Codex Review RPG Codex Review: Disco Elysium

[Wunderbar]

The real combat is your videocard fighting Disco's hidden bitcoin miner.

 

[ScrotumBroth]

Hard to let go, innit lads?

Ofc you'd all rather be playing PoE, NumaNuma and Outter Faghots, except that it's shit, just like anything else coming from California lately.

You all know DE is 100% pure Columbian, no need for theatrics just coz you enjoyed a line.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

If you don’t think it’s possible for a CRPG to have no combat (100% possible in a TTRPG,

Nonsense.

And since you're so fond of appeals to authority, might as well listen to the person who created the RPG instead:

If a game is nothing but role-playing, then it is not really a RPG, but some form of improvisational theater, for the game form includes far more than acting out assumed roles.

“Storytelling” games are not RPGs.

If people enjoy playing limited roles in a game setting in which there are "untouchables," where they must be marionettes for the GM to move about, well and good. It is just not full RPG activity, and often is little more than amateur theatrics, play acting in a minor and surely inferior story line built as an adjunct to the original authored fiction and relatively meaningless to that work. Still, if it's entertaining to the participants, it is fulfilling its purpose, but it ain't RPGing.

You’re usually more meticulous than this. He seems to be saying LARPing does not an RPG make, which I agree with completely. There need to be mechanics, but those mechanics don’t necessarily need to center on combat (incidentally Disco Elysium does have combat mechanics and a couple of instances where you even get to use them). And if you could find a quote where Gygax flat out said RPGs require combat qua combat, I’m sure you would’ve cited it.

I’ve played Call of Cthulhu modules that had no combat, mostly investigation (some of the Delta Green ones). Was that not an RPG? I have friends who’ve played Burning Wheel campaigns with no combat—is that not an RPG? There’s stat based dispute resolution with dice (also the core mechanic in Disco), not just pure role-playing, which seems to fit the definition you’re citing just fine.

 

[Prime Junta]

^
this.

The distinguishing characteristic between improv theatre and role-playing games is that role-playing games have rule-based mechanics that define how challenges are resolved. Whether these challenges are combat or non-combat is secondary.

The same distinction holds for adventure games/visual novels and cRPGs.

 

[luj1]

Hard to let go, innit lads?

Ofc you'd all rather be playing PoE, NumaNuma and Outter Faghots, except that it's shit

Pillars, Numenera and TOW are shit CRPGs. No genre veteran should ever play them. Disco is a fairly good adventure game with RPG elements.

Disco is the better videogame by far.

 

[Haba]

A role-playing game can literally be about anything. You could make a hard-core cRPG about ice climbing, if you were so inclined. Or about holding a political debate. It just needs a good rule-set that gives you enough tools to create interesting situations than have be solved in multiple ways.

The problem is that most of computer role-playing games are not really RPGs. They are simplified tabletop war games in a disguise.

So now there is a generation of kiddies who have been conditioned into thinking that C&C in a RPG means being able to choose in between a rock and a stick. And the consequence is that as you bash mooks with a rock, a rock related number increases.

 

[Fairfax]

You’re usually more meticulous than this.

He seems to be saying LARPing does not an RPG make, which I agree with completely.

No, he wasn't. He was talking about 'storytelling' systems and diceless games. Look it up if you want.

And if you could find a quote where Gygax flat out said RPGs require combat qua combat, I’m sure you would’ve cited it.

His points and their context are self-evident, you're just being disingenuous. But here you go:

Yes, there should be a lot more emphasis on roleplay, what it is to create a character and stay within the framework created, and what it means to the game overall when this is done. This is not to say I am disparaging combat, as it is a very important, integral part of the RPG form.

Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves.

in my considered opinion detailed "realistic" combat rules are a detriment to the RPG, not a benefit. There is already undue stress placed upon combat as the central theme of the game form, while it is in fact only one of several key elements.

Fixation on a single aspect of the RPG form makes for tedious play to my thinking. All combat, all exploration, all yakking, all problem solving, all any single thing is downright dull.

The real bad rap against dice rolling is if combat is the predominate feature of play, that negating the other elements that make up the game…such as role-playing.

I’ve played Call of Cthulhu modules that had no combat, mostly investigation (some of the Delta Green ones). Was that not an RPG? I have friends who’ve played Burning Wheel campaigns with no combat—is that not an RPG? There’s stat based dispute resolution with dice (also the core mechanic in Disco), not just pure role-playing, which seems to fit the definition you’re citing just fine.

These games have combat systems, and you can enter combat if you will. That's completely different to a game where you're forbidden from doing so.

