Disco Elysium Pre-Release Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[fantadomat]

Short memory,old guy.

I'll take your word for it. NMS wasn't ever on my radar so I was only vaguely aware of the hype and the subsequent butthurt.

Such a miss,the drama was amazing. The games obvious shit yet people were getting hyped to high haven....just like star citizen. I begin to see a correlation between space sims and retardation.

 

[KazikluBey]

No Man's Sky was not Hello Games' first game (though I think hardly anyone had heard of their earlier stuff).

 

[Prime Junta]

Disco Elysium: loved by the Codex and ResetEra.*

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-disco-elysium-aims-to-revolutionize-rpgs.46072/

The sequel will achieve a lasting just peace in the Middle East.

Spoiler

With only one snide comment about "fucking bitch dyke cunt." They're slipping.

 

[conan_edw]

shit, sorry but now I will have to dislike it

 

[fantadomat]

Disco Elysium: loved by the Codex and ResetEra.*

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-disco-elysium-aims-to-revolutionize-rpgs.46072/

The sequel will achieve a lasting just peace in the Middle East.

Spoiler

With only one snide comment about "fucking bitch dyke cunt." They're slipping.

Or when it comes out one side will hate it. As long as i got the option to not be sjw and kill them,i will be happy asshole.

 

[Trashos]

Sounds potentially interesting. How do the devs see the game's capacity for replayability, though? I mean, once you have solved the case, is there a reason to replay?

 

[Prime Junta]

Sounds potentially interesting. How do the devs see the game's capacity for replayability, though? I mean, once you have solved the case, is there a reason to replay?

They've discussed it in a bunch of places. From what I've understood, it's the same as, say, Fallout.

(1) There's more than one ending. You might have actually cracked it, resolved a part of the mystery, gotten it completely wrong, or ended up a hobo in a gutter.
(2) There's many more than one way to arrive at the ending.
(3) Different builds will have different experiences, and each of these builds will discover different things about the case and the world. Cracking the case as a high functioning sociopath Sherlock Holmes type won't be the same experience as cracking the case as a borderline violent Inspector Rebus type, as Disco Cop, or as Art Cop.

I believe Marat Sar said something along the lines of needing about three playthroughs to discover more or less everything that's in the game.

 

[fantadomat]

Sounds potentially interesting. How do the devs see the game's capacity for replayability, though? I mean, once you have solved the case, is there a reason to replay?

They've discussed it in a bunch of places. From what I've understood, it's the same as, say, Fallout.

(1) There's more than one ending. You might have actually cracked it, resolved a part of the mystery, gotten it completely wrong, or ended up a hobo in a gutter.
(2) There's many more than one ways to arrive at the ending.
(3) Different builds will have different experiences, and each of these builds will discover different things about the case and the world. Cracking the case as a high functioning sociopath Sherlock Holmes type won't be the same experience as cracking the case as a borderline violent Inspector Rebus type, as Disco Cop, or as Art Cop.

I believe Marat Sar said something along the lines of needing about three playthroughs to discover more or less everything that's in the game.

Or the console commands.

 

[Trashos]

They've discussed it in a bunch of places. From what I've understood, it's the same as, say, Fallout.

(1) There's more than one ending. You might have actually cracked it, resolved a part of the mystery, gotten it completely wrong, or ended up a hobo in a gutter.
(2) There's many more than one ways to arrive at the ending.
(3) Different builds will have different experiences, and each of these builds will discover different things about the case and the world. Cracking the case as a high functioning sociopath Sherlock Holmes type won't be the same experience as cracking the case as a borderline violent Inspector Rebus type, as Disco Cop, or as Art Cop.

I believe Marat Sar said something along the lines of needing about three playthroughs to discover more or less everything that's in the game.

Reminds me of AoD's perspective a little bit, with different aspects of what's going on revealed to different builds. There are no combat builds to optimize here, so I guess 3 playthroughs is not too bad.

Anyway, if they are trying to open up the genre to people who are not into combat builds, maybe this is the way to do it (and certainly not by movies that play themselves). Have got to think about whether I will buy, it's going to have to be really damn good if I am to have fun without real combat.

 

[Brancaleone]

Short memory,old guy.

