Mass Effect isn't an RPG?!

[TheDrunkNinja]

Yesterday, I was talking with a few friends of mine, and I mentioned that I had Mass Effect 2 to finish. That led to a discussion on what games we currently need to finish, then led to talks on RPGs in general. After a brief reminiscing of the original KotOR, friend of mine made the statement that he couldn't really think of some top class RPGs in the last five years (Oblivion and Fallout 3 being close seconds). I suggested the original Mass Effect to be a candidate. He responded that Mass Effect was more of a shooter with an RPG twist, that it was a space opera if anything else. Not arguing that it wasn't a good game, he followed up with, "It's what modern day shooters should strive to be." Now that in itself is a worthy debate indeed, but let's focus on the immediate matter.

I made it clear that I disagreed with his classification, but I didn't want to push the issue since everyone was getting ready to leave at the time anyway (we had also just talked about a guy we know who constantly argues with people on games). But, I can't help but disagree with him, thinking that he wasn't paying attention to the bigger picture. The way he put it, he segregated the gameplay into two parts: the third-person shooting combat and the story dialogue choices. The problem is, it goes much farther than that, I think.

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.

In terms of the RPG gameplay and layout, Mass Effect has the exact same role playing gameplay as Knights of the Old Republic. They are not the same game. They do not have the same gameplay, story, concept, atmosphere, art style, any of it. And, I'm not even going to go into the second game, because in all honesty I really don't know how to classify it in today's game industry. Mass Effect 2 transcends any genre I can think of, so I'll just say it's in a complete league of it's own. But let's get back to Mass Effect and KotOR.

In Mass Effect, you create your personalized character. At the beginning, you choose his looks (assuming you chose to be male, of course), and then decide what his profession is and what your character will specialize in. KotOR does this as well. Hell, Mass Effect goes one step further by letting you assemble his backstory (what his childhood was like, and the deciding event in his life that made him the man he is today).

You have a dual moral system that does not require you to completely follow either side, letting you define your character the way you want. And, that is the truth for both games. The word "chaotic good" comes to my nerdy mind. Hell, I even know some people who played KotOR all the way through as a good guy, only to do a complete 180 when he found out he was actually the most feared warlord in the galaxy.

In terms of gameplay over story decisions, you have an inventory system, you outfit all of your allies the way you want, you take your preferred group with you on missions, you have stats and skills, you choose what abilities you want, you can stop time for strategic purposes. What is the difference between these two styles of gameplay? What is the defining factor that distinguishes KotOR as an RPG but not Mass Effect?

... In KotOR, you click on your enemies and wait, hoping you hit them. In Mass Effect, you manually control the holes you put in your enemies.

Am I missing something here? Seriously, am I? Is that really all it takes? Well, shit, I didn't realize that Fallout 3 was only an FPS in disguise. I didn't realize that the entire Elder Scrolls series was actually just medieval FPSs with stats. Kingdom Hearts? Secret of Mana? Oh no, you're actually allowed to determine whether your swing hits someones face or just flail wildly into the air, so they must not be RPGs as well.

Huh, alright. I'm done with the sarcasm. It just rubs me the wrong way when you limit RPGs to such a narrow point of view. I feel like by focusing so much on the stats and rolling dice that we're not letting RPGs grow and reach their full potential as true Role Playing Games.

Anyway, just throwing this out there, want to know what people think.

 

[UBERfionn]

Your 100% right in my book.

It's about making and ROLE PLAYING your character.
JRPG's are not RPG's for that reason.

 

[Thaius]

RPG is a highly debatable term these days. Japanese RPGs did most of the foundations in terms of video game RPGs, and they did so by involving player stats and highly customizable battle/equipment setups. However, now that Western RPGs have come onto the scene, we have people claiming that the key element of role-playing is the ability to indeed play a role, making decisions and driving the story and personality of the main character. So it's hard to really know what an RPG is in the first place.

I say any of these elements counts as "RPG elements," meaning that a game that incorporates them as a huge aspect of the game is an RPG. The first Mass Effect is absolutely an RPG. THe second is more debatable, but I would still call it an action RPG.

It's a sticky subject, but some people have gotten really picky about it. For that matter, often people will make up a new definition specifically to exclude some kind of RPG they don't like (I'm looking squarely at you, JRPG haters). You can't let it bother you; disagree, debate it if you want, but it's a typical occurrence.

 

[UBERfionn]

RPG is a highly debatable term these days. Japanese RPGs did most of the foundations in terms of video game RPGs, and they did so by involving player stats and highly customizable battle/equipment setups. However, now that Western RPGs have come onto the scene, we have people claiming that the key element of role-playing is the ability to indeed play a role, making decisions and driving the story and personality of the main character. So it's hard to really know what an RPG is in the first place.

I say any of these elements counts as "RPG elements," meaning that a game that incorporates them as a huge aspect of the game is an RPG. The first Mass Effect is absolutely an RPG. THe second is more debatable, but I would still call it an action RPG.

It's a sticky subject, but some people have gotten really picky about it. For that matter, often people will make up a new definition specifically to exclude some kind of RPG they don't like (I'm looking squarely at you, JRPG haters). You can't let it bother you; disagree, debate it if you want, but it's a typical occurrence.

