Mass Effect isn't an RPG?!

[Sexbad]

Mass Effect by no means is an RPG. RPGs are about playing roles that you create. They're about earning experience and applying it to skills of your choice. Mass Effect is about making dialogue choices and making sure that the gun you are using is of the highest specs out of all the ones you picked up. To be an RPG, there would need to be options to build your character. No matter what, you're just another guy who shoots things. Maybe with guns, maybe with The Force. You can't build Shepard up to be able to circumvent things with hacking, nor can he do stealth, or anything like that. I guess choosing your squadmates counts, since they have certain effectivenesses against certain enemies, but that's it.

ME is a shooter.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Mass effect 1 was an RPG, but 2 was much more of a shooter.

 

[No_Remainders]

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".

 

[UBERfionn]

snip

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.

Experience progression and character customization (in terms of their battle style, equipment, and abilities) is no less vital to RPGs than the role playing itself. In Final Fantasy VII, for instance, you may not have been able to control Cloud's name, look, and personality, but you could control nearly every aspect of how he fought. You could make him the healer, the black mage, the fighter, the summoner... it's not like the player has no control in a JRPG, it's just not of the character's personality.

Point is, tabletop RPGs like D&D were the inspiration for RPG video games. In the situation of the tabletop games, if you take experience progression and battle customization out of them they will be shallow shells of what they once were, no less so than if you took out the player choice of personality and story choices. All these elements are absolutely vital to the success of the game, no one more than the next.

In a video game, not all of these things are absolutely vital to work together. But just because one is missing doesn't mean the game is suddenly not an RPG. All are important, and the inclusion of any of them as a main focus of the game makes it an RPG. In other words...

[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]​

Well said, Zeithri.

Maybe i didn't really make my point properly.
RPG's are about role playing.
One of the that helps is the exp and menus and all that and I would find it hard to see how to make one with out it.
Any genre can be made into an RPG.
You could have a FPS/RPG but it need to have role playing.

The core is role playing. All the rest is like the cream inside the cake, the icing around it and the multitude of cherry's on top. The cake base is boring without them but the RPG is the core.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I'd give a more detailed opinion if I had actually played ME 1 & 2 (don't have a 360), but from what I've heard, it fits my definition of an RPG.

 

[Iron Mal]

If we're going to be strict about the definition of what 'roleplaying' is then that technically means that every game with a playable character is a role playing game (after all, you are assuming the role of somebody and playing from their perspective).

But that definition is a bit broad and can get confusing very quickly so I would say that a role playing game is a game where it was designed with the intent of letting you roleplay as your character (some games are going to be better at this than others, for example, I could empathise and connect with Sheperd from Mass Effect rather easily but Cloud from Final Fantasy 7 just didn't click with me).

 

[Chunko]

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.

The bit about it being about putting yourself into someone else's shoes. If that were the case I feel like HL2 would be an RPG.

 

[DustyDrB]

I really don't care about what label you put on it. Mass Effect and its sequel are fun games.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

The bit about it being about putting yourself into someone else's shoes. If that were the case I feel like HL2 would be an RPG.

I didn't say anything about putting on someone else's shoes.

I said create your own character.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Mass Effect by no means is an RPG. RPGs are about playing roles that you create. They're about earning experience and applying it to skills of your choice. Mass Effect is about making dialogue choices and making sure that the gun you are using is of the highest specs out of all the ones you picked up. To be an RPG, there would need to be options to build your character. No matter what, you're just another guy who shoots things. Maybe with guns, maybe with The Force. You can't build Shepard up to be able to circumvent things with hacking, nor can he do stealth, or anything like that. I guess choosing your squadmates counts, since they have certain effectivenesses against certain enemies, but that's it.

ME is a shooter.

Don't really feel like rewriting any of this, so here ya go:

Spoiler

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.

 

[mastiffchild]

The phrase "role playing game" has become exceedingly narrow, imho, in video games. Pretty much any game could be called one as you're playing as an assumed character yet we're told certain things must happen for a game to truly qualify for the title. We have to be able to level up(if not our character in number than at least between good and evil, paragon or renegade or level up our equipment/abilities), grinding can qualify a game, character choices and character creation apply and with jrpgs a lot of people even turn their noses up if it's not bloody turn based(I like turn based games but, seriously, it's the daftes "after you sir" bolx ever thought up and a throwback to the D&D origins of this tight vision of what role playing really is). It seems to me that the OP's mate is trying to narow what a true RPG is EVEN further and to me it makes little sense.

Sure, ME1 was a more traditional WRPG than the more shooting heavy follow up but both are, and without any question, role playing emndeavors, aren't they? You play the role of Shepard don't you? You make story changing choices and in the first game you had a ton of weapon micro management which was toned down in ME2 somewhat. Hell, there's even the grinding of the (close to game breaking for me) planet mining boring as all hell sections you could do for cash etc and the constant choice to swing between paragon and renegade(though I always think it's more realistic to stay fairly neutral and on a first playthrough I always tried to make the choice I felt was appropriate rather than actively thinking about where it would place me on the renegade/paragon meter because that struck me as contrived and unrealistic. you don't make a choice in real life thinking "does this boost my paragon stats?" do you? Though, naturally, that ties into the game aspect more than anything else but I prefer a natural progression rather than the accepted tenets of accepted rpgdom.

