Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
"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.
You asked a question about 'genre boundaries', and now you're complaining that I didn't talk about the game. If your fragile ego is so attached to this game that you can't read anything remotely negative about it, you've got bigger problems that forum users arguing about genres.
Well, you're really not, are you? I honestly haven't heard anything from you that actually discusses the game, rather than claims made about the game, marketing of the game, or which genre the game belongs to, or doesn't.
Also from where I'm standing you're the one who seems to be taking our disagreements personally. Might want to reflect on that a little.
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.
It's impractical. Suppose you wanna kill an important NPC character just for the lulz. Should a developer invest a ridiculous amount of time redesigning new paths just so that you can NPCs for the lulz? Combatfag or not, the play shouldn't be allowed to enter in combat wherever he wants. This is childish thinking.
I wasn’t being disingenuous, I assumed you would quote the relevant passages because, as I said, you tend to be meticulous (I think you’re wrong here, but I don’t question your homework). I’m not actively trying to get your goat.
Disco Elysium has a combat system! It’s half-baked and heavily scripted in the game, but it wouldn’t be hard to put together a combat heavy adventure using their ruleset and the base modifiers from Disco’s one big setpiece. I get the impression that the ZA/UM guys have already done this with an earlier version of their METRIC system.
Disco itself plays like a combat light p&p detective campaign, with just you and the world’s most verbose/overprepared dungeon master.
You aren’t forbidden from fighting, though you can only enter combat at certain times (hardly unique for a CRPG). You can’t randomly gun down innocent civilians because you’re playing as a police officer in a setting inspired by Europe, not America. You do get a chance very early in the game to shoot a child and that nets you an instant game over, because the main quest is really “prove that you shouldn’t be kicked off the force.” Still, when there’s a problem that can be solved by violence, you’re given the option to make the attempt. Even if it causes you to be gunned down by seven well-armed thugs.
Everyone who loved PS:T should at least give Disco a shot. I’m not confident that you’ll be won over, but I will buy you a damned copy if only so that you can shit on the game from a better informed perspective.
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.
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.
Hell, who whole argument about combat is moot as well. The game has combat. It has several situations you can solve by punching or shooting things. Situations influenced by the equipment and the skills your character has, resolved via dice roll.
The whole argument is silly. Even if it didn't have combat, it'd still be an RPG.
I find it hilarious that people have easier time accepting a game where you bump a sprite against another sprite 'till one of them vanishes as an RPG, than a game that has demonstrably all the qualities that an RPG needs to have. You might not be used to that and it might not be the flavour you prefer, but it is extreme intellectual dishonesty to keep on crying that it is not a real RPG because you can't grind XP killing rats.
Apparently pointing out that developers promised a 90-hour open world, open-ended RPG, but delivered a 15 hour linear Telltale adventure with map a size of broom closet is not discussing the game.
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.
Hell, who whole argument about combat is moot as well. The game has combat. It has several situations you can solve by punching or shooting things. Situations influenced by the equipment and the skills your character has, resolved via dice roll.
The whole argument is silly. Even if it didn't have combat, it'd still be an RPG.
I find it hilarious that people have easier time accepting a game where you bump a sprite against another sprite 'till one of them vanishes as an RPG, than a game that has demonstrably all the qualities that an RPG needs to have. You might not be used to that and it might not be the flavour you prefer, but it is extreme intellectual dishonesty to keep on crying that it is not a real RPG because you can't grind XP killing rats.
Combatfags saying this thing isn't a cRPG because it has little combat are like men saying that fat women aren't women because they prefer skinny ones. It's a matter of personal preference, not a definitional aspect. If you don't care about C&C and narrative choices that much, you will accuse the game of being a CYOA because nowadays that is the only type of game where you have a narrative and far-reaching impact. These games should be seen like a PnP campaign where the DM won't let you run around killing everything that moves.
I agree with MRY you fucking idiot. If I could think of a response that would refute his point, I wouldn't be agreeing with him now would I? Keep shitposting.
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.
There is no functional difference between clicking the dialogue option to shoot one of the mercenaries, which leads to the computer rolling dice and adding your modifiers to said roll to determine whether or not you succeeded, and basic attacking an enemy in the IE games/tabletop D&D based RPGs, which takes into account your THAC0 and the enemies AC with your roll to determine whether or not you succeeded. Now obviously this is a false equivalency, as both tabletop RPGs and CRPGs are many times more complex than one, or even several, dialogue checks options which will lead to a dice roll. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand though, because even a game with the most braindead simple combat system, is still a game with a combat system, and no one here would argue otherwise.
