3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Arcian wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Funny how "RPG" suddenly became something bad around here...

It really depends on your definition of the term.

To me, the true essence of roleplaying is being able to change the outcome of the story through choices and being able to experience the richness of a good fictional universe and its characters. Not looting, not stats, not number crunching and not an endless supply of redundant items.

Pretty much the same here, even if the stats and the loots are welcome if they're done well. I won't shed a tear if they aren't, though.

[Siven80]

Arcian wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Funny how "RPG" suddenly became something bad around here...

It really depends on your definition of the term.

To me, the true essence of roleplaying is being able to change the outcome of the story through choices and being able to experience the richness of a good fictional universe and its characters. Not looting, not stats, not number crunching and not an endless supply of redundant items.

Along with a system of character progression i agree with this.

[the_one_54321]

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

[Phaedon]

Gunderic wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Everyone in their right mind wants more in-depth roleplaying and shooter elements.

The problem is that no one agrees as to what is more in-depth, and there are also the people who are obsessed with sticking a genre label over anything they find.

Were that so, I don't think they'd have gone exactly the way they did with Mass Effect 2 and then back again.

I was referring to those elements from a gameplay/mechanical standpoint ( not story-related ), which they're trying to bring back -- and Mass Effect 2 lacked.

I can't really see much bringing back, I see them making new things.

The weapon customization for example from ME1 and ME2 have nothing to do with the one in ME3.

And they won't bring up non-unique weapons, or skills that interfere with the shooter component (weapon skills).

[Phaedon]

Arcian wrote...Contrary to popular belief, most fans of the franchise are normal people. 

Google "Tali", turn safe search off.

I kid, I kid.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

^Phaedon
You risk a lot, you know.. Talimancers will find anyone who mentions Tali

[the_one_54321]

One more reason why the concept of romancing aliens is repulsive.

[AlanC9]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

ME2 truth told is a horrible game, it fails as a shooter, rpg or action hybrid.  It only sold well because of fans who expected a true sequel to ME1, if you were looking for any of the genres you'd find better in different games.  IF I want a fps gears of war, call of duty black ops and halo come to mind.  Tons of action hybrids and rpg's are out there if that's what you want. All superior to me2.  When ou move the fanbase over to fps and sacrifice everything else, then they'll flock to the better fps.

OK, we get it. You don't personally like ME2 as much as ME1.

I like ME2 better.

In essence they are going to kill the IP, they know this that's why they release comments trying to please both camps, but you can't.  RPG/action gamers and fps gamers are looking for two entirely different things, this is why they released a statement saying they were looking not to abandon the rpg elements, while showcasing fps elements in combat.  Those rpg/action fans make up the bulk not the minority of the fanbase, I refuse to believe any large amount of people bought ME as a fps fix.  Too many better games in the genre exist.  ME2 might of netted some more fans but just about all the fps action added in me3(shown) is been there done that for true fps fans.  With a 2012 release it's fps strides will seem dated, disgruntled rpg fans will have moved on.  A small amount will remain.

So all the people who really liked ME2 are wrong about their own tastes?

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

I'm in total agreement here. What genre a game is in doesn't change how any sane person would feel about the game. And yet we keep getting into that argument anyway.

[TheOtherTheoG]

I'll quote something I wrote on another forum regarding the exact same article, it's kinda relevant:

In my opinion anyway, RPG's are about making decisions for your
character. If a game, like Mass Effect, allows you to choose what your
character says and his personality, you are making decisions for
him/her. Things like skill point management and stats - you are making a
decision on what you want your character to be like in a combat
situation, how effective you want him to be in certain situations, you
are making a decision for him/her. Things like inventory management and
loot - you are making a decision of what you want your character to pick
up, carry or throw away, you are making decisions for him/her.
Exploration - you are making the decision of where you want your
character to go, what you want him to do - you are making a decision for
him/her.

An RPG isn't just exclusive to 'teh RPG elementz'
like loot and stats. Sure, the earliest and most famous RPG's, namely
D&D, were based around this, but on that merit does that mean all
RPG's must be set in a Tolkien-esque high fantasy setting, with dwarves
and elves and magic and dragons, simply because this is what the first
RPG's had.

