So who else here is pre-ordering Mass Effect 3?

[irishScott]

This thread is even sillier than expected lol

And for what it's worth, I think a role playing game is about the 'role' you play. If you're invested in a story and care about what's happening and take up the mantle of your character; it's an RPG. I don't think there's one particular style of gameplay or use of game mechanics that are required. Any game can be an RPG.

So Freespace 2 is an RPG? Starcraft is an RPG? I got invested in those stories and took up the mantle of my character.

Gameplay in many ways does define a game, and IMO RPGs are not exempt from this.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I really enjoyed ME1, and am about 20 hours into ME2 and enjoying that one even more. But, considering I paid $5 for ME1, and $7 for ME2 Digital Deluxe, I think I'll wait. Besides, my backlog outside of ME2 is still pretty large. I'll probably free up some space by this summer.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

I think you're missing the point. Diablo is a hack n slash rpg. ME is a shooter rpg. True love is a love making hentai rpg. Maybe the Witcher also. Magicka is a spell casting rpg. I think of more examples of hentai rpg games and post later.

 

[irishScott]

I think you're missing the point. Diablo is a hack n slash rpg. ME is a shooter rpg. True love is a love making hentai rpg. Maybe the Witcher also. Magicka is a spell casting rpg. I think of more examples of hentai rpg games and post later.

And, continuing with that logic, Freespace 2 is a space combat RPG, Starcraft is a high-level strategy RPG, Plants vs Zombies is a homeowner-in-a-zombie-apocalypse RPG, Myst is a puzzle-solving RPG, and Microsoft Flight Simulator is a pilot-RPG, and Star Trek: Elite Force is a Star Trek RPG.

I'm just saying with such loose criteria anything can be an RPG and the genres that the industry has been based around since its inception are null and void. Gameplay can and often does effectively define a game's primary category. Yes there are games that mix it up, like Mass Effect, but Mass Effect's integral gameplay is straight out of a shooter and there are no other core ways to play the game. Likewise with System Shock 2, for another example.

Now you could make a solid argument that, say, Deus-Ex is an RPG as opposed to a shooter, because in Deus Ex there are multiple ways to play. I've seen "run-throughs" of the game that don't even require much shooting.

In my book an RPG, to be a technical RPG, has to offer multiple core ways of playing the game. Even in the Witcher 2 you can play entirely with signs or entirely with swords.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Actually no you can't, at least not like that, as I never referenced human interface. If you want to go that far then all PC games are Keyboard-Mousers with the occasional joysticker or controller..er and no genres as we know them exist. I don't go that far. I simply state that, at least in my mind, a game whose gameplay revolves around cover-based shooting to the point where said element is impossible to avoid regardless of any option chosen. is, gameplay-wise, primarily a shooter.

And what options have I ignored? I've played as all but one of the classes (engineer). Show me a playthrough on hardcore or insanity where the player never takes cover and shoots.

The RPG elements are every bit as unavoidable as the shooter bits. By the same rationale, the game is therefore primarily an RPG.

 

[irishScott]

The RPG elements are every bit as unavoidable as the shooter bits. By the same rationale, the game is therefore primarily an RPG.

Yes, but the RPG elements don't take up something like 75% of the gameplay. The shooter elements do.

 

[Anteaus]

Yes, but the RPG elements don't take up something like 75% of the gameplay. The shooter elements do.

Since it seems to be the topic of choice.

As defined by wiki:

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game[1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting."

or more specific to video games:

"Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre where the player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world"

Based on that definition Mass Effect is an RPG 100% of the time, with gameplay being subcategorized into multiple activities. No matter what your doing with your character (combat, running around, interacting with characters, etc), it is always an RPG first. This is the same for ME as well as Doom.

I understand that traditionally we tend to categorize games based on "how" the game is played, but that really has no bearing on what the game actually is. We call a game like this a "Action-RPG" because thats what it is: an RPG that has action elements in it (combat). We also describe it a third person shooter because that is technically how the action elements are played out. Here is the thing: If you change the game from TPS to FPS, the game itself is exactly the same...the only difference would be in the viewpoint. However, if you remove John Shepard (you/RPG) from the game, then the whole thing falls apart.

 

[darkewaffle]

So Freespace 2 is an RPG? Starcraft is an RPG? I got invested in those stories and took up the mantle of my character.

Gameplay in many ways does define a game, and IMO RPGs are not exempt from this.

Why not? I think HL2 is one of the finest RPGs around because I got so wrapped up in the mood and the story. It's a role playing game, not a "you have levels, stats, and an inventory" game; while traditional, those are supplementary, a residue of a time when immersion was aided by more clear-cut guidelines for your imagination because your character was just a 32x32 pixel model which didn't leave much room for detail or character. Now we have the privilege of actually being able to see and hear and discern such things without those blocky definitions.