That is enough for me to consider DE an RPG, especially because no other existing classification of video games adequately describes DE.
Another question to Fairfax (and others, if so inclined).
How do you feel about innovation in the RPG genre?
- Categorically against: cosmetic technology improvements aside, I'd be happy as a clam if they just kept making new IE games forever (*substitute Gold Box, ur-Fallout, or other favourite classic RPG franchise)
- Categorically for: a genre that doesn't innovate is a zombie genre, bring on the new gameplay, new mashups, new mechanical systems, new worlds, new everything
- Somewhere in-between, plz specify
I've been gradually burning out on the genre. Until Disco, the last new RPG I un-ironically enjoyed was Pillars of Eternity with the White March expansions, and that was largely driven by nostalgia. It seems to me that the whole industry has gone stale. We've got nothing but sequels, reboots, and tributes that are utterly predictable and therefore utterly dull. I haven't been able to get into PF:KM which is probably the best one out there ATM in this style largely for this reason -- fuck me, I'm really not interested in another game about killing a mountain of goblins to save the world/become a ruler/kill a god/whatever.
I'm getting my biggest gaming kicks from Kerbal Space Program lately, and when eventually that finally wears out, it's possible I'll just drop computer gaming altogether.
Which should make you happy as I'll all the time in the world to post about important topics like Communism and social justice on GD.
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.
It's impractical. Suppose you wanna kill an important NPC character just for the lulz. Should a developer invest a ridiculous amount of time redesigning new paths just so that you can NPCs for the lulz? Combatfag or not, the play shouldn't be allowed to enter in combat wherever he wants. This is childish thinking.
Tell me, does every game that has a combat system in it allow you to enter combat wherever you want and also script every possible thinkable consequence for a combat encounter? Exactly. You're misrepresenting.
It would be very much possible to design such a system into a game of this kind. Would doing so necessarily make it more fun? Not if it was hashed on. But if it was done well I don't think anyone would turn their nose up at it.
"Mick, you're a liar... you're a fucking wanker. I didn't rate you as a player, I don't rate you as a manager, and I don't rate you as a person." --Roy Keane
I agree with MRY you fucking idiot. If I could think of a response that would refute his point, I wouldn't be agreeing with him now would I? Keep shitposting.E.
What? I don't need to refute MRY's points because he didn't refute any of mine or didn't even address me at all. For such a sophisticated intellectual and connoisseur of deep literary fiction you seem to have a problem following chain of conversations.
What? I don't need to refute MRY's points because he didn't refute any of mine or didn't even address me at all. For such a sophisticated intellectual and connoisseur of deep literary fiction you seem to have a problem following chain of conversations.
What points? You haven't made a single point in this entire thread that wasn't a disingenuous shitpost. And note that I didn't address my post to you, but to anyone that was claiming DE isn't an RPG. I don't know whether or not you claimed this since all your posts have devolved into shit that's barely worth reading.
Somewhere in between, leaning heavily towards the side of categorically against. All I really want are more IE and Underrail engine based games, with different settings, characters, stories, items, and the like. After DE, I'm also willing to throw that system into the mix as well. I enjoyed AoD, it's easily a top 5-10 RPG, but I enjoyed Underrail, PS:T, DE, IWD, etc much more. I understand that if everyone agreed with me, we wouldn't have ever got a game like DE, but for every DE, we get hundreds of garbage RPGs. I'm more than willing to take the safe bet, and have people focus their time on writing brilliant stories and crafting intricate combat encounters using engines that are proven to be a lot of fun.
Anyway the point is moot as this game could never be released in the West. The creative capacity of the West has long been exhausted, it's good for nothing but sequels and superhero movies.
Except DE does not have a good system and it does not have interesting situations. Meaning from a gameplay perspective. Whether the dialogues are interesting is irrelevant. From a gameplay perspective it's all the same. The game literally has like what, 20? 24? whatever skills for the same kind of interaction. Because no, clicking on "punch a kid" is not combat (only a communist cretin would consider that combat) and is no different than any other "interaction" in this game.
So, the only situation is "click on a dialogue line". That's it. There's no reasonable way one could differentiate them (if they're not a cumguzzling fanboy), and actually, you know, GAME, especially since because the game is SO WHACKY, the skills are used randomly so for example n 2 instances of what might look like combat to a communist cretin there are two different skills checked, none of which has anything to do with combat in any way.
