Vapourware A New Top 101 Poll

[Butter]

If Disco Elysium isn't an RPG then neither is Age of Decadence. They're really similar, just DE goes for depth and AoD goes for breadth. (But I would say they have similar replayability, in that I want to replay both with a different skill focus/class but haven't yet...)

We've had interminable discussions about the RPG genre; the best definition is based on three essential sets of components: characters, combat, and exploration. More precisely, we could define the crucial individual elements within those sets of components:
1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (Player has control over character’s movement through the gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

This list, used to categorise DE and AoD as meaningfully different, puts them both as very nearly identical RPGs. They both semi-fail on 9 and 11, but AoD has 10 and DE only kinda sorta maybe if you squint does, and AoD totally fails on 7.

DE either has more or less combat than AoD depending on what class you pick. But it's not necessary. "Combat" with reticent witnesses or unhelpful officials still works the same way if it's based on your skills and, in DE's case, dicerolls. The sense of picking your character's next move according to their abilities so that they defeat their enemy/get the treasure is still intact.

This is absurd. Age of Decadence has many fights. It has equippable armour and weapons. It has various enemies with their own equipment and statistics. It objectively has much more combat than Disco Elysium, which doesn't even have combat mechanics.

The "combat" in Disco Elysium is just another kind of flavour text. It has no dedicated mechanics, simply reusing the same dice roll + modifiers system that everything else in the game uses.

The only way someone could think AoD and DE are comparable games is if they never try a combat playthrough of AoD. The combat playthrough and non-combat playthrough are vastly different, which isn't something you can't say about DE (because AoD uses different mechanics for its combat and its skill checks, whereas DE only has one mechanic and everything is a skill check).

You're going to have to explain how Age of Decadence "totally fails" on Randomness. It really sounds like you've never done a combat playthrough, which is to say you never scratched the surface of AoD.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I can see why someone might not prefer disco elysium but saying it's decline is retardo.

The decline happened, it ended like a decade ago. Now mainstream press is praising a turn based game because it has meaningful choices n consequences, to say nothing of the burgeoning indie scene.

The decline is over, our side won. Why not just be grateful the decade of trash is over with? That shit sucked and I thought it would never change, but it did.

I remember when gaming press was making fun of people liking turn based games and calling turn based system all sorts of names. To think that we life in decline is a sign that someone have never experience a real decline. It's like when someone who throws away food because he hasn't experienced starvation.

It's moot because if I run the poll I simply won't count any votes for Disco Elysium.

Who usually runs the official Codex polls?

So far only argument you gave is "this is rpg because you play role and make choices".

The simplest answer would be, because it has all the hallmarks of the actual tabletop RPGs:

Forget about "roleplaying". Disco Elysium is all about BEING your character. You don't have access to any out-of-character knowledge. If you're an illiterate moron (as a character), then you won't be able to read, even though you (as a person) know how to read (at least theoretically...). If you aren't keen-eyed, they you will be missing stuff that requires said keen eyes. This is huge step up from games that claim to be RPGs but don't really care about player's stats outside of combat, which is antithetical to the genre. Why? Because you don't stop being your character when the combat is over. Additionally, you are a completly different person (in terms of perception/capabilities) depending on what skills you invest in, which shows just how much skills matter.

Skillchecks/dice rolling - you play an RPG? You roll the dice. This is classic RPG stuff. Also, stats factor hugely in your rolls. But what I like even more is that you can improve (or worsen) your chances and in a lot of situations the outcome of a failure can be just as interesting as a success (unlike, you know, most cRPGs?). This is also true for tabletop RPGs, where the Game Master has to come up with interactions for failures as well as successes of his players. For a cRPG this is pretty impressive feat that likens the game to a true tabletop experience (with plenty of actions being taken outside of combat).

That is a major error in logic right from the start. Whether it has "all the hallmarks of the actual tabletop RPGs" is not relevant because it isn't one. Whether it has hallmarks of computer RPG is the logically correct question. Many people believe that a hallmark of a CRPG is combat. Beacause over 99,99% CRPGs have in fact combat as main or important aspect - this argument has weight. Is it enough? I'm not convinced. But i'm certainly even less convinced by the "hallmarks of tabletop" as a main argument. It might, at best, be an addition to the main point. In addition you commit some more silliness like this one: "you play an RPG? You roll the dice." You roll dice in many other activities or kinds of games as well.

BTW, I don't know why people think CRPG = pnpRPG. At least they act as if they did. That equation is clearly incorrect. Those two use vastly different mediums and rules. One was conceived using the other as a base but that doesn't make them the same. And if they are not the same then it stands to logic that some elements that are required are different in those two kind of entertainment.

Edit: this is the reason i insist on writing "CRPG" instead of just "RPG" when talking about games here - unlike most Codexers. To prevent faulty logic as the one above.

It's because after much debating about what cRPG is many people came to the conclusion (me included) that the best way to define the genre is by stating that CRPGs are games that are trying to translate the TTRPG experience to the video game format.