 

[Red Storm]

Posting on Anandtech could also be an RPG...

Really guys, you know what people mean when they say RPG in gaming. Bringing up literal definitions and applying it to everything under the sun adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Dumac]

Why not? I think HL2 is one of the finest RPGs around because I got so wrapped up in the mood and the story. It's a role playing game, not a "you have levels, stats, and an inventory" game; while traditional, those are supplementary, a residue of a time when immersion was aided by more clear-cut guidelines for your imagination because your character was just a 32x32 pixel model which didn't leave much room for detail or character. Now we have the privilege of actually being able to see and hear and discern such things without those blocky definitions.

That isn't what the RPG genre is and you know it. Your definition would be dumb and meaningless, as practically every genre would be an "RPG".

 

[Anteaus]

Posting on Anandtech could also be an RPG...

Really guys, you know what people mean when they say RPG in gaming. Bringing up literal definitions and applying it to everything under the sun adds nothing to the discussion.

No because it has to be a fictional character......

I agree with you, yet we have post after post of people trying to pidgeon hole ME into one category or another. Literal definitions are required when people can't decide which non-literal definitions apply.

On one hand we have the Mass Effect fans, who don't really care how you categorize it.

On the other hand we have the Mass Effect haters who somehow try to reduce ME by saying it does or doesn't fit into some predetermined mold and therefore must suck because of it, whether it be because it isn't shooter enough or it isn't RPG enough.

Last we have the people who really could care less, but hate EA so bad that they must crap all over ME3 just because it happens to be released tethered to the demon child named Origin.

 

[irishScott]

No because it has to be a fictional character......

I agree with you, yet we have post after post of people trying to pidgeon hole ME into one category or another. Literal definitions are required when people can't decide which non-literal definitions apply.

On one hand we have the Mass Effect fans, who don't really care how you categorize it.

On the other hand we have the Mass Effect haters who somehow try to reduce ME by saying it does or doesn't fit into some predetermined mold and therefore must suck because of it, whether it be because it isn't shooter enough or it isn't RPG enough.

Last we have the people who really could care less, but hate EA so bad that they must crap all over ME3 just because it happens to be released tethered to the demon child named Origin.

For the record, I have no issue with Mass Effect and am very much a fan. It's a TPS-RPG hybrid however you slice it, and the whole game revolves around the story. I'm just sick of people criticizing it for not being RPG-enough for them and my primary response is that it was essentially a shooter to start with, and that their criticism of it moving more towards its roots is misplaced.

 

[Red Storm]

For the record, I have no issue with Mass Effect and am very much a fan. It's a TPS-RPG hybrid however you slice it, and the whole game revolves around the story. I'm just sick of people criticizing it for not being RPG-enough for them and my primary response is that it was essentially a shooter to start with, and that their criticism of it moving more towards its roots is misplaced.

I like RPGs more than shooters, however I knew what to expect from ME1 going in, and I really enjoyed it. I think it's more than fair to be upset over the changes from game to game (ie I didn't like ME2 at all compared to the first).

 

[irishScott]

I like RPGs more than shooters, however I knew what to expect from ME1 going in, and I really enjoyed it. I think it's more than fair to be upset over the changes from game to game (ie I didn't like ME2 at all compared to the first).

It is fair, and if people are upset for rational reasons I don't care. If you liked the RPG elements in ME1 and despise ME2 for taking away your favorite part(s) of the game, then so be it.

However, the criticism goes too far more often that not. People accuse Bioware of "dumbing it down for the CoD crowd" and you get people angry enough to spend time photoshopping xbox controllers (see previous page). More than a few critics of ME2 make it out like Bioware committed some great betrayal of society by making Mass Effect more of a straight-up shooter, and that they just dumbed it down for the ADD console-tards. Bioware's affiliation with EA and all that implies probably exacerbates this view.

That's simply irrational. If you look at ME2, it's not perfect, but as a cover-based shooter the gameplay is extremely solid. There are still plenty of tactical options, just as there were in ME1, and it is hardly "dumbed down". Now if you don't enjoy cover-based shooters then that's that, but from a technical standpoint it's as well done as the first, better in many ways. Just because something's simpler doesn't mean it's "dumbed down".

Plus, as I've stated, Mass Effect had its roots in shooters, at least gameplay-wise. So I'd say judging it based solely on its merits as an RPG would lead to an inaccurate judgement of the game as a whole. Unfortunately a lot of players did exactly that, and when bioware turned their TPS-RPG hybrid into a TPS>RPG hybrid that wasn't what they expected, and they saw it as a perversion of an RPG, as opposed to the refinement of a shooter.

