Mass Effect is not an RPG
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
Fans complained there was not enough pow pow in 1
Now they complain that there isnt enough arr pe gey in 2.
Oh boy
Now they complain that there isnt enough arr pe gey in 2.
Oh boy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
-EDIT-
Ninja'd. Damn.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.Eclectic Dreck said:
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.
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.
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.
I have of course addressed the larger point of the thread time and again but I will do so one more time.
The problem here is that we have an argument of definition and the further problem is that, unlike your average argument of this type, there is no final arbiter of truth to be found. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that an RPG can be defined simply as a game that offers either character agency, narrative agency, or both.
Character agency is, simply put, giving the player some level of control over their character. While the loosest interpretation of such a statement implies any game that gives a player even physical control over their avatar would qualify, such an interpretation is hardly useful. In an effort to provide a more useful definition, a player has agency over their character when any of the following conditions are met (this is not an exhaustive list but rather a sample of concepts found in games considered to be RPGs):
The character's skills can be chosen by the player and the choice offers a meaningful distinction in the character's abilities in a given situation.
The character's gear can be chosen by the player and the choice is between equally useful but functionally different options.
The world's interpretation of the character can be affected in a meaningful way by player choices.
The character's outlook is mutable by player action.
Narrative agency is much the same as character agency and simply implies that a player has a level of control over the course and ultimate outcome of a story. Again, this implies a greater level of control than the player simply choosing not to finish the story and a similarly non exhaustive list would be something like this:
The player is given one or more opportunities to alter the ultimate outcome of the game in a meaningful way.
The player is free to choose to tackle the narrative in an arbitrary order.
By meeting even a single criteria here a game could easily be called an RPG. The more criteria it meets, the more people would be willing to agree that the game is an RPG. You will note that the implied mechanical systems people so often point to as reasons a particular game isn't an RPG are not explicitly mentioned because such mechanical systems ultimately serve the purpose of giving a player agency over their character and nothing more.
The problem here is that we have an argument of definition and the further problem is that, unlike your average argument of this type, there is no final arbiter of truth to be found. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that an RPG can be defined simply as a game that offers either character agency, narrative agency, or both.
Character agency is, simply put, giving the player some level of control over their character. While the loosest interpretation of such a statement implies any game that gives a player even physical control over their avatar would qualify, such an interpretation is hardly useful. In an effort to provide a more useful definition, a player has agency over their character when any of the following conditions are met (this is not an exhaustive list but rather a sample of concepts found in games considered to be RPGs):
The character's skills can be chosen by the player and the choice offers a meaningful distinction in the character's abilities in a given situation.
The character's gear can be chosen by the player and the choice is between equally useful but functionally different options.
The world's interpretation of the character can be affected in a meaningful way by player choices.
The character's outlook is mutable by player action.
Narrative agency is much the same as character agency and simply implies that a player has a level of control over the course and ultimate outcome of a story. Again, this implies a greater level of control than the player simply choosing not to finish the story and a similarly non exhaustive list would be something like this:
The player is given one or more opportunities to alter the ultimate outcome of the game in a meaningful way.
The player is free to choose to tackle the narrative in an arbitrary order.
By meeting even a single criteria here a game could easily be called an RPG. The more criteria it meets, the more people would be willing to agree that the game is an RPG. You will note that the implied mechanical systems people so often point to as reasons a particular game isn't an RPG are not explicitly mentioned because such mechanical systems ultimately serve the purpose of giving a player agency over their character and nothing more.
i really hate what the term RPG has come to mean, it should be any game that tries to put you in the shoes of the character (eg, living their lives and not just seeing [more than the fighting moments, fable compared to halo])
now people wont accept it as an rpg if it doesnt have more than x amount of weapons, micro-management, novels worth of dialogue, create your own character, multiple levels of morality and such, etc.
where would we be if we were to play final fantasy 1 (one of the defining games)with this attitude? stuck on an island because the only bridge is still under construction.
now people wont accept it as an rpg if it doesnt have more than x amount of weapons, micro-management, novels worth of dialogue, create your own character, multiple levels of morality and such, etc.
where would we be if we were to play final fantasy 1 (one of the defining games)with this attitude? stuck on an island because the only bridge is still under construction.
