Mass Effect is not an RPG

[Natdaprat]

You play the role of a hero tasked with saving every decent creature in the galaxy in this series of videogames. You do this by developing your character, doing quests, having dialogue with NPC's, etc, etc, blah, blah. You get my point.

Then Call of Duty is an RPG by that logic. By that logic, MOST GAMES are RPG games.

The argument that Mass Effect 2's morale choices are not deep in mechanics are forgetting the content and context. I might not get punished for doing an evil deed, but I sometimes feel bad in real life, and I feel guilty as my character. If that isn't an RPG, I don't know what is.

 

[Vault101]

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.

a point I just noticed and overlooked, how does not being able manage an inventory make somthing mindless? you still had to shoot stuff in ME1 whats wrong with shooting stuff anyway? id rather do that then watch an animation of my charachter fighting

 

[Vault101]

For the love o- Dude, just fix your grammar and spelling.

What is it that your profile name says? I just can't comprehend. Ironic

hmmmm sleetblind?

 

[TehKnifeh]

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.

I have been sat on the fence for a while what my thoughts are on Mass Effect are and the changes that have happened between the two installments, and one of my more major gripes was with the weaponary. Now it was only since I have played through the game again (as a Soldier rather than the Inflitrator) I have noticed something about the weaponary in ME2. At first I was pissed due to the removal of the "micro-management motherfuckery" as I though it removed my lack of choice. However as previous stated there wasnt really a choice, more of a desision (see Extra Credits) as it just came down to bigger/smaller numbers (see borderlands for the best example I can think off)

However, there was more choice then I gave the game credit for in what little remained in the new weapon loadout screen as if you read the blurb on the weapons themselves they will give a nice little backstory of what they are, but then also gone on (more often than not) to say what they are best used for. Best example I can think of is the shotguns, one is better for overall damage, one is better for longer range, but not as powerful. There tends to be other little titbits of info saying that they are good at certain situations (armor/barrier etc)

Personal I think the weapons are varied enough to make informed desisons without overloading you with pages of exactly the same gun, the only real issue is there is nothing as tangable as a figure to tell you what the weapon would be like verses another weapon.

OT: My only real gripe playing through the game again is just how dissapointing small and confined the Citadel is. Yeah it took a huge beating during the attack but that doesnt mean I can only go in a shoe-sized box part of it! That and the mission complete screens, I really dont see the relevance apart from the post mission report which could be done in a much nicer way, but I am just ranting now!

Oh well, I am sure there will be something we love and hate in the next installment

 

[hyperdrachen]

Do you need to put a game down because its not in the genre some say it is, a kick-ass game is still kick-ass by any other genre...and has an emotionless character (voice for male shepherd)

Hey just because they carved him out of a block of wood and brought him to life with red kool-aid doesn't mean he doesn't have fealings.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

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.

*snip*

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, large scale exploration, significant NPC interaction, upgradeable weaponry and side quests. In what sense is that not an RPG?

 

[Xaositect]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

RPG or not, it's got a great story, in my opinion.

 

[Baby Tea]

Mass Effect has more actual "role playing" than most RPGs. Most JRPGs have no role playing whatsoever, and I do love a GOOD JRPG. It seems to me most people really don't understand what a RPG is supposed to be and they think RPGs are all about leveling, getting skills and abilities, and getting lots of items.

Amen!
Seriously Mass Effect is a fantastic RPG strictly because you ARE playing your role.
If RPGs have been whittled down to stat calculations and loot gathering then colour me sad for the loss of a fantastic genre. Don't get me wrong, there is a place (And great place) for games like Diablo which are story-lite and loot and calculation heavy. I love those games. But they aren't a role playing experience. They are a "pick a class and wade through hoards of enemies" experience.

Mass Effect (1 and 2) has characterization for both your Shepard, and the NPCs in your party. The game is about choice. Yeah, you can do all the loyalty missions and keep everyone alive perfectly at the end. But if that's your complaint, then you've completely missed the point of the story driven game. You weren't role-playing a Shepard, you were power-gaming to win the most points/loyalties/alive crew members. And that's not the game's fault, that's the player's fault.

Mass Effect is a brilliant RPG. It's not an Action game with RPG elements, it's an RPG. Plain and simple.
And it kicks ass.

 

[Xaositect]

Here is just one more way to summarise the difference between the first and second game.

In ME1 I played a sentinel and later specialised as a medic.I leaned heavily on my tech/biotic and medical powers most of the game. I had neural shock and lift and throw for controlling enemies on the battlefield. I had Overload and Sabotage to debuff and disable. And I had my Unity and Medic power to make sure my other two squadmates, Liara and Wrex/Ashley were always able to take up the most heavy lifting. Ashley and Wrex did a lot of the shooting for me in ME1, with Liara adding extra to biotics. Sure I made use of my pistol occasionally but it was for mopping up.

