Mass Effect isn't an RPG?!

[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.

May I remind you that JRPGs were around long before the modern RPG? Maybe modern RPGs should just get a new name, like "Games that promise you will change the world your in but end up having extremely subtle and slightly disappointing changes", yeah, I think that works. The point of an RPG is not to shape the world around you, it's simply a game in which you can upgrade character stats and customize things like weapons, armor etc.

Have you ever played a tabletop RPG?
It's not just about the stats and equipment on the piece of paper. It's about Role playing. This guy on this sheet is you in the world created by the DM/GM. There is a connection between you and the character that is hard to define, but that is what makes an RPG.
Not the combat style, not the menus and not the exp.

 

[UBERfionn]

Choosing your Materia placement in Final Fantasy VII is no more or less role-playing than choosing who to save in Mass Effect.

In mass effect you felt not only for Shepard but also THROUGH him/her. In FFVII even if you feel for the character there is and extra step missing to make the connection that YOU are this awesome person, that you are doing these things and they are happening to you.

I understand the difference, but you're still focused on "being the character" as the only aspect of an RPG. It's not. It's only part of it.

You are right; that is a fundamental difference between the two styles. If "being the character" was the only aspect that defines an RPG, you'd be right. But it's not, it's only one aspect of an RPG, the absence of which does not disqualify a game from the genre.

Though I would also argue that the feel of being the character is a general property of video games as a storytelling medium, regardless of role-playing. That's what makes them so great.

It's hard to define the difference between between the connection felt in different game types but they are there.
I'm trying to be overly hard on JRPG's (they just present such an easy target) but they by in large are not RPG's.

Yes "being the character" is only part of it, but it is the main part, the part that defines it as different to other genre's. Modern warfare is not an RPG even though you play first person as the character because it lacks the connection. It would be possible to make a CoD game that was an RPG. I can see so many way's that it could work. It wouldn't even need menu's and exp, just the right kinda story telling.

 

[Sleepaphobic]

It all depends on one's own interpretation of the term "RPG". ME can be called an RPG but it is so basic and a very stripped down form of an RPG in the traditional sense. Maybe the term should not be interpreted literally, that's what I think at least.

I think making decisions doesn't automatically make a game an RPG. CoD would be an RPG as I can choose to use this gun or do smthg a certain way. What's the difference between that and being evil or good in a story?

Dragon Age, now that is what you call an RPG. Bioware can make a great RPG but for some reason they really feel like dumbing down a game, oh wait, I meant streamlining is the way to go now. Lets cut the inventory and give the player pretty much no variation in the weapons, lets also make it stupid easy on anything other than the hardest diffuclty. I think Bioware are going the wrong way, games should become deeper not shallower than a puddle.

 

[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!"

 

[HellsingerAngel]

snip

snip again

Alright. This is getting out of hand. You both clearly have some experience with role-playing games as a genre, but you're missing one key factor in your argument: we're talking about different cultures! I've already discussed this in a previous threads as to why JRPGs are still RPGs, so I'll link it here, but reitterate my argument just for the fun of it: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.187403.5734058

The problem with your argument is not that either of your opinions are wrong, it's that the foundation of your argument is based solely on one societies views on what role-playing really is. You're taking the western definition and assuming it's the same as the eastern definition, which it isn't. Role-playing, whether video game or pen and paper, is seen as vastly different, but still similar, in both American and Japanese culture.

For Western culture, let's take a look at D&D. As many people have stated, D&D is a game based around character customization. You lay out your statistics, most likely involving stat scores, class choice, special feats, abiltiies and so on. You also get to pick your looks, so that you can feel a little more connected with your character. Finally, you can pick their personality, which in modern WRPGs is represented by the choice systems imbedded in the games. So, by Western definition, Mass Effect surely is an RPG game.