Yep. Which is what happens every now and then when enough vidja-journos see an upcoming game as the perfect chance to easily recoup some of their street-cred after years of peddling ungodly shit to their reader-base. Once it reaches critical mass, no journo wants to be left behind, and you get Obama's preemptive Nobel Prize the unanimous proclamation of No Man's Sky as the work of art of the century. Until enough people actually play it, that is.

 

[Marat Sar]

Sounds potentially interesting. How do the devs see the game's capacity for replayability, though? I mean, once you have solved the case, is there a reason to replay?

I believe Marat Sar said something along the lines of needing about three playthroughs to discover more or less everything that's in the game.

First, there's more than one case to solve. (We really should look into that part of our official copy, make it clearer.) There's a big main case and some substantial side-cases that affect the main case -- but can also remain separate. I'd say there are 5 big ones, ranging in size from 10% to even 40% of the main one. Some players will not do some side-cases the first time around, because their builds maybe aren't that good for them, or their choices don't lead there etc; or they're just not being that thorough.

Second, it's an open world game with tons of just stuff to just do. Dance, joke around, get to know people. This content may lead to some of these side-cases, or may just be side-activities, mini-quests, or just experiences.

Third, I said the game is "designed to be played at least three times". I really meanr it. Like minimum three times to get most of the content. To get all of it... looking at the word count we have right now and how much of it mutually exclusive... I don't think you can get everything in even 5, maybe 10 playthroughs. We're just beginning to see all the content in there, and it's so detailed and so branching I think you're gonna be hearing about weird little secrets you've never found yourself online well after the third playthrough.

Lastly, how you solve the case -- and end the game -- while important, is not as important as playing the thing. Yeah, there are different endings and you bring different clues to the conclusion. The final pieces of reactivity are important for us to hit in a really satisfying manner -- as of now there are even end slides planned, which I generally don't believe in, but we thought of a thematic way to present them -- but the most important thing is to get the road there as branching and wild and filled with secrets as possible. And i think we've done that.

I haven't played Age of Decadence (SHAME!!, yeah, I know), but from what I've heard -- think of Disco Elysium replayability in those terms, or the actually quite excellent replayability in Dragon Age Origins. Rather than say Planescape Torment, which was amazing, but really meant to be played once very thoroughly, then once again in 10 years to experience the same thing.

 

[Zombra]

Sounds potentially interesting. How do the devs see the game's capacity for replayability, though?

I've been thinking about Fallout. You know how in Fallout you have the "low intelligence playthrough", where due to a single character choice you get a very different experience?

To me DE looks like every character you make will have that wacky unique playthrough, with all the crazy specific dialogues and action options you get based on your stats.

 

[Marat Sar]

I've been thinking about Fallout. You know how in Fallout you have the "low intelligence playthrough", where due to a single character choice you get a very different experience?

To me DE looks like every character you make will have that wacky unique playthrough, with all the crazy specific dialogues and action options you get based on your stats.

It's not quite that insane, but yeah, there are -- I'd say -- more than one such strange playthrough in there. And since our most important checks are active checks which you can miraculously fail rolling, even if you're good at them, you get glimpses of those low int and low psyche etc playthroughs on your more balanced ones too. This hopefully lets the more balanced builds experience some of the craziness.

Have got to think about whether I will buy, it's going to have to be really damn good if I am to have fun without real combat.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Surprisingly enough, although the crpg literate crowd is our home court, we have a big hurdle to cross if we want to get this game to them. People who come from the classics as a reference point. If someone came to me and said: wanna play one of your fav crpg's -- but without the combat? I'd say no. Even PS:T wouldn't work if you take out the pallet cleanser that combat is.

You need a different style of writing and systems that accommodate for a different style of role playing. You need violence and combat inside the writing. You need a system for representing a believable, working mind for the main char, because the player will spend so much time in there: deduction, self doubt, fear, connecting the dots in your mind palace, even sexuality... all need to be fun as fuck. The non-combat skill checks need to be way more entertaining than passive gates, or even how some active rolls are done in games. And the style of writing needs to be... well it just needs more sex, humor, politics and a very personal angle.