The most gaming in this game is switching out clothes and tools on and off which is fucking irritating after about the hundred time.
Excommunicator in most CRPGs where you’re a murderhobo/adventurer, lots of NPCs will try to threaten or otherwise resist your character. It makes sense that you should be able to frequently—or constantly—resort to violence. Although even AoD doesn’t let you try to kill everyone (either for budget reasons or because it’s suicide).
In Disco, you’re a cop trying to solve a case. Most NPCs are willing to respect your authority to some extent, though it often takes some extra effort to get their full cooperation. The only NPCs who threaten you or actively obstruct your investigation tend to be backed up by overwhelming force: the executive from a major multinational corporation with an army of mercenaries at her beck and call, the union leader with over two thousand followers who are on strike and ready for war. When an NPC gets in your way without that kind of force behind them, you can attack them—sometimes the violence even accomplishes something! Sometimes even making the attempt gets you shot.
As for random civilians, again, you’re a cop. Disco gives you the chance to shoot at an unarmed child very early on and it’s a great way for the game to demonstrate why it makes no sense to let you murder whoever you feel like. If your shot hits the kid, you get the same kind of game over screen that you’d see if you let your health or your morale drop to zero: you see a story about yourself in the next day’s newspaper. In this case the headline is something like “Burned Out Detective Shoots Child,” and IIRC the story explains that your superiors pack you off to a mental hospital.
Disco’s a detective game and if you can’t be a detective anymore, the game is over. Killing unarmed citizens is a quick way to stop being a detective.
It's even funnier how shills were complaining nobody discussing the game, but now that people tried, it quickly turns out we shouldn't discuss:
- mechanics
- combat
- features
- genres
- anything at all related to the game,
Because it's all unfair nitpicking, and missing a point, and you're playing it wrong.
So let's just agree that the only acceptable way of discussing Disco Elysium is to film yourself furiously jacking off to Disco Elysium logo, then inserting a boxed copy of the game into your anus while screaming KUURVITZ I LOVE YOU.
Look, I'm not saying that materialistic conceptual synchronicity of dialectical photosynthetic metaphysics is necessarily aliens, but it's probably aliens.
Apparently pointing out that developers promised a 90-hour open world, open-ended RPG, but delivered a 15 hour linear Telltale adventure with map a size of broom closet is not discussing the game.
Except DE does not have a good system and it does not have interesting situations. Meaning from a gameplay perspective. Whether the dialogues are interesting is irrelevant. From a gameplay perspective it's all the same. The game literally has like what, 20? 24? whatever skills for the same kind of interaction. Because no, clicking on "punch a kid" is not combat (only a communist cretin would consider that combat) and is no different than any other "interaction" in this game.
So, the only situation is "click on a dialogue line". That's it. There's no reasonable way one could differentiate them (if they're not a cumguzzling fanboy), and actually, you know, GAME, especially since because the game is SO WHACKY, the skills are used randomly so for example n 2 instances of what might look like combat to a communist cretin there are two different skills checked, none of which has anything to do with combat in any way.
The most gaming in this game is switching out clothes and tools on and off which is fucking irritating after about the hundred time.
Any computer RPG gaming game is still going to be a compromise. It will have to rely on smoke and mirrors and and the illusion of choice to make the scope humanly manageable. I think DE works for most people because it manages to maintain the illusion of choice well enough. Minor things change and minor choices have long lasting impact. If you are having a fun ride and enjoying the story, you won't notice the strings on the puppets and the rails. I think it was an exceptionally good compromise. I had fun. And I generally don't have fun any more.
For others the mileage may vary.
Also keep in mind that the whole idea was to replicate a tabletop RPG, not a tabletop war game.
Jordan: Ok, Can I use my quarterstaff?
DM: Not your quarterstaff, it's about 7' long.
Rachel: All right, I take my grappling hook, with a rope and try and throw it out there.
DM: Ok, you can grapple the frog. It makes a thicking *plctch* sound as it hits the water and your rope goes into it. I mean it's standing water because it's separate from the river and you can hook the frog and pull it towards the shore which you do. You now have a frog corpse near the shore.
Jordan: Is there anything on the frog corpse.
DM: When you check the frog corpse --
Jordan: I check it with a rock first, by the way. Hit it with a rock from 20' away.
DM: That is going back in time, so let's be careful about that.
The trick to navigating the Codex is figuring out which Codexians are worth engaging with. If they're here just for the lulz, trying to have a discussion with them is the proverbial chess game with the pigeon.
