Wizardry & Disco Elysium: how are these games the same genre?

[NJClaw]

Guys, I checked and it turns out Disco Elysium IS an RPG:

Saying that CRPGs should necessarily be combat-focused (or even have combat at all) because they derive from TTRPGs and TTRPGs derive from miniature wargames doesn't really makes sense, because "derive" doesn't mean that the two things need to be identical. Games evolve and genres evolve with them, sometimes creating new sub-genres. There are no other examples of CRPGs without combat, so? Before the first RTwP RPG all RPGs were TB, does that mean that RTwP RPGs shouldn't be considered RPGs at all? TTRPGs are turn based, after all.

 

[Latro]

Saying that CRPGs should necessarily be combat-focused (or even have combat at all) because they derive from TTRPGs and TTRPGs derive from miniature wargames doesn't really makes sense

It makes perfect sense; what doesn't make sense is changing this readily understood definition of RPG (that, being the most unique and most distinct RPG thing of all bar none is the combat) for the sake of one game.

Games evolve and genres evolve with them

This is devolution. If RPGs are no longer defined by combat, then RPG means nothing. InD_ImaginE tried to re-define the defining RPG element around "character building", and ruled out all JRPGs; then, he attempted to broaden it to "the effect of the character on the world", which just made The Legend of Zelda a very real RPG series. None of the new definitions fit with the old. They're wrong.

There are no other examples of CRPGs without combat, so?

Ergo, it's not a CRPG.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I've never played Zelda, so for what its worth I can't really debate about this.

But do Zelda have character progression (status) that drives/changes how the player interacts with the game? From what I understand Zelda games are driven by mainly items. Maybe Link got health upgrade here and there but that's it.

In the end of the day, you still fail to define what do you think RPG is tho. It's just a roundabout "It is a combat system so If it has no combat it ain't RPG" which is a non-argument so it's kinda useless debating over this. Your point regarding combat/noncombat/exploration, once again is not what makes RPG an RPG. Combat in RPG is just another skill checks, nothing more nothing less, measured against arbitrary limit called HP. You can make every single shit in RPG that way, not just combat. Having or not having that doesn't change a thing about whether a system is RPG or not. The fact that it is mainly used for combat is a relation, not causation.

And as I acknowledged, my insistence on "choice" might disqualify some games (simpler JRPG) into being RPG and it might still be improved upon. Still, I stand my ground that RPG is about character progression and how that interacts with the world, not about whether the system has combat or not.

 

[Latro]

In the end of the day, you still fail to define what do you think RPG is tho.

Combat. HP, DEF, & many other values that both the characters and enemies consist of; that the player defeats in some fashion to progress through the game. There may be alternative ways to "defeat" them (see SMT TALK system, Pokemon Capture, etc), but generally involves overcoming in some fashion. Can be utilized in many different ways, across different genres even (Dominions 5, JA2, Diablo, etc), but one that holds across many sub-genres (roguelikes for instance).

Combat in RPG is just another skill checks, nothing more nothing less, measured against arbitrary limit called HP.

Massive over-simplification. It is utilized across roguelikes, strategy games, tactical games, blobbers, RTwP, etc etc. Just an endless amount of games that all are held under the umbrella of RPGs through combat alone. It can (and often does) consist of dice rolls, but you are playing an inane reductive argument where it's NOTHING but dice rolls. You have to, because this is the only way you can shove Disco Elysium with JA2 or Fallout.

Again, rolling dice for dying of a heart attack isn't combat.

Still, I stand my ground that RPG is about character progression and how that interacts with the world, not about whether the system has combat or not.

Which has no basis in reality, and certainly no basis in how things have been defined as RPG for the past few decades.

 

[Reinhardt]

Still, I stand my ground that RPG is about character progression and how that interacts with the world

Every adventure game in history.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Combat. HP, DEF, & many other values that both the characters and enemies consist of; that the player defeats in some fashion to progress through the game.

This is correct, as I said, character progression which affect interaction with game world. The problem is you keep insisting that combat has to be put in. The only thing that matters is that it is player character attributes (be it combat such as ATK, DEF, and such, or non combat one like Charisma Persuasion etc) againts something the gameworld provides as a challenge.

It is a system of pitting player character attributes against a challenge present in the game The challenge can be combat or non-combat one.

Massive over-simplification. It is utilized across roguelikes, strategy games, tactical games, blobbers, RTwP, etc etc. Just an endless amount of games that all are held under the umbrella of RPGs through combat alone. It can (and often does) consist of dice rolls, but you are playing an inane reductive argument where it's NOTHING but dice rolls. You have to, because this is the only you can shove Disco Elysium with JA2 or Fallout.

No, I used dice rolls as an example because it is the easiest one, as DnD is the something that's accepted as RPG regardless of platform. You can replace dice rolls with complex formulas or whatever. You can make a non-combat challenge involves multiple attributes for all I care. The point is it is the character attributes and its progression is pitted against something. Combat is just a common and popular medium to convey those challenges, not the other way around (that the challenge has to be combat). Combat is fun. Bashing dragon is fun. Murdering people is fun. That's why most RPG has combat, not because a system has to have combat to be RPG.

