage bonus and time dilation mechanic, the player could decide to use either the middle tier or the top tier (and, for the record, the top tier of each weapon is identical in function to the bottom tier but is simply better and thus why I ignore it) and either decision is entirely rational.

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.

Each weapon class has two base interpretations. In the case of the assault rifle, the first and last weapons favor a steady stream of reasonably accurate but rather weak fire. The middle selection features greater accuracy and better damage per shot but has a much slower pace to it's fire. The sniper rifle's on the other had feature rifles that favor high single shot damage at the expense of rate of fire while the middle tier favors rate of fire above high single shot damage. The pistol and SMG feature the same High ROF/Low Damage per Shot, Low ROF/High Damage Per Shot mechanic. The Shotgun has a pair that favor firepower above all else and an option that favors greater utility at moderate ranges.

What the weapon choices really allow for when you get right down to it is that it allows a player to choose the item that they most enjoy using. This is the same decision that a player is faced with in ME1 but stripped of unnecessary granularity.

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.

I am forced to belabor the point further. What you (and others) have failed to do at this moment is demonstrate where the player lost a fundamental choice. The actual effect of discarding the granularity (which is precisely what you are lamenting) is that a player spends less time navigating menus and the like.

As I said, you are free to lament this loss if you enjoyed the act of comparing integers and determining which was higher which is, as far as I can tell (or anyone has been able to demosntrate) is what is missing.

 

[Nfritzappa]

You're right. Mass Effect is not an RPG, its something way better than an RPG. Its a Sci-Fi epic with great lore, story, characters, choices, missions, gameplay, and an overall aesthetic experience that is beyond any RPG I've played. So whatever it is, you're right. Its too good to be an RPG.

Saying something is better then an RPG is like saying a spoon is better then a knife, you may prefer one over the other but you can't define one superior on that.
And the main reason people are pissed is because they were told it was a box full of knives, but lo and behold nothing but spoons, maybe slightly sharp spoons but not what they wanted.

My point is I had a better time playing Mass Effect 1 + 2 than any other "RPG" out there. No big deal.

 

[GiantRaven]

True, but why take away depth and complexity from those that crave it?

To me it makes it a better game. I will happily admit that is ridiculously opinionated however.

Ok, let me rephrase that so you understand what I'm saying. There were no grey moral decisions - none of those mentioned were "tough", it was very black and white as to the consequences and which was right.

Mind telling me which of the choices in these was the 'black' choice and which was the 'white' choice?