Mass Effect

[gavin19]

But thanks to that stupid combat system it plays like every other generic third person shooter on the system. It's really amazing how many games are marketed (is that the correct word?) as RPGs, when they are basically action games with a few traditional RPG elements. Too Human would be another example. Although i like that one. ^^

Yeah, it just didn't feel like an RPG to me for some reason. Too much action, not enough RPG'ing. Still a decent game but not really what it led me to believe it would be.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's better than Jade Empire though isn't it

[Diabollokus]

I'm doing a second run through this game on hardcore, really enjoyable second time round even finished some of the citadel quests I'd forgotten to finish like finding all keepers. Downloaded bring down the sky, not really anything special unfortunately.

[kengou]

I got this for PC, I usually love Bioware, KOTOR is one of my favorite RPGs ever, and Mass Effect got great reviews so I figured I'd love it.

Apparently all the reviews forgot to mention that THIS IS NOT AN RPG AT ALL! IT IS A THIRD-PERSON SHOOTER! Anyone who says differently has to be lying or something. This is Gears of War (a boring game to say the least) with tacked-on stat building, slightly more complicated weapons and inventory system, and a storyline/setting that blatantly copies KOTOR but without the Star Wars license. I tried really hard to like this game. I actually enjoyed the shooting for the first hour before it got excruciatingly boring and repetitive and I realized that the entire game is shooting. I played the side quests more than the main story because the main story missions are too long and boring. I even got to the very final planet, through the "conduit" thing, close to beating the game, but I just could not bring myself to keep playing. This game is bad. I'm sorry, Bioware. This game is an absolute regression on everything I liked about KOTOR. KOTOR 2 was better than this and it was sub-par in many ways.

I really don't like Mass Effect. Play it only if you love Gears of War because it's practically the same game.

[bay]

THIS IS NOT AN RPG AT ALL! IT IS A THIRD-PERSON SHOOTER!

break it down

role
playing
game

a game in which you are playing the role of a character.

this usually means you are invested in the character and you progress and build the character throughout playing the game.

role playing game does not mean anything about the overall gameplay. just because the fighting system is more of first person shooter (or rather 3rd person shooter) doesn't effect that the game is a RPG.

"stat building" especially since you choose where to grow your character (your role) and the gameplay/story is effected by those choices, is definitely a pillar RPG element.

i'd be interested in an RPG with some shmupping action to progress the story of the characters.

[robivy64]

i'd be interested in an RPG with some shmupping action to progress the story of the characters.

SeGaGaGa*

*learn japanese before playing

[Strider77]

not everything has to be pencil and paper or tradition JRPG..... thank god. something refreshing and not a button click experience, especially during text.

plus we didn't have to do a bunch of pointless tasks for 6 to 10 hours before we get to leave a village and get the story moving along. this game reminded me alot of star control 2.

[kengou]

THIS IS NOT AN RPG AT ALL! IT IS A THIRD-PERSON SHOOTER!

break it down

role
playing
game

a game in which you are playing the role of a character.

this usually means you are invested in the character and you progress and build the character throughout playing the game.

role playing game does not mean anything about the overall gameplay. just because the fighting system is more of first person shooter (or rather 3rd person shooter) doesn't effect that the game is a RPG.

"stat building" especially since you choose where to grow your character (your role) and the gameplay/story is effected by those choices, is definitely a pillar RPG element.

i'd be interested in an RPG with some shmupping action to progress the story of the characters.

That definition is just too vague, though. Most games include "playing a role", so you can't count that as part of the definition of RPG. By your definition, basically any game that has stat building is an RPG, and that certainly isn't true (in my opinion at least). God of War had "stat" building to some extent, it's not an RPG. Deus Ex has stat building and abilities, and most people classify it as an FPS with RPG elements. I certainly don't call it a straight RPG. I can name a number of roguelike games that have stat building but aren't RPGs. Even Metal Gear Solid 2 had stat building (you can do pullups to increase your strength) and I don't think anybody could call it an RPG.

