First off, take nothing of this as confrontational. I'm not trying to be that, but rather trying to engage in a conversation. Admittedly not the best place for it, but eh. I've derailed threads worse in the past.Pimppeter2 said:I too divide RPGs into similar segments.
I wouldn't consider Mass Effect 2i to be an RPG in the vein of the genre, as say Dragon Age whichis a pretty much the definition of an RPG. I lump things like JRPGS, Mass Effect 2, and even games like Infamous and The Legend of Zelda into a category that is semi-separate from RPG territory. I think the main problem is that they're lumping these genre breaking games into places they don't fit.Mass Effect 2 was indeed a great game (IMO), but it was not the RPG experience of the year, and I think that effected some peoples opinion of the game.
There's nothing wrong with a static character to roleplay as. But my problem with Rise of the Argonauts is that Jason is neither of these things. He's not a blank slate, because the game doesn't offer any options to mold him into either side. I think that the game would have been the type to benefit from a morality bar. Jason also isn't a set character because the game simply doesn't devolve into character development enough. There's this part were you venture into the homeland of your wife, which really shows some of Jason's emotions and motivation, however the other parts of the game (85% of it) don't share the same theme. Simply, the game offered choices but they neither effected Jason nor did they make sense with the character they tried to make Jason to be. If he had been a fully fleshed out character, it would have been much easier to sympathize with him.
You do need to clarify what "similar" segments mean, as I only gave my categories, not my subcategories of RPGs; namely, action, turn-based, pen-and-paper, tactical, and sandbox/open-world. Mass Effect seems like something that would fall into action RPG territory (but I haven't played the games in the franchise, so I can't say for certain). It's still technically an RPG, but maybe not in the same vein as Dragon Age: Origins or something like The Elder Scrolls franchise. Doesn't mean it's not an RPG, but rather that it takes the RPG perspective from a different angle.
And while I can see why you have problems with Rise of the Argonauts in terms of the main character, it seems like you dismiss the game from the RPG category for two petty reasons: lack of loot and lack of a morality system. Lack of loot isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is instead more realistic; why can you only harvest venom from certain specimens of poisonous spiders and and not others, and why is this dire wolf dropping gold and lockpicks? And while I can see why you have issues with RotA's morality system (with an implemented base but lack of influence on either character or story), it doesn't necessarily make it any less of an RPG; sometimes, perceived growth is enough to role-play.*
There's also the fact that not every game needs a morality system, and that morality systems are simply much, much too complex to actually work in anything other than pen-and-paper RPGs (Dragon Age: Origins circumvents the problem rather than solves it from what I've played of it, so meh). And, as an aside, I wouldn't go so far at to say that Dragon Age: Origins as the singular definition, just a high example, right down to the cliches.
[sub]*Either way, your opinions on why Rise of the Argonauts isn't an RPG actually creates a retroactive contradiction with one of your previous reviews. It's not important to the overall conversation, but it'd be nice if you can clear a few things up for me.[/sub]