Mass Effect isn't an RPG?!

[TheDrunkNinja]

You're the OP and I find that the OP should know what's going on in their thread, or I quoted you to take a look at my post, as I believe it was well thought-out and answers your question as to what makes an RPG. The fact that I also quoted Zeithri was simply because that user is spouting a bunch of "JRPGs aren't RPGs" stuff. Sorry, I suppose my first paragraph is worded funny and makes it sound like you were arguing against eachother. I've just noticed a lot of JRPG bashing and a lot of contention as to what makes an RPG, which most people keep yelling "playing a role!" when in reality, it isn't and never was even with P&P back in the good old days. Not enough sleep makes arguments blur together, I suppose, but I thought you might find the information interesting? There are very few people that have looked into Japanese P&P, that is all.

Fair enough. I think the problem most people seem to miss is that everyone is speaking as if their opinion is the definitive truth on the matter, despite the fact that so many people disagree with them. At least acknowledging this fact would make things a hell of a lot easier, as well as ensuring people won't flock to tell you how wrong they think you are.

 

[Chunko]

I read the first four paragraphs, if you're a good writer I should be able to get away with only reading the first.

What kind of excuse is that?

"Oh, I'm sorry, good sir, but I could only be bothered to read part of your argument before I decided to respond in full without being fully informed. Well, it is your fault after all. Any good writer would only put his full opinion in the first four paragraphs and then leave the other five as pointless padding!"

Usually I outline everything in your first paragraph, so that people can get everything just from that, and then the extra stuff is evidence for people who read everything. I read skimmed through your post and most of it is redundant. You could have cut it down by a lot.

 

[MercurySteam]

So, by your definition a Blu-Ray movie with a few different scenes using seamless branching, where you can choose if a character can go left or right or if he should shoot a person or not and old DVD/Laserdisc-adventures/arcade games like Dragon's Lair are "RPG's" then cause you can choose to say "good day or fuck off" by pressing numbers 1 through 3? xD

I'd rather judge a game by its gameplay mechanics than a few detached dialogue scenes.

They OP in that thread was suggesting that being given choices to make did not count as an RPG mechanic. Of course I was using a crude example but you really need to read the whole thread. By that time we we all very frustrated that the OP wasn't willing to accept what modern-day RPGs are all about.

 

[scythecow]

Story has always been a forefront in the genre and it couldn't be more apparent than now when other gameplay styles are starting to leak into our RPGs. As bad as it sounds, an RPg is most easily defined by its length of gameplay, demanding 40+ hours to complete and weaving a story of excellence through an expanding universe of character. The world is alive, unlike some games where the world is simply just there to provide a unique backdrop or some sort of gameplay mechanic that's interesting. Does this make games like Heavy Rain and The Legend of Zelda RPGs? Yes, it does. Do they have statistic blocks to customize your characters? No, they don't. However, they are certianly far closer to the ideals of Japanese role-playing than any Final Fantasy has ever been, which is strange and twisted in a way.

I'd call Heavy Rain a storytelling game or an adventure game and Legend of Zelda action adventure, but I'd accept the possibility that the Eastern definition is different than the Western definition.

Still, then you could call any story-driven game an RPG. Every big game now has a strong story or likes to think it does, so every game would be an RPG and then the definition would be almost meaningless. Even Street Fighter 2 could be classified as an RPG.

Counter-intuitive as it is, "RPG" just separates out specific game mechanics. The mechanics happen to have nothing to do with role playing. The original Final Fantasy isn't a strategy game with a leveling system, it's a grind-heavy RPG with a contrived story. Grind-heavy to make the game longer to fill in for the contrived story. It's just an unfortunate name for the genre.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Fair enough. I think the problem most people seem to miss is that everyone is speaking as if their opinion is the definitive truth on the matter, despite the fact that so many people disagree with them. At least acknowledging this fact would make things a hell of a lot easier, as well as ensuring people won't flock to tell you how wrong they think you are.

