Disco Elysium - Moving RPGs to the Next Level?

Originally Posted by GabrielMP_19
The industry has space for everything. Wishing that RPGs without combat are not financially successful is basically petty (not to say stupid because games like this can pave the way for interesting changes in more combat-focused games). Obviously, I'm slightly surprised that some people are against innovation. For some folks, we should still be playing Wizardry and the first Bard's Tale.

I don’t think it’s petty at all. I’m being a concious consumer and hope the category of products that make up this genre don’t become lower in quality. It’d be like going to a ramen shop (one of my fav types of food), realizing it’s an awful place, and hoping other people don’t have to experience the same. Also, look at the state of tactical games. Sure XCOM was fun, but I enjoyed TUs more than the AP system. However there are now many clones eother released or in production that are aping the 2AP system. It’s a consequence of it doing well. Same with RTwP. Although there are many great turn based rpgs, due to the success of the IE games, RTwP is the default for amy dnd or dnd-like game. Which is a shame, as I despise that combat system. So no, I am not merely being petty. I’m simply hoping for an outcome I’d be happy with refarding the rpg genre. Not sure I see the problem with that.

And I hardly think this is innovation. This is an adventure game with some stats parading as an rpg. For some folks the new Witcher game should just have an option that says “skip combat!” and go to tje next cutscene or dialogue choice.

Originally Posted by daveyd
No, a visual novel allows you to make any dialogue choice. There are no character statistics or "build" affecting the outcome of your choices. There's no skill points or leveling up. It plays just like a "choose your own adventure" book.

Those books had skills, checks, character progression system.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
I know this might sound harsh, but I hope this game is not a financial success. Having combatless rpgs is the exact opposite trend that rpgs should go in imo.

Really, this is an adventure game with some stats. It’s not an rpg. But of course the story tards are all about it.

Behead all story tards!

That is all. The only things a RPG must not include in order to qualify as a RPG are roles and situations to act ouf of a role. Any product that do not feature those is material for RPG.

Except DE will have combat, it will just be done through text descriptions and not through moving chess pieces on the board.
Devs said the game will still roll checks to see how you did in combat and you will still be able to fail and die.

I'm not quite seeing how this is a "next-level" RPG. Seems to be essentially a point and click adventure, with some stats.

Visual Novels are intriguing but I can't get over the awful anime art and subject matter.

Also I just love killing things.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Those books had skills, checks, character progression system.

No, the actual "Choose Your Adventures" series did not. Gamebooks like Fighting Fantasy and Lone Wolf did. So we could say gamebooks are to RPGs as CYOA is to visual novels.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
I’d say I’m against games calling themselves rpgs without combat. This idea of a game being an rpg because “you play a role and it has stats” always seemed absurd to me. Using that definition the new Madden Football game is an Rpg. It has stats and a story mode. Except you can even say it’s more of an rpg because the resolution of conflict actually involves gameplay.

And I disagree entirely about there being enough space for these non-rpgs. The marketplace is saturated enough with games that non-rpgs like these make the discovery problem worse.

So what you're really saying is because you personally don't like the idea, it isn't worthy of being called an RPG in your eyes.

If you define an RPG as a game where you play a role, it has stats, and a combat system with visual representation (i.e., not text based / skill checks like DE will have), then what about the games Joxer mentioned? Why aren't new Tomb Raider and Far Cry considered (action) RPGs? Most people would classify those games as action-adventure games.

It's ultimately pretty arbitrary. Lines get blurred between genres (most games have "RPG elements") and a true RPG has become an undefinable "I know one when I see one" thing. I'm not arguing all or even most RPGs should follow this path, just that some should. There's still going to be plenty of RPGs for "combat tards" and Steam has tags like turn-based so you're have to be pretty stupid to not find the kind of RPG you're looking for.

Originally Posted by daveyd
No, the actual "Choose Your Adventures" series did not. Gamebooks like Fighting Fantasy and Lone Wolf did. So we could say gamebooks are to RPGs as CYOA is to visual novels.

