Decline Now that the dust has settled, can we admit that Disco Elysium is decline?

[Roguey]

And here he is unphotoshopped:

The type of person who should keep his mouth closed, certainly.

That's a photo with bad lighting and he isn't as well-dressed of course it's going to make him look worse.

 

[overly excitable young man]

lol Roguey has the gays for Kurvitz

 

[Harthwain]

Oh and you literally have an NPC saying that you just want rich people to get richer if you don't want to kill people in the name of communism. Literally the retarded commie stereotype and I'm not sure that was making fun at the stereotype. I mean, I'm not sure commies are able to laugh at themselves. Rarely anyone who's so much into an ideology is able to laugh at themselves.

From my understanding the Revolution was sparked by Tzeentch tzaareth plague, which is described as a brain-eating virus one gets through eating potatos. So in order to be a communist you'd have to be literally brain-damaged (from the brain-eating virus).

But, regardless if this pushes communism or not, the fact is that it's focused so much on political bullshit that it turns everything sour. A good setting and a potentially good detective story wasted of fucking political memes.

I wouldn't say it's "focused on political bullshit". Political bullshit is more of the background, just like our real-life political bullshit and history. And you contradict yourself by saying that it "turns everything sour". It's exactly because it's all "political memes" is why it's funny for so many people (myself included). If the game actually treated ideologies seriously it'd have much less warm reception and be much less fun than it is in its current form.

So yeah, I'm not sure what's the reason behind all that political crap, if not agendas. It was not only unnecessary, but also feels hamfisted.

You can't talk about the past without points of reference. The state of Revachol is as it is, because there was the Revolution by the communards, the subsequent war with the Coalition and so on. It's not that much different from WW1 -> WW2 -> The Cold War -> Modern Times. So on one side you have "political crap" as part of the setting/world building, but it doubles as a comic relief.

This is Kurvitz. Actually a a bit of a looker imo.

For a man or a woman Man of Wö?

 

[Lord_Potato]

Myeah, except whenever you go against communism or whatever else agendas the developers had it feels like it's done in a sarcastic way. Maybe I don't read it right, who knows.
Oh and you literally have an NPC saying that you just want rich people to get richer if you don't want to kill people in the name of communism. Literally the retarded commie stereotype and I'm not sure that was making fun at the stereotype. I mean, I'm not sure commies are able to laugh at themselves. Rarely anyone who's so much into an ideology is able to laugh at themselves.

But, regardless if this pushes communism or not, the fact is that it's focused so much on political bullshit that it turns everything sour. A good setting and a potentially good detective story wasted of fucking political memes. Yeah, I hate communism in particular, but I'm not really interested in discussing any of the political crap in the game, especially not with some NPCs.

So yeah, I'm not sure what's the reason behind all that political crap, if not agendas. It was not only unnecessary, but also feels hamfisted. Seemingly out of nowhere I get bombarded with random questions on where I stand on some political issues and out of nowhere have my "subconscious" telling me that I'm suddenly a follower of this or that. Speaking of which, I must either be an extremist centrist or the game really just cycles through all them, no matter what you do through the game, just trying to make you pick one or something.

Wait... if communists are unable to laugh at themselves, how is it, that most of us lefties here had great fun with DE, which often turns communism into a parody? Rightwingers, on the other hand, are mostly (with notable exceptions) butthurt and cry "conspiracy"?

 

[The_Mask]

All this discussion is just prompting me to continue writing my review of DE I last got stuck on the combat system section...

Try going for the necktie. That's a serious... choke point.

 

[Farewell into the night]

It's a decline for me, because I even didn't check it out. There was a time I was interested in it, but then I forgot about it. So in other words I lost my interest in the game and I do it very rarely. Ususally I'm all in or all out.

 

[The_Mask]

This is Kurvitz. Actually a a bit of a looker imo.

Did you just stutter?

 

[Tigranes]

hat's the reason behind all that political crap, if not agendas. It was not only unnecessary, but also feels hamfisted. Seemingly out of nowhere I get bombarded with random questions on where I stand on some political issues and out of nowhere have my "subconscious" telling me that I'm suddenly a follower of this or that. Speaking of which, I must either be an extremist centrist or the game really just cycles through all them, no matter what you do through the game, just trying to make you pick one or something.

Ummm.... you understand how the thought system works, right? If you pick capitalist responses a few times, the game will suspect you might be interested in being a capitalist, and at some point, pop the question. At which point you can say, YES I EMBRACE IT, or UM ONLY A BIT, or NO FUCK YOU NEVER ASK ME AGAIN.

