Mass Effect 3 - Narratological Review @ RPG Codex

ChienAboyeur said:

Not playing the devil's advocate. The reverse.

Stated that some gamers will even go farther: they do not require appropriate mechanics to be implemented by developpers to call a game this or that. Imagining they play a game with the said mechanics is enough for them.

I do hold developpers and studios to far higher quality levels.

Click to expand...

Ah sorry then it was a communication error on my part.

ChienAboyeur said:

Developpers would take more risks by not applying the label RPG imo.

Click to expand...

The problem is genres are being mixed and it's hard to describe them. Also add to that that no one can really define what a rpg is. Everyone has a different opinion.

Couchpotato said:

The problem is genres are being mixed and it's hard to describe them. Also add to that that no one can really define what a rpg is. So many opinions on what makes an rpg.

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember back in the day when the biggest distinction you had to consider in terms of types of cRPG was Western or Japanese - which primarily meant a different priority between degree of choice/freedom and narrative. Now we have ARPG, SRPG, FPSRPG, MMORPG, MMOFPSRPG, SARPG, SARS, ORLYWTFRPG etc.

Not nescessarily a bad thing - particularly now with indie studios and younger European developers catering to tastes not sated by EA/Bioware and all.

Couchpotato said:

The problem is genres are being mixed and it's hard to describe them. Also add to that that no one can really define what a rpg is. Everyone has a different opinion.

Click to expand...

The RPG genre is defined. It is much more some players want to label RPGs games that are obviously not RPGs, stretching and inventing definitions to suit their conclusions.

This includes the project of delineating RPGs by the means that can be used in RPGs.
Excluding that another genre could include the same means to deliver in their own genre.
So if a game includes a customization system, inventory management and the rest, it pushes it into the RPG genre by those players.

The idea of mixed genre is denying the evolution to a genre.

Why should story not be part of a shooter as a means to intensify the shooter experience?
Customization of character? present for ages.
Customization of weaponry? present for ages.

The big difference for the shooter genre is that the genre demands were answered by the technological progress in the right order: it matters more for a shooter to developp the correct detection algorithms that allow proper head shots and cover works than investing resources into developing a story.

Bioware brought their expertise in story telling to the shooter genre, and had to try over three games before having their customization stuff properly done.

The bulk of technological knowledge to put up a decent shooter was already acquired.

jhwisner said:

Now we have ARPG, SRPG, FPSRPG, MMORPG, MMOFPSRPG, SARPG, SARS, ORLYWTFRPG etc.

Not nescessarily a bad thing - particularly now with indie studios and younger European developers catering to tastes not sated by EA/Bioware and all.

Click to expand...

Acronyms like FPSRPGs, based on ME3,is just a whim by some players. The only ounce of role play one could force into ME3 is through the pseudo alignment system.

Too thin to deserve anything like the RPG letters.

jhwisner said:

Yeah I remember back in the day when the biggest distinction you had to consider in terms of types of cRPG was Western or Japanese - which primarily meant a different priority between degree of choice/freedom and narrative. Now we have ARPG, SRPG, FPSRPG, MMORPG, MMOFPSRPG, SARPG, SARS, ORLYWTFRPG etc.

Not nescessarily a bad thing - particularly now with indie studios and younger European developers catering to tastes not sated by EA/Bioware and all.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember the old days also when a rpg was just labeled a rpg also. To many offshoot genres it's just like music. Metal was Metal and Rock was Rock now it has sub genres also.

ChienAboyeur said:

Those players are not only happy with playing that game under the label of RPG, but they demand it and will defend to the night's end that those games are indeed RPGs.

Click to expand...

LOL, to think this to the bitter end it would mean that hardcore, old school RPGs are not called "RPGs" by them -

- pretty much the way some of US refuse to call Blizzard's Action-RPGs "RPGs" at all !

Which in result would be the complete definition of the term "RPG" to be turned upside down.

Which, in fact, reminds me of one of Microsoft's favourite Strategies : "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"

What is being mbraced, extended & extinguished here is the "old school/hardcore definition" of the term "RPG".

First, it is e,braced by the shooter games faction.
Second, it is extended by shooter game elements.
Third, it is extinguished by removing almost all "oldschool/hardcore" elements whih define an RPG. Only non-oldschool and non-hardcore "definition elments" survive - and those embraced by the shooter faction/factions, of course.

ChienAboyeur said:

The RPG genre is defined. .

Click to expand...

If you think that, then you clearly haven't been around any discussions about what defines a RPG. I have never seen anyone come up with a definition of what make something a RPG that didn't either exclude many of the classic RPGs that defined the genre, or include many games that almost nobody would consider to be a RPG.

The definition of the RPG genre is nothing if not extremely nebulous.