Couldn't agree more. It's a pet peeve to see people say "your opinion is wrong!" seeing as an opinion can never be wrong unless based off pure fabrication. What annoys me even more (and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm on a high horse with this) is that most people just really haven't backed up anything that they've said, which is why I feel I'm a little more justified in being correct and that every should really take a good look at my post. Most of the arguments are based off a single fact of present games such as "RPGs have stat systems!" and then base their entire argument off that, where as I druged up years of historical fact and used it to argue my case. In the end, I feel I'm justified simply because Gary Gygax and David Arneson both created Dungeons and Dragons because they felt the tabletop games of then were too focused around historical reenactment and wanted to create their own stories. It just so happens that you end up playing on of the characters in the process.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

I read the first four paragraphs, if you're a good writer I should be able to get away with only reading the first.

What kind of excuse is that?

"Oh, I'm sorry, good sir, but I could only be bothered to read part of your argument before I decided to respond in full without being fully informed. Well, it is your fault after all. Any good writer would only put his full opinion in the first four paragraphs and then leave the other five as pointless padding!"

Usually I outline everything in your first paragraph, so that people can get everything just from that, and then the extra stuff is evidence for people who read everything. I read skimmed through your post and most of it is redundant. You could have cut it down by a lot.

So, you still hold to the idea that it's my fault that you didn't read my argument and thereby misunderstood my meaning entirely?

Again, I ask: What kind of excuse is that?

Do you honestly expect, or rather, demand every person you come across in a debate to use a specified, structured format and refuse to read any further when it isn't up to your specifications? You don't think anyone else would just, say, give their opinion?

 

[Chunko]

I read the first four paragraphs, if you're a good writer I should be able to get away with only reading the first.

What kind of excuse is that?

"Oh, I'm sorry, good sir, but I could only be bothered to read part of your argument before I decided to respond in full without being fully informed. Well, it is your fault after all. Any good writer would only put his full opinion in the first four paragraphs and then leave the other five as pointless padding!"

Usually I outline everything in your first paragraph, so that people can get everything just from that, and then the extra stuff is evidence for people who read everything. I read skimmed through your post and most of it is redundant. You could have cut it down by a lot.

So, you still hold to the idea that it's my fault that you didn't read my argument and thereby misunderstood my meaning entirely?

Again, I ask: What kind of excuse is that?

Do you honestly expect, or rather, demand every person you come across in a debate to use a specified, structured format and refuse to read any further when it isn't up to your specifications? You don't think anyone else would just, say, give their opinion?

yes

EDIT: Okay I don't want to get reported for one word posting, but if you're going to write something that long you need to include either an introductory paragraph or a shortened version. My bet is 70% of the people here didn't read the whole thing.

EDIT: EDIT: I read the whole thing. As much as I like Mass Effect 2 it was not an RPG for the main reason that I felt like I was picking from one of three characters. The fact that there were usually only two options in any given conversation minimized roleplaying. Additionally there was no customization in weapons, and you only had about 3 to pick from per weapon type. Additionally all classes play out virtually identically. You could make a case for Mass Effect one being a light RPG, but Mass Effect 2 is a shooter.

 

[Geekosaurus]

A friend of mine only considers games with multiple story paths as a true RPG. Fable 2, for example, isn't a 'proper RPG'. Personally I prefer RPGs like Fable 2; less time wandering around ridiculously big worlds and more time completing quests.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

yes

EDIT: Okay I don't want to get reported for one word posting, but if you're going to write something that long you need to include either an introductory paragraph or a shortened version. My bet is 70% of the people here didn't read the whole thing.

EDIT: EDIT: I read the whole thing. As much as I like Mass Effect 2 it was not an RPG for the main reason that I felt like I was picking from one of three characters. The fact that there were usually only two options in any given conversation minimized roleplaying. Additionally there was no customization in weapons, and you only had about 3 to pick from per weapon type. Additionally all classes play out virtually identically. You could make a case for Mass Effect one being a light RPG, but Mass Effect 2 is a shooter.

Dammit. For once, I really thought I had a good reason to use this.

EDIT: I'm showing this image not to antagonize anyone, but because I think it's funny as shit.

Well, it's there for anyone who gives a--wait a minute.