Wow, such 'political agenda' it has! Just like all those other RPGs with a romance agenda where NPCs ask you if you want a romance and you tell them to fuck off and they never bring it up again

(The actual problem in both cases is that the detection / counters are not perfect, so sometimes you're just answering in a friendly way and the game suddenly pops a confession scene on you, or you just think Kim is a snowflake and suddenly game asks you if you'd like RACE SCIENCE. But, uh, you can tell it to fuck off, and choose your role, you know.)

 

[Viata]

(The actual problem in both cases is that the detection / counters are not perfect, so sometimes you're just answering in a friendly way and the game suddenly pops a confession scene on you, or you just think Kim is a snowflake and suddenly game asks you if you'd like RACE SCIENCE. But, uh, you can tell it to fuck off, and choose your role, you know.)

Yeah, the "wanna build communism" was weird it appeared the first time because I didn't select choices that put me into starving populations. So yeah, it made me think "fucking commies, the fags on codex were right" at first, but as I played it more, it pretty much took any kind of choice(in some cases, it was the only choice related to some topic) as a "so you are into that, huh, you motherfuck. Shall we think more about it?" and that just me think the fags on codex were wrong.
In some cases, I didn't even know what the fuck those voices were talking about, so I clicked more to know what he was talking and then it becomes "what the fuck? no no get the fuck out of here, mind! I don't even know/care about it.".

 

[Roguey]

Did you just stutter?

Repeating words and not noticing is something I typically do when I post in the mornings.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Ummm.... you understand how the thought system works, right? If you pick capitalist responses a few times, the game will suspect you might be interested in being a capitalist, and at some point, pop the question. At which point you can say, YES I EMBRACE IT, or UM ONLY A BIT, or NO FUCK YOU NEVER ASK ME AGAIN.

Wow, such 'political agenda' it has! Just like all those other RPGs with a romance agenda where NPCs ask you if you want a romance and you tell them to fuck off and they never bring it up again

(The actual problem in both cases is that the detection / counters are not perfect, so sometimes you're just answering in a friendly way and the game suddenly pops a confession scene on you, or you just think Kim is a snowflake and suddenly game asks you if you'd like RACE SCIENCE. But, uh, you can tell it to fuck off, and choose your role, you know.)

.Still better than having Tekehu offering you buttseks within 15 minutes of adding him to the party.

 

[Prime Junta]

IMO the game is pretty good with its counters. A lot of the stuff it tracks is innocuous on the surface but does betray unquestioned attitudes or assumptions we often hold.

If you get butthurt about getting a point in something you think you didn't deserve, it could really be a bad call -- or it could be that it hit an actual sore spot. Like that one reviewer who got extremely butthurt about gaining a point in fascism somehow.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

How could it not be?

Is a perfectly neutral viewpoint even possible? If so, what would that be?

 

[AwesomeButton]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

How could it not be?

Is a perfectly neutral viewpoint even possible? If so, what would that be?

I meant this in a neutral way, not as criticism. Also, as another warning that the ideology labelling stuff in the game shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

How could it not be?

Is a perfectly neutral viewpoint even possible? If so, what would that be?

Wasn't the moralist view considered neutral, among the extremes of communism, fascism and the free market? https://discoelysium.gamepedia.com/Kingdom_of_Conscience

 

[V_K]

Hey, this is a shitposting critical thread, go discuss your "game"'s "mechanics" somewhere else!

 

[AwesomeButton]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

How could it not be?

Is a perfectly neutral viewpoint even possible? If so, what would that be?

Wasn't the moralist view considered neutral, among the extremes of communism, fascism and the free market? https://discoelysium.gamepedia.com/Kingdom_of_Conscience

I think it's a parody "neutral extreme", and there is no way for you not to pick up any alignment offer.

 

[Harthwain]

Yeah. On my first, sincere, playthrough the game made me out to be rather libertarian and slightly fascist. I think the authors' bias in classifying the player's responses is also present to some degree.

I don't think it's bias as much as it is a classification issue. I am 100% positive that you will get a point to facism/racism when

Spoiler

you say "Welcome to Revachol!" after kicking Measurehead's ass, but that's because the game doesn't treat that line/situation as sarcastic due to how the whole idea of "Welcome to Revachol!" is treated (reference: the lorry driver).

Ideally you should be able to pick the tone/intent of what you're saying, just so it's easier to classify specific responses.