I think we've done all that, and gotten it to a place where it's really quite engaging and natural. But before people have tried it, they won't believe it. All I'd hear is: some artsy fucks have done a game without combat, fuck off. It's not something you can get across in trailers either (we still have to do better job on that front too -- our trailers have been ass thus far). In the end, it will have to be streaming, the demo, and word of mouth. Seeing other people play this thing will make more sense. It's really very natura, and the sheer amount of freedom in there should get any crpg fan going. Then there's the pre-release demo, which I don't believe a lot of people will download -- because it's not 1997 -- but it's gonna be nice. About 9 in 10 people who've played it thus far have really dug it. For the rest, pure word of mouth and well done criticism will have to do the trick.

 

[Zombra]

Have got to think about whether I will buy, it's going to have to be really damn good if I am to have fun without real combat.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Surprisingly enough, although the crpg literate crowd is our home court, we have a big hurdle to cross if we want to get this game to them. People who come from the classics as a reference point. If someone came to me and said: wanna play one of your fav crpg's -- but without the combat? I'd say no. Even PS:T wouldn't work if you take out the pallet cleanser that combat is.

For whatever it's worth, there are people out there (well, at least one) who already appreciate the approach you're taking (or it looks like you're taking). I enjoy a game with lots of combat - Wizardry 8 might be my favorite CRPG ever; I think I've completed three 100+ hour playthroughs, and that game is 98% combat - but to put it simply, not every game has to do that, or include crunchy combat at all. Leaving aside any other issues with Torment: Numenera, I largely enjoyed the walking around, talking to people and solving problems, but the "crisis mode" combat things were just, like, ugh, I want to get back to the game, how do I get this over with as quickly as possible? Every time it was more of a roadblock than a joy, not even because the crisis system was bad, it just wasn't what I was there for. Coulda done those conflicts with a cutscene as far as I was concerned and it would have made me enjoy it a lot more. Then you have stuff like Fallout or Shadowrun Returns, which have a nice mix of dialogue and combat, and I like those too.

I guess I don't know where I'm going with this except that there's no One True Formula or "checklist" to have a great RPG. The idea of a dialogue and exploration game that doesn't feel the need to drop to a tactical board or "combat screen", while still having pivotal RPG character building mechanics, I don't know man, it just turns me on. I guess I'm still a bit drunk from last night but I love you guys man and I love your game and you're my bros.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

I think we've done all that, and gotten it to a place where it's really quite engaging and natural. It's not something you can get across in trailers either (we still have to do better job on that front too -- our trailers have been ass thus far).

I think the problem of your trailer is that the narrator is more appropriate for a cinematic approach of triple A games. Every time an isometric game tries to use this approach it ends up looking a cheap knockoff in comparison. You will probably ignore my advice, but just in case: drop the narrator, briefly mention your new mechanics using text while you present some gameplay scenes (mental cabinets, how the stats work, political inclinations, etc.), and the flattering remarks from game journalists. That’s the only to convey what your game is about. The trailer of Age of Decadence, which was competently made by Felipepepe, does a great job expressing the atmosphere, the setting and the gameplay - see this other trailer also made by Felipepepe. This trailer of Pillars of Eternity 2 on the other hand does everything wrong. It screams "I'm an isometric game, but I'm ashamed of it. I want to use the art to hide the gameplay because it's more cinematic".

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

In the end, it will have to be streaming, the demo, and word of mouth.

Hey, at least you have great graphics.

How many sales do you expect in order to break even or to consider the game a success?

What you are going to do when SJWs find out that you can have racist thoughts in your game and demand their removal?

 

[Marat Sar]

How many sales do you expect in order to break even or to consider the game a success?

What you are going to do when SJWs find out that you can have racist thoughts in your game and demand their removal?

These are both interesting questions -- indeed, too interesting to discuss on a public forum. (Even MCA didn't drop sales numbers and politics in his legendary thread did he...)

 

[Haba]

Have got to think about whether I will buy, it's going to have to be really damn good if I am to have fun without real combat.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Surprisingly enough, although the crpg literate crowd is our home court, we have a big hurdle to cross if we want to get this game to them. People who come from the classics as a reference point. If someone came to me and said: wanna play one of your fav crpg's -- but without the combat? I'd say no. Even PS:T wouldn't work if you take out the pallet cleanser that combat is.

You need a different style of writing and systems that accommodate for a different style of role playing. You need violence and combat inside the writing. You need a system for representing a believable, working mind for the main char, because the player will spend so much time in there: deduction, self doubt, fear, connecting the dots in your mind palace, even sexuality... all need to be fun as fuck. The non-combat skill checks need to be way more entertaining than passive gates, or even how some active rolls are done in games.