 

[raeven]

I remember when gaming press was making fun of people liking turn based games and calling turn based system all sorts of names. To think that we life in decline is a sign that someone have never experience a real decline. It's like when someone who throws away food because he hasn't experienced starvation.

THIS

Jesus I never thought good tactical games would ever exist again. The codex was the only place people seemed sane back then, though I was only a lurker in those days.

 

[Mortmal]

2016-2023 or something list could be interesting, since it could feasibly include some hidden gem that flew under most people's radar. Another all-time list would be pretty pointless, it would just be old list + the biggest new releases and the only remotely interesting result would be pages upon pages of pointless hissy fits ("Witcher 3 made the list, the Codex has fallen", "What a shit list, next time we should make the objectively correct list by only allowing people with exact same taste as myself to vote", "How dare these subhumans put Fallout 2 in 4th place and Arcanum in 3rd place when if you were a 250 IQ, high-testosterone alpha male with a large penis such as myself you would know that by objective metrics of RPG goodness Fallout 2 is the 3rd best RPG of all time while Arcanum is the 4th")

^ This is the actual best idea in this thread.

It's indeed the best idea. It makes no sense to compare today's games to the previous era, and most of the Codexers never played RPGs of the '80s and '90s. Let the old list and those titles rest. In the 1998 to around 2014 pre-Kickstarter era (the first was DoS 1 or Shadowrun?), the winners will always be BG2, Fallout, and Planescape. In the post-Kickstarter era from 2014 to 2023, it's a lot more interesting, and there you can truly name some hidden gems. The stuff like Albion is a good RPG but not truly a hidden gem, and it was reviewed in every paper magazine back then.

 

[felipepepe]

In the 1998 to around 2014 pre-Kickstarter era (the first was DoS 1 or Shadowrun?)

I think it's better to consider that the KS era began in 2012. It's when Double Fine made their campaign, and we already had KS-funded games like Paper Sorcerer and FTL that year.

 

[raeven]

and most of the Codexers never played RPGs of the '80s and '90s.

That can't possibly be true... Why even be on the codex then?

 

[Konjad]

A new poll would be great, but all 'dexers are too lazy to make it.

 

[raeven]

you want "best of RPG" lists to look like
1. Red Dead Redemption 2
2. Final Fantasy XV
3. Disco Elysium
4. Zelda: Breath of the Wild
5. Assassin's Creed Origins
? well, you're in luck. about every mainstream gaming site's list is going to look like that. we don't need that here.

lmfao no one on the codex wants anything remotely of the sort, least of all me.

All I said is that's part of the genre and ticks all the boxes that were given as part of the definition.

Chill the F out, homie.

 

[Zanthia]

This is absurd. Age of Decadence has many fights. It has equippable armour and weapons. It has various enemies with their own equipment and statistics. It objectively has much more combat than Disco Elysium, which doesn't even have combat mechanics.

The "combat" in Disco Elysium is just another kind of flavour text. It has no dedicated mechanics, simply reusing the same dice roll + modifiers system that everything else in the game uses.

The only way someone could think AoD and DE are comparable games is if they never try a combat playthrough of AoD. The combat playthrough and non-combat playthrough are vastly different, which isn't something you can't say about DE (because AoD uses different mechanics for its combat and its skill checks, whereas DE only has one mechanic and everything is a skill check).

You're going to have to explain how Age of Decadence "totally fails" on Randomness. It really sounds like you've never done a combat playthrough, which is to say you never scratched the surface of AoD.

I forgot about the randomness in the fights! I played a medium combat class (a very belligerent thief) and I'm currently halfway through Dungeon Rats, so I don't know how it slipped my mind.

DE has equippable armour, including the same armour the toughest enemies wear. You can't unequip weapons, though, that's true.

But the rest is exactly what I'm saying. If AoD without combat doesn't become not an RPG, how is DE different? Or are you saying AoD is only sometimes an RPG because you only sometimes make use of the separate combat mechanics?

 

[Butter]

But the rest is exactly what I'm saying. If AoD without combat doesn't become not an RPG, how is DE different? Or are you saying AoD is only sometimes an RPG because you only sometimes make use of the separate combat mechanics?

Age of Decadence isn't two different games. It's one game, and it includes combat and combat mechanics. That's how it's different than Disco Elysium. Nobody has ever argued that RPGs stop being RPGs when the fighting stops.

 

[raeven]

But the rest is exactly what I'm saying. If AoD without combat doesn't become not an RPG, how is DE different? Or are you saying AoD is only sometimes an RPG because you only sometimes make use of the separate combat mechanics?

Age of Decadence isn't two different games. It's one game, and it includes combat and combat mechanics. That's how it's different than Disco Elysium. Nobody has ever argued that RPGs stop being RPGs when the fighting stops.

No but ppl are arguing that DE is not an RPG *at all*.