Now, I did say Japanese culture does look at role-playing a little differently, so I'll cover that now. My only real, in depth-experience with a Japanese role-playing game is one called Tenra Bansho Zero. It's a japanese developed pen and paper game that strays wildly from D&D in how it's played, but looks a lot like the JRPGs we know and love. You do still get to pick your class and they are very familiar with cyborg ninja, children piloting mecha with soul gems and samurai with demons infused into their bodies to enhance their strengths, as any sci-fi game from Japan would be like. The major difference is how it's played. Once you get rolling, you realise that you have very little control over your character, apart from their dialogue. Choices are all made for you through dice rolls and you whimsically are pulled from one scenario to another, trying to best act out your character as possible. It feels more like an improntu Kabuki Play than anything, which is kinda fun if you like being a thespian, but terrible if you're a control freak or min/maxxer. Combat is limited, usually, because the story being told by the Game Master is far more important to this type of role-playing.

Now, I'm not saying either choices are wrong. Different cultures act out role-playing differently, but there is one main tie that binds the genre together: story. Yes, I know it sounds cheesy, but in this day and age, where game stories have gone far beyond the simplicity of "save the princess" or "go kill Dracula", story is the link that RPGs have in common. I'm not just talking about the 10 hour "drive-in movie" sort of story, either. I'm talking about the "400 page novel" type of stories that only RPGs have the time to share. 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.

In any case, I hope this clears a few things up for you guys. I hope someday everyone can see JRPGs and WRPGs are all RPGs, just from different cultural backgrounds.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Had a nasty feeling this would end up double posted. Sorry guys =)

 

[scythecow]

I'd call Mass Effect an RPG with third-person shooter elements. Yeah it's a hybrid, almost every game now is somehow a hybrid of the old classic genres. Not everything in the game is purely RPG elements, but more than anything else that's what it is. It should be safe to just say it's an RPG. What else could the focus possibly be?

Most of the fun in the game is in the dialogue and choices. Especially when it's with your own party. The freedom is fun, but no matter what you do and say it probably won't have a huge influence on your ability to get through the game.

For progressing through the game, the most important things are experience management and item management. Even when you're on the hardest difficulty there's relatively little strategy or skill involved in the actual combat. Spending skill points badly or making terrible financial choices can severely impact how hard combat is for you. It's not necessarily because you suck at the combat, but perhaps because you made mistakes building your characters or they're under-leveled. Thus, the most important parts of combat are standard RPG elements.

More generally it's an action RPG. The third-person shooter part is just specifically that the perspective happens to be third-person and your way of dealing damage happens to be shooting. Well, obviously!

If it was mostly with swords and the camera was moved to a fixed overhead view and they'd probably call it an overhead action RPG. It would still matter more how strong your character was and how strong your sword was than how well you mash the sword swinging button.

ME is a lot like Dragon Age Origins and Oblivion and Fallout 3. The combat system isn't very strategic like your standard JRPG, but it's an RPG. ME is only as much of a 3rd person shooter as FO3 is an FPS. They're all RPGs more than anything else even if combat is different in all of them. You level up and you power up your character(s). It's important! The hybridization is what makes it confusing, but they're all dice rolls and a leveling/stats system at the core.

Even if the story was only on par with the original Dragon Quest or something, if everything else was the same it's still an RPG before anything else. It's just an RPG with a weak story, of which there are many.

And yeah, you're playing the role of a character, but you're doing that in every game. Even if you're a mysterious unnamed force, you're a character. In Doom, you're a space marine. If you could change the space marine's gender and have conversations with the demons it would still be an FPS. The development and freedom in that character don't have anything to do with it being an RPG or not.

 

[Nazz3]

You didnt figure it out until now?

Its a space shooter with RPG elements.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

-snip-

I never mentioned JRPGs. I never argued against Zeithri's points other than asking him to calm down. So, why do you act so certain that you're telling me something I don't already know?

 

[HellsingerAngel]

-snip-

I never mentioned JRPGs. I never argued against Zeithri's points other than asking him to calm down. So, so why do you act so certain that you're telling me something I don't already know?

You're the OP and I find that the OP should know what's going on in their thread, and 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.

 

[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.