RPG, as a genre of gaming, has a certain style of gameplay that makes it distinct. Mass Effect does not have that style of gameplay. It is based around shooting and cover. I can give some leeway to RPGs with nontraditional combat or gameplay, but Mass Effect is way too different from a traditional RPG to even be in the same genre. It plays more like Gears of War than KOTOR or Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger.

Mass Effect is a third-person shooter, with RPG elements. That's the most accurate classification I can give it.

[bay]

That definition is just too vague, though.

i agree it's vague, and that is somewhat the point of the argument. as you've pointed out by stating this:

I can give some leeway to RPGs with nontraditional combat or gameplay, but Mass Effect is way too different from a traditional RPG to even be in the same genre. It plays more like Gears of War than KOTOR or Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger.

your definition for what makes an RPG is based on what has been traditionally done in the past. just because game design doesn't follow the normal or traditional does not mean it doesn't fit nor deserve to be included in a classification.

this is not to say that a classification is really needed to justify a game and how enjoyable it is.

Most games include "playing a role", so you can't count that as part of the definition of RPG.

you most definately can include it, it is a requirement of an RPG. a "role" isn't that of just being something on the screen. pacman isn't a role, you don't get deep enough into the thought and understanding of that character to really adopt the role as your own. you may be controlling the on screen sprite, but you aren't controlling the "role", the decision making behind the movement. a truly effective RPG should be one in which you are absorbed into the role of the character so much that it is your own true role. most modern video games don't approach what a table top RPG accomplished before computers became mainstream.

rpg elements:

1) aware of your character (your role) or characters
2) playing through the game effects your character
3) adjustments/changes to the character are controlled by the player
4) the player acts and makes decisions based on the role
5) the story revolves around the character(s)
6) statistics can be part of this, yet alone is debatable (as you've mentioned)

i've not played deus ex, but i have heard of it as an RPG. god of war has been classified as an action game. i'm not sure of how stats are handled in either of these games, so i can't make any comparisons.

RPG, as a genre of gaming, has a certain style of gameplay that makes it distinct.

it has the above elements that encompass the genre, there is no defined style of a game that makes it RPG. as mentioned above, there are traditional JRPGs and the like that rehash the same gameplay as the last game. this by no means indicates there is only 1 or 2 ways to make an RPG.

Mass Effect does not have that style of gameplay. It is based around shooting and cover.

perhaps this is where the disconnect is for you. the shooting and cover gameplay are vehicles to propel the story forward. they are not what makes it an RPG. the RPG is from core elements, not from 3rd person, 1st person, grid based strategy, text scrolling on screens, etc.

in mass effect you adopt a role of a commander, you choose their decisions through conversation and actions becoming either a paragon or a renegade, you have the choice to be charming or to be abrasive. as you gain experience for your interactions in the world, you can attribute your gains through points applied to different abilities which in turn can unlock new abilities (complex stat building), the game changes as you veer towards paragon and renegade, along with game play options not being available to you until you have gained enough experience to allocate your knowledge in certain abilities.

note i do not mention anything about inventory systems or money, since this isn't an RPG requirement, just perhaps a traditional inclusion for most RPGs. having a gun means nothing to an RPG nor does a sword. and RPG is not defined by what the character does, but rather who the character is and why they do it.

Mass Effect is an RPG, with a third-person shooter game mode.

fixed.

[kengou]

bay: I have to continue to disagree. Genres exist to classify things based on previous works. RPG, the genre, includes games such as Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, KOTOR, Fallout, etc. A genre as a classification of games have pretty strict requirements. Here's are some counter-examples:

I could potentially argue that Freespace 2 is a first-person shooter. It takes place from the first person, and you shoot things, right? Well, that's not true, because the game is a Space Sim. Similarly, you might call Diablo a real-time strategy game. It plays in real time, it involves strategy, right? No, because it's an action/adventure game. Half-Life involves incredible immersion into the character's role, such that the player IS the character (the game is played entirely from the character's perspective, control is always in the player's hands, it certainly has "role playing" in terms of "playing a role"), so does that make it an RPG? Of course not, it's an FPS. Maybe Gears of War is a "shoot-em-up"? It has shooting, right? Of course not, we use "shoot-em-up" to define the genre of games we enjoy here at this forum. Gears is a third-person shooter.