Whats wrong with just full on embracing the Gears Clone nature ME2 went after? Well aside from lying to fans, and turning their backs on those who have supported Bioware for a long time, I guess nothing.
Basically, back in 07, when the primary marketing concern wasnt about trying to attract dumbass shooter gamers, a lot of us were sold on a hybrid game that had a nice slice of RPG. In ME2 we were lied to by the developers, as they said some bullshit about how "just because were improving the shooter mechanics doesnt mean were taking away any of the RPG side, in fact its stronger". Casey Hudson and Christina Norman, two important people involved in developing the game peddled this lie on different occasions - thats one reason why it cops a lot of flak.
Now ME1s RPG elements need A LOT of improving, but that doesnt mean that A) they were the worst ever, or that B) they were hardly RPG elements. ME2 doesnt even bother in most regards as an RPG, and for a game thats trying to continue to sell itself as an RPG to RPG fans, I think actually having some form of significant RPG side to the game beats next to no RPG elements at all.
Oh and please can people stop with the pathetic "it says role play, I play a role, so its a roleplaying" claim. Its not even a legitimate argument. The weakness of the players ability to actually influence the role of Shepard in ME2 aside, even if you continue to count it, you will have to begin classifying other games as RPGs. If thats the case, Red Dead Redemption is an RPG. I play the role of John Marston and I choose whether he is an ex outlaw who found a new life and honour, or if he has no problem continuing the ways of his past. Its even got a more effective "morality" meter than ME2 for crying out load.
Role playing games are descended from tabletop RPGs, and as such will always require a certain type of gameplay. The kind that allows for the kind of customisation and varied gameplay some people are missing from ME2. Take that away, like ME2 did near on completely, and you are left with elements that are simply cherry picked from other genres. RPGs are NOT about story and characters. They are NOT about "playing the role of a character" (since that describes nearly every game ever made). Its more complex than that, and simply saying "its still got a story and the illusion that your choices are having anything other than a negligable impact" and then concentrating the rest of the game on TPS combat doesnt make it an RPG.
At the moment ME2 isnt an RPG. Its a TPS with light RPG elements. Bioware could very well just give up on claiming its an RPG anymore, and just market it as the action based TPS that ME2 was. It would be a double edged sword however, meaning that they are liars for what they sold us on when this series started and when marketing ME2, but would also be telling the truth since its finally a more accurate summary of the game.
Basically, back in 07, when the primary marketing concern wasnt about trying to attract dumbass shooter gamers, a lot of us were sold on a hybrid game that had a nice slice of RPG. In ME2 we were lied to by the developers, as they said some bullshit about how "just because were improving the shooter mechanics doesnt mean were taking away any of the RPG side, in fact its stronger". Casey Hudson and Christina Norman, two important people involved in developing the game peddled this lie on different occasions - thats one reason why it cops a lot of flak.
Now ME1s RPG elements need A LOT of improving, but that doesnt mean that A) they were the worst ever, or that B) they were hardly RPG elements. ME2 doesnt even bother in most regards as an RPG, and for a game thats trying to continue to sell itself as an RPG to RPG fans, I think actually having some form of significant RPG side to the game beats next to no RPG elements at all.
Oh and please can people stop with the pathetic "it says role play, I play a role, so its a roleplaying" claim. Its not even a legitimate argument. The weakness of the players ability to actually influence the role of Shepard in ME2 aside, even if you continue to count it, you will have to begin classifying other games as RPGs. If thats the case, Red Dead Redemption is an RPG. I play the role of John Marston and I choose whether he is an ex outlaw who found a new life and honour, or if he has no problem continuing the ways of his past. Its even got a more effective "morality" meter than ME2 for crying out load.
Role playing games are descended from tabletop RPGs, and as such will always require a certain type of gameplay. The kind that allows for the kind of customisation and varied gameplay some people are missing from ME2. Take that away, like ME2 did near on completely, and you are left with elements that are simply cherry picked from other genres. RPGs are NOT about story and characters. They are NOT about "playing the role of a character" (since that describes nearly every game ever made). Its more complex than that, and simply saying "its still got a story and the illusion that your choices are having anything other than a negligable impact" and then concentrating the rest of the game on TPS combat doesnt make it an RPG.