That is using a commercial label. At that, the commercial label is not even global.

Lone wolf books as FF books also lead readers to choose their own adventures. They are choose your own adventure books.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
I’d say I’m against games calling themselves rpgs without combat. This idea of a game being an rpg because “you play a role and it has stats” always seemed absurd to me. Using that definition the new Madden Football game is an Rpg. It has stats and a story mode. Except you can even say it’s more of an rpg because the resolution of conflict actually involves gameplay.

RPGs were defined decades ago.
Madden games provide players with no role.
A game like UFC or whatever it calls is centered on combat, have stats and a story mode.

That is the hallmark of double standard people: they always end banging their heads against walls.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Madden games provide players with no role.

This is actually not true. In madden games you can play a variety of roles. In fact, the old NCAA games started this trend and it continued with Madden.

For example, in the NCAA Football games you could play as a Coach, and get hired or fired base don your performance.

Also, you could roleplay as an incoming freshman. You could choose a position, much like choosing a class. Interestingly enough, your stats were determined at the beginning of the game, as you ran some drills. Your performance in these drills had an impact on your stats as well as the team you wanted to join. You could customize your player in terms of appearance as well.

It also had a dorm room mechanic to flesh out this roleplaying. IIRC you could customize the room based on points you'd earn playing the game. You would also receive fan mail from fans. I'm not 100% sure, but I think one version even allowed you to get a girlfriend, which counts as romance.

In addition, you had the opportunity to level up as you'd perform drills in between games (or seasons; can't quite remember), and your performance in these drills and mini games dictated how much experience you'd get to increase your stats.

The game world also changed according to your performance on the field as you could play well enough to start being named as a heisman candidate, and the game would create these cool Sports Illustrated covers that you could appear in if you played well in a high stakes game or if you won the trophy.

Finally, your player could declare for the pro draft, then you could transfer him to Madden, which is the professional football game, and you could further level up the player and get accolades, etc.

So yes, these kind of games DO have roles, and stats. Why are they not considered an RPG? As I've pointed out, if anything, these games are more of an RPG because there is actual gameplay, and not just dialogue windows. And the new Madden actually has an rpg-like story mode similar to Mass Effect, where you pay a specific character. Complete with dialogue choices and cutscenes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBZwjP6MpZo


EDIT: My point is not to argue that Madden is an RPG, but to point out how goofy the "if you play a role and it has stats then its an RPG" argument is when trying to justify Disco Elysium being an RPG. If DE is an RPG, then Madden is an action rpg. That sounds ridiculous to me, as it should.

Originally Posted by daveyd
So what you're really saying is because you personally don't like the idea, it isn't worthy of being called an RPG in your eyes.

No, I never said that. I think DE looks like a very interesting adventure game. However, because they are heavily marketing it as an RPG, I can only hope that it fails commercially, or this trend of combatless rpgs will continue. Which I would dislike.

Originally Posted by daveyd
If you define an RPG as a game where you play a role, it has stats, and a combat system with visual representation (i.e., not text based / skill checks like DE will have), …

Yah, I never defined an rpg as that.

Originally Posted by daveyd
It's ultimately pretty arbitrary. Lines get blurred between genres (most games have "RPG elements") and a true RPG has become an undefinable "I know one when I see one" thing.

I think we can agree on that. I'm just saying that when I see DE, I don't see RPG.

EDIT: Anyhow, didn't mean to derail this into what is an rpg argument. But it was said that I was being petty for wanting this game to fail commercially, but I think I was just being honest. I'll shut up now.

I don't know Madden, but I know in NBA you get to create a player with stats and all, and you have a career mode with a story, cutscenes and everything, you get to train, you play, you improve your stats and become better. That's an RPG by some people's definition. In my definition, it's all about the focus of the game. If the focus is the stats and combat over the other aspects of the game then it's an RPG.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
I’d say I’m against games calling themselves rpgs without combat. This idea of a game being an rpg because “you play a role and it has stats” always seemed absurd to me.

Pen & Paper RPG players would like to exchange a few words with you.