 

[darkewaffle]

That isn't what the RPG genre is and you know it. Your definition would be dumb and meaningless, as practically every genre would be an "RPG".

Practically every genre can be an RPG, or if it's more palatable to you, provide an RPG experience. Whether or not you have levels and stat points is mostly flavor; it serves to provide a micro-experience that some people enjoy (and just as often simply to drum up the "RPG" crowd), but the game could be designed without them and still provide much of the same story, immersion and enjoyment.

Take the [player-driven] levelling, stats, and items out of Dragon Age and you still have a compelling story and game, albeit shallower; but take the emotion and writing out and all you've got are a series of meaningless encounters. Far as I'm concerned one is of much greater consequence than the other.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Practically every genre can be an RPG, or if it's more palatable to you, provide an RPG experience. Whether or not you have levels and stat points is mostly flavor; it serves to provide a micro-experience that some people enjoy (and just as often simply to drum up the "RPG" crowd), but the game could be designed without them and still provide much of the same story, immersion and enjoyment.

Take the [player-driven] levelling, stats, and items out of Dragon Age and you still have a compelling story and game, albeit shallower; but take the emotion and writing out and all you've got are a series of meaningless encounters. Far as I'm concerned one is of much greater consequence than the other.

I think you're missing the point. Under that definition, the genre is so broad as to encompass all games. It loses any descriptive value, and thus ceases to be a genre at all - just an empty, useless label.

The term is tied to the mechanics because it has historical significance and it gives you some idea what to expect from a game in the genre. And giving you some idea of what to expect is entirely the point of genres to begin with.

However, the criticism goes too far more often that not. People accuse Bioware of "dumbing it down for the CoD crowd" and you get people angry enough to spend time photoshopping xbox controllers (see previous page). More than a few critics of ME2 make it out like Bioware committed some great betrayal of society by making Mass Effect more of a straight-up shooter, and that they just dumbed it down for the ADD console-tards. Bioware's affiliation with EA and all that implies probably exacerbates this view.

AFAIK, the one-button X-Box controller thing isn't about simplifying the game per se, but rather a single, very poor UI decision in the multi-player.

 

[Via]

RPG means you're developing a character in your own way. The easiest way to accomplish that is stats, levels, and abilities.

If you're not doing that it's not a RPG, no matter how immersive.

You don't "develop" Gordon Freeman.

 

[Dumac]

Practically every genre can be an RPG, or if it's more palatable to you, provide an RPG experience. Whether or not you have levels and stat points is mostly flavor; it serves to provide a micro-experience that some people enjoy (and just as often simply to drum up the "RPG" crowd), but the game could be designed without them and still provide much of the same story, immersion and enjoyment.

Take the [player-driven] levelling, stats, and items out of Dragon Age and you still have a compelling story and game, albeit shallower; but take the emotion and writing out and all you've got are a series of meaningless encounters. Far as I'm concerned one is of much greater consequence than the other.

You are missing the point. If every genre can be an RPG, then what is the point of having an RPG genre descriptor? It is meaningless.

Also your example is flawed. If you took out the RPG elements from DA:O, you could be left with a good game, but it wouldn't be an RPG.

If you took out the quality of writing and characters and story, you would still have an RPG (depending on the degree of removal), it would just be a bad one, similar to the very beginnings of the genre.

Sure, having a good game at all is better than having a bad RPG, but that isn't relevant to the argument at hand.

I think you're missing the point. Under that definition, the genre is so broad as to encompass all games. It loses any descriptive value, and thus ceases to be a genre at all - just an empty, useless label.

The term is tied to the mechanics because it has historical significance and it gives you some idea what to expect from a game in the genre. And giving you some idea of what to expect is entirely the point of genres to begin with.

You probably said it better

 

[frozentundra123456]

Here is another take. I guess an RPG comes down to me to building your character. For instance in Skyrim, your character starts out relatively weak, but can become extremely powerful by the end of the game, and in several different areas depending on how you distribute your points. You can use two handed, magic, archery, sword and shield, crafting, alchemy, etc. to build up your character.


In Mass Effect, on the other hand, I didnt feel that same building up of the character as the story progressed. Yes, you could use better ammo, or more powers, or different weapons, but the battles still pretty much came down to the same thing at the start or end of the game: cover based shooting. So in this regard, I would consider ME more of a shooter than an RPG. I really enjoy the game because it has (so far) a great story and hopefully an epic ending, so I dont really care that much what kind of game it is really.

 

[Anteaus]

It's not a broad definition. There are plenty of games in which the term RPG, or a game in which the "player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world" does not apply.

Flight simulators, most strategy games, city building games, fighting games (SF, MK, etc.), music games, virtually all arcade style games. There are plenty of games in the market today that aren't RPGs.