Which has no basis in reality, and certainly no basis in how things have been defined as RPG for the past few decades.

A correlation is not causation. And if we are going by "how things have been defined", I guess we should go back to believing that the rest of the galaxy is orbitting around the earth right now? Because that's how it always been before people start observing and believing in heliocentric view.

 

[undecaf]

Murdering people is fun.

RPGCodex > Murdering people is fun.

 

[Latro]

The problem is you keep insisting that combat has to be put in.

In a table-top system, combat may be put aside per the GM's wishes, but this does not extend into a videogame. A videogame without any RPG combat, is quite simply not a RPG. I already see your strategy; first you conflate a table-top system with a videogame; secondly, you reduce all combat to mere dice rolls. It's already a fallacious argument from the get-go because a videogame is not a table-top system and simple dice rolls does not equate into a full-fledged RPG combat system.

You can make a non-combat challenge involves multiple attributes for all I care. The point is it is the character attributes and its progression is pitted against something.

It's pitted against nothing in Disco Elysium, just a pass/fail. Perhaps DE offers some other text variation depending what you roll, but that's besides the point.

That's why most RPG has combat, not because a system has to have combat to be RPG.

How many times do I have to point at...just reality. What you're saying is simply false, a lie. An RPG has always been defined by the presence of (some bare minimum at least!) RPG combat. Pure and simple. I say this confidently, because Disco Elysium is the only damned videogame without RPG combat that has tried to pass itself off as a wretched RPG.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

In a table-top system, combat may be put aside per the GM's wishes, but this does not extend into a videogame. A videogame without any RPG combat, is quite simply not a RPG. I already see your strategy; first you conflate a table-top system with a videogame; secondly, you reduce all combat to mere dice rolls. It's already an fallacious argument from the get-go because a videogame is not a table-top system and simple dice rolls does not equate into a full-fledged RPG combat system.

This is a silly argument. If I as aGM make a campaign in DnD that has 0 combat encounter (no matter how shitty it is) the player is still playing an RPG. But if I make a video game using DnD system that has no combat in it (no matter how shitty it is to play) then suddenly it is not RPG? You are very close on Not True Scottsman here. It ain't real RPG video games if it ain't has no combat? What makes an RPG is the underlying system. You can't nitpick this shit.

It's pitted against nothing in Disco Elysium, just a pass/fail. Perhaps DE offers some other text variation depending what you roll, but that's besides the point.

Sure, so Skill Checks in TTRPG are not RPG system at all. Just combat. All those other attributes? Skills? Not part of the RPG system. This is stupid argument. You can make it single stats/skills/attributes vs DC. You can make a complex formula out of it. Regardless which, it is player attributes againts challenge. That challenge can be represented by single DC or by formula. If I make an RPG where the only stats is ATK DEF and HP it will still be an RPG so long there is somekind of progression in it. Shitty one sure, but still is. And as I said, HP is just an arbitrary number that you need to pass a check (be it single attributes against DC or a complex formula) several times. At its core, you are still only pitting number against number.

How many times do I have to point at...just reality. What you're saying is simply false, a lie. An RPG has always been defined as such by the presence of RPG combat. Pure and simple. I say this confidently, because Disco Elysium is the only damned videogame without RPG combat that has tried to pass itself off as a wretched RPG.

If you can't understand that correlation is not causation then discussing is useless. The fact that combat is fun is the cause that most RPG has combat, not the other way around.

 

[RNGsus]

They aren't.

 

[barghwata]

I define Disco Elysium as "Adventure-VN", this implies that DE is an Adventure game with VN elements.

Why VN elements, i don't get it.... because it has dialogue trees??? ..... that would be retarded. As for it being an adventure game, i agree that it borrows enough elements from the adventure genre to be considered a hybrid, but a full blown adventure game???? that just seems like a huge stretch to me, the main focus in adventure games should always be puzzles and problem solving, but that's not the case at all in DE, it mostly focuses on the story and giving you the tools to roleplay the type of detective you want to be in that story( the character building system, though canbinet etc.....), when it comes to actual puzzles though, there's not much there.

Yes, I said so about a page ago. Dragon Quest is an RPG series because it has an RPG combat system, there is no character building (outside of job classes).

Never played dragon quest so i am not sure what you mean but i am genuinley curious about what an "RPG combat system" with no character building or progression systems would look like, because the implications of that is that even games from completely different genres can also be considered RPGs. Proper character progression and building systems always seemed to me like the only things that completely differentiate CRPGs from other genres, combat systems with numbers and stats on the other hand are everywhere.

By saying that RPGs are defined by character building, you therefore render an entire genre of JRPGs....not RPGs. This is important, because the definition of RPGs = Combat has held for about three to four decades! You are changing the definition for the sake of Disco Elysium alone.

