I'm not so sure that "true role-playing possibilities" fits for any non-pen and paper game. Ultimately, you're still forced down a path, just a less linear one. You can explore, but you have artificial boundaries. Your character never truly reacts the way you want him to, rather settling on the way that is closest to the way you want him to.

So, no, Mass Effect 2, nor any other game before it, has not ruined RPGs. Reviewers making inane comparisons have ruined RPGs.

Guillaume, while it may be true that RPGs on consoles and computers can never offer the possibilities of pen and paper, some of us have only played the video game variety. I can only compare one CRPG to another, but you of course are welcome to discount my comparison by making another.

Mass Effect 2 takes away all of the junk that gets in the way of true role playing (and when I say "true role playing" I mean sitting at a table with friends telling stories) and focuses on the important part--character development, quick and streamlined combat and amazing narrative.

I'd say that Mass Effect 2, in many ways, purified the RPG.  It took players back to what was supposed to be most important and away from the disgusting focus on gear and stats that has become the norm.  When we sit around to play pen and paper RPGs the rules become flexible, the combat is fluid and the narrative is at the core.  We don't spend an hour of our play session switching out gear.

In general, console RPGs have not been defined by western style RPGs in the first place--they've been defined by franchises like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest. So, if you compare Final Fantasy IV to Mass Effect 2, I think you'll find that Mass Effect 2 has a far more open ended narrative and far more freedom of character development than many JRPGs.

Mass Effect 2 also tells a story with less info dumping than most JRPG fare (White Knight Chronicles, I'm looking at your sorry ass) and far more actual player interaction.  It also handles quest resolution far more like you would in a pen and paper RPG--you are rewarded when you've resolved your current scenario and not in the middle of it.

To your original question--is it ruining RPGs?  Obviously not. Resounding "NO".  The fact that you're talking about Dragon Age as something you look forward to is proof of that. We've had a Dragon Age expansion since Mass Effect 2 came out. It was made by the same company.  Even Bioware (the makers of your Armageddon machine) hasn't abandoned traditional RPGs so I'm not sure why you're writing about the sky falling.

Especially since your biggest worry seems to be a world where we can't label things as easily.

@Steven: "It took players [...] away from the disgusting focus on gear and stats that has become the norm."

So what about all the suckers like me that actually enjoy that stuff? Half the reason I play RPGs is because of that which you call "disgusting." Oblivion would be dull as hell without the ability to develop your character so extensively, and the hundreds of dungeons would be completely pointless if there wasn't the chance of getting an awesome enchanted weapon at the end of it. I wouldn't have played Enchanted Arms if it wasn't for the golems that I could shape to fit my party, and I'm afraid World of Warcraft would be absolutely nothing without its skill trees and raid drops.

It seems to me like you're suggesting RPG fundamentals are "wrong," and that they should be cast aside,  precisely in line with what the original author wrote about. Without these fundamentals, they wouldn't be RPGs, they would be action adventures, which kind of ties back to his point.

If you take out the guns and the enemies, would you have a "purified" FPS? Would Guitar Hero be half as popular if gamers were forced to listen to just the ambience of their room? No.

I don't really think Mass Effect 2 has ruined the future of RPGs in so much as it may have changed the expectations we have for them. Will we now want all RPGs to be so streamlined? Will clunky RPGs like Dragon Age or Fallout be judged unfairly because they aren't as slick as Mass Effect 2?

And why was the original Mass Effect so bad? As a gamer, as someone who spends an incredible amount of money on games each year, all I really wanted was a continuation of the game, less or no texture popping, and maybe some new mini-games. I definitely didn't want all of the CRPG stuff replaced by what you'd more likely find in an action game.

It's sad that I'm more excited about Alpha Protocol than Mass Effect 2 and that's because Alpha Protocol has the promise to give ME what I want out of an RPG.

I'm a huge fan of "old school, clunky" RPGs. I haven't finished Mass Effect 2, so I can't give it a full appraisal, but I don't care for the shooter mechanics very much. And I wouldn't consider Icewind Dale to be anything like a Diablo. The entire Infinity Engine set runs off the same combat engine -- either they're all more action-oriented like Diablo, or they are not. The options available allow you to run those games like a turn-based RPG should you wish.

The thing I worry about with RPGs like Mass Effect 2 is this desire to appeal to all gamers by taking traditional RPG mechanics and adding something else that just happens to be popular at the time (in this case, the shooter). I pine for the days of the six-character party, of having control over each character, of micromanaging combat as much as I want...and I'm afraid those days are disappearing.

@Sandy

The inclusion of gear and stats is completely different than the focus on it.

In fact, one of the prime signs you're in a bad D&D group is when people want to reroll all of their starting stats because they aren't powerful enough.  It's a sign that you're in for a gear and stat fest, which is rarely the fun part of role playing.