As a result of all this I'd say most games were REALLY RPGs to a point and people saying what is and isn't one are usually just talking about a very narrow band of aspects a game has historically had as a hangover from table top rpgland and as time goes on games like ME1 and 2, Fallout1,2 and 3 and even Demon's Souls blur even that contrivance further and further. Yes, "purists" of WRPG and JRPGs will always have a snooty "it needs to do this" attitude but they're being Kanutelike in trying to hold back the seachange that's going on around them. Chronotrigger and DQ aren't ever going to be dominant in terms of influence on the jrpg and we've moved a long way from Myst et al in the WRPG too. When we pla most games we adopt that character which makes games as staght up shooty as MW or Halo RPGs to some extent and these games(look at MW's perks and levelling online for example, all the weapon progression)are borrowing mechanics from trad rpgs while rpgs themselves are now using proper aiming, shooting and cover systems themselves. Soon we'll just have games and accept they have us playing roles and all that will differ is the extent to which we shape the game experience as linearity isn't JUST tied to story and gameworld.

FF13 s heavily hammered for it's linear 20 hour start but it was only trying to se things that work for other genres in a time where the jrpg is looking to survive and grwo maret wise and those who will only play a trad, turn based one with tons of micro management and grinding atre becoming a smaller, though still large today, number of gamers. Theyu want a bigger audience and the answer may be in the difficulty levels with harder ones needing more strategy like turn based stuff and more skill like in true action games. the key is that the lines will always get more blurred and the pure, trad games wll always be there and always be niche with no chance of breaking out from their ghettos-and less chance as time goes on and gaming, generally gets more mainstream. No reason at all why jrpgs can't, and wrpgs too, get more trad or strategic and micro management elements as the difficulty levels go up.

for example the combat on easy could be devoid, nearly, of strategy and the action stuff be "press X to win" stuff and as it goes up you could introduce turn based elements and more complex real time action as well. you could implement the turn based, spell, ability, party member choosing elements in dynamic pauses(so many per battle earned from beating previous fights well)that get shorter again as the difficulty ratchets up. The difficulty of the action combat could get more complex too-more buttons, attacks and combos for example, less aim assist etc. Whatever, that's only MY ideas for how the future of RPGs might be shaped but you, i'm sure, can see what I mean about this and about how, surely, most games ask you to role play to some extent and being snobby about what is and isn't an rpg is exactly what has harmed the jrpg lately, imho, with devs wanting bigger audiences but scared to lose the one they already had and that's resulted in ombat systems that don't actually please either extreme or the middle ground so UI think the games need to incorporate more options rather than force a half arsed change on everyone no matter how skilled or casual we are.

Sorry for the long one but we were just on about this at home and t was to fresh in my mind to kick out! Anyway, does no one else have grand plans for amking the modern RPG a game to please every gamer?

 

[War Penguin]

To me, what makes an RPG is building the character. It doesn't have to be your character or a character that's already given an identity. I think as long as you have that character progress through the story and help him/her get better [small](meaning getting experience)[/small] in the game, then I consider it an RPG.

 

[vivalahelvig]

Of course it isnt an rpg, its not like the game itself shoots rockets and is made by russians.
Har Har.
Its an rpg if you play as a character and his role...play...

 

[Levitas1234]

Your 100% right in my book.

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

Petty dialogue choices that do shit all is not "ROLE PLAYING" wrpgs are no more rpgs than jrpgs.

 

[molesgallus]

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.

Mass Effect was a terrible shooter. The ai was terrible, the combat clunky, and the weapons were boring to use. Mass effect had a brilliant story, though. It convinced me that gaming was a powerful and immersive medium to tell a story in. In that respect, other shooters should aspire to be more like Mass Effect. However, I think due to budget constraints, there will always be a trade-off between gameplay, and story. I want good game play in multiplayer games, and good stories in single player games. I get the former a lot, but the later is lacking.

Mass effect was more RPG than it was shooter. I haven't heard anyone commend its shooter mechanics. I've heard plenty go on about it's brilliant story, and other RPG elements.

 

[Thaius]

Maybe i didn't really make my point properly.
RPG's are about role playing.
One of the that helps is the exp and menus and all that and I would find it hard to see how to make one with out it.
Any genre can be made into an RPG.
You could have a FPS/RPG but it need to have role playing.

The core is role playing. All the rest is like the cream inside the cake, the icing around it and the multitude of cherry's on top. The cake base is boring without them but the RPG is the core.

But the rest is role playing too. It's not a matter of menus (those are simply the way the role-playing is implemented), it's what the menus allow you to do. It's simply a matter of whether you are controlling every single aspect of the character. Making story choices is no more or less role-playing than choosing what your character's fighting style will be, and the absence of one element of role-playing does not negate the others. Controlling your character's personality and choices is not the only aspect of role playing, nor is it the most important; it's equally important as all the other aspects of it, and a game that has a large focus on even one of these aspects (regardless of which) is a role-playing game, or if it's merely a secondary concern, it at least has role-playing elements.

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

 

[laryri]

This argument bothers me. RPG is the term used to describe games in which you have stats, abilities, etc. Sure it may not be correct if you think about what RPG stands for, but definitions change and people need to accept this. Really, if you think about what makes an RPG in the classic sense, most games are RPGs. This is because RPG was a term for tabletop games like DnD before it was applied to videogames, in games like Candyland you don't take the role of a character, that is why it applied in that sense.

 

[open trap]

Mass Effect is a great role playing game, so many good powers and choices, and its really immersive.

 

[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.