Regarding Mass Effect specifically, most
people's disappointments or gripes with seem to occur when they try and
shoe-horn it into a particular genre it doesn't seem to fit into - does
it have to be only either an RPG or a TPS, can it not be a hybrid
between the two, or even better fit it into it's own class, why does it
have to be either just an RPG or just a TPS, simply because no-one's
tried putting the two together properly, same with Deus Ex, System
Shock, etc.
If you do try and shoe-horn it into being an RPG,
you'll find that it doesn't have nearly as much stats, loot or
exploration as most other RPG's, and yet when you try and shoe-horn it
into being a straight up TPS (I've never seen why people use that as an
insult against the game, BTW), you'll find the combat mechanics a bit
clunky and broken, yet when you stop trying to fit it into a genre and
just step back and look at it, you'll find one of the best franchises in
all of media.

[EternalPink]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

I'm in total agreement here. What genre a game is in doesn't change how any sane person would feel about the game. And yet we keep getting into that argument anyway.

Aye same myself as well

Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance, today's computers can simulate that chance far more efficently without having to bog us down (how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest) so why do we want to return to that?

[Savber100]

the_one_54321 wrote...

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

BAHAHA.

So games like Halo and GoW and Uncharted offers more than a single alternate ending? I can choose to NOT kill the gods in God of War 3? Can I choose Chloe over Elana in Uncharted? How about rejecting the Elites' help in Halo 3? 

To Bioware, C&C is what defines a RPG not numbers that might ENCHANCE the RPG experience. C&C is the core of any RPG experience not just some "nice" addition. Nice try though. <_<

[Wildfire Darkstar]

EternalPink wrote...

Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance, today's computers can simulate that chance far more efficently without having to bog us down (how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest) so why do we want to return to that?

Because, frankly, there are only really two ways in which stats could have been rendered obsolete.

• Because they're not actually gone, they're just hidden from the player's view
• Because decisions that were formerly determined based on calculation are now determined based on the player's inherent skill at doing whatever (reaction time, etc.)

The former is hard to defend as a good development, because it ignores that whole point of having stats in the first place was to inform a player of what his or her character was realistically capable of within the game. If my character was a poor brawler, I (the player) would know to either avoid putting that character into situations where s/he had to brawl, or (if this is possible given the rules of the game) to work on improving his or her brawling abilities. Having that information be visible doesn't "bog down" the game, it makes playing the game feasible in the first place.

The second option (which is really what the ME series is doing) basically takes the role playing out of the equation and replaces it with something else. There's a reason why stats were introduced into wargaming (and later pen and paper RPGs like D&D) in the first place, and it wasn't just because it was too difficult to stage a sword fight at a kitchen table. It's because the point of role playing is the ability to take on the role of a character whose skills may not closely resemble the player's own. Just because the player wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of surviving a fight with an ogre, a dire wolf, or whatever doesn't mean that his character is similarly impaired. Stats are a way of quantify and giving some basic framework to a game so that it allows for players to assume the roles of a variety of different kinds of characters, effectively limited only by their patience and willingness to try.

It's not the only way to do it, but throwing out this level of abstraction and replacing with a mechanic where a character's reaction time is directly correlated to the player's own reaction time means that it inherently involves less role playing. My choices in RPing Shepard are limited by own reflexes, which either forces me into a particular style of play or (if the game is particularly linear) makes the entire thing unplayable for me.

Stats don't need to be at AD&D2 levels of complexity. In fact, I'd argue that they probably shouldn't be: as designed, that's a ruleset intended to apply to a vast range of possible different scenarios and environments so that each DM need not devise their own set. This isn't necessary for a CRPG, where the developers can tailor their specific rules for the needs of their game. But the basic purpose behind stats have certainly not been superseded just because they've clearly fallen out of favor with developers.

And before we head back down that old rabbit hole of arguing whether or not the ME series was an RPG, I know it's a hybrid. But there's a whole range of possibilities within the definition of RPG/TPS hybrid, and the discussion has always been about where the ideal balance should be. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's what the actual debate is about, isn't it?

Modifié par Wildfire Darkstar, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:02 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

EternalPink wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

I'm in total agreement here. What genre a game is in doesn't change how any sane person would feel about the game. And yet we keep getting into that argument anyway.

Aye same myself as well

Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance, today's computers can simulate that chance far more efficently without having to bog us down (how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest) so why do we want to return to that?

But you're falling for it too.

What the_one and AlanC9 are essentially saying is that Mass Effect may not be an RPG, but as long as it's a good game, who cares?

Whereas you're falling back on the "stats/loot = not RPG" sentiment.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

.... wth BSN?

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:04 .

[qworty]

I don't usually like shooters there not my thing but I enjoyed ME 2 in spite of the disappointing lack of RPG elements. A game that is supposedly about choice but doesn't allow me any isn't an RPG its a shooter/action game.