Genres classify a style of GAMEPLAY. When you hear "RPG" you expect turn-based battles of some sort, stat building, a detailed/long story, usually multiple-character parties, side-quests...etc., etc. All sorts of things are indicative of the RPG genre of games. At its core, though, in my opinion, the RPG genre is distinct for placing story and character development/stat building at the core of gameplay, with the rest of the game revolving around those elements in some way. In my opinion, the GAMEPLAY of Mass Effect is far more concerned with the shooting aspect. If you have poor reflexes you might lose no matter how good your character is. You need to be skilled at shooters to be skilled at Mass Effect. I haven't really seen any other RPG that has that (maybe Oblivion but that's definitely borderline as well, I'd consider it an adventure game before an RPG personally). Which means Mass Effect is NOT an RPG. The stat building itself is pretty simple compared to many other RPGs, and the conversation/story aspect seems really overrated as well, but I suppose that's not entirely relevant to this argument.

this is not to say that a classification is really needed to justify a game and how enjoyable it is.

This I agree on. I'm simply saying that if you play Mass Effect for an RPG experience similar to KOTOR or Bioware's other efforts, expect to be in for a surprise and probably disappointment. And if you dislike Gears of War, I seriously doubt you'll like Mass Effect. The gameplay is very much the same (sitting behind cover and shooting, i.e. boring).

[Strider77]

why don't we just call it an action RPG then like Ys and Zelda.....

star control 2 had battles that were arena shooters, what you not call it an RPG, action RPG, shooter RPG?

[kengou]

Zelda's not an RPG at all, it's an adventure game.

Never played star control 2, can't comment on that.

[Ed Oscuro]

I plya the gordon freeman, aka silent hero

I am playing a role more accurately in that game than in your average "run through invisible gates to trigger stupid stuff your character says which you would murder them for" jRPG

just a thought

[Strider77]

whatever..... the term action RPG had been around for a long time and Zelda has been called that by alot. Ys certainly fits that to.

evrything about zelda is like an RPG other than having to click a menu to make him swing a sword ect.

but honestly does it even matter.

[Ed Oscuro]

but honestly does it even matter.

let's all get high

it's certainly better than arguing videogame genre classification

[bay]

bay: I have to continue to disagree.

as is your right i'm just presenting the argument and the basics of why this would be called (and has been marketed such) as a RPG.

as strider says, action rpg would fit this game pretty well.

i disagree that you need turn based combat in an RPG, along with several other of your "strict" requirements, which i feel just don't need to exist to make a RPG.

i don't really want to argue till the tide comes in over what a game's genre is, but most games exhibit several known genres, at least the ones that manage to keep my attention do.

In my opinion, the GAMEPLAY of Mass Effect is far more concerned with the shooting aspect.

this is what it really comes down to, your opinion. taking my gameplay of mass effect thusfar i've only went about "shooting" things for maybe a quarter of the time, the rest i've been walking around citadel, going on side quests with my party, expanding their stories, bulding my characters statistics, making myself more of a paragon, opening up more conversation choices by choosing to grow my character in charm and intimidation, etc. the amount of time i've spent on "shooting" things has been minimal, and thus it has only served my gameplaying sessions as a vehicle to progress the storyline and open up more sidequests and opportunities to gain experience and grow my characters.

If you have poor reflexes you might lose no matter how good your character is. You need to be skilled at shooters to be skilled at Mass Effect.

my opinion on this is no, you don't. the games 3rd person shooting scenes are so dumb downed (im on normal difficulty) that all you need to do is hide behind an object, wait for the enemy to reload or charge you, and unload your clip into them. when they stop coming, you go foward to another piece of cover, and do it all gin. it's not at all a challenge in any right.

the rover scenes are even simplier, you come upon the enemy, you shoot, wait for a missle, move the rover about 1 inch on the screen, shoot, etc.

mass effect requires no real need of 3rd person shooter skills at all i can see, and this is probably why i've found it at all enjoyable.

this is not to say that a classification is really needed to justify a game and how enjoyable it is.