In ME2 I also played a sentinel. The power I used most of all was tech armour, because it made the games TPS cover health regen system slightly less intrusive. Since I was an experienced ME1 played, and experienced gamer in general, I was ready for the higher difficulties early on, but I wasnt ready for how boring it would make things. On lower difficulties I had to make excuses to use my powers, because headshotting enemies was just easier and quicker. On higher difficulties, I had to make excuses to use my powers because again, shooting was quicker, and they seemed to be relegated to finishing moves more than anything. Most of the games missions revolved around shooter combat, and rather than wasting time trying to imploy unnecessary powers in combat, I gave in and tried to get through the game quicker by just shooting the assault rifle that had been forced on me and using tech armour. I also turned the difficulties back down again to get through the game quicker as I was finding myself bored by the repetition.

 

[Fawful]

You play the role of a hero tasked with saving every decent creature in the galaxy in this series of videogames. You do this by developing your character, doing quests, having dialogue with NPC's, etc, etc, blah, blah. You get my point.

No, I don't really get your point.

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...

-Snip-

I define RPG as "A game that gives you a wide choice in how you play, and a game where you are not railroaded into one means to an end." So God of War is not an RPG because you only means of progression is "Kill whatever stands between you and your mcguffin/wenches" even if you do get a choice of "blades on chains" or "big hammer." I do realise that this didn't come across at all in my post, my fault. I do think that Bioware improved on their moral choice system with ME2. Your alignment is based on your actions rather than sinking points into the 'good' or 'bad' branches and quite a few quests had shades of grey in them, not to say the system is great or anything, moral sliders suck.

To counter you point about Alpha Protocol, I had to restart that entire game because I did make the wrong choices in character building (boss fights are a pain) and redo 5-7 hours of play just to get back up too where I was. If the player is doing this then something is wrong with the core design of the game. I don't think there is such a this as a "Perfect RPG" mainly due to the fact you can't plan ahead for players desire to play in one certain way, I've often been disapointed by games not having a particular way of going about things avalible when that would have been the way I would approach the situation.

Look, I'm tired, It's 1:00am where I live. I've had enough of this and I'm going to sleep

 

[legendp]

Mass effect 2 in my opinion is a RPG because your choices influence the direction of the story. In my opinion the only good thing about ME1 was the story (gameplay was..okay), games like ME1 you go through a hundred weapons to find a good gun but you end up wasting your time because they just bring out enemies exactly the same (slightly bigger) but with more health who does more damage so they mose will have removed it entirely. wich is thankfully what they did rather than versing stupidly tough people and spending more time finding and selecting weapons than using them. they increased the number of enemy's wich meant more multitasking (more fun, more challenging) and simplified the weapons. however in ME1 there is only 4 different types of weapons (pistol, machine-gun, shotgun, sniper) while in ME2 they're are at least 10 (battle rifle, assault rifle, sniper, pistol, shotgun, grenade launcher, nuke launcher, collector beam weapon, flame thrower, rocket launcher) the biotics also feel more powerful and it is nice to be able to use biotics in ME2 even if your soldier class. if RPG's mean spending more time in menu's than playing the game then I am glad ME2 is not considered a RPG (or at least that type of RPG) I like heavily based story (with choices) games but I prefer them to be paired with action games, If ME2 is less RPG then ME1 than in my opinion it's for the best.

(PS: I know "mose" isn't really a real word but I am not bothered right now with spelling and grammar...Sorry about the spelling and grammar)

 

[yundex]

It's obviously an RPG, but it seems to not want to be. I want more weapons, more side missions and a reason to check my status screen.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The original game was dominated by it's combat mechanic. What's more, both games give you enormous agency over the narrative and the character(s) of the world. 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.

 

[stefman]

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?

 

[D_987]

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.

 

[Dwarfman]

As far as I'm concerned if it's on a computer it's not an RPG. If I can't completely fuck over the main storyline and bend it to my own personal whim - that is !MY! personal whim, not what someone tells me is my three options of personal whim - how in heck could it be a role playing game?

Mass Effect is a computer game. And it's a fucking awesome computer game. If anyone wants to play an RPG I'll be waiting. With my dice bag, chummer. Then again I still own and use a Nokia 1100 so what do I know.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Take a long time to think about the term RPG.Role playing Game.ME2 is a game and you play a role.

11 posts before someone said that! That might be the longest it ever took it to appear in a "game X is/isn't an RPG" thread.

OT: Meh, however you want to pigeon-hole it, go ahead. I stopped claiming to like specific genera of games a long time ago, and classifying them. ME2 seems to be a bashing favourite of the "I played RPGs ever since Akalabeth, and your new games disgust me" crowd, and why? Because it's way simplified over ME1 (which wasn't even that complex to begin with) and it still got good reviews. And that seems to annoy those guys so much.

Whatever. I still liked it and I'm still going to play ME3. Even if they decide to drop skill points completely. And even if there's gonna be another year of forum rage over that.