This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
I loved the first Mass Effect (Xbox 360) and spent more time with it than any other role-playing game I had played before it. When it comes to Mass Effect 2, though, I'm pretty outspoken with how disappointed I am with the direction BioWare took with the series. And it's not that Mass Effect 2 is a bad game. In many ways, it's a great game. But it isn't a conventional RPG anymore; BioWare stripped out most of the defining elements of an RPG and turned the game into a great action adventure.
So where does this leave newer RPGs? Will gamers now compare all future RPGs to Mass Effect 2 and judge them unfairly based on well they juggle their RPGness: elements such as combat, inventory management, character development, as well as how streamlined their user interfaces are? And how does another RPG even compete with one that has had such commercial success?
Case in point is Obsidian's Alpha Protocol (PC, Xbox 360, PS3), which releases in just a few days. The game has been receiving generally negative reviews so far, and while I don't doubt it deserves some derision (I haven't played it but expect it to be a fun but flawed experience), I doubt that it would be treated this way if Mass Effect 2 hadn't streamlined the RPG experience so masterfully.
And I don't use the word "masterfully" as praise for Bioware; as I've already mentioned the game is great but it's no RPG. Alpha Protocol, though, is billed as an RPG, and it sounds like it comes closer to the original Mass Effect than that game's sequel did. So what does this mean for those of us who prefer the clunkier RPG experience; the Oblivions, the Fallout 3s, and Dragon Age: Origins, for example? These are games that are fun and expansive, but can also often be ugly, slow, and downright buggy.
These are RPG gems, truly magnificent in their immersiveness and replayability. They offer true role playing opportunities, combat that is deep and rewarding, and character creation and inventory management systems that are complex and interesting. And while there's certainly room for lighter experiences, games like Diablo, Final Fantasy, and even the latest Mass Effect, it's not right to judge the clunkier games by comparing them to the streamlined experiences.
As an example, I remember when Black Isle Studios released the original Icewind Dale (PC) back in 2000. It was a game that publisher Interplay billed as action oriented; more like Diablo than Baldur's Gate. And while the story was definitely much less complex than something like their previous RPG, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale was just as much an AD&D RPG as any of the others that were built on that same Bioware Infinity Engine.
NOTE: Both Baldur's Gate games, Planescape: Torment, and both Icewind Dale games were created with the Bioware Infinity Engine and used the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rule sets.
And while people may have compared Icewind Dale to Diablo at the time, it was easy to see how different they were. Icewind Dale had a deep and customizable character development system, more in-depth inventory management, and more complex character interactions than Diablo. Reviewers at the time wouldn't have dreamed of knocking Icewind Dale for not being more like Diablo.
Which brings us back to Mass Effect 2, which may bare more than a passing resemblance to the original game than Icewind Dale does to Diablo, but no one would claim that it wasn't a complete overhaul of the original game's major RPG systems. Mass Effect was gutted and refitted and turned from a proper RPG into something more action oriented for its second outing.
So do we now go back and review Mass Effect again based on its successor? Although a few reviews at the time heavily criticized it for its failings, it was generally lauded for its amazing cinematic flare, its excellent combat, and its flexible character development system.
And while Mass Effect 2 retains that cinematic flare, it's the only part of the game that's unchanged. In fact, it doesn't really resemble the first game in many other tangible ways. It offers a wholly new experience, and not just from a game play standpoint. Even core concepts like quest resolution and leveling were trashed for something more akin to what you'd find in a shooter.
Which means it wouldn't be right to revisit the first game or look at a new game like Alpha Protocol, the forthcoming Fallout New Vegas, or any other clunkier RPG and then ding its score simply because it's not like Mass Effect 2. It's almost like Bioware created a new genre; something a bit heavier than Borderlands but not as substantial as the first Mass Effect.
Which leaves us where? How does a reviewer look at a game like Alpha Protocol, for example, and decide how it stacks up to the competition? How does he or she even decide who the competition is? Is Alpha Protocol competing with Mass Effect 2 or just the original game? Can some of its faults be forgiven as long as it delivers a deep, satisfying experience to its target audience?
And this is what we need to figure out: Who wants to play a clunky, buggy, somewhat archaic RPG like Alpha Protocol? Will people see it at Walmart and buy it just because it's an RPG about espionage? Or will it review poorly, sell poorly, and force a talented developer like Obsidian to succumb to the wants of the masses and create more action oriented experiences in the future?
I guess that's partially up to us, the game buying public. We vote with our dollars, and I for one am looking forward to games like Alpha Protocol and Fallout New Vegas, and to more Dragon Age: Origins DLC. I'm happy to consider clunky, old-school RPGs that developers and publishers are willing to release. And I'm buying Alpha Protocol on day one and look forward to experiencing it because I know it will be more than just an action RPG.