 

[gestalt11]

People seem to think the writers were going for accurate representations of the political philosophies. I don't think this is true. Most of them indulge in somewhat silly pop-culture stereotypes, both for comedy and relatability. A lot of people have developed knee jerk responses as soon as they detect one of these stereotypes. Since western pop-culture is dominated by the left you see less stupid stereotypes about communism, but they are actually there. To some extent the pop-culture stereotypes of "the right" are particularly grating and unfunny ( due to being wrong so it plays as a lie rather than a joke) to an audience member who is on the american right because fascism is actually directly opposed to the american right political philosophy (which is non-collectivist and fascism is collectivist) but pop-culture was manipulated long ago to conflate them together. Similarly many of the stereotypes of "capitalism" will appear like lies rather than jokes to people who are well versed in current economics and how well, dumb, a lot of characterizations are, although that one is odd because many people who promulgate a free-marketeer stance are under the mistaken impression that many things exist that don't, i.e. they would tell you wall street is a mostly free private market when it is actually heavily regulated and heavily manipulated by governments, that is what a POMO is by definition its when the Fed manipulates the market. But of course almost exclusively pop-culture will take the ignorant point of view and make it seem the like the real one, but since its also the dominant american right wing narrative that certainly is not that unreasonable. For people like me who do have an inkling of it, the jokes are sort of funny but sort of sad because they are making jokes based on the ignorant point of view but are actually ignorant in the same way so its all just not inciteful, its all just a fantasy.

The writers seem to be pretty much straight-up communists of the stalin variety judging by the picture on their walls (and there are a number of varieties) and their portrayal of communism seems far more pop-culture-ish than rote stalinist to me. Nor is it even trotskyite or whatever. This seems fairly obviously intentional to me.

All of this makes it, basically, impossible to make jokes about one of the sides to anyone who has developed these knee jerk reaction to the various dumb pop-culture stereotypes. At the same time the writers kind of have to use them as a common point of reference. In a sense the writers of DE did the best they could by not taking any of them too seriously. The real problem is the pop-culture interplay of all these things has become filled with vast amounts of dumb lies and those just aren't very funny when you are on the receiving end. They appear like jokes to the other side because they believe the context, and appear as lies to the receiver and lies are never funny. But I don't think the writers mean it this way, because they are doing the same thing with all POVs. Even if what they are doing contain things you think are dumb or malicious mis-characterizations, you should perhaps consider that they are not making fun of anyone/thing in particular, but the entire dumb milieu itself. Face it, its all dumb. Politics is, in fact, intentionally dumb not just dumbed down but intentionally wrong both about their enemies and their own doctrines. Is there a difference in the dumbness per POV? Yes but that is the way current pop-culture is right now and they can only do what they do within that context.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

I can't even count how many people i know told me they liked the writing and defended the game

Flies eat shit etc. I have never ever seen anyone praise fo3 for it's writing that wasn't a cawadoody player to begin with.

but seeing how insanely successful Fallout 4 was despite having dogshit writing and being released after FNV, i can't help but doubt people's taste in writing, unless you think people like Fallout 4 because it has great "gameplay" or something haha.

The game isn't bad with mods as an open world shooter. Just forget it has anything to do with FO and ignore the story. That's more than can be said about f3.

 

[Pink Eye]

Define "meaningful".

Like being actual mechanics behind it besides:

- Roll succeeded > go to path A
- Roll failed > go to path B

Like actually changing the gameplay in any way.
"Character development" in this game is clicking on + buttons randomly which may or may not result in you passing some skills checks, the difference between the two being different lines of text.

So, in your opinion, the character development can only be mechanical?

Also, fuck off with your "define". It's the same bullshit every retard does when they insist on calling everything an RPG. "HURRR PLZ DEFINE RPG IF U CANT GIVE A DEFINTIONE THAT I AGREE WITH IT MEANS EVERYTING I SAY IS AN RPG IS AND RPG LOOOOOOOOL".

*Harthwain shurgs*

Human perception can differ from person to person, which is why there is discord concerning what is an RPG and what's not. I didn't expect you to come up with a satisfactory answer, which in itself is satisfactory, because expected as much.

You never played ANY PnP RPG.

And just so you know DE does not play like a PnP RPG. You don't get a list of actions to choose from in a PnP RPG.

Yeah, it isn't PnP RPG. It's a cRPG heavily inspired (if not straight up copy-pasted) by the PnP RPG setting made by the developers. It can't give you the same freedom as actual PnP RPG, but that's exactly why it has "c" before "RPG". Because some limitations are bound to be there, due to the nature of the game.