To talk about what the fundamentals of RPGs are and getting them completely wrong is a shame.  It's an example of how trying to commodify the experience of role playing into a single player experience is, by default, going to create a totally skewed world without the ebb and flow of a true RPG experience.

It's something, thankfully, that Bioware has managed to get closer to--but will likely never perfect.

I'm sure it sprung from a time when gear and stats were the easiest things to turn into a commodity and code (whereas player interaction and flexibility were not) so people who grew up insulated by single player RPGs got a different notion of what they are.

It's not the stat management that makes an RPG but the character development. Stats are an important reward in many cases, but the actual focus was on telling a story in which the character was very much "of" the player, whereas in many situtations you're forced to take on the blind role of "the other" and engage their ego, id and superego.

Bioware still doesn't quite have it down, certainly, but they've gotten things to a much purer form.  And, for those obsessed with stats, there's still plenty of stuff out there that focuses on gear and grind. I promise.

A shallow Gears of War clone being touted as the "future of RPGs" with an overdone focus on TPS combat, even above the plot and characters?

Id at the very least say its done them no good. Thankfully the sales dont look quite as promising as your standard TPS like Gears just yet. Of course, they are potentially looking to add multiplayer at some stage, so it looks like their idea will be even more focused on shooter for ME3.

Still, its annoying to see all this furore of ME2 like its even still a legitimate RPG anymore. Even the first had a heavy shooter side to it (though it wasnt a central focus of the game). Its basically just a stand TPS really.

Mark, that's my point: It's no longer a Western computer RPG. Paper RPG fans, please don't flame. I don't give a damn that ME2 has conversations, choice, etc., it's basically an action adventure with heavy shooter and dialogue options.

The first ME was more focused on stats, character development, and inventory: All standard trappings of a computer RPG. They were light compared to even KOTOR, of course, but at some point it becomes TOO LIGHT. At some point it loses all that makes it an RPG.

And before you say I'm full of shit, ask yourself, would you call a FPS that has some character development and inventory elements an RPG? Of course your wouldn't.

I'm going to throw my support behind Steven, here.

Think about what you're all saying: "role playing" is defined by math?  How is crunching numbers putting you in the position to play any "role" other than "guy who sneaks," "guy he shoots fire" or "guy who can use plate armor"?

I agree that ME2 represents a purification of role-playing, for the simple and blatant fact that it features far more actual taking on a role than any other RPG I've played.  You're developing your character: his/her personality, relationships, interactions, and exploits and then experiencing the consequences of your choices and the narrative that you create as a result.

Your argument is that the RPG -- which, I argue, many would agree is first and foremost a story-driven genre -- is defined by the numbers.

In the first ME you had stats and gear but the numbers never had a strong effect.  Gear was basically a linear progression, with many superfluous options but very few viable ones (which is to say, 90% of the loot was trash).  There were stats and skills that offered vague effects, such as "moderately decreases an enemy's accuracy" but I never once saw this reflected in the game, since it was based on dice-rolls anyway.  NPCs had the illusion of customization and development; you had a couple, minor options to tweak them, but they all served rigidly designed functions and basically behaved interchangeably.  All of this bloat made the combat plodding and unrewarding.  You never had to think; just point and, if your numbers are better than theirs, you win.

Everything in the original Mass Effect outside of the narrative elements felt dated at best, shoehorned into the game at worst.  In terms of play mechanics, outside of dialogue, it wasn't a shining example of western RPGs; it was a failed attempt at a shooter.

Mass Effect 2 didn't abandon anything -- it fixed the half of the game that was broken.  Combat is more focused, with better designed individual encounters; NPCs now serve actual, specific roles that allow you to plan and strategize; stats are fewer but their effects are much more tangible and limited, allowing useful customization; and the extra weight of inventory and dice rolls got cut in favor of bolstering the first game's biggest strength: character interaction and narrative development.

All BioWare did (again, in terms of numbers and shooting things, outside of narrative elements) was trade a barely-competent RPG for an excellent shooter.

Gary and Sandy, I think you're being way too rigid about semantics and "fundamentals" while also completely misunderstanding them, to the point of undermining your whole argument.  You're forcing ME2 into this box of what you consider a "real" RPG (or "C"RPG) while disregarding the actual origins of the moniker.  In a medium where genre titles are becomingly increasingly crossed and unclassifiable, that simply isn't fair.  I mean, if that's what this is about, let's just all agree that ME2 is a "third-person stop-and-pop shooter/action-adventure/western computer role playing game," or TPSAPSAAWCRPG, and be done with it.  That, or I'm thinking "Post-RPG" Or "Post-shooter" both sound good (works for music, right?).

