RPGs vs RPGs

[guitarsniper]

I have noticed in my following of much of the debate concerning, specifically, Mass Effect 3 on The Escapist that some people seem to have a weird disjoint with what RPGs are. Technically, basically every game is an RPG, in that you take on the role of someone else and are able to make choices that will affect the game's outcome. Those choices may be as simple as whether i want to flank to the left or to the right in Call of Duty, or complex enough to affect the fates of worlds and universes.

Before I go into more detail, I'd like to establish a distinction. I come from a tabletop RPG background, and in that there are basically two types of players. There are roll-players, who care about dice rolls and numbers above all else. They will min-max characters to such a degree that there is no reasonable way for the character to exist and have the level of skill that they have. Some people are fine with that, and I admit that I will bust up a character like that if I'm going to be going through a dungeon crawl where it's just puzzles, monsters and loot. That's fine. The second type is the role-player. They want to build a character, rather than just a collection of numbers and abilities. They want their character to have internally consistent motivations and usually make sure that character goals and backstories will fit with whatever numbers they might need. An example of this might be taking a skill in pottery, even though one's character is a fighter, to make them different from all the other fighters out there. They care about a world and about having their choices, especially in dialog, have impact on some scale. Whether it's a botched haggling that means that they have to pay more for an item or the success or failure of worlds-spanning negotiations, these players want to have a more personal type of game. You might have guessed that I prefer the second. Personal bias.

Anyways, on to video games. People have complained that, for example, Mass Effect 2 removed many of the RPG elements that were present in Mass Effect 1. Yes, they reduced your ability to change your character's numbers. I have no problem with this. What Bioware did instead was create a set of far more interesting characters, whose interactions with commander shepard had far more depth. The two games had very distinct emphases. Mass Effect 1 was a plot-driven game, a mystery to unravel, choices to make that would affect the fate of the galaxy. Mass Effect 2 was a far more personal game, with most of the major campaign devoted to gathering a squad and earning their loyalty. All of the characters had more developed backstories and there was more interesting interaction between members of the squad. In fact, as much as some people may call me a heretic for saying this, but I hope that Mass Effect 3 takes part of the Dragon Age 2 route in the increased feel that your squad does more than just wait for you to take them on a mission.

Rambling a bit here:
tl;dr RPGS are more than just numbers, ME2 was in some ways a better RPG than ME1, hope ME3 continues trend of character focus while keeping epic story.

 

[ElectroJosh]

I was hoping for a discussion on the merits of Rocket Propelled Grenades vs Role Playing Games (or something similar) but I see this is a serious thread. And it isn't a JRPG vs WRPG thing; so my hat goes off to you for that.

You make some good points about "RPGs" (in the gaming sense) being beyond stat fiddling (which is often the love of "power gamers"). Obviously a lot of what we think of as RPG elements are stat-based because they owe their origin to table-top games. I have no problem with this - in fact the computer age has made these sorts of games more accessible to people like me who would love to play D'n D but never had the patience to work out the dice rolls and wade through DM's descriptions when a computer can do it all for us.

The thing is that having stats is what defines an RPG or, more accurately, customizable and visible stats. All games carry values for what the PC, NPCs and enemies can and can't do but, in the case of RPGs, these values are often displayed and can be increased over time. But is it necessary for this to always be the case or, as you stated, can the focus be on other things (character interactions for example) and still be considered an RPG?

 

[Yearlongjester]

Because developers want to get audiences from action games and RPG's interested in their game.

Most come down to an action game that becomes easier as you go on.

But I'm playing the original Deus Ex, and am loving what an actual RPG is

 

[the spud]

I completely and totally agree. Just because you don't need a calculator to play it doesn't mean it is an RPG.

 

[Space Spoons]

See, Mass Effect isn't an RPG to me. It's some kind of weird action game with lots of dialogue. To me, a game isn't a true RPG unless it's a turn-based number-fest, preferably without voice acting. Of course, I only think that because of the period I grew up in; the whole issue is very subjective.

 

[otakon17]

See, Mass Effect isn't an RPG to me. It's some kind of weird action game with lots of dialogue. To me, a game isn't a true RPG unless it's a turn-based number-fest, preferably without voice acting. Of course, I only think that because of the period I grew up in; the whole issue is very subjective.