I admittedly don't play enough JRPGs to know alot about this topic (belive me i tried), but from what i've played in the genre JRPGs do seem to have evolved into their own thing in a very different direction form that of western CRPGs, the latter having evolved directly from tabletop, then again even the few JRPGs that i did play (trails in the sky, valkyria chronicles etc.....) still had basic character progression systems which i highly doubt they can be considered RPGs without.

 

[aweigh]

Disco Elysium is dog shit. It doesn't even qualify as an adventure game, tbh, it's just an isometric visual novel about retarded political pandering.

 

[Ol' Willy]

I admittedly don't play enough JRPGs to know alot about this topic (belive me i tried), but from what i've played in the genre JRPGs do seem to have evolved into their own thing in a very different direction form that of western CRPGs, the latter having evolved directly from tabletop, then again even the few JRPGs that i did play (trails in the sky, valkyria chronicles etc.....) still had basic character progression systems which i highly doubt they can be considered RPGs without.

JRPGs are not RPGs, plain and simple. JRPG is the definition of Visual Novel with no C&C and some stats thrown in to make it look like something more complicated.

 

[Gregz]

WHAT MAKES A *TRUE* RPG?

 

[MpuMngwana]

JRPGs are not RPGs, plain and simple. JRPG is the definition of Visual Novel with no C&C and some stats thrown in to make it look like something more complicated.

So the definition of a visual novel is not having C&C? Man, Doom, Thief and Devil May Cry sure are great visual novels.

 

[aweigh]

Disco Elysium devs kneel to black people

lol

 

[Ol' Willy]

So the definition of a visual novel is not having C&C?

Visual Novels usually have some C&C.
JRPGs have no C&C whatsoever.

 

[MpuMngwana]

How is JRPG the definition of a visual novel then?

 

[Ol' Willy]

How is JRPG the definition of a visual novel then?

Typical JRPG is a visual novel with a shitty combat slapped on top of it. Remove combat and you will be left with a retarded plot in which player has no agency: no C&C, no forks, no choices, not even player creation.

 

[Reinhardt]

no C&C, no forks

There are plenty of jrpgs with forks and c&c. Usually in form of various bad ends. So they have both c&c AND combat. Jrpgs > disco furry.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

no C&C, no forks

There are plenty of jrpgs with forks and c&c. Usually in form of various bad ends.

The whole 'true ending' bullshit (which is sometimes locked behind all the other 'paths') is one of the reasons for my lack of interest in VNs. That and the usually mediocre writing which is more often than not coupled with gratuitous sexual content (thinking of you, Fate/Stay Night).

 

[Ol' Willy]

There are plenty of jrpgs with forks and c&c. Usually in form of various bad ends. So they have both c&c AND combat. Jrpgs > disco furry.

OK. I googled random best JRPGs list. It has:
-Chrono Trigger
-FF6
-DQ8
-Earthbound
-Fire Emblem
-Persona 5

How much C&C and forks do this games have? And I'm not talking about "you failed to meet this arbitrary criterion, so you get bad ending" bullshit, I'm talking about real consequences for the gameworld.

So they have both c&c AND combat.

No combat is better than JRPG combat

 

[NJClaw]

Saying that CRPGs should necessarily be combat-focused (or even have combat at all) because they derive from TTRPGs and TTRPGs derive from miniature wargames doesn't really makes sense

It makes perfect sense; what doesn't make sense is changing this readily understood definition of RPG (that, being the most unique and most distinct RPG thing of all bar none is the combat) for the sake of one game.

These are the top 4 RPGs of all time according to the prestigious site RPG Codex:
1 - Planescape: Torment;
2 - Fallout;
3 - Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn;
4 - Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

Two of those are considered masterpiece DESPITE their combat. If, as you said, "the most unique and most distinct RPG thing of all bar none is the combat", how in the world is it possible for the two best RPGs of all time to have a shitty and/or malfunctioning combat system? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that combat is just one of the pieces that you can use to make an RPG. If you remove the shitty combat from Planescape: Torment and Arcanum, would they stop being RPGs? Isn't that nonsensical?

Combat is just a part of what defines an RPG and, for some of the best RPGs ever made, it's also a very small one. Nobody (except maybe for Lilura, with her P:T combat videos on youtube) remembers P:T for its combat. To me (and to a lot of other people), the most important aspect of RPGs is the immersion in a fictional world and the exploration of interesting characters and situations. This is what puts P:T and Arcanum among the best RPGs ever made and, coincidentally, this is one of the strongest aspects of Disco Elysium.

 

[luj1]

Games evolve and genres evolve with them

Yeah I love it how liberal bull found its way into every fucking pore of human society. Everything can be everything!

 

[NJClaw]

Games evolve and genres evolve with them

Yeah I love it how liberal bull found its way into every fucking pore of human society. Everything can be everything!

"Did you just assume my game's genre?"