Anyway. Look, just whatever, okay? I'm not going to change how you feel about the game. You can go ahead and call it a light RPG (although, if that is the case, you would have to admit to Fallout 3 being a "light" RPG as well), my whole point was that it was still an RPG. I mean, people didn't by the game in droves because they thought it was a great TPS.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

First of all, I wasn't talking to you. I was originally talking to Zeithri and you decided to butt in. That's not my problem. You my friend are in over-reaction mode. How about talking with some of the other posters, like Uberfionn for his flame war starting comments. You are targeting the wrong side of the argument as they wouldn't even appear, had the first comment not been made.

A discussion of whether X game is Y genre (especially in terms of RPG) will always devolve to some clowns trying to say that JRPGs are not RPGs, then the flame war starts. You should have known better.

It's a forum. It's not "butting in".

If you feel like UBERfionn was trying to start a flame war, take it up with the moderators, because it doesn't look any different from any other opinionated comment on this entire website. And, I'm not targeting the wrong side. You just feel like it's the wrong side because you feel like JRPGers are being antagonized. You know what prejudice leads to? More prejudice. Let me explain before you freak out and start calling me a bias Bioware fanboy.

No, I don't think that UBERfionn's comment was specifically flame-bait. I'll tell you whose were though. Zeithri's. HG131's. Both sides of the argument. If I had a hilarious image of two JRPG and WRPG fans screaming at each other like every other tard, I would post it. Guess what? There's a difference between saying you disagree and saying "You're just plain wrong." Between the two of them, I don't know how many times I saw both of them go through peoples comments saying "You're wrong. You're wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong." And let me tell you, I've gotten backlashes from both sides of this little debate. You claim I'm defending the wrong side because you feel like there's a bias against JRPGs.

I swear, it's like working as a camp counselor all over again. One kid starts having a tantrum because another provoked him, so I have to haul both kids over to the main office where he asks why he's in trouble when he was just defending himself. I've had to tell people twice that I didn't even mention JRPGs despite that everyone thinks because a made a single point of Role Playing that I'm bias against JRPGs. If it seems like I'm overreacting, it's because I have a thread full of people making bias accusations back and forth to each other. Not because WRPG players suddenly went rabid like you think they did, and in the chaos, you yourself failed to notice your own devolution. You're entire comment amounted to "But they started it!" I don't think there's a parent in history who's ever let that excuse fly.

I suppose that's the key word here. Parent. I'm dealing with a bunch of little children. It was fine at first stepping back and letting people throw their silly "You're wrong" arguments, other than when I asked Zeithri to stop yelling at people and calm down. But now that people are pointing fingers at everyone who disagrees with them, (i.e., me) well, yeah, I'm gonna fucking call people out on that one. Forgive me for the lecture, but, seriously, I needed to make it clear where I'm coming from on this.

And, seriously? "I should have known better"? So, what? Is the term "RPG" taboo in the gaming forums now? Am I not allowed to make a thread about any Bioware games in fear of a JRPG bashing session? Well then, let's ban all JRPG threads on the Escapist while we're at it, since we all know it will turn into a WRPG bash session as well.

Ultimately, the point is stop acting so high an mighty like everyone around you is a rabid fanboy and you're the only sane person in the thread. When exposed to the internet, nobody is safe from the rage virus. If only people would fucking learn that not everyone agrees with them. Or better yet, at least acknowledge it.

 

[Ascarus]

i would agree that ME is an "action RPG".

that said and this is kinda off-topic, i am currently re-playing ME2 as a renegade, am i find i am having a much harder time increasing my renegade score than i did my paragon score.

it bothers me that some of the simple side quests (e.g. returning the ring to the Asari in Illium) do not have a renegade option to complete them. why can't i extort money from her? if the game is going to let me be a jack ass, let me be a jack ass dammit!

 

[theSovietConnection]

I have to disagree. The ability to make and direct the decisions of your character is hardly the only feature of RPGs. Video game RPGs are based on tabletop RPGs, which had many different aspects to them. The actual playing of a character role is only one of those; the statistics, battle systems, and customization are others. Simply because one element of the tabletop RPGs that inspired video game RPG is gone doesn't somehow mean the game is not an RPG. JRPGs may have a mostly linear story, but that is really the only thing out of line with the RPGs that inspired the video game genre, and one difference is hardly enough to disqualify something.

I think the biggest problem is trying to use RPG as a genre title to begin with, as almost every game has you playing a role, whether you make choices and level up or not. I think we should just toss out the RPG and JRPG titles, and rename them to choice-based game and stat-based game.