I don't think combat per se is an absolute must for an RPG, but there definitely needs to be some way for the player to experience how their character has developed. That's why even P:ST needs the combat, for that is where you get to see how your equipment, level ups and all the other effort you've put in building up your TNO is concretely changing the way the game plays.

I think repetition is probably the key. Conversations and skill checks tend to work poorly for this, as there is usually quite limited number of them.

In that sense, I think you have quite a good idea going on there. If every conversation is "a fight inside of your character's mind", you get a chance so see how improving one facet of your character changes the way that the encounters play out.

But it certainly isn't an easy thing to do and there is a reason why most games still opt to go for the combat instead.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't think combat per se is an absolute must for an RPG, but there definitely needs to be some way for the player to experience how their character has developed.

Over the years my PnP games have had less and less combat. There are just so many other kinds of challenges to measure yourself against than hitting a goblin in the neck, and many of them are more interesting.

Trouble is that most RPG systems kind of stink at noncombat mechanics -- which in fact is one of the main reasons I wanted to roll my own.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Don't worry fellas, we already had Numenera prove that ignoring the combat in favor of clicky talky almost guarantees commercial success.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

I think repetition is probably the key. Conversations and skill checks tend to work poorly for this, as there is usually quite limited number of them.

It’s not repetition, it is the active aspect of the gameplay. These traditional elements of gameplay exist for a reason. The dialogue based gameplay is very passive and simplistic when compared to combat. I like C&C just as the next storyfag, but Fallout and PS:T would suck without combat. I’m not sure if storyfags are representatives of most cRPG players, despite the recent predominance of narrative gameplay over character building and the insistence of most cRPG developers in that regard. Mart Star said that the combat needed to be inside the dialogue, but I don’t buy that. It seems that traditional combat was not their cup of tea so they invested on what they know best, which is the narrative gameplay. If they had the know-how but decided to do something else, they made a terrible mistake.

 

[Zombra]

I don't think combat per se is an absolute must for an RPG, but there definitely needs to be some way for the player to experience how their character has developed. That's why even P:ST needs the combat, for that is where you get to see how your equipment, level ups and all the other effort you've put in building up your TNO is concretely changing the way the game plays.

Of course. Hammers and nails. If you start with a rusty shortsword and then find a +2 broadsword, there's no payoff if there isn't a mechanism for hitting things with swords. But does every RPG need to have this kind of superficial gear progression? Do we strictly play RPGs to change our pants 12 times over the course of 30 hours? Does every RPG have to be about that?

The thing with DE is that the stats and progression are centered on the character and the strength of his personality aspects. That's where the focus is, that's where the numbers are, so that's where the conflicts should (and will) take place. And the number crunch is there; it just takes place in a different format than we're used to.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Of course. Hammers and nails. If you start with a rusty shortsword and then find a +2 broadsword, there's no payoff if there isn't a mechanism for hitting things with swords. But does every RPG need to have this kind of superficial gear progression? Do we strictly play RPGs to change our pants 12 times over the course of 30 hours? Does every RPG have to be about that?

Can you name one cRPG without combat that made character progression rewarding? I hope DE is the exception.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Once they get the demo out there the game will sell itself. It sure seems like everyone who's played the early builds at these big expos has been blown away. The word of mouf' is going to be huge.

As for combat... An RPG doesn't need combat, it needs conflict, which DE will have in spades. You'll have plenty of opportunities to use your character's abilities against an opponent; it's just that the opponent will be either some aspect of yourself or someone else you're trying to cajole or convince or impress.

Personally, I don't see much difference between what these guys are doing and old menu-mediated combat from, say, Wizardry, except you're trying to achieve a different outcome in each encounter rather than just killing' things.

Spoiler

vs

Spoiler

It would be silly to say Disco Elysium is like a narrative driven RPG but without the combat because the non-combat parts of many RPGs just play like adventure games. Here they've taken the kind of mechanics usually used for combat and assigned them to the rest of the game. This may be hard for people to understand in the abstract but it sounds like the people who've played DE have no trouble getting their heads around it.

 

[Zombra]

Can you name one cRPG without combat that made character progression rewarding? I hope DE is the exception.

I can't! And that's exactly why DE is so exciting to me.