I think the difference is that RPGs form a larger percentage of games today than have historically. Most of the games I had for my earlier game consoles were pure action games with the occasional RPG. Today, most of the AAA titles are RPGs, so we tend to try and come up with additional classifications to help tell them apart, but ultimately they all are basically the same. You play as a specific fictional character, going through a series of character building opportunites which ultimately culminates at a final encounter of some type. It's not enough to have a backdrop as a setting. Mass Effect includes a fully realized "world".

I think think when many people here RPG they think of Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy and not Duex Ex and Mass Effect, but that is social convention. They are all RPGs regardless of how you see them.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It's not a broad definition. There are plenty of games in which the term RPG, or a game in which the "player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world" does not apply.

Flight simulators, most strategy games, city building games, fighting games (SF, MK, etc.), music games, virtually all arcade style games. There are plenty of games in the market today that aren't RPGs.

I think the difference is that RPGs form a larger percentage of games today than have historically. Most of the games I had for my earlier game consoles were pure action games with the occasional RPG. Today, most of the AAA titles are RPGs, so we tend to try and come up with additional classifications to help tell them apart, but ultimately they all are basically the same. You play as a specific fictional character, going through a series of character building opportunites which ultimately culminates at a final encounter of some type. It's not enough to have a backdrop as a setting. Mass Effect includes a fully realized "world".

I think think when many people here RPG they think of Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy and not Duex Ex and Mass Effect, but that is social convention. They are all RPGs regardless of how you see them.

I would have to disagree with you about most AAA titles being RPGs even in the most broad sense.

I just looked up the top 5 games of 2011 (based on total sales over all platforms). They are MW3, FIFA 12, BF3,Zumba Fitness (???), and Skyrim. Out of those, only Skyrim could be considered an RPG, unless you are really stretching the definiton. The next 5 were Just Dance, AC-Revelations, LA Noire, Saints Row, and Batman AC. Granted, 3 out of these 5 are RPG type games, but shooters still tend to dominate the top 5.

 

[Dumac]

It's not a broad definition. There are plenty of games in which the term RPG, or a game in which the "player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world" does not apply.

Flight simulators, most strategy games, city building games, fighting games (SF, MK, etc.), music games, virtually all arcade style games. There are plenty of games in the market today that aren't RPGs.

I think the difference is that RPGs form a larger percentage of games today than have historically. Most of the games I had for my earlier game consoles were pure action games with the occasional RPG. Today, most of the AAA titles are RPGs, so we tend to try and come up with additional classifications to help tell them apart, but ultimately they all are basically the same. You play as a specific fictional character, going through a series of character building opportunites which ultimately culminates at a final encounter of some type. It's not enough to have a backdrop as a setting. Mass Effect includes a fully realized "world".

I think think when many people here RPG they think of Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy and not Duex Ex and Mass Effect, but that is social convention. They are all RPGs regardless of how you see them.

So you are basically saying that a game with a story where you play the protagonist is an RPG? That is such a useless definition that doesn't help anything, and is not the popular or functional meaning of the term RPG. If RPG meant what you think it means, there would be no reason for the term to exist, since it doesn't actually describe anything. It could just replaced by "story driven". The RPG genre has more connotations than simply "player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world"

 

[Anteaus]

So you are basically saying that a game with a story where you play the protagonist is an RPG? That is such a useless definition that doesn't help anything, and is not the popular or functional meaning of the term RPG. If RPG meant what you think it means, there would be no reason for the term to exist, since it doesn't actually describe anything. It could just replaced by "story driven". The RPG genre has more connotations than simply "player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world"

Role = A character assigned or assumed

Playing = to engage or take part in a game

Game = activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

I'm not going to argue symantics. It's quite a simple concept. You play the role of a particular characting living in an immersive world. Playing the protagonist isn't enough. Do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game

 

[Anteaus]

I would have to disagree with you about most AAA titles being RPGs even in the most broad sense.

I just looked up the top 5 games of 2011 (based on total sales over all platforms). They are MW3, FIFA 12, BF3,Zumba Fitness (???), and Skyrim. Out of those, only Skyrim could be considered an RPG, unless you are really stretching the definiton. The next 5 were Just Dance, AC-Revelations, LA Noire, Saints Row, and Batman AC. Granted, 3 out of these 5 are RPG type games, but shooters still tend to dominate the top 5.

Fair rebute. I just meant that a larger percentage of games being produced today are RPGs when compared to the 90s. Your right.

 

[irishScott]

Role = A character assigned or assumed

Playing = to engage or take part in a game

Game = activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

I'm not going to argue symantics. It's quite a simple concept. You play the role of a particular characting living in an immersive world. Playing the protagonist isn't enough. Do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game

So space invaders and pacman are RPGs? After all you're playing a game while inhabiting a role, albeit an underdeveloped one.