I've seen / witnessed very radical pen & paper role-playing games players who insist that C-RPGs are just shit. That they are not to be called role-playing games at all.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
I’d say I’m against games calling themselves rpgs without combat. This idea of a game being an rpg because “you play a role and it has stats” always seemed absurd to me.

About that "conflict narrative" I've written a lengthy reply in the SWTOR [ Star Wars The Old Republic ] forums :

As an author, I very much despise settings with "eternal conflict". On a meta level, a person breaking the third wall in such a setting might say : "We had millennia of years of constant peace - but as soon as this outer space author invaded our world and took "care" of it, hell broke loose."

Looking at settings from a meta perspective, it is actually kind of frightening how often this happens in any video game. More or less all of the time a new setting is born.

Why ?

Because authors firmly believe in the "conflict" narrative. For me, who is thinking in an rather 180 degrees way, this is utter BS. I mean, it gets old, very old at one point. "oh, yet another [insert world name here] Wars ?"

In my opinion, putting this "conflict narrative" forth is - to me - rather some kind of cultural imperialism. It's like insisting in - and therefore implanting tghem - that CONFLICT is actually THE idea to go after.

Well, that very much works in conflict-driven cultures like the USA has, where THE FRONTIER is considered THE ULTIMATIVE setting anyway, no matter whether real or in media,
but looking at real countries like Iraq, in which this CONFLICT setting has taken real space, it soon shows that thinking this way can become quite old once you've lerft the own flat and are confronted with the real thing.

Me, I'm so much sick and bored of the CONFLICT narrative, that I just can't stand it anymore.

But unfortunately the biggest gaming markets are culturally influenced so much that their customers firmly believe in THE CONFLICT and bvuy games with that.
And, following the trail of money, publishers want only this. War. Brutality. Massacre. Conflict. There even are games toitled like "God of war" or "Total war" [ a Nazi term, by the way ! ].

Conflict settings are so much boring to me, because I think I've seen them all. Everything is always the same. You go out, slaughter a few opponents, and in the act of slaughteringg lies peace. Or so they tell me.
No woinder there was once made a gun called "Peacemaker". It heralds only one message : "There will be only ONE kind of peace. MY kind of peace." Truly egoistic.

I'm so much bored of this CONFLICT thing that I'm literally fed up with it. It's time for me to get new tastes into my mouth, not only vanilla, but also strawberry, for example.

However, I'm not happy with the KOTFE story, either. It just doesn't have that much of the original sett9ing feeling to me - and with "setting" I mean everything APART from the ongoing "Star Wars".

Who would buy a movie called "Star Peace" ? No-one would. And that nothing but shows me how deep we are within this "war / conflict is good" belief.

Originally Posted by wolfing
In my definition, it's all about the focus of the game. If the focus is the stats and combat over the other aspects of the game then it's an RPG.

So UFC is a RPG. It is the same as NBA, except that instead of football, that is fight in an arena. That makes it a RPG.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I've seen / witnessed very radical pen & paper role-playing games players who insist that C-RPGs are just shit. That they are not to be called role-playing games at all.

There is nothing radical in not calling products that have no roleplaying in them RPGs. The radicality is on the side of people calling products devoid of roleplaying RPGs.

Originally Posted by Mustawd
This is actually not true. In madden games you can play a variety of roles. In fact, the old NCAA games started this trend and it continued with Madden.

For example, in the NCAA Football games you could play as a Coach, and get hired or fired base don your performance.

Also, you could roleplay as an incoming freshman. You could choose a position, much like choosing a class. Interestingly enough, your stats were determined at the beginning of the game, as you ran some drills. Your performance in these drills had an impact on your stats as well as the team you wanted to join. You could customize your player in terms of appearance as well.

A career or a job is not a role. Up to now, those products do not call that mode a role mode, they call it a career or a story mode. They might change their minds if it is discovered that calling it a role mode spurs more sales than calling it a career mode.

The thing with seeing roles in stuff like career, job or even simple group functions etc is that it ends with seeing roles in most vid products.

