Mass Effect isn't an RPG?!

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

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.

 

[Imbechile]

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 just want to say that Deus ex doesn't share only the menu screen. It has skill points and augmentations. I would rather classify it as an RPG with some shooter elements since the shooting really depends on skills.

OT: Mass effect IS AN RPG. the second one is less, or should i say simpler but it still is an RPG

 

[TheDivineComic]

Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines was probably one of the most prominant RPG's i can think of....plus, of course, D&D. But yeah, the term 'Role Playing' basically means you play the role of any person, in any situation, be it pre-determined or player created. JRPG's rely heavily on this, although i must say i prefer western RPG's like VTM:B, Mass Effect and KoTOR.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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)

You're point is that, in the video game industry, the importance of variables and numbers determining the outcome of gameplay is the defining aspect of RPGs?

No, I think you said it best. It's an element of RPGs. A gameplay mechanic commonly seen in the genre of Role Playing Games as a determinant to further building up a character to the players personal preference. Just another part of character growth. Another element. Not the driving force, but just another way to personalize your character.

Either way, I already stated that I knew my stance on the definition of RPGs would be differing to many people on the Escapist. It's not a "misconception". That implies that I don't understand what is and what isn't. This is a case of perspective. What an RPG is to me may be different to what an RPG is to you, so there was no point in stating otherwise.

 

[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.

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.

That wasn't my point. I was saying that what makes up RPGs are certain traits that differ between games, which means that an RPG will be a different thing to different people. Heavily scripted games such as Mass Effect don't allow the level of freedom that sand-box games offer, but freedom of choice and characters are both elements that make up an RPG.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

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

A mouthful; but a RPG nonetheless.

I would say that about Mass Effect 2, the !st one had a more RPG feel

 

[Kortney]

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.

Then KOTOR isn't an RPG either because Revan is already a defined character.

I think that's nonsense. Only Shepard's name is already defined. You can choose Shepard's sex, talents, play style, love interest, personality, etc. That's enough for me to call it a role playing game.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

I find your lack of insight frustrating. Oh wait, I forgot I don't have a direct line to your head like you do mine, apparently.

You take the title of playing a role and define that as assuming the role of a character whether he is your personal character or not. Like I said before, I knew people would not agree with my view on RPGs, but I only touched upon that once since it wasn't the bulk of my purpose or point. Also, I didn't really feel like getting into a debate on what is and what isn't in a subject that is so clearly a matter or perspective.

I already made a point about the lovely, little term elements and the fact that I see RPGs in a different light than others in a previous comment, so I won't bore you with a repeat. Just know that not everyone agrees with you, the same way people don't agree with me.

 

[Shydun Afaya]

-snip-

They are both made by the exact same company. You could cut/paste this exact same argument with Dragon Age, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate series, ect.

All Bioware games. All rock out loud. The stories and character vary wildely, but the mechanics (good/evil axis, inventory management, ect) remain. Just with the Mass Effect series they decided to go more of a Gears 'O War route. Not a bad move, imo. Gives it a bit of variety.

It's RPG true to its core. You craft the character to your likes, manage your team, and the world changed (to some varying degree) on whether your actions are "good" or "bad".

FF13 does not do this, this is not RPG. Square-Enix actually had to go back and relabel is an "action" game due to horrendous sales from a disappointed market.

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.

As the future inevitable draws near, we must come to realize that many genres are being blended, if not outright changed. Games are nowhere as easy to define as they once were.

Bottom line to everyone reading this: If you enjoy it for the gameplay, then play it. Don't just play or hate on a game because it doesn't fit a stereotypical genre. If you cannot adapt, you will be left behind or ground underfoot.

 

[Roan Berg]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 aren't role playing games, they're role games where all you do is choose what you want your character to say in the vaguest of senses of and then "fight" aliens by pointing at them and making one of your squad mates throw them across the room.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

That wasn't my point. I was saying that what makes up RPGs are certain traits that differ between games, which means that an RPG will be a different thing to different people. Heavily scripted games such as Mass Effect don't allow the level of freedom that sand-box games offer, but freedom of choice and characters are both elements that make up an RPG.

That's reasonable enough. What I believe will differ than that of another. I just wanted to make my stance clear.

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.

Then KOTOR isn't an RPG either because Revan is already a defined character.

I think that's nonsense. Only Shepard's name is already defined. You can choose Shepard's sex, talents, play style, love interest, personality, etc. That's enough for me to call it a role playing game.

Now, I couldn't have said this better, so I thank you for saying it for me.

 

[4484448444844484]

I think mass effect is more of an FPS/RPG hybrid like Deus Ex rather than a straight RPG like KOTOR is.

 

[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.

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.

Of course Exp progression and menus fit really well into RPG's it doesn't make a game an RPG.
Just because Deus Ex has exp and augments does not make it an RPG. It's the role playing that would make it an RPG.

So my point is you can have anything in a game but it's not an RPG unless you role play.
It just so happens that menus and exp work well with RPG's.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 aren't role playing games, they're role games where all you do is choose what you want your character to say in the vaguest of senses of and then "fight" aliens by pointing at them and making one of your squad mates throw them across the room.

Yeah, pretty much. That's all you do.

Choosing your class? Your backstory? Facial features? What weapons you specialize in? What skills and abilities? How your character interacts with his allies which then defines how they act and think around you? Your preference of squad? Your preference of weapons, armor, and upgrades? How you think, how you act in such pivotal situations that ultimately define and shape the people and galaxy around you? Nope, none of that's in there. None at all.

 

[Paularius]

Now days RPG's are like modern art. The lines so blurred between whats true and whats a loada shite means any developer can claim there game is rpg just becouse they have a ghost of an inventory screen or a leveling system or even a dialoged script.

Judging from the arguments going on lately and not just here but other older threads one could claim CoD singleplayer is a rpg as you play the 'role' of soap. Not that i would count it as a rpg but its an argument someone would come up with. Just look at the hissy fit over ff13.

So yea, I think its time we got some help in to start laying down the lines on what counts as a rpg and what dosnt.

 

[wdwyer]

meh, I would be on the side calling ME and ME2 third person shooters.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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]​

Jeeeesus Christ, dude. Chill out. How many times do I have to say this? I know people don't agree with my view on RPGs. I know people have their own perceptions as to what makes an RPG. I don't claim to know anything more than anyone else, and neither should you.

Good lord, might as well just start screaming this at me.