>So, character development can only be mechanical?
Yes. The systems inherent in a computer role playing game are necessary to the development and growth of a character. By taking out combat you are subtracting from the experience, not adding to it. Consider this, feats, skills, stats, and among others; are all ingredients that supplement the experience. Each element works together to form the layers necessary for a complete role playing experience. In essence they serve to enrich the role playing experience by reflecting the choices and decisions you made, either through character creation, or through choices you make by leveling up. Game play then adds another dimension to the experience of role playing by simulating the consequences of those choices through combat. Story elements are just the icing on the cake.

For example, in Pathfinder and Baldur's Gate, you don't start as a powerful character. You have to earn power through experience. Which is gained either through tactful play, or through the completion of quests. Eventually leading to the culmination of character growth. Remember that level one wolf that was beating your ass? Well now you can beat his ass. Combat is the most direct way of displaying character growth.

>Human perception can differ from person to person, which is why there is discord concerning what is an RPG and what's not. I didn't expect you to come up with a satisfactory answer, which in itself is satisfactory, because expected as much.
Such a question is nonsensical. Ask yourself this, why does DnD/Pathfinder make for better systems when it comes to role playing. It's because the systems allow you to further define your character by the complexity and depth that is available within them.

 

[Harthwain]

>So, character development can only be mechanical?
Yes. The systems inherent in a computer role playing game are necessary to the development and growth of a character.

I don't disagree that the system is important - of not THE most important - part of any RPG, but you're wrong saying that character development can ONLY be mechanical. Yes, you can develop your character from the mechanical side, but by limiting to that you are limiting his development as a character-person. Some PnP RPG systems do recognize the importance of that (Vampire the Masquerade, for example).

By taking out combat you are subtracting from the experience, not adding to it.

They didn't take out combat though. They severly limited combat to, like, two instances of it, and I'll agree that they should've given us more "combat encounters" than that.

What they really did wasn't removal of combat, which is what people are wrong when complaining about the lack of combat; they put it on the same level as the rest of interactions. But combat, as an act, can be done within that system. It's just less wargamey than in other cRPGs. That's the difference. For some this could mean "there is no combat, because there is no separate combat mechanic", but that's objectively wrong thing to say. It's better to say "I don't like that combat is basically like any other interaction in the game".

I hope I made this difference clear enough.

Such a question is nonsensical. Ask yourself this, why does DnD/Pathfinder make for better systems when it comes to role playing. It's because the systems allow you to further define your character by the complexity and depth that is available within them.

1) It isn't [a nonsensical question]. The same word can be understood differently from person to person. If you can't define what's meaningful, then we can't discuss it.

2) Do they? Systems serve as a scaffoldings for players to express themselves. I'd argue that Disco does a pretty good job at allowing players to express themselves, given its system. Yes, it isn't the classic system (such as DnD or Pathfinder) and its rules are very simple, but to say it's worse for role playing is straight up wrong.

Unless by role playing you mean having complex mathematical equations and in-depth tactical encounters a'la Icewind Dale. I liked Icewind Dale, but I'd argue it didn't leave much room for role playing, because it was mainly a combat-oriented game. So is RPG about combat? For me the combat event is an eventuality in an RPG, and not even the most interesting one. If we were talking about a roguelike or a tactical game, then I could understand putting heavy (if not total) emphasis on combat...

 

[Pink Eye]

>So, character development can only be mechanical?
Yes. The systems inherent in a computer role playing game are necessary to the development and growth of a character.

I don't disagree that the system is important - of not THE most important - part of any RPG, but you're wrong saying that character development can ONLY be mechanical. Yes, you can develop your character from the mechanical side, but by limiting to that you are limiting his development as a character-person. Some PnP RPG systems do recognize the importance of that (Vampire the Masquerade, for example).

By taking out combat you are subtracting from the experience, not adding to it.

They didn't take out combat though. They severly limited combat to, like, two instances of it, and I'll agree that they should've given us more "combat encounters" than that.

What they really did wasn't removal of combat, which is what people are wrong when complaining about the lack of combat; they put it on the same level as the rest of interactions. But combat, as an act, can be done within that system. It's just less wargamey than in other cRPGs. That's the difference. For some this could mean "there is no combat, because there is no separate combat mechanic", but that's objectively wrong thing to say. It's better to say "I don't like that combat is basically like any other interaction in the game".

I hope I made this difference clear enough.