Choice would have been letting me choose whether or not I worked with Cerberus or turned them in to the alliance/council. Instead I get railroaded right left and center with no actual choices.

Choice would have been letting me use the paragon/renegade option in cut scenes to change what was happening instead of a use it or not and still get basically the same result. Like with Zaedes loyalty mission it would have been great to have a paragon option to stop him lighting the refinery on fire and a renegade option to help him blow it up. That would have been a real choice in the game and an opportunity to ROLE play

Or meeting Ashly/ Kaiden and having the CHOICE to agree with them and return to the alliance/council. Instead I'm bashed repeatedly by the NPC's for joining Cerberus when I never have any CHOICE in the matter.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

I apologize for the wonky formatting on my previous response. BBCode appears not to like me....

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Savber100 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

My definition of RPG is different than yours. And it's better than yours. And you're wrong simply because you don't agree with me.

..............

I don't really give a crap if the high-ups at BioWare/EA want to call this game an RPG. The story and choices are nice but they are elements that exist in all manner of other kinds of games. There is nothing remarkable about them.

I know what features I want in the game and I could not care less if anyone thinks those features qualify as RPG or not.

BAHAHA.

So games like Halo and GoW and Uncharted offers more than a single alternate ending? I can choose to NOT kill the gods in God of War 3? Can I choose Chloe over Elana in Uncharted? How about rejecting the Elites' help in Halo 3? 

To Bioware, C&C is what defines a RPG not numbers that might ENCHANCE the RPG experience. C&C is the core of any RPG experience not just some "nice" addition. Nice try though. <_<

Incorrect, RPGs have had a long and storied history, but C&C is a relatively new thing, which I believe only gained prominence with the Fallout (1/2) games.

mrcrusty wrote...

Misconceptions aplenty in this thread about why "stats" are important in RPGs.

Stats being defined (by me) as a statistical representation of the character's attributes, skill, abilities, etc in numeric form. You have x in INT, or x in Assault Rifles, etc.

People argue that the Role Playing is about interaction. With stories, characters, the game world, etc. True, but to ignore the importance of stats would be like driving a car without wheels.

Can you drive your car without wheels? No, of course not.

Is the purpose of driving your car merely for the sake of your wheels? Well, you tell me.

In a similar vein, RPGs are not about stats, or loot.

But they cannot function as RPGs without such elements. In a game like Mass Effect, it (teniously) works because it's a hybrid game. It's a Third Person Shooter first and an RPG second. But to say that it is an RPG simply because you have a role that you play, you interact with the story, characters, game world and are able to make decisions on them is not correct if you're making the argument that Mass Effect is as RPG as say, Baldur's Gate.

If it was, games like Bioshock, RDR, L.A Noire & Heavy Rain are RPGs.

-----

Now as far as Mass Effect 3 goes, I'm not expecting nor wanting them to move in that direction. What I want first and foremost is meaningful customisation elements whether it's in equipment or character build and varied or open gameplay.

I want Shepard to be given an objective, then given the freedom to complete it in the way he wants to. Multiple solutions that cater to different personalities and character types. This would obviously require more open levels, though.

Example: Mission - Get to Krogan Princess.

Mass Effect 1/2 method - Run through corridors, killing everything.
Mass Effect 3 method - Run through corridors, killing everything or hack a terminal and find the optimal route with little/no combat or hack a terminal and spike other terminals at certain points to disable security or plant explosives at certain points to create "shortcuts" or use biotics to interact with the environment or a combination of all of the above, with varying results and encounters depending on how you complete it, your various abilities, etc.

This, along with a larger variety of quests (puzzle solving, diplomacy, infiltration, etc) would make me a pretty happy camper.

Also, what Wildfire Darkstar wrote.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:08 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

mrcrusty wrote...
What the_one and AlanC9 are essentially saying is that Mass Effect may not be an RPG, but as long as it's a good game, who cares?

That's a fairly useless argument, though, because "good" is subjective to the point of being meaningless. I didn't think ME2 was a particularly good game (I'd call it servicable if I was feeling generous). A more useful discussion can be had talking about why people think a given game is or is not good. And the purpose of genre definitions like RPG or TPS in discussions like these is to serve as shorthand so that we don't need to go over the same ground every freaking time for every freaking game. Calling a game an "RPG" means that it has certain features versus calling a game a "TPS". And there are a lot of people (the majority of gamers, I'd wager) whose likes and dislikes correspond, at least to some degree, with genre definitions. If you generally like RPGs, you have a better-than-average chance of liking a game that is commonly labeled an RPG. If you don't like RPGs, there's a decent chance you won't like that same game.