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way you do, fellow Escapist.

 

[StrixMaxima]

A RPG for me requires solid character creation, many options on how to face the challenges the game present and a story with a beginning, middle and end. Customization is important in RPG games.

As such, some games are usually not real RPGs for me, such as most JRPG (with notable exceptions). Most of what is sold as RPGs today are dungeon run games, which I consider RPG-lite. I'd probably put ME in this category, also. It is a bit harder to define it, but since I barely played both titles (not to my liking), I won't generalize.

Games I'd classify as RPGs are the likes of Fallout, Dragon Age, all TES games. Hell, if Dark Souls was more story driven, it would be as RPG for me. Also, I don't mind cutscenes or voice acting (quite the contrary, in fact. I still love thee, Viconia).

 

[The Pinray]

Thank you, OP. Thank you so much. I've been trying to get this point across for ages.

I agree with you completely. You shoot guns in Mass Effect. It should feel like a shooter. With the added elements of powers, of course.

"Oh no it doesn't control like clunky garbage anymore I hate this!" Yes, They could've added more "RPG elements" to it. Which they will in the third. Hopefully it'll be decent enough middle ground.

 

[Something Amyss]

Technically, basically every game is an RPG, in that you take on the role of someone else and are able to make choices that will affect the game's outcome. Those choices may be as simple as whether i want to flank to the left or to the right in Call of Duty, or complex enough to affect the fates of worlds and universes.

A statement that, while technically true, makes the term meaningless.

What Bioware did instead was create a set of far more interesting characters, whose interactions with commander shepard had far more depth.

Debatable.

The two games had very distinct emphases. Mass Effect 1 was a plot-driven game, a mystery to unravel, choices to make that would affect the fate of the galaxy. Mass Effect 2 was a far more personal game, with most of the major campaign devoted to gathering a squad and earning their loyalty.

But both games have about the same level of roleplaying development. As far as assuming the role of Shep, you're given roughly the same amount of choices and opportunities. I know you're claiming the game has a better ROLEplay experience than the first, but I'd attest there's only one element in which the second surpasses the original.

What's that? The chance to fail.

In this game, there are effectively bad decisions which can kill your character and your crew. While it's problematic in application of a saga, it's still far better than simply applying paragon/renegade points.

Otherwise, the games are pretty much the same in terms of roleplaying. Restricted, heavily. At best, they've changed the way you interact with your crew, but not the level. Things that were flavour text are now sloughed into side quests, and that's fine, but it's a lateral move. Meanwhile, Shep has little more actual character than Nathan Drake or John Marston. The major difference is sets of choices which aren't so much roleplaying as they are binary progression methods. Are you the good guy, or the bad guy?

Further, the removal of "loot" or whatever you would want to call it doesn't JUST represent a loss of numbers. It also represents an element of customisation taken away. This is a combat heavy game, so weapons are going to be a big part of it. Your playstyle is much more rigid, and the primary distinction is ammo powers, which in themselves are pretty limited (And take power slots). You're already pretty limited in making the character your own. Boy, girl, a few limited hairstyles, etc. With weaponry, it wasn't always about the phatest lewt, but also about an element of control. An element of your involvement in the character stripped away. The shooter emphasis also closed up the world significantly, and increased a certain level of sameness. After all, battles now necessitate chest-high walls. Things were already pre-fabby in one, but they're worse in two.

I mean, if you're going to talk ROLEplaying over ROLLplaying, you could at least go the whole nine, rather than being one of those pretentious White Wolf kiddies. Looking solely at the changes as numbers is very myopic. The changes brought with them a certain loss of freedom, freedom to play the role of Shep as YOU interpret him/her, and to explore the world as you see fit.

Not everyone who liked the old system was a ROLLplayer, or specifically min-maxing the results. That's an ugly stereotype even in the tabletop world, and I'd hope any serious discussion would be a little less...Binary when it came to gamers. Min-maxing is a specific subset of ROLLplaying.

I mean, seriously, what's min-maxing abuot getting guns to perform the way you want them to? They can easily still be un-optimised, numbers uncrunched, "inferior," as long as they provide the style of approach you want. Armour that fits your playstyle? ZOMG TOTALLY MIN-MAXING, MIRITE?