At the moment ME2 isnt an RPG. Its a TPS with light RPG elements. Bioware could very well just give up on claiming its an RPG anymore, and just market it as the action based TPS that ME2 was. It would be a double edged sword however, meaning that they are liars for what they sold us on when this series started and when marketing ME2, but would also be telling the truth since its finally a more accurate summary of the game.
gameplay schmameplay, i would play mass effect if it was entirely the dialouge. this game could be a cooking simulator and still great by default.
I'd have to agree with the argument that most RPGs, especially JRPGs offer less in terms of choice than Mass Effect 1 or 2 do. I'll agree that ME2 should have IMPROVED features instead of REMOVING them, but the fact is that you still shape your own story. Your choices affect who lives and who dies, both inside your party and outside of it. Granted, you can't choose to not kill all the guards trying to stop you from getting to point B from point A, but you do have options. Games like Half Life or Gears, as mentioned above, don't offer this.
Now, could they offer more? Sure, Deus Ex does. Even a decade ago in the first title you were not only able to shape your story, but your approach to solving it. More than just 'Do I use an Assault Rifle, or Biotics'? You were given the combat option, the social option, and the stealth option alongside the 'moral' choices associated with Bioware titles. I'm hoping Human Revolution gives all that along with having the shiny wallpaper of a current generation title.
All that said, I loved ME1 when it released, and I loved ME2. I've spent more time playing those two games than any other I've ever owned, except maybe Resident Evil 4 or Oblivion.
Now, could they offer more? Sure, Deus Ex does. Even a decade ago in the first title you were not only able to shape your story, but your approach to solving it. More than just 'Do I use an Assault Rifle, or Biotics'? You were given the combat option, the social option, and the stealth option alongside the 'moral' choices associated with Bioware titles. I'm hoping Human Revolution gives all that along with having the shiny wallpaper of a current generation title.
All that said, I loved ME1 when it released, and I loved ME2. I've spent more time playing those two games than any other I've ever owned, except maybe Resident Evil 4 or Oblivion.
No, I don't really get your point.Fawful said:
You play the role of an anti-hero, who's on his mission to kill almost every single God in the Greek pantheon in this series of videogames.
So... God of War is an RPG?
Nope, that's not it...
(at least for me) RPG is that kind of game when you have a choice to act and behave whatever you like (at all time mind you, because otherwise you could name for example Jedi Academy as an RPG because you have that one moral choice near the end), because that's the role you want to play in this game/campaign. So yes, ME2 IS and RPG in that category.
True, advanced skill tree, and a vast choice of inventory IMO helps with the RPG stuff, because if you want to play the role of cunning manipulator - you invest your points in charisma and dress like a big fish. If you want to be a brutal barbarian slashing your enemies with an axe - you invest in strength and buy an armor, but that's not necessary a must have. I made at least two campaigns for my friends NOT based on any RPG system, just my words, and it was still an RPG campaign.
---
Adding my two whiny cents though, ME2 choices doesn't mean a shit except from the very last one (HOPEFULLY!), and 'pick the blue/red option, because it'll always end the deal in your way' system is just stupid.
You know what is my example of a perfect RPG in computer games? Alpha Protocol. Yes, that game by Obsidian, crushed by the Escapist and most of the gaming community. Personally, I loved every inch of it, and consider it better than ME 2. Why? Because it fits my definition perfectly. You can shape Mike Thorton whatever you like, and change your heart halfway through without locking yourself best options because your paragon/renegade meter isn't full. Also, your choices really did mean something to the gameplay as well as to the story (and if you played it and disagree, let me just say two things - Grigori and Madison/Parker). Add to that (IMO) brilliant Deus Ex style skill system, and you have game that made me beat it 5 times, just to say how can I make things different by acting otherwise in certain situation, or even by changing your character build.
And ME2? I beat it once, and I got bored on my second try because everything was exactly the same, no matter how differently I tried to act.