 

[Prime Junta]

I guess we just have two competing definitions of RPG then. I disagree with Gygax. Plane tickets bitch

 

[rusty_shackleford]

2019 is such a bad year for RPGs that RPGCodex has to review storybook games

 

[Prime Junta]

RPG Codex: policing genre boundaries since 1996

 

[Prime Junta]

Tell me Fairfax (and others, if so inclined): why is policing genre boundaries so important for you? I don't get it. From where I'm standing the cRPG is inherently a hybrid genre: it's a mashup of stats and role-playing with some type of gameplay basis -- RTS or TBS in one form or another in the 'classics,' brawler or shooter in case of many more modern ones. This one just mashes up stats and role-playing with an adventure/visual novel basis.

"Pure" RPGs can only exist on tabletop. Ain't no such thing on a computer (other than playing a tabletop RPG online).

 

[Excommunicator]

It's all well and good to play a game without getting into any combat if you choose to play that way.

But when the game outright disallows combat as a valid solution, that is definitely stretching (some would say butchering) what an RPG should be about.

I'm not passing judgement on this game because I haven't played it but the argument being made that regular combat solutions could or would make it more of an RPG is correct in principle.

 

[Martyr]

I guess we just have two competing definitions of RPG then. I disagree with Gygax. Plane tickets bitch

so you disagree with Gygax, the guy who invented RPGs, on the definition of RPGs?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

He's right in that the definition of pnp RPGs has little to do with the definition of computer RPGs.
The latter is inspired by, not a direct adaptation.

 

[ScrotumBroth]

A role-playing
The problem is that most of computer role-playing games are not really RPGs. They are simplified tabletop war games in a disguise.

So now there is a generation of kiddies who have been conditioned into thinking that C&C in a RPG means being able to choose in between a rock and a stick. And the consequence is that as you bash mooks with a rock, a rock related number increases.

 

[Prime Junta]

so you disagree with Gygax, the guy who invented RPGs, on the definition of RPGs?

I've played a quite a lot of non-combat RPGs. With character sheets, stats, die rolls, the lot. We all agreed that we're playing a RPG. We were members of a RPG association. Some of these games were at official events by the RPG association. If we weren't playing a RPG, then tell us what it was we were doing?

(And if you say "improv theatre" then you're officially being retarded. Anyone who actually does improv theatre would immediately say "no, that's not improv theatre, that's something different.")

 

[ItsChon]

All these people talking saying it's not an RPG, but still, not a single fucking person has even bothered to respond to MRY.

DE is an interactive CYOA, let's not kid ourselves.

What? DE may not be a "full-fledged RPG" (if RPGs require robust combat systems; there are occasional fights of a limited sort in the game), but it has not even the faintest resemblance to CYOA books, which don't track variables. Even the very, very limited number of gamebooks that tracked character stats (in a very, very limited way) didn't track world-state variables. And none of them had anything resembling dialogue.

You might say that DE is a very good RPG minus combat, but a CYOA book is not an RPG minus combat, it's something else entirely. An elephant without tusks isn't a chez lounge.

And, to preempt the argument, DE isn't an adventure game. Its puzzles are comparably limited to its combat, its items primarily have generic stat-based effects that trigger upon being equipped rather than custom puzzle-oriented effects that trigger upon being used on a hotspot.

Nor is DE a visual novel, as those don't offer free-form exploration, inventories, etc.

Overall, DE is clearly closest to an RPG, so it seems like either you have to say "it's its own thing" or "it's an RPG without combat" rather than trying to shoehorn it into some other category of game.

I hate the fucking Codex sometime. We have a real argument right here, delivered coherently and logically, but people would rather cite some random fucking guy that made the first RPG than respond.

Here's a hint, if you can't think of a good enough response, you might be wrong.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I hate the fucking Codex sometime.

then get out newfag

 

[Fairfax]

Tell me Fairfax (and others, if so inclined): why is policing genre boundaries so important for you? I don't get it. From where I'm standing the cRPG is inherently a hybrid genre: it's a mashup of stats and role-playing with some type of gameplay basis -- RTS or TBS in one form or another in the 'classics,' brawler or shooter in case of more modern ones. This one just mashes up stats and role-playing with an adventure/visual novel basis.

"Pure" RPGs can only exist on tabletop. Ain't no such thing on a computer (other than playing a tabletop RPG online).

Citation needed on it being 'so important to me'. Kretin was the one arguing for the game's alleged RPG status by appealing to authority, I just pointed out how silly that was.

I don't really care about non-RPGs being called RPGs, but I do have an issue when a developer makes claims like this:

Disco Elysium is the most faithful representation of desktop role playing ever attempted in video games.

It's not enough that it's supposedly an RPG, it's the best at being one!

Then the game comes out and even the zealots acknowledge that it's a (shorter than advertised) linear story with some flavour added through checks.

"Oh, that's just marketing". Sure, but it's not an outlier. It fits the consistent attitude shown in interviews, devblogs, and even codex posts by some devs. Also, a lot of the game's fans here (yourself included) would be all over that outlandish claim if it came from Obsidian/Bethesda/BioWare.