Even storytelling-heavy tabletop RPGs let you do things to that effect. And it's less important there, because few story-heavy games will be as combat-reliant as Mass Effect.

 

[krazykidd]

See, Mass Effect isn't an RPG to me. It's some kind of weird action game with lots of dialogue. To me, a game isn't a true RPG unless it's a turn-based number-fest, preferably without voice acting. Of course, I only think that because of the period I grew up in; the whole issue is very subjective.

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way you do, fellow Escapist.

I second this , growing up playing , Jrpgs , made me a little bias to what i think Rpgs are.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Mass Effect had choices that actually effected the fate of the galaxy?

Don't remember that. I do remember however alot of pointless dialogue interspersed with random bipolar good/bad dialogue choices which had little to no effect on the game.

I prefer my RPGs number based and turnbased usually but the 3rd person action RPG has been done right and struck the perfect balance and it is not in a Mass Effect game but in Alpha Protocol. Real choices and consequences, an array of likeable and well developed characters and all the same mechanics as ME and a hell of alot more. Your builds in AP are actually important, where as ME you can just sail through picking things blindly.

Mass Effect really lacks choice in gameplay and dialogue/consequences and I think that is why it really isn't an RPG it's as someone has already said more close to a hybrid shooter than an RPG.

My younger brother is a massive FPS player and he recently bought ME2. This if you want to refer to it as such is his first RPG. This is how he plays it, he skips through dialogue and just plays/enjoys the shooting parts. Has it hindered him by rushing through, has he made the game harder for himself or effected the game drastically and the characters around him. Not at all. It's hard to believe ME2 is really an RPG when it can be blitzed through without a care for the world, plot or characters. I think RPGs should force you to think and well judging by my brothers playstyle it really doesn't.

 

[Sangnz]

Mass Effect 1 & 2 are both RPGs, it makes no difference if they allow you to shoot guns or swing swords.
For me the big thing about what is and isn't an rpg is if YOU are driving the plot the decisions you make how you interact with your party and other people will impact how the game plays out.

If you look at something like Batman: AA, you could almost say it's an RPG, but while there are many elements of an RPG (leveling system weapon unlocks etc) there is no party or real NPC interaction, the story is fixed you cannot determine the attitude or outlook of the character (batman) or how he will react to the people or situations around him. His entire character is predetermined and nothing you do will change his behaviours.
Its also why I have never considered Diablo to be an RPG, sure it has a story, deep skill customisation and gear out the wazoo but you have no say in how your character interacts with anything.

 

[SirDenim]

My personal definition of an RPG is a game in which a player's input directly affects story.

Through this sense I could argue that the first Final Fantasy isn't really an RPG. But Fire Emblem is. The difference between the two is that the path is layed before you for you to discover in Fianl Fantasy, whereas in Fire Emblem, you don't automatically recieve everything. You want that paladin? You convince the paladin to take up your cause.

The point I really want to make is the the term role playing game is just that. A term. A string of words used to define an idea.

off topic captcha: oresite or

 

[octafish]

Mass Effect had choices that actually effected the fate of the galaxy?

Don't remember that. I do remember however alot of pointless dialogue interspersed with random bipolar good/bad dialogue choices which had little to no effect on the game.

I prefer my RPGs number based and turnbased usually but the 3rd person action RPG has been done right and struck the perfect balance and it is not in a Mass Effect game but in Alpha Protocol. Real choices and consequences, an array of likeable and well developed characters and all the same mechanics as ME and a hell of alot more. Your builds in AP are actually important, where as ME you can just sail through picking things blindly.

Mass Effect really lacks choice in gameplay and dialogue/consequences and I think that is why it really isn't an RPG it's as someone has already said more close to a hybrid shooter than an RPG.

My younger brother is a massive FPS player and he recently bought ME2. This if you want to refer to it as such is his first RPG. This is how he plays it, he skips through dialogue and just plays/enjoys the shooting parts. Has it hindered him by rushing through, has he made the game harder for himself or effected the game drastically and the characters around him. Not at all. It's hard to believe ME2 is really an RPG when it can be blitzed through without a care for the world, plot or characters. I think RPGs should force you to think and well judging by my brothers playstyle it really doesn't.