That's just me, though.

 

[Shydun Afaya]

Fallout 3 does this slightly, but focuses more on the FPS. But you still craft a character, ect. I would call it a hybrid RPG/FPS. Many other games have tried this and failed, usually due outcry that such game cannot be easily pigeon-holed.

Fallout 3 wasn't a FPS though; you didn't actually shoot; the game did all that for you.
I'd've referred to it as an "Interactive Movie" more than anything else.

I suppose you COULD call it and RPG; but it'd be stretching the definition as it wasn't really a "game".

It only did the shooting for you if you let it. I tend to do my own shooting myself. I guess if a person isn't any good, they could rely on the computer to do it for them, but that detracts from the fun, imo. I guess you could call it an interactive movie then, if you let the computer autopilot all it for you.

*shrugs*

But then again, using things like aiming assist and the like on other games would reduce them to pretty much the same, no? That would reduce many games to "interactive movie" experience. I guess it's when a person steps up and take more control of the character in acting out their role that makes it a role-playing game.

personally, I think it should have many of the traditional aspects of RPG games. Level up via experience, inventory management, dialog choices, choice of where to go (also known as freeroam), ability to have more than a single person in your party, ect.

Both Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 contained these. The difference was camera perspective. Does a RPG have to be top-down or the 'ol 3/4 overhead view to qualify now?

We don't live in the days of SNES anymore, people. Get over the nostalgia and get with the future.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

snip

One thing: Show me where on this thread I went pointed fingers at people saying: "you're wrong". You're arguing at me, for having a differing opinion, and attempting to suppress it, by telling me that not everyone agrees with everyone!? Slick. :S

Not sure why you decided to target me anyhow. But you have. So, I'm just rolling with the punches. You might want to look in a mirror if you think someone is acting high and mighty around here. Especially with the "Parent" comment... pot, kettle, colour of black.

Funny thing here, I've never seen a JRPG turn into a WRPG bash session. The reverse happens quite frequently. Funny that.

And I happen to like both J and W RPGs... Why would I be biased?

Please. The point wasn't directed at you, merely that you are far to one-sided on the issue, claiming bias without truly looking at that which you defend as they sit with the guilty party. The sentence is deserving of all in this case. You asked me to look at others (UBERfionn) for the blame of flame-bait, so I proceeded to tell you that everyone is guilty in this case. Guess you didn't take it well.

If I had actually referred directly to you (other than the whole "one-sided defending" thing), it was a mistake on my part. It was intended for you to hear, but it was directed at people like HG131 and Zeithri.

Yeah, I figured you would try to use the parent metaphor against me, but what can you do? When you're faced with a bunch of "I'm right, you're wrong!" arguments, followed up by "They started it!" not a lot else comes to mind.

But again, it was clearly for naught since you still seem to hold to the belief that the select people are not in the wrong and claiming that there has never been the opposite effect of bashing. I suppose it's not obvious when I tell you that statement is absolutely false. I can personally attest to that...

 

[No_Remainders]

It only did the shooting for you if you let it.

I actually stopped reading here.
The only weapon you could ACTUALLY use to aim down the sights with (without bullets going EVERYWHERE except where you wanted it to) was the sniper rifle; which was ineffective against nigh on everything when you were up close.
Of course; I could go around with a melee weapon; but that defeats the whole purpose of a game having guns.

It's funny how many people say "I DID ALL THE SHOOTING BY MYSELF IN FALLOUT 3!" yet they fail to realise that aiming down sights didn't actually work; it barely focused the camera better and whatever gun you were using still sprayed bullets at every corner of the screen.

 

[Shydun Afaya]

It only did the shooting for you if you let it.

I actually stopped reading here.
The only weapon you could ACTUALLY use to aim down the sights with (without bullets going EVERYWHERE except where you wanted it to) was the sniper rifle; which was ineffective against nigh on everything when you were up close.
Of course; I could go around with a melee weapon; but that defeats the whole purpose of a game having guns.

It's funny how many people say "I DID ALL THE SHOOTING BY MYSELF IN FALLOUT 3!" yet they fail to realize that aiming down sights didn't actually work; it barely focused the camera better and whatever gun you were using still sprayed bullets at every corner of the screen.

