Mass Effect is not an RPG

[beniki]

No I think it's a better RPG than most other classic ones. When playing the game I felt like a space captain, and I felt like it was me doing all those things. Usually in an RPG I waste too much time with a calculator, testing and reloading, and after all that I still don't feel like a paladin.

Mass Effect 2 did an incredible job of turning me, a complete mess of an fps player, into the galaxies most deadly sniper. And they did that through a simple bullet time mechanic, and invisibility buff.

Simple stuff, and easy tricks. You don't need a complex calculation to make you feel like a hero, and certainly don't need it to have fun. Other RPGs should look at this and learn... complexity doesn't equal depth!

So as a Role playing game, as opposed to a number cruncher, it's a lot better.

 

[PeterDawson]

RPG is a broad term. The question becomes where is a game an RPG and where is it a game with RPG elements. I'd pretty much put it thus: if the game is entirely about the combat/action and the RPG elements are very basic, plus the combat itself is basic, then its an action game of some sort. If however the game goes beyond that core aspect, with stuff like dialog trees and dynamic elements based on player choice, then I'll give it the RPG classification. Having an open world is also a common staple though it isn't a required one.

Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. While its RPG elements in terms of the classic leveling up and such are a bit more basic than the predecessor and did away with the idea of a massive inventory, it is still an RPG. The open world elements and the interactive storyline still exist, you shape your character in terms of personality (which is a key element of role-playing after all), and you level up and pick what you want to focus on as well as what kind of party to form. Hell, Mass Effect 2 is genius in its simplicity in some respects as just by denying you being able to get enough skill points to fill up all your stats you have to really think about your character in terms of combat even beyond just what class to pick. You need to pick which powers you'll spam the most, and whether or not you want to focus on powers or basic stats. Hell, I'd happily argue that Mass Effect 2 is a better RPG than the first game because characters feel more diverse and the skill trees don't just feel like generic forms with a couple of items substituted here and there.

 

[Joey245]

So what if Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG?

It's still one of the best damn games I've ever played.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[badgersprite]

Thank you. I never saw Mass Effect as an RPG in any way, shape or form. It was a third person shooter and action adventure game with a skill tree and overstuffed inventory. I love RPGs but I personally think Mass Effect works better when it's not trying to be one. Not every game with great writing and characters has to be an RPG. And I say this as a huge fan of the series.

 

[IAmTheVoid]

If having a convoluted and horrible inventory 'makes an RPG', then I don't want to play an RPG. My Shepard became my own character in my mind, and I was definitely roleplaying. RPG's do not need the RPG trappings to actually be one, just like, say, Company of Heroes didn't need basebuilding and resource micro to be a strategy.

Generally, if I want inventory management and a sophisticated level-up system, I'll play some Diablo II. I do prefer, however, the move that Dragon Age II is doing (inventory for the player, companions outfits develop over the years and change to reflect what they've been doing).

We need to accept that the RPG is more broad than we think. Of course mechanics reflect upon a genre, but how the game actually freakin' plays matters too. BioWare allow you to flesh out your Shepard in a large amount of ways- character creation, the ordinary classes, companion interaction, side quests which will carry on, the end-game in MEII. And whilst there isn't enough room as in- say, Morrowind- in which to roleplay, it makes up for it with a world dripping with interesting NPC's, a plethora of interesting side-quests and character development, both personal and companions. And who wouldn't want that in an RPG?

 

[Vault101]

ah My opinion feels vindicated now I shall rest easy tonight

 

[Sarkule]

Just because it doesn't have an inventory screen etc. doesn't mean it isn't an RPG.
RPG's are Role Playing Games, in ME you play a role, and it's a game. Pretty clear cut.
Inventory screens and things like that are just things that appear in most RPG's, but are not defining elements of the genre.

 

[namewon'tfitin]

Fans complained there was not enough pow pow in 1
Now they complain that there isnt enough arr pe gey in 2.
Oh boy

 

[Dana22]

It is an ActionRPG. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[SmokingMirrors]

This is something i've stated time and again whenever this subject gets brought up, and it seems to quite often on The Escapist; Mass Effect 2 is an ACTION/rpg because in todays market games with an emphasis on combat just tend to sell much better because they're easier for the majority of the populace to get the hang of and enjoy which is what Bioware needs to keep them afloat.

Full-blood RPGs tend to require alot of practice before you can truelly appreciate them which is something most people don't tend to have the patience for.

 

[Rararaz]

Who cares? The fact it that people will enjoy the game or not regardless of what "genre" it is. In all honesty a game as popular and big as Mass Effect has no real need to be defined by a genre, their main use being to find other games that you may like.