Basically, what I'm saying is: playing a role comes down to making choices and experiencing consequences, that are not necessarily your own.  Your so-called RPGs don't give you choices; they give you problems.  The problem is to figure how to make your numbers better -- whether that's lower or higher, depending on the function -- than the other guy's.  Problem-solving is not role playing.  The fact that the two are so closely associated is symptomatic of an insular lexicon made up of misnomers that serve as such a barrier of entry to this incestuous little sub-culture of ours (but that's its own article).

But for what it's worth, the old-fashioned, numbers-based RPG isn't going anywhere.  Dragon Age does it, and does it well -- considerably better than the first Mass Effect -- and isn't going anywhere.  Fallout: New Vegas is going out of its way, in some cases, to include more options related to the formal mechanics of the game (the command wheel, melee weapons, slower stat progression, hardcore mode).  If those aren't good enough for you (not you, Gary, as you already mentioned them, but others longing for the "good old days"), the world of indie gaming has what you seek in spades -- it's just slightly harder to find.

Okay, then, let's break it down this way: Let's forget what an RPG is; maybe it's too many different things to define or maybe pen and paper has defined it already and it can't be redefined. What I prefer is the dated, clunky, inventory and stats (math) driven game play that used to be in what we used to call CRPGs. ME as far as I'm concerned had that, Dragon Age has it, Fallout even has it, as does Alpha Protocol. ME2 has it to a much less extent, and while ME2 has role playing in terms of dialogue, since it doesn't have the rest of the CRPG trappings, I don't care for it. And I won't buy another ME as long as it's more action driven.

I may play it, meaning I'll rent it, which is what I do with action games.

Even if you define RPG by story and choice, ME2 still falls short. The lions share of the games story is made up doing shooter driven side missions for recruiting and gaining the loyalty of your squadmates. The only “major” choice you make is the end game one, and the ones in-between are railroaded by Biowares new “streamlined” take on its alignment system, where if you want a persuasive protagonist, rather than applying the points like you would in ME1, you now bow to Bioware forcing you into choosing one or the other. Gone are the days of “paragades” or “renegones” as the ME forum lingo called them I believe. I myself played a heavy paragon player who could still execute the occasional bad guy if he thought it necessary. In ME2, I couldn’t bring myself to do this, as I thought it would jeopardise my ability to pass some of those all important “persuasion” checks.

People who try and dismiss the calling out of ME2s failings as an RPG as being “complaints by those obsessed with number crunching” is a simple dodge of the issue.

Why is it that nothing you visit, both in terms of scale, dialogue and side missions come close to the citadel of ME1? Why is it that they are simply small locales designed for little more than directing the player to the aforementioned shooter missions? Side quests themselves have become shallower. It seems like in ME2 they were afraid of taking a breath from the combat and letting the RPG slip in, almost like their new shooter fanbase couldn’t hold their attention.

ME2 fails as an RPG in more than just the “number crunching”. It’s a devious little cover up to disguise the fact that for all the claims that ME2 is an RPG, its paper thin plot and “gather the squad” mission set up seem to just bring to one disposable shooting gallery after the other, packed to the rafters with waist high cover.

If the marketing itself wasn’t proof enough, the gameplay is: ME2 is nothing but a mass market TPS and Biowares attempt to snare the shooter fanbase. As Ive already said, if you compare it to the game it so clearly wants to take off – Gears of War – its not even in the same league. Its not doing much better than ME1 did, and if you ask me is still being pushed forward more by Biowares “old faithfuls” than “new shooter players”. With that in mind, my purchase of ME3 depends solely on whether or not Biowares takes the (growing) gripe of it being a lacklustre RPG to heart.

I wont be buying another attempt to bring in new shooter fans. Ive bought Bioware games for over ten years because I (until Mass Effect 2) thought they made only quality games. I don’t by them to line EAs pockets with their desire to reel in MW2 and GoW players.

I just want my six-character parties back. 

Mark beat me to it and made many of my points for me. Though I don't agree with calling it a failure. There was simply no call for the massive sweeping changes made from 1 to 2. Ah well, here's what I was about to post anyway.

@Christian

Of course that style of game isn't going anywhere. So long as there are people to buy them, someone will make them. However I think Gary's original point was that Bioware's shifting of focus from ME1 to ME2, created a sort of double standard for those of us who actually get enjoyment out of that type of game. Should all future ME1 style RPG's be judged more harshly because they aren't as "pure" as tabletop gamers might like? Did the developers really feel the original's style and flow was so horrible that an overhaul of this level was required?

And sorry, but it seems like you're the one getting caught in the semantics. The origins of the term RPG has nothing to do with anything here. For the simple fact that its so subjective. Playing a role is making choices & experiencing consequences to you. For others it may be being handed said role and told to make the best of it; problems, numbers and all. One view is no better than another. And while tabletop may be the origin, it isn't the be all end all anymore.