By those terms, it is understood that Madden can not be a RPG, it has roles in it but no combat. UFC is a MAdden like fight in an arena game. So it must be a RPG.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I've written a lengthy reply in the SWTOR [ Star Wars The Old Republic ] forums :

I wish you wrote that and other things originally here and not there. Two reasons.
EA is slowly, one by one, killing off separate game forums with tendency to move only technical problems from each product to EA answers site. All your shared thoughts will vanish soon there.
Second reason is you were tossing pearls to pigs that can't appreaciate it.

But anyway, we can prolong the discussion if something is RPG till doomsday and still not reaching consensus.
We'll for sure agree that some product has RPG elements, but some of us will be softer than others on accepthing if it's really a genre entry. Then there are cases where absolutely noone will agree that a game is RPG and we'll all agree is falsely advertised as such (example: Ubi's Division).
What we need is a proper definition instead of judging with guts. A definition from who you might ask. Dunno. Just not give it to PC Gamer journalists please. Those people do not know differences between apples and oranges. Not just that they don't even call those fruit apples nor oranges but are inventing confusing terms that sound pompous yet tell nothing about a product.

For a long while I would not even accept Bethesda games as RPGs since you have to manually control your guy during combat and you used your own skills and reflexes instead of your characters.. yea.. a discussion what is a RPG can be a long and unfruitful one.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur

A career or a job is not a role. Up to now, those products do not call that mode a role mode, they call it a career or a story mode. They might change their minds if it is discovered that calling it a role mode spurs more sales than calling it a career mode.

What? Mass Effect plays from the job/career of a ship captain. What exactly are you talking about?

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
The thing with seeing roles in stuff like career, job or even simple group functions etc is that it ends with seeing roles in most vid products.

For one, how are you even defining a "role"? And there is precedence for sports being considered rpgs.


Plus it's not just a career mode. It literally has C&C, as described before. Besides, the WHOLE point of this discussion was saying that Disco Elysium is not an RPG. By your definition it also isn't an rpg since the dude is playing a career/job, aka a cop.

To me this just sounds like you're moving the goalposts because you

A.) Don't enjoy sports games and/or don't see them as an rpg

and/or

B.) Your argument has no merit

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Pen & Paper RPG players would like to exchange a few words with you.

I've seen / witnessed very radical pen & paper role-playing games players who insist that C-RPGs are just shit. That they are not to be called role-playing games at all.

You're implying as if that encompasses all PnP players. Of course it does not. Those same players probably despise one-shot dungeon crawls as well.

Regardless, we're talking crpgs here. They're different animals in many ways. Similar in many ways too. But in PnP you control one character. In crpgs there is a long history of games where you control the entire party. There's natural divergence based on how they evolved.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
So UFC is a RPG. It is the same as NBA, except that instead of football, that is fight in an arena. That makes it a RPG.

You got the combat but not the focus on stats. What I mean is that the stats should drive the combat and actions. In UFC, if I (who's never played it) has a fighter with 30 in his stats, and someone who plays the game fights me with a rookie fighter with 3 in his stats, I'm pretty sure he'll cremate me instantly. That shouldn't happen in a RPG.

The game is heavily driven by stats, stats govern the fight style and players who want to use a fight style must build properly their character. Stats matter more than in many so called RPGs.

The question is irrelevant as it asks whether somebody who know how to play the game is given an advantage over somebody who does not.

RPGs play the same, even if UGOIGO products based on probabilities even out differences in knowledge: a guy who does not know how to play might beat a guy who knows how.

In UFC, a player who knows how to play when given a superior character beats a player who does not know and is given an inferior character.

Originally Posted by Mustawd


For one, how are you even defining a "role"? And there is precedence for sports being considered rpgs.

and/or

B.) Your argument has no merit

Being registered as a RPG is what makes it a RPG is an approach that has merit for those who stick to it.

This is not the case or the product in this thread would be considered a RPG.

The result of institutionalized double standard, people do not even notice.