Such a question is nonsensical. Ask yourself this, why does DnD/Pathfinder make for better systems when it comes to role playing. It's because the systems allow you to further define your character by the complexity and depth that is available within them.

1) It isn't [a nonsensical question]. The same word can be understood differently from person to person. If you can't define what's meaningful, then we can't discuss it.

2) Do they? Systems serve as a scaffoldings for players to express themselves. I'd argue that Disco does a pretty good job at allowing players to express themselves, given its system. Yes, it isn't the classic system (such as DnD or Pathfinder) and its rules are very simple, but to say it's worse for role playing is straight up wrong.

Unless by role playing you mean having complex mathematical equations and in-depth tactical encounters a'la Icewind Dale. I liked Icewind Dale, but I'd argue it didn't leave much room for role playing, because it was mainly a combat-oriented game. So is RPG about combat? For me the combat event is an eventuality in an RPG, and not even the most interesting one. If we were talking about a roguelike, then I could understand putting heavy (if not total) emphasis on combat...

>Yes, you can develop your character from the mechanical side, but by limiting to that you are limiting his development as a character-person.
Abstract concepts such as social interactions, character reactivity, and player agency are nice, yes. However, it is the mechanics that are more profound than the abstract. For it is the mechanics in which demonstrates the character's capabilities by giving you direct feed back. This feed back fundamentally enforces the choices you made upon creating the character. This nuance reflects and supports your role playing choices by supplementing them within the rules, and via the game play systems. In other words the mechanics and game play systems are being used as a means to support those choice in a impactful way. In a way that you can measure. In a way that you can observe. Where else in the abstract, while there is some mechanics to it, a lot of the interactions are done via social interactivity. You can't measure the abstract, you can't observe the abstract, you can't plan nor can you build around the abstract. Bloodlines still had combat, even though it was clunky, it was still there. And it served the game just fine. Combat is not an item to check off in a list. It is an ingredient that is necessary for the role playing experience to be complete. Just as how a good sound track, story telling, companions, and setting; are all essential ingredients.

>It isn't [a nonsensical question]. The same word can be understood differently from person to person. If you can't define what's meaningful, then we can't discuss it.
Very well let's ground this debate, shall we. Can you provide us with an instance in which a story based progression system was able to exist without mechanics supporting it? And, was that system far more meaningful than a DnD/Pathfinder based system?

 

[Harthwain]

>Yes, you can develop your character from the mechanical side, but by limiting to that you are limiting his development as a character-person.
[...] it is the mechanics that are more profound than the abstract. For it is the mechanics in which demonstrates the character's capabilities by giving you direct feed back. This feed back fundamentally enforces the choices you made upon creating the character. This nuance reflects and supports your role playing choices by supplementing them within the rules, and via the game play systems. In other words the mechanics and game play systems are being used as a means to support those choice in a impactful way.

It doesn't really change anything I've said though.

Yes, the mechanics are there to serve as a reference point (who you are, what you can do), but it doesn't invalidate the point that outside of mechanical development there is the whole character's personal development/growth which you simply can't put down in numbers. And that, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of playing an RPG: not only playing as a mechanical character, but also as someone who has his own history, goals, feelings, etc. The system is there to support this, however, for some reason you keep putting the system before the player.

Bloodlines still had combat [...]

When I said "Vampire the Masquerade" I wasn't talking about Bloodlines. I was talking about the PnP RPG system.

Combat is not an item to check off in a list. It is an ingredient that is necessary for the role playing experience to be complete. Just as how a good sound track, story telling, companions, and setting; are all essential ingredients.

Not sure who you're arguing here with. I never said combat is not part of the RPG experience. What I question is the focus. You can play any RPG like tactical combat game/wargame, but then you're not there for the role playing: you're there for combat. If I want to play games for their combat I look for combat games, not RPGs. That's why my gold standard for cRPGs is closer to games like Planescape: Torment or Fallout 2, rather than Icewind Dale 1/2.

>It isn't [a nonsensical question]. The same word can be understood differently from person to person. If you can't define what's meaningful, then we can't discuss it.
Very well let's ground this debate, shall we. Can you provide us with an instance in which a story based progression system was able to exist without mechanics supporting it? And, was that system far more meaningful than a DnD/Pathfinder based system?

You're missing the point. I never said that "a story based progression system is able to exist without mechanics supporting it", because I never ever questioned that Disco has mechanics supporting character's progression in the first place.

What I keep asking for is "what's meaningful character development?" (and the follow-up question "can character development only be mechanical?").