It's far from perfect, and I doubt anyone's preferences are so simple that they can be boiled down to "RPG = good game, not RPG = bad game", but pretending that a discussion of genre qualities is meaningless or a distraction is silly. It should be patently obvious that those people who are arguing for a certain conception of "RPG mechanics" are also arguing that the inclusion of those mechanics in ME3 would make it a more enjoyable game for them. No one is seriously arguing that ME3 needs those mechanics because they wouldn't improve the game, or to fill in some mythical checklist of common RPG elements.

[sbvera13]

While we're drifting to a mechanics debate (go back a few pages for my RPG thoughts if anyone cares (and I'm sure you don't)), what made ME2 such a great shooter?

I play it mostly just to extend my ME1 characters through the series. From my perspective, it's a long chain of corridors with very little variation, side paths, or alternative tactical approaches. There's no flexibility and very little skill aside from accuracy (to make that 1-2 seconds out of cover count) and context matching (shields=overload, armor=incinerate, etc). The cover>shoot>cover again mechanic is extremely repetitive. I have shooter games 10 years old with better gameplay. And yet everyone claims that the combat is so great and they should keep it.

I do not understand, and so I ask your opinions.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

sbvera13 wrote...

While we're drifting to a mechanics debate (go back a few pages for my RPG thoughts if anyone cares (and I'm sure you don't)), what made ME2 such a great shooter?

I suspect it appealed to a lot of gamers who were relatively unfamiliar with the shooter genre, frankly. A lot of whom probably enjoyed it a lot, despite it (arguably, of course) not being a particularly exceptional example of the genre. Or even the opposite, in that it appealed to shooter fans who were relatively unfamiliar with certain hallmarks of the RPG genre (like C&C) and found that it appealed to them.

But that's the basic problem I have with "hybrid" style games: they generally fail to excel as examples of either of the styles they're attempting to fuse and naturally gravitate towards a "least common denominator" style. Occassionally this is made up for by virtue of the hybridization itself being novel and worthwhile, but I don't think that's the case with the ME series. Shooter/RPG hybrids are nothing new, going back at least as far as the System Shock series, and I'm not sure either of the first ME games really broke any new ground. But I at least found an interesting enough RPG system in the first ME, combined with a fairly impressive narrative style that I enjoyed the game a great deal.

[sbvera13]

Ah, that makes sense. Also, I'm all for hybrids. Deus Ex is IMO the best game ever made. But when one (or both) of the hybrid aspects are so mind-bogglingly inferior to other games, especially OLD other games, it rather kills the experience. There's only so much hiding behind wast-height walls I can take; lets hope they mix it up in ME3.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
What the_one and AlanC9 are essentially saying is that Mass Effect may not be an RPG, but as long as it's a good game, who cares?

That's a fairly useless argument, though, because "good" is subjective to the point of being meaningless. I didn't think ME2 was a particularly good game (I'd call it servicable if I was feeling generous). A more useful discussion can be had talking about why people think a given game is or is not good. And the purpose of genre definitions like RPG or TPS in discussions like these is to serve as shorthand so that we don't need to go over the same ground every freaking time for every freaking game. Calling a game an "RPG" means that it has certain features versus calling a game a "TPS". And there are a lot of people (the majority of gamers, I'd wager) whose likes and dislikes correspond, at least to some degree, with genre definitions. If you generally like RPGs, you have a better-than-average chance of liking a game that is commonly labeled an RPG. If you don't like RPGs, there's a decent chance you won't like that same game.

It's far from perfect, and I doubt anyone's preferences are so simple that they can be boiled down to "RPG = good game, not RPG = bad game", but pretending that a discussion of genre qualities is meaningless or a distraction is silly. It should be patently obvious that those people who are arguing for a certain conception of "RPG mechanics" are also arguing that the inclusion of those mechanics in ME3 would make it a more enjoyable game for them. No one is seriously arguing that ME3 needs those mechanics because they wouldn't improve the game, or to fill in some mythical checklist of common RPG elements.

While, there are many people whose tastes fall under broad genre distinctions, there are as many (more, I'd wager) who care less about a genre distinction, but rather, certain elements that the game has. There are many areas that are not RPG-specific, but are often related with RPGs.

For example, a pet peeve of mine (and for a lot of people) is the lack of varied and open gameplay. Specifically, mulitple solutions. Add to that a lack of non combat content. Choices and consequences also seem to be a big one.

It doesn't inherently fall under a genre of games, yet most people would agree that those elements would make Mass Effect 3 a better game.