 

[Twiglard]

someone exclaims: Sartre is the shittiest of them all! Everybody laughs, nods in agreement

You forgot Derrida! How could you?!

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

By the way -- one feature of the game that IMO was under-utilized and frankly somewhat disappointing was the Thought Cabinet. Neat concept, but from the promo materials, I expected the thoughts to have a much more significant gameplay effect than they did. Or am I missing something that happened under the hood?

Oh no.

I disagree with the reviewer almost entirely but I don't have time for quote wars (at least not at the moment) so here's my opinion where I actually mention more evident flaws:

I've finished the game and all I've said is even more true. The main problem of the game is that it's for one play-through only. Oh, I don't doubt that some storyfags will finish it a couple of times but most people won't find such determination because if you'll play it once you will see almost all relevant content. Stats don't matter much, we're still role-playing the same cop, doing the same things, using the same tools. With INT 1 we can articulate the same responses as with INT 5, the only difference is we won't be able to raise Visual Calculus (or other skills associated with INT) to a high enough level for it to be a useful skill (then again we can always save-scum, which is another problem, a game that allows that is just badly designed, although it's not a major flaw). But we can use a different skill to achieve the same goal so in the end there is no difference, only labels change. As I've said, it's Bethesda level of design. E.g. whether I used visual calculus or just broke the door down the result was the same.

Contrary to what ZA/UM are advertising this game isn't open world at all, we have invisible walls everywhere and in various forms. One such example I've provided here but there are plethora of them. We can't walk to the other side of the town until Wednesday, we can't progress unless Kim is with us (even though we can ask the same questions and observe the same things and his presence changes nothing we still can't advance and if we can we die because of plot reasons, e.g. when confronting a certain person that has both me and Kim under control anyway) and in general we can't do something unless we meet some stupid requirements like clicking on a "conclude day" as if that would change anything. Another example, we can't talk with "Sunday friend" once we walk out even though we know he's in there (unless he jumped through the window) because it's just a scripted scene. Or we can't play the tape unless Kim is with us. Anyway, in no other game I've felt so restrained. Even not having a flashlight prevents us from advancing in a certain area, we can't hurt ourselves trying to do it or just walk by holding our hand on the wall, developers just didn't give us that option and that's it.

Yeah... I don't think I'm going to enjoy this game. It is not what I expected.

 

[Prime Junta]

"Oh, that's just marketing". Sure, but it's not an outlier. It fits the consistent attitude shown in interviews, devblogs, and even codex posts by some devs. Also, a lot of the game's fans here (yourself included) would be all over that outlandish claim if it came from Obsidian/Bethesda/BioWare.

So you're basically butthurt about the marketing and don't have anything much of value to say about the game itself. Fair enough. Let's go back to rating each other's posts shit then.

 

[Prime Junta]

someone exclaims: Sartre is the shittiest of them all! Everybody laughs, nods in agreement

You forgot Derrida! How could you?!

She clearly thinks Derrida isn't shit, having used hauntology non-ironically.

 

[Excommunicator]

All these people talking saying it's not an RPG, but still, not a single fucking person has even bothered to respond to MRY.

DE is an interactive CYOA, let's not kid ourselves.

What? DE may not be a "full-fledged RPG" (if RPGs require robust combat systems; there are occasional fights of a limited sort in the game), but it has not even the faintest resemblance to CYOA books, which don't track variables. Even the very, very limited number of gamebooks that tracked character stats (in a very, very limited way) didn't track world-state variables. And none of them had anything resembling dialogue.

You might say that DE is a very good RPG minus combat, but a CYOA book is not an RPG minus combat, it's something else entirely. An elephant without tusks isn't a chez lounge.

And, to preempt the argument, DE isn't an adventure game. Its puzzles are comparably limited to its combat, its items primarily have generic stat-based effects that trigger upon being equipped rather than custom puzzle-oriented effects that trigger upon being used on a hotspot.

Nor is DE a visual novel, as those don't offer free-form exploration, inventories, etc.

Overall, DE is clearly closest to an RPG, so it seems like either you have to say "it's its own thing" or "it's an RPG without combat" rather than trying to shoehorn it into some other category of game.

I hate the fucking Codex sometime. We have a real argument right here, delivered coherently and logically, but people would rather cite some random fucking guy that made the first RPG than respond.

Here's a hint, if you can't think of a good enough response, you might be wrong.

I agree with MRY's comments but I think it skirts around a bigger issue - not whether or not it's closer to RPG than CYOA but actually whether or not it comes close enough to other games we consider classic RPGs - or even tabletop RPGs for that matter.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

ItsChon: If you can't think of a good enough response, you might be wrong.

Also ItsChon: I can't think of a good enough response so everybody respond to MRY please.