I personally prefer actual RPGs with actual RPG design. None of the Mass Effect games have any place in the genre regardless of how many skills you can put points
Let's see, ME1 has:
-Multiple choices and consequences for actions taken in game, some affecting the ending some affecting things happening while still playing
You're going to have to provide examples to back that up, Pepper Potts. At best Mass Effect 1 have two choices that lead to the exact same outcome anyway.
>Eden Prime: choiceless.
>Citadel: You can choose to not recruit certain party members. Consequence: alternative dialogue.
>Citadel: Kill Fist. Consequence: Fist will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.
>Therum: choiceless.
>Feros: Help the colonists with their errands. No consequences.
>Feros: Save the colonists. Consequence: extra side quest in Mass Effect 2. No consequence in Mass Effect 1.
>Noveria: Help the undercover cop. Consequence: she buys you a beer in Mass Effect 2 and helps you get a discount at a store. No consequence in Mass Effect 1 other than promising you a beer. I'm sure BioWare's writer thought they were really badass when they wrote that bullshit.
>Noveria: Save the Rachni or-- (wait, isn't this the same...?)- kill them all. Consequence: dialogue in Mass Effect 2. In Mass Effect 1: alternative dialogue when talking to the Council.
>Ebon Hawk: Romance Kaidan, Ashley or Liara. Consequence in Mass Effect 1: one (1) sex scene.
>Ebon Hawk: Help Garrus, Wrex and Tali with their quests. Consequence: one extra bit of dialogue when meeting Tali again in Mass Effect 2. Wrex and Garrus don't give any fucks.
>Extra mission: Kill the crime boss lady. Consequence: Crime boss lady will not talk to you in Mass Effect 2.
>Virmire: Help the salarians. Consequence: the salarians will have higher numbers when you recruit them for the war in Mass Effect 3.
>Virmire: Let Ashley or Kaidan take a nuke up the ass. Consequence: Ashley or Kaidan will be dead forever. Unfortunately in RPGs I have learned to think of all party members as expendable so if they die I'll just replace them. Also this was supposed to be Mass Effect 1's Aeris dies moment and like with Aeris the developers picked the most useless party members.
>Endgame: Save the Council. Consequence: a new council won't take the old council's place. Also you get higher numbers in Mass Effect 3's collection quest.
>Endgame: Convince Saren to shoot himself. Consequence: you don't have to fight the boss twice, just once. (!)
>Endgame: Put Anderson or Udina in charge of ambassadoring the shit outta humanity. Consequence: none, we couldn't get autosave working here so you'll have to do this choice properly in ME2 instead.
Did I forget anything? Please let me now so I can debunk absolutely every fucking thing your stupid shit brain can come up with. Pretty please.
-A somewhat customizable and (semi) controllable party
I could say that about Mass Effect 2 and it wouldn't be incorrect at all.
-Character progression and levels within limits
Meh.
-Multiple solutions to problems, ranging from speech checks or using skills such as electronics/decryption
Examples please.
-World with considerable backstory and some attempt to make NPCs existence appear independent of PCs
Some attempt is correct.
-Albeit linear level design, there is an open-world planet exploration and the ability to choose when and where to go
Yes, on the optional planets you are often dumped on the middle of the map and told, via minimap, to traverse the red/blue/orange landscape to the area with the interesting thing(s). In story missions you get a highly linear path you must follow. We need to have certain standards about what exactly "open-world exploration" is. My opinion is that you need more than just a square map of mountains and sand and collection items to click on but its likely that I'm in the minority there.
But all that said, YES! Surely the ability to "choose when and where to go" is what truly MAKES an RPG. I can go to this red planet or this brown planet, I can do this quest or I can do this quest. Mass Effect revolutionized RPGs.
-Quest-based mission design, resulting in gaining of experience, "alignment" shifts, reputations, etc.
Most games have "quest-based mission design" resulting in "gaining experience" and "reputation". You might as well have described Saints Row 3 for christ's sake! (Btw, Saints Row 3 is better than Mass Effect 1.)
-And yes, lots of skills points, which, no matter how many times one stamps their foot and says they don't, nevertheless do make something more of an RPG
Uh huh.
That something may not be implemented to your, often arbitrary, standard doesn't mean it's not actually there.
True, but I would argue that just because something is there but doesn't hold up doesn't mean we shouldn't feel inclined to point at it and tell it to get the fuck out of here before we beat it to death with the power of a rock.
The more certain posters here bend over backwards to portray Mass Effect (this first one anyway) as not-RPG the more it looks like they don't actually like RPGs, just turn-based games with fully controllable parties. I imagine these are the same sorts of people who insist Bloodlines or New Vegas are not "real RPGs" for similar reasons or jRPGs for that matter.
You would imagine wrong.
Furthermore, if you'd rather play an action game that drops RPG elements than a game trying to incorporate some more RPG aspects but suffering a bit in the action area then you probably aren't as fond of RPGs as you might think you are.
Yes, that's perfectly it. Because I don't like bad RPGs, that must mean I don't like RPGs at all! It even makes sense.
In all seriousness, though;
Secondly, I don't think ME2 or 3 dropped the RPG elements at all. It's difficult to drop something you didn't even have. Really, you still have everything that made ME1 a "RPG". You level up, upgrade abilities, wear armor, talk to people, complete quests, hide behind walls and shoot people. You just do it better.
Have a nice day, Crackerjack.