First and foremost, I do indeed do all my shooting myself. Never gave me an issue. I know how to differ weapon types. pistols for close range, assault weapons shine at close to medium range, ans rifles for long range.

If you're having trouble using a short to medium range weapon to hit something far away, common sense would say to get closer or switch weapon types. Also, upping your firearms skill in the respective weapon class (laser, ect.) cause the weapon not only to become more powerful, but more accurate as well. If you notice, the automatic weapons shoot in a slightly ovoid pattern. When the skill increases, the oval shrinks, making the weapon far more accurate. With a maxed firearms skill, I can outshoot what I normally do with a regular-grade (non-sniper) rifle.

The only thing I could recommend would be building your character with a better build and learning to play better.

Other than that, perhaps this style of game is just not for you. Could I recommend Starcraft 2? It seems rather popular for the moment.

P.S. Out of a sense of respect for what you wrote, I read your entire post before responding. It leads to a more coherent response, I think.

 

[chinangel]

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

And that's where you are wrong.
Roleplaying implies putting yourself into the role of a character and acting how that character would act.
Roleplaying does NOT imply you creating yourself in a game and doing the choices YOU would make.

That's something that Bioware didn't understand when they choose to bash Final Fantasy.

I'll put it like this;
Roleplaying is a very broad perspective. Any game where you are thrust into a character and ordered to act as that one can be dubbed Roleplaying. Because RPG does not need to involve stats nor choices nor a fantasy world even though that's what we've come to get used to with the term.

In general, Roleplaying games are easily spotted and yes, Mass Effect is an RPG/TPS hybrid - but is that a bad thing? Neverwinter Nights is a RPG/ThirdPerson game also. Oblivion is a RPG/FP/TP and so is Morrowind.

But if we're going to get alteast one thing straight, it's this;

[HEADING=1]Roleplaying games are not solely about you creating a character and doing "choices". It's about putting yourself into the role of a character and living it out. If anyone refuse to accept that term, then you simply don't understand it and are free to ego-roleplay as much as you'd want.[/HEADING]​

This.

 

[Malyc]

My personal definition of RPG is a game where the role you play is the center of the focus, not the places that your adventure takes you. In this sense, Mass Effect and its sequel are most certainly RPGs. In ME1 and ME2, events are important because of how they effect Shepard and the dynamic between him/her and his/her comrades. For example...

Tali's loyalty mission? It was cool because you were sent onto a ghost ship with the purpose of hunting and killing the Geth that had slaughtered the crew; It was awesome because of how it allowed you to get Tali to open up to you as a character, rather than an encyclopedia on Quarian politics. Admit it, you were far more interested in how it would effect your relationship with her, than you were with the way the mission would unfold.

The settings are just catalysts for inspiring dynamic changes in the way you interact with your crew and vice versa, rather than being the main focus of the game (as opposed to MW2's "HOLY MOTHERFUCK, IT'S RAINING HELICOPTERS" approach). The main draw of the Mass Effect series (and BioWare games in general) is being able to play as someone else, as that person, rather than playing as a generic shell of a person whose only relevance to the world is their ability to shoot, crouch, reload, regenerate health, and have a backstory if the developers are feeling generous.

tl;dr I agree with you, OP.

I agree, although it did seem that in the omega system, you had to fight a lot of helecopters...

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Ah, RPG's. Usually easy to spot, yet ridiculously difficult to define.

Personally, I don't have a specific definition or anything, just games I could point to and say "this is an RPG" or "This is a ______ with RPG elements." I think you're arguments as to why ME is an RPG are perfectly valid, but your friend's confusion likely stems from the fact that all electronic RPG's were JRPG's (because Japan was the only country making the things) and were based off of the original tabletop games, which needed to use turn-based combat as a necessity. Kind of like how someone could be forgiven for thinking that Metal music is all angry. Just because a large majority of a medium follows a pattern doesn't mean that the pattern is the defining feature.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I agree, although it did seem that in the omega system, you had to fight a lot of helecopters...

Ah, but when you think about it, the only reason there was a 'copter was because the devs needed a really cool way for Garrus to get seriously hurt. More character focus.