This I agree on. I'm simply saying that if you play Mass Effect for an RPG experience similar to KOTOR or Bioware's other efforts, expect to be in for a surprise and probably disappointment.

this summation is spot on. i had someone say that to me today "oh it's not like KOTOR?" when i said no they showed more interest in the game. funny.

[kengou]

If you have poor reflexes you might lose no matter how good your character is. You need to be skilled at shooters to be skilled at Mass Effect.

my opinion on this is no, you don't. the games 3rd person shooting scenes are so dumb downed (im on normal difficulty) that all you need to do is hide behind an object, wait for the enemy to reload or charge you, and unload your clip into them. when they stop coming, you go foward to another piece of cover, and do it all gin. it's not at all a challenge in any right.

the rover scenes are even simplier, you come upon the enemy, you shoot, wait for a missle, move the rover about 1 inch on the screen, shoot, etc.

mass effect requires no real need of 3rd person shooter skills at all i can see, and this is probably why i've found it at all enjoyable.

There's many battles where the enemies will rush you and you need to react quickly to survive. The part near the beginning, where you rescue the blue chick from the archeological site, and get attacked in an arena-like area by a bunch of Geth, that requires a ton of reflexes to survive. I died a lot trying to beat that part. However, I do agree with your assessment for many other parts of the game. The difficulty curve jumps all over the place in weird ways. Most of the time, yes, you just sit behind cover, popping out to shoot at enemies until they die. Or in the Mako, just driving around shooting at enemies until they die. Most of the combat is mind-numbingly boring. If the shooting itself was actually NOT so dumbed down and boring most of the time, I might be able to tolerate the game AS a third-person shooting game (I certainly don't hate that genre), but as it stands, the game offers sub-par shooting gameplay alongside sub-par role playing gameplay, with some spikes of good gameplay and challenge on both sides throughout the game. Just not enough for me to enjoy the game as a whole.

As I said, I wanted to like this game, I spent $50 on the damn thing after all. I just couldn't force myself to finish it after slogging through most of the game.

[No_not_like_Quake]

I just drive past everything in those Mako parts. I have no desire to stay in that glorified SUV any longer than necessary.

[Strider77]

hate for the sake of hate=haters

[bay]

where you rescue the blue chick from the archeological site, and get attacked in an arena-like area by a bunch of Geth, that requires a ton of reflexes to survive.

this may have been the first somewhat challenge, but the only challenge was finding the proper cover and making a brake for it. after dying once, immediately after conversation ends you bring up your abilities and use the force (whatever it is) to throw some opponents back. you then run for cover and do the same shoot, hide, rinse, repeat.

i hadn't died since that battle until i was on feros on the 2nd/3rd level of species 87, and even then it was a stupid death where my player got caught on a corner while running for (you guessed it) cover.

but as it stands, the game offers sub-par shooting gameplay alongside sub-par role playing gameplay, with some spikes of good gameplay and challenge on both sides throughout the game. Just not enough for me to enjoy the game as a whole.

i agree on the shooting gameplay, but i feel the rest of the game is solid for what it's trying to do and who it is trying to cater to. this isn't a game for the traditionalist RPG player. i don't think they targeted these players in the first place.

As I said, I wanted to like this game, I spent $50 on the damn thing after all. I just couldn't force myself to finish it after slogging through most of the game.

that's a shame. i'd say try to finish it at least. usually when i stop playing something for awhile i come back to it and it's refreshing. for example, i have yet to actually finish FFXII and i'm at most 2 hours left. it was just getting so mundane i stopped playing and was pulled in by another game.

[MR_Soren]

i'd be interested in an RPG with some shmupping action to progress the story of the characters.

Sigma Star Saga?

[Strider77]

sigma was dumb to me, but that's me

star control 2 was one of my fav rpg's. but I'm a sucker for a space opera.