So, let's say stats, skills, etc are all kept under the hood (making them pointless to be there in the first place... if they are there to define the character, shouldn't they... define the character?)

Let's say certain RPG mechanics outside of weapon customisation are at a minimum.

If the gameplay is open, varied, allows for multiple playstyles and there's a decent chunk of non combat content, would RPG fans feel it would be worse or better than reintroducing the importance of skill for accuracy?

It's not an equivalent example, I know but what I'm trying to say is that what defines a good game for most people often falls outside specific mechanics inherent to their favorite genre. While of course there are exceptions, generally a well done Shooter (Half Life 2) is better received than a poorly made RPG (Gothic 4)  amongst "hardcore" RPG fans.

Now in terms of RPG elements being added because people feel it adds to the experience, that's where I agree.

As for Mass Effect 2's combat, it wasn't too different from Mass Effect 1's combat in terms of design and playing cover shooter. What did change was the scaling down of equipment, which made them easier to manage and the removal of skills in accuracy which made the gunplay easier for most people. As a whole, it felt less clunky and more "responsive".

But I also echo that the linear corridor really needs to be switched up, because it's got nothing on Deus Ex.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:35 .

[Gatt9]

Morroian wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Bioware can do what they want.  They did with Dragon Age 2,  and it did incredibly well.  Err,  wait,  it barely sold 1 million units and they had to give away another game just to get people to buy it,  after slashing the price heavily.

You're understating its sales but anyway.......... If your point is it didn't do so well because of the elements it changed from DAO explain the success of ME2.

No I'm not.  The number Bioware "Announced" was shipped units,  not sold ones.  Go look up the original statement,  probably still on the DA2 board,  the word "Sold" is nowhere in there.  Since EA's a publicly held company,  it's a major violation of law to state they sold something they didn't,  so we can directly infer that because they carefully avoiding using the word "Sold" they did not sell 1,000,000 units.

You should probably also research ME2's sales.  The numbers out there show that,  depending on your source,  it either didn't outselll ME or barely outsold it,  and it definitely didn't outsell DAO.  Carefull research will also find that on these very boards it was determined that the 6.6 million number people keep coming up with is false,  it was an error,  spoken just once.

I'm in total agreement here. What genre a game is in doesn't change how any sane person would feel about the game. And yet we keep getting into that argument anyway.

You're not seeing the big picture. 

The problem isn't what genre ME2 falls into,  it's what genre the Dev's claim all of these games represent,  and how they're the future of the genre. 

I couldn't care less if ME2 was billed as a TPS,  my opinion on it's gameplay wouldn't be any different.  What I care about is that Bioware and Bethseda are claiming these things are RPGs,  and claiming that they're the future of RPGs,  because marketing wants sales associated with RPGs. 

So the arguement isn't specifically about ME series,  or TES series,  but the future of RPG's.  Some unknown number of people love RPGs,  and want to continue to play them in the future.  If we sit quietly and let studios pervert the genre's essence by mislabelling other genres for sales reasons,  then we get no new games.

That's why you see these arguements,  because there are people who want RPGs.

Aye same myself as well

Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance, today's computers can simulate that chance far more efficently without having to bog us down (how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest) so why do we want to return to that?

This is what I mean.

Stats are a method of defining your character,  his intrinsic abilities,  and seperating your abilities from his.  It's a Role,  based upon things you know absolutely nothing about.  Your Role does.  You cannot hack a wallsafe.  Your character might be able to,  his success should be based upon his abilities,  not your ability to play the same minigame 10,000 times.

Further,  computers aren't "Simulating that chance" without stats,  without stats there's no chance.  You need the numbers in order to develop an equation based upon your particular Role's abilities.  ME2 has no chance,  either you can point a crosshair at it,  or you can't.  No independent failure. 

Your ME2 character cannot independently fail or succeed on anything unless you do.

Why do we want to return to it?  Because in a Roleplaying Game,  you're supposed to take on a Role,  one that the computer can arbitrate his success/failure and react to it.  What some people here put forth as a Role is just pretending,  as the game takes no notice.  Without the stats,  you get a Adventure game or a Shooter.

Stats define the Character,  the Character defines the Role,  the Role is fundamental in an RPG.

Without it,  you're just pretending you're in a Role and the game couldn't care less.  Look at ME2,  what sense does it make for a Paragon of Law to work with a Renegade Paragon?  None.

In an RPG,  like Baldur's Gate,  there would've been consequences.

In a TPS,  like ME2,  the game just pretends it's unimportant.