I fully agree with your assessment of ME1's gameplay elements. It really was a failed attempt at a shooter. Remind me how that hurt its sales again? It didn't, because the rest of the elements came together in a way to make the whole thing memorable. For 2, it seems like cutting away the "bloat" meant utterly removing anything that got in the way of shooting, talking, or spending the least possible time on the path to either/both. This, at least in my view, is why ME2 is a dedicated TPS with some light squad & RPG elements.

@Jason

You'll take your three person party and you'll bloody well like it, consarnit!

Mark and Robert, thank you. And while I realize it's not a matter of being right or wrong here, it is a matter of Bioware being able to sell games and we being glad we bought them. And sometimes I do buy an action game because it really excites me even if I just play it once and then get rid of it. But more often I rent those and then I'm done with it.

With an RPG, though, or rather, the style of RPG I prefer, which includes everything Bioware has ever made except for the original Neverwinter Nights (a good but not great game, IMO) and Mass Effect 2, I expect something deep and complicated enough that it takes a while to get into it and the once I'm done, I can replay it again.

And while I thought ME2 was enjoyable, I completely agree with Mark and his complaints about the quests, structure, scale, dialogue -- they are all inferior to ME's. Why? What compelled Bioware to dumb down a game that was great and make it into something not even close to great? I do think it was for sales.

I am just thankful that Dragon Age Origins and its DLC has turned out as good as it has. The DLC for ME2 all looks awful. I have tried some of it and I literally cannot play it.

Why? What is Bioware doing and why? Tell me that?

@Gary I think BioWare is expanding its reach to the consumer. They want to make money. They also may want to experiment with what makes an RPG and RPG -- and have found that a number of players like what they are doing. (And they want to keep withholding my six-character parties.)

Jason,

I think if Bioware wanted to make an experience wholly different than the original ME and they'd called it ME Adventures or something, told us it wasn't like their previous RPG, that it was a different experience, I would have just enjoyed it and would not have complained. But it's clear THIS is the direction for the series, and I doubt they will go back now.

And it's not like I really believe that the RPGs I love will go away. There will always be people who played games on old computer systems like the C-64, Amiga, and PC, who prefer more Western experiences, not the more Japanese style one, who will buy the Fallouts, the Dragon Ages, and the Alpha Protocols.

But the original ME was a game that I truly loved, and I don't like what Bioware did with it. But as a consumer I'll just stay away from the ME2 DLC, and I won't buy ME3.

@Gary

Honestly I feel like its a lot less sinister than you imagine. I feel like its more a matter of Bioware listening to the vocal minority who complained about the original. In the process it just seems like they lost sight of the original's fanbase. Of course, this is just personal opinion. It's also possible that this was a part of the plan from the beginning. Bioware generally seemed to have a plan for the series from the start. That the series was always destined to be more action oriented than we expected is certainly conceivable. In which case there's no real point to arguing about it. (Though that doesn't mean we have to like it!)

Actually i think its the inclusion of guns versus swords/close combat that changes the RPG gameplay most drastically. How do you block a bullet versus a sword swing. This is the big difference in older D&D style games (Dragon Age) versus futuristic tech (Mass Effect). Turn-based shooting is lame when compared to close combat. You can't parry shots, you can just run and cover. Thus the direction to more action oriented FPS combat.

Ruined? No. Of anything, it brought a nice change into the genre. Do I want to see every new RPG coming out as basically a shooter that you can level up? Heck no. But by the same token, I don't want every RPG that comes out to be numbers, numbers, numbers. Look at The Last Remnant for example. Huge amounts of data, most of it superflourous, and a headache to navigate. A wider variety in the genre is not the ruination of the genre that some people seem to think that it is, but a complete shift in the opposite direction on the other hand is damaging. Now I don't see one game, no matter the popularity, as being the cause of the ruination of a genre that's been around for 25+ years. Now if every game that comes out proclaiming to be an RPG which is nothing more than a shooter with stats (Fallout 3 for example), then there's a problem. To date though the RPG genre is pretty varied and I would go so far as to say it's in it's golden age, or at least nearing it. People just need to look beyond Final Fantasy and Mass Effect to see it though.

"It's something, thankfully, that Bioware has managed to get closer to--but will likely never perfect."

True, and the main reason is that the decisions are still going to be a binary choice. Success or fail. Bioware got better with their morality systems in KotoR, Jade Empire and the ME series, it's more of a "success a, success b, failure" options. Now if a much more varied choice, maybe with a number of decisions not being blatantly obvious, it would go a lot further. The old adventure games by Sierra nd Lucas Arts were a good example of this, where some really oddball choices could work. That's the biggest seperation between video game RPGs and the Pen and Paper ones are. In a Pen and Paper, you are limited by your creativity, while a video game limits you by the mechanics. To that end, that limitation will forever prevent video games from matching their PnP counterparts, but there's a fair distance to go in minimizing the distance.