Mass Effect 3 - Previews @ Joystiq, Eurogamer

A couple of E3 previews for Mass Effect 3. Joystiq says more shooter-y, which I've noted before:

We got to play through one short segment of the game, and while we didn't see a lot of the RPG elements in that part, it's safe to say that the combat is coming together to be some of the best the series has ever seen.

Click to expand...

...and Eurogamer says the same thing:

The story of Mass Effect is about more than Commander Shepard's race to save the galaxy from the threat of the Reapers. It's also about how BioWare's game has gone from an RPG with shooter elements to a third-person shooter with light RPG touches.

Click to expand...

More information.

The only justification I can see for the speculation that there will be less roleplaying elements is the fact that they have completely avoided showing any conversations with the exception of I think 3 short mid-combat exchanges. The press demo clarifies the earlier misapprehended statement about options having direct effects on gameplay.

The full demo shon to the press, and linked to below, does give a glimpse at the character customization options. The powers all have more levels and there are additional layers of customization. In addition to the power/ability slots there is the option of choosing sheperd's focus as being on combat mastery, influence+ability duration, or influence plus damage. Overall the character customization and gear customization is far more complicated than it was in 2.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/715589

These apply bonuses (quantified on the character screen they show) and affect conversation and paragon/renegade options. That is what they meant by wanting choices/skill points to have direct and quantifiable effects on gameplay. I think that was partly a reference to the middling ability levels you had in ME 1 where most of them only gave marginal bonuses to certain things and only every so often produced noticeable changes.

While I would like to see an actual example of player choice in a roleplaying/conversation sense I do understand them not showing any important dialogues so far. The player's ability to chose and influence the story is less impactful when it's spoiled.

Honestly, this whole 'oh it's just a shooter' thing is a crock. Either that, or I've horribly misjudged all those shooters and they're secretly chock full of compelling characters and story and character-based skills and complex world-building.

Yes you obviusly did.

Story and characters arent core elements only for the RPG genre and they never where because every game has that more or less complex, specialy in todays gaming when almost all games introduce some kind of RPG elements in them, like skills, character advancement (minor), basic pseudo choices and consequences, inventory and item managnement, NPC interractions, party NPCs, as you writed world-building or tactical combat.
Every todays game uses RPG elemnts in some degree, making the line betwen RPG and nonRPG bluring, hence you would be surpised how many ppls confuse genres in todays gaming when thay call for example Assassins Creed an RPG game … why ? because it hazz tha swordzz and some basic pseudo RPG like elements ?

Basicly if it wasnt BioWare who produces that game, who are known for producing only RPGs the game would be advertised as an TPP Shooter not an RPG, and none would give a damn about that. Hence put some basic dialog options into Tomb Raider or MGS4 and you have an RPG some could say.

The best and closes example for that, that comes into mind is an FPS S.T.AL.K.E.R. which even if has some RPG elements is still advertised and called FPS, and none didnt ever agrued about this game as being dumbed down RPG game.

And thats why RPG community is geting upset, because basicly every the most shallow game even Tettris can be called RPG, trashing the genre in every posible way. You can call it elitism but i gues that the arguments i presented are the reasons why the war exists in todays gaming. What is an RPG and what isnt RPG, what is the real definition for an RPG or i should write cRPG, it simply is getting harder and harder to define an real RPG game, specialy for those that are "young" in the genre

So instead of talking about that i gues its simply beter to enjoy a game for what it is nothing more nothing less

RPG elements story is so weak. I wonder how people associate certain elements as being exclusive to the RPG genre and therefore worthwhile identifying elements for a genre.

Somehow, it shows deep contempt for other genres as it deprives the other genres from evolving on their own.

Kind of basic guy so when a wheel is added to a bicycle, I dont see it a car element being added to a bicycle, but only a wheel to serve a purpose shared by cars and bicycles: rolling.

Yet, for many RPGers, a guy adding a wheel to a bicycle adds a car element as a wheel is an element of a car.

Shooters have a long history of being supported by stories. But stories come with different demands to extoll shooter experience than stories in RPGs that must be thought to extoll the RP experience.

Character customization is another smoke and mirror. Character customization must appear in RPG in order to better the RP experience. So the delivery might come slightly different in a RPG than it does in a shooter or a car racing game.

Character customization is no more an RPG element than it is a shooter element.
Shooters have included that element for long now. Even sequels to Space Invaders had character customization.

Players customizing their car in Gran Turismo do not do because of a so called RPG element.

And indeed, it gets harder to define the RPG genre when some people come with the flawed story that some elements identify the genre as a whole.

The same consequence will happen to any other sector as shown above: take the same approach for a car. Say that a wheel is not primarly a wheel but an element identifying cars, that people adding a wheel to a device are not adding a wheel but primarly a car element. Repeat for every single element in a car, how a CD device is not primarly a CD device but a car element, that people adding a CD device to a PC are not adding a CD device first but a car element, making the PC closer to a car and so on…

The approach itself is insane and has only valuable purpose: blurring the distinctions.

I think the wheel is actualy a very bad example, because bicycles where first not cars

Chronology of introduction does not matter in this regard.

The wheel serves a function that both cars and bicycles require.

I was merely playing an smartass

I got the point, preety good explanation/example i must say