 

[Steampunk Viking]

So here's my two cent... what makes a game and RPG? If it is a literal translation, then it's a pretty loose definition since most games see you playing a role as it stands for ROLE playing game, I mean even in Mario Galaxy, you take the role of Mario. If you want to make this specific definition less loose, then I would suggest that a ROLE playing game sees you taking a character and making decisions that affect the story somehow, in which case both Mass Effect games definitely count as RPGs. However, games like Final Fantasy XIII wouldn't necessarily be counted as such, which many people would argue against (Final Fantasy VII would just because you could affect certain aspects of the game, like the love interest potentially).

So what about the traditional translation of an RPG? Inventory, levelling up and the like. Well, yes, I can see the arguements for and against, however, I would personally still argue that it was since you affect your character development through levelling, and you can still customise equipment, attire and you still technically have an inventory, if only an unconventional one, it's a bit like saying Fable III isn't an RPG because you don't technically level, but you do, it's just done in a different way.

In the either case, I don't think this is a clear cut arguement. Bioware made a very conventional RPG with Mass Effect 1 using tried and tested systems they previously used in games like Knights of the Old Republic, or Baldur's Gate. Thing is, these are dated and Mass Effect 2 was created to keep the game modern, fresh and innovative, and it worked. It's evolved past it's original definition of it's own genre, I mean look at how many modifications Dragon Age II is going through.

My personal opinion, however, is games that evolve in this way can't be put in one specific genre easily, why? Because they're turning into something truely unique that has come about through trial and error, to the point where categorising them just seems... wrong.

That's my view on the matter anyhoo.

 

[CptRumGuy]

My only problem with ME's moral choice system (in both games) was that they seemed to give you paragon points a little too easily. If you're trying to be a paragon, then no problem. When I was trying to be a renegade, I ended the game with my paragon and renegade meters about equal. I think this was because the game kept handing out paragon points for what should have been neutral dialog options.

I don't like just clicking the bottom of the dialog wheel every time because it seems a little silly to just be a dick with EVERY word out of your mouth (at least that's how I look at the role-playing thing).

 

[Setsuri21]

It seems to me that the issue is "what is the definition of an RPG?" Some people are saying its about roleplaying, and others seem to believe the more traditional item management leveling system is the "right" definition. if you can settle on that, then there is no arguement on ME2. What we need here is a solid definiton of RPG.

-EDIT-

Ninja'd. Damn.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I really enjoy the fact that people seem to think they really lost something in ME2, when in fact all they lost was meaningless granularity. There are two major complaints that fall into this regard, the first is the loss of the inventory system and the second is reductionist interpretation of the skill system.

In the original game, the inventory system required a fair amount of player management. Every mission a player would spend 20 or so minutes in the bowels of the Normandy figuring out if any particular piece of armor was better than what they were currently wearing and selling what they didn't need. In ME2 on the other hand, the player continues using a particular item until they find a new iteration which is inevitably better. The thing is, the player didn't really lose any choice here, and in fact I would say they gained it.

In the original system, the criteria by which a player chose a weapon was fairly simple: what weapon dispatched enemies the quickest. While I'm quite certain few really spent a lot of time doing the math to see which could maintain the highest DPS rate or what have you they certainly did look at that damage number and the number of shots before overheat figure. Most people upgraded when both of those numbers were green or at the very least the one that was not green was at least close to the original figure. There isn't a choice inherent here; it is nothing more than bookkeeping. By contrast, a player in ME2 will be given three choices for their primary weapon and while the last weapon is better than the first, the second is best described as "different". For example, the second tier sniper rifle does less damage than the end game one but it fires far more rapidly where the second tier assault rifle fires more accurately than the highest tier and does more damage per shot but has a much shorter magazine.

It is much the same with armor. In the original game there were of course three classes of armor. There was no particular reason to not wear the heaviest armor the player class allowed. Like the guns there were two relevant statistics, one that offered damage reduction and a second that offered a regenerating HP buffer and like guns players generally upgrade when both of these figures are in the green (with the same caveat as before). Again there is no choice inherent as you simply select the one with the best figures. By contrast in ME2 a player can choose to select armor that offers more HP or perhaps carries a hair more ammunition or even something that lets them do a bit more damage and suddenly the choice of armor becomes precisely that: a choice. Yes, the total effect is slim enough that it won't make much of a difference but at least the player's decisions has a notable consequence.