I have nothing really bad to say about JRPG's other then that there title is wrong. The games themselves are sometimes quite good but a menu system does not mean you "have RPG elements".

One of my fav games, Deus Ex, is classed as a shooter with RPG element. Other then a menu system It shared almost no resemble to RPG's. Still an awesome. But it needs a new genre.

 

[No_Remainders]

I'd call ME a Third Person Shooter Role Playing Game.

A mouthful; but a RPG nonetheless.

 

[Eumersian]

As long as your character's actions aren't linearly scripted, it's an RPG. This makes Mass Effect an RPG.

RPG is a highly debatable term these days. Japanese RPGs did most of the foundations in terms of video game RPGs, and they did so by involving player stats and highly customizable battle/equipment setups. However, now that Western RPGs have come onto the scene, we have people claiming that the key element of role-playing is the ability to indeed play a role, making decisions and driving the story and personality of the main character. So it's hard to really know what an RPG is in the first place.

I say any of these elements counts as "RPG elements," meaning that a game that incorporates them as a huge aspect of the game is an RPG. The first Mass Effect is absolutely an RPG. THe second is more debatable, but I would still call it an action RPG.

It's a sticky subject, but some people have gotten really picky about it. For that matter, often people will make up a new definition specifically to exclude some kind of RPG they don't like (I'm looking squarely at you, JRPG haters). You can't let it bother you; disagree, debate it if you want, but it's a typical occurrence.

This makes me think about Paper Mario. I had deduced that it was an RPG because of its use of experience points, and all RPGs to my knowledge have those. But now with the more Western style of unscripted action and nonlinearity based in having your character play a unique role in the story, is it still an RPG by Western Standards? Are the Pokemon games RPGs in that same standard?

It's all so confusing.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

For me it depends on how wide you want to open up the umbrella over the term. San Andreas had several RPG elements, but not many people would call it an RPG. The game gave you more freedom in some ways than did Mass Effect. If I wanted to be a dick and run down old ladies in a Ferrari with hydraulics, I could. I could even do it in a bright yellow suit weighing in at 300 lbs from all that fried chicken I ate. In Mass Effect it had to be scripted whether I wanted to let the old lady live or not, and, beyond the addition of a few scars in Mass Effect 2, I was always ruggedly handsome.

 

[WanderingFool]

I have to agree with OP, Mass Effect is an RPG, may not be as RPG-ish(?) as others RPG games, but its still has the elements of RPGs... and ME is more of an RPG that ME2, good game, but falls short in comparison.

 

[Kiefer13]

Both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are RPGs. They could perhaps be classified as action RPGs, but still RPGs nevertheless. Role Playing Game has always been a bit of a misnomer anyway, since it usually just seems to include any game that includes experience points and leveling, regardless of whether you can make and play your own character or not. But the Mass Effect games have both elements of what tends to make up RPGs though (Character customization and decision making and levels and classes), so I would certainly classify them as RPGs.

 

[Thaius]

RPG is a highly debatable term these days. Japanese RPGs did most of the foundations in terms of video game RPGs, and they did so by involving player stats and highly customizable battle/equipment setups. However, now that Western RPGs have come onto the scene, we have people claiming that the key element of role-playing is the ability to indeed play a role, making decisions and driving the story and personality of the main character. So it's hard to really know what an RPG is in the first place.

I say any of these elements counts as "RPG elements," meaning that a game that incorporates them as a huge aspect of the game is an RPG. The first Mass Effect is absolutely an RPG. THe second is more debatable, but I would still call it an action RPG.

It's a sticky subject, but some people have gotten really picky about it. For that matter, often people will make up a new definition specifically to exclude some kind of RPG they don't like (I'm looking squarely at you, JRPG haters). You can't let it bother you; disagree, debate it if you want, but it's a typical occurrence.

I have nothing really bad to say about JRPG's other then that there title is wrong. The games themselves are sometimes quite good but a menu system does not mean you "have RPG elements".

One of my fav games, Deus Ex, is classed as a shooter with RPG element. Other then a menu system It shared almost no resemble to RPG's. Still an awesome. But it needs a new genre.

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.

 

[Woodsey]

Both Mass Effect games are RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 is more of a shooter than Mass Effect, but that doesn't make it less of an RPG. When you get down to it, Shephard has around the same number of skill bars to fill once you've factored in the removal of intimidate/charm; and that's because they're governed by the dialogue choices you make.

The inventory system's a shit-load better too, and whilst they could have done with more weapons in the full game, it was just improving the sections shooting sections. So like I said, more of a shooter doesn't necessarily mean less of an RPG.

Oh, and since someone will come up with this annoying answer: no, not every game is an RPG just because you fill the role of a character. Each genre has it's major staples, simply playing as a character is a statement of all games (arguably not some RTS's).

 

[Littaly]

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.

I think the common misconception lies in this paragraph.

The name Role Playing Game comes from old pen and paper role playing games. But the aspect of pen and paper RPGs that console/computer RPGs have adopted in order to get the name is not the "tell the game master what to do" part but the "fill in values, points, levels and numbers" part.