Yeah, Alpha Protocol is a better RPG than either of the ME games. It is pretty impressive how much you can change the game with your choices. Plus it has skills that make a difference to your prowess which is a big part of an RPG to me. Shit some people think Diablo is an RPG so the definition is pretty fucking broad.

I prefered the characters and the interactions in ME to ME2. Wrex, Kaiden, Liara and Ashley were just as deep as any of the characters in ME2. Deeper than Jacob that is for sure. I'd argue that Ashley is still the most complex and well fleshed out character in the series but because she was a difficult character she got a lot of hate. The fanservice levels in ME2 were pretty frustrating. ME had the tight contoured but still utilitarian armour for all characters but ME2 just had tits, and some arse. Even Fem Shep had a boob job as part of her resurrection. Pathetic.

 

[Zhukov]

Honestly, I'm just sick of the whole debate.

Hell, it's not even a debate. Just a whole lot of people on the internet talking past one another using poorly defined terms.

Maybe we can start making some sense when we actually know exactly what constitutes a "RPG" and just why the fuck it matters.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

See, Mass Effect isn't an RPG to me. It's some kind of weird action game with lots of dialogue. To me, a game isn't a true RPG unless it's a turn-based number-fest, preferably without voice acting. Of course, I only think that because of the period I grew up in; the whole issue is very subjective.

Agreed entirely. The definition of what makes an RPG has mutated quite massively from what it was back in the 16bit days of gaming...

 

[ultrachicken]

Your definition of RPG, while technically correct, becomes useless if we accept that. I think a real RPG has a wide variety of ways to customize and play your character. Each encounter should have multiple options that drastically affect gameplay, and you should be able to tailor your character to suit these situations.

Since a lot of customization of a character's behavior comes from interactions with other characters, this means that a good RPG would include interesting NPCs to interact with, and possibly the ability to govern over how large events unfold (this depends on the player's role in the story, of course).

Basically, an RPG should allow for the player to complete the game multiple times and have entirely different experiences. This does not exclude action or pencil and paper styles of gameplay, so in my humble opinion, people claiming that "RPG x is not a true RPG because you don't have to meticulously plan your character growth" should shut up. Just because you prefer a more strategic RPG doesn't mean any games that don't suit that interest aren't RPGs.

 

[Braedan]

You're missing the point. It isn't just to define what the words Role, Playing, and Character mean. By stamping the genre RPG on a game it has a specific type of game play and rules that it brings to mind. In this case, Number crunching and stats. If you just throw that away because the words technically fit the game then why bother at all. Technically Mass Effect is a RTS because it's real time, and it involves strategy.

My biggest problem with what games like Mass Effect 2, and Dragon age 2 do, is not that they diminished their RPG aspects. It is that they started out as one thing and then morphed into another. Call DA2 something else than a equal if you aren't going to have it play quite close to the original. Call it Dragon Age: Kirkwall or something. By stamping a 2 on the end there are assumed similarities to the first game.

Mass Effect I didn't see as taking as much away as DA2, but I found the plot to be it's weakness. Regardless I enjoyed it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Yes, but in terms of raw gameplay (i.e. discounting story, characters, etc.), Mass Effect 2 falls much more in line with third-person cover-based shooters than it does with RPG's. The first one is much more an RPG with a heavy emphasis on shooting.

I know that the game should be taken as a whole, in which case it would be the "play a character" type RPG, but that just doesn't work very well because it's more abstract than categorizing it based on how it is played. So we're stuck with Mass Effect 2 as a shooter with some RPG elements.

What is the problem with this definition of the game? It seems to be a point of hot debate when it really isn't something worth debating. Bioware made a game that isn't a pure RPG in the gameplay sense, and yet this game retains its RPG "ness" in the story sense.

This.
I view an RPG as one of two things: 1. It give you freedom to approach combat and to build your character(s) in any way you want. Like Dark Souls. 2. It gives you the ability to interact with characters and gives you choices in the story. The Mass Effect series, while being good games, aren't really RPGs. I think that the dialogue wheel severely hampers the ability to RP. And the combat doesn't have that much flexibility, it is just a shooter.
Examples of games that do both: Dragon Age: Origins, Persona 4