The skill system is much the same. In the original game, the skill system was represented by a number of bars. At set points along any given bar a major skill was unlocked. At points in between the player's abilities would increase marginally. And that word marginally is the key. The difference between a rifle doing 2% more damage was all but irrelevant as it would almost certainly take exactly the same number of shots to get the job done. It was only after investing several points in a bar that the effect was noticeable. This is true of each and every skill bar. ME2 simply took this same bar concept and removed most of the middle steps and instead made costly but notable single steps.

Some may lament the loss of ancillary skills like First Aid or the various conversation skills but really nothing was lost here save the illusion of choice. First aid was only needed by a single active party member and as such a savvy player simply choose to have their least combat effective character sink the requisite points into this particular bar. The conversation skills were simply replaced by a reliance on one's paragon/renegade standing which was more meaningful in the long run as the player's inherent approach to problem solving dictated what they could say at a pivotal moment rather than an arbitrary skill investment. There were even a pair of skills that dictated little more than the ability to access locked boxes and given how dubiously useful these skills were in general, the savvy player simply had minions pick up those skills while they used their points elsewhere. Discarding these skills was hardly a loss to player choice and freedom as these are skills that either simply grew as the player progressed, something that could easily be simulated by having the feature automatically applied as part of a level up bonus or were skills that had no appreciable affect on the game and thus had no real reason to exist in the first place.

In both areas the player has the same freedom of choice in ME2 as the original game. All that was lost was granularity of choice and even in this area such a distinction hardly resulted in a meaningful distinction anyhow. What's more, when it comes to equipment, what you lack in sheer numbers the game makes up for by having weapon choices (for the player at any rate) that are actually fundamentally different rather than simply cosmetically and statistically different.

 

[D_987]

I really don't care about Half-Life. I really hate that mute character, I cannot project a character/story like I do with Morrowind, an equally mute character.

Shepard might be pre-determined and all that stuff, but I had fun shaping my own face and acting in a high/paragon manner, because that is me. For me, his lines represented me or the image I had 90% of the time. I sometimes love closed games/situations rather than open ones, makes me feel involved.

You don't understand the point I'm making though, I'm saying that you claim Mass Effect 2 is an RPG because by your description so would many other games that clearly aren't within that genre.

 

[D_987]

First of all this is a really long post for such a simple point, you could have explained this in a way that wasn't as drawn out and long-winded...

In the original game, the inventory system required a fair amount of player management. Every mission a player would spend 20 or so minutes in the bowels of the Normandy figuring out if any particular piece of armor was better than what they were currently wearing and selling what they didn't need. In ME2 on the other hand, the player continues using a particular item until they find a new iteration which is inevitably better. The thing is, the player didn't really lose any choice here, and in fact I would say they gained it.

I disagree, you have to bear in mind that in the first game weapons could be upgraded, and their power increased. In no way within this new system has the player gained any freedom, its only been taking away. In the next paragraph you mention "difference" in weapon styles, that in itself is a reason ME1 is far superior in this sense. The fact the player can upgrade weapons, can sell them, and so on makes the weapon seem that little bit more personal. Furthermore, I think you're incorrect in stating that in ME2 every weapon is "different", the problem, in fact is that you just gain a generic assault rifle, that can then be upgraded to do more damage. Whilst in Mass Effect you were given a range of weapons and could choose which weapon you wished to use, what make, which area it was suited to [due to the wide variety of combat situations in the first game compared to the second] and so on, the same being true of armor, though armor itself has never been something of intrigue in the Mass Effect games.

I'm not going to repeat the same points for each of your comments, but needless to say, the fact Mass Effect gave you choice [and the conversation skill was defiantly not an illusion of choice...] in how you set up your character is something that should have been expanded upon in Mass Effect 2, instead you get a system that, if anything, takes control away from the player.

 

[Kroxile]

Mass Effect is a beautiful RPG in every sense of the word(s).

How an RPG does its combat doesn't make it any less of a roleplaying game.

EDIT: RPG is two words

 

[Bazamm]

The difference between Gordon Freeman and Shepard is that while you don't have any real control over the actions that Freeman performs apart from actually DOING them, you can shape the persona of Shepard, and chose his actions. Of course, you have a structure to follow but the same is said for every game, excluding some such as Minecraft.

An RPG to me, is about exactly that. Roleplaying. Its not about Inventory Systems, and decking out my character in the newest fashion, Its about being immersed in the game and given the ability to suspend my disbelief. For the time period that I am playing, i want to be able to believe that I am the character, and that my actions have an impact on the world around me, and I find that ME2 does that just fine.