Think about it. When we talk about RPG elements, we don't refer to a few inserted player made choices (á la Bisoshock or Red Dead Redemption), but rather to some kind of leveling/ability system (á la Call of Duty 4 or Marvel Ultimate Alliance).

You can argue whether or not that should actually that should be the actual definition of RPG, but it is. That's why Final Fantasy passes as an RPG despite involving relatively little role playing.

(this is all theorizing btw, I don't actually have anything to back my theory up. But it sounds pretty reasonable to me)

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Zanaxal]

I think its the experience and leveling system of the game and the depth of how the combat system works that defines a game as a rpg Also that there is a class system or a variation thereof.

Any game rpg that is played is always stuck to some kind of a plot, you cant just free roam roleplay like OP is suggesting what a rpg is essentially is. Example would be you decide to kill of the current goverment and declare yourself supremeoverlord of the game world. Oh wait thats not possible.

The choices that are in current rpgs are minute, they are just tidbits thrown in to a game deciding if someone will have a good or bad reaction to you in most cases. This hardly classifies as roleplaying.

So what i'm saying it's the RPG gameplay system that classifies what's a rpg, after all thats what really is important. Tedious combat coupled with ankle deep item + monstery complexity and travelling in rpgs with lots of "dead space" make me uninstall them. Random encounters seem to be having a comeback in force due to this fact.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

For me it depends on how wide you want to open up the umbrella over the term. San Andreas had several RPG elements, but not many people would call it an RPG. The game gave you more freedom in some ways than did Mass Effect. If I wanted to be a dick and run down old ladies in a Ferrari with hydraulics, I could. I could even do it in a bright yellow suit weighing in at 300 lbs from all that fried chicken I ate. In Mass Effect it had to be scripted whether I wanted to let the old lady live or not, and, beyond the addition of a few scars in Mass Effect 2, I was always ruggedly handsome.

Well, in that case you have to think in terms of character like I showed. Being able to take actions of any kind is all well and good, but what makes the role playing aspect of games is how those actions affect the character, or to a greater extent, the world around you. Yeah, in GTA 4, if I want Niko to run down that old lady, I can do it. I can run down hundreds of old ladies and spread chaos through the streets as I decimate pedestrians with my helicopter blades of doom. But, you won't see people react differently to you. You don't make national news. Taking that three minute break to shake those wanted stars, and no body will react differently. The national guard isn't sent to search and apprehend the mad man of Liberty City. Roman won't call me up on the phone asking me what the fuck I was thinking.

But, while Niko does make some choices during the main game that has different outcomes and consequences, it's not what makes the game an RPG. Niko is still Niko. He will always be Niko. Other games with moral choice systems like Infamous aren't RPGs either. Cole is still Cole, he's just either a massive bastard or a hero who acts like he doesn't give a shit. Infamous is just a game with two stories. Cole isn't my character. He's the guy I'm playing, but that's it.

That's the difference between sandbox games and RPGs.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I find you lack of knowledge of RPG disturbing. The name "role playing game" is actually a misnomer because the basis of a role playing game is not the role playing but in fact the stats based systems. In every game you play the role of some character whether he be a blank slate to bend to your will or a pre-existing and well defined character. Now some RPGs, like Biowears, have you make all kinds of choices and give you options to evolve your character how you like but some RPGs, notable FF and JRPGs don't and have characters with personalities set in stone. Yet both are RPGs. What defines them then? The stats. All have a heavy focus on stats in the form of levels, perks, upgrades, etc. They are all numbers games. The evolution from tabletop to games didn't define RPGs by the ability to make your character but by the mechanics behind it. The name stuck but the philosophy of definition went to the mechanics not the original ability tot define your character. The unifying thread is the stats not the role playing.

Mass effect is an hybrid shooter and RPG because it focuses on states but also on the conventions of shooters. I would argue that its more RPG then shooter since the shooter elements are a bit weak and the RPG elements are strong with a lot of focus on levels, equipment (to alter stats) and putting points into upgrades. Mass Effect 2 is more shooter then RPG because the stats bit are more truncated and the shooter elements are enhanced.

As further proof, when someone says that a game has "RPG elements" they don't mean that the game has elements of building a character, they mean that the game has a focus on states and perks and upgrades and points. RPG is defined by mechanics not by Role Playing and is a big misnomer. Lots of people get confused and I wish they would just change the name to "stats based games" or SBGs but that's never going to happen.

 

[Zanaxal]

A prime example would be the gothic series and risen, through various actions in those game you can choose to end up working for any 3 of the factions in the game or none of them.

But this will still make you do identical parts of "main quests" or area related actions. To my eye this is not what would call "role playing" its playing a predefined role of 4 choices playing. Which is pretty much what every rpg does now, just that they limit you to 3 choices now. Good, neutral, bad

 

[The Scythian]

I can't accept Mass Effect as an RPG because Shepard is already a defined character. What sets an RPG apart is the slot where you define your own character.

 

[Knight Templar]

Mass Effect 2 is more of a shooter than Mass Effect

I would say it's as much a shooter as the first, but a better shooter.