 

[Butter]

But the rest is exactly what I'm saying. If AoD without combat doesn't become not an RPG, how is DE different? Or are you saying AoD is only sometimes an RPG because you only sometimes make use of the separate combat mechanics?

Age of Decadence isn't two different games. It's one game, and it includes combat and combat mechanics. That's how it's different than Disco Elysium. Nobody has ever argued that RPGs stop being RPGs when the fighting stops.

No but ppl are arguing that DE is not an RPG *at all*.

Right, because it doesn't have combat or combat mechanics.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

If a computer RPG can easily be translated to a TTRPG without changing its nature, then it is indeed a RPG. Conversely, if it has to be altered in a way than its game mechanics became completely different, then it is a fake RPG.

 

[Kev Inkline]

The most transp

Easiest would be:
- Pick 5 games to get 3 points
- Pick 5 games to get 2 points
- Pick up to 25 games to get 1 point
- Pick any number of games to get 0 points (to lower its average)
- Total is up to 50 points

The most transparent and very easy way would be everyone contributing a ranking list of however long, no restrictions. Then you can apply different procedures to it, such as the Borda Count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

Believe it or not, there's a long tradition (dating back to at least 1299 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull) of research examining different selection methods and paradoxes they may produce.

 

[Harthwain]

Nobody has ever argued that RPGs stop being RPGs when the fighting stops.

Right, because it doesn't have combat or combat mechanics.

I sense a contradiction here.

 

[Butter]

Nobody has ever argued that RPGs stop being RPGs when the fighting stops.

Right, because it doesn't have combat or combat mechanics.

I sense a contradiction here.

I don't. Here is an analogous exchange:

Person A: This wagon you're trying to sell me is absolutely NOT a car.
Person B: Yes it is. You ride in it and can go places.
Person A: It doesn't have an engine.
Person B: Aha! A contradiction! The Ford Focus isn't 100% composed of engines, and yet it's still a car!

 

[Harthwain]

I don't.

In exhibit number 1 you claim that there is more to being an RPG than fighting. In exhibit number 2 you disregard EVERYTHING about the game when it doesn't have a dedicated combat layer. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Butter]

I don't.

In exhibit number 1 you claim that there is more to being an RPG than fighting. In exhibit number 2 you disregard EVERYTHING about the game when it doesn't have a dedicated combat layer. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I just demonstrated to you why you're wrong. Let's review the logic with another example.

Chocolate contains cocoa.
Chocolate contains ingredients in addition to cocoa, such as sugar.
Candy canes also contain sugar, but since they do not contain cocoa, they are not chocolate.

A component part can be essential to the whole without making up 100% of the whole.

 

[Jason Liang]

My definition is best-

- An rpg is a game with data stored in .2da files or the equivalent.

Every rpg going back to Wizardry and Ultima has data in some form of .2da. Its what makes Wizardry different from Zork.

 

[Harthwain]

I just demonstrated to you why you're wrong. Let's review the logic with another example. Chocolate [...] Candy canes [...]

Except we are not talking about chocolate and candy canes. Better example would be you saying that milk chocolate is not chocolate, because it has less % of chocolate in it than dark chocolate. Because that's pretty much all Disco Elysium is "guilty" of: not having [shitty] combat. Every single other RPG element is in place (and better than most other cRPGs at that). Add [shitty] combat to the mix and, presto, you have one of the best Codexian RPGs of all time (Planescape: Torment)!

A component part can be essential to the whole without making up 100% of the whole.

The problem is that it is not "component part". It becomes be-all and end-all. Literally.

 

[Zanthia]

A component part can be essential to the whole without making up 100% of the whole.

If the separate combat interface is an essential part of what makes Age of Decadence an RPG, then playing it without means you're not meaningfully playing an RPG any more. You're either playing it against its design, making your own fun (this is obviously not true) or you're playing a separate genre with completely different gameplay that's in the same game for whatever reason, as if it had a racing game or something in there too which you could choose to solely focus on and beat the game with. That's what it means if separate combat is essential. But this isn't true: AoD with or without combat is purely an RPG. Nearly pure AoD combat (Dungeon Rats) is also purely an RPG and nearly pure AoD non-combat (along the lines of Disco Elysium) is too.

 

[Sigourn]

If a computer RPG can easily be translated to a TTRPG without changing its nature, then it is indeed a RPG. Conversely, if it has to be altered in a way than its game mechanics became completely different, then it is a fake RPG.

Disagree.

I believe people are way too focused on the idea that a computer RPG has to be a mirror of tabletop RPGs, just because that's what they started as.

Which is why I stick to the idea that cRPGs (true mirrors), RPGs (e.g. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), Action RPGs (Dark Souls, Ys, Secret of Mana), are all RPGs. Could you still beat Dark Souls without engaging in its RPG elements? Probably, but it requires a very skilled person. It would be as valid as saying you can beat other cRPGs relying on lucky rolls all the time.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

If a computer RPG can easily be translated to a TTRPG without changing its nature, then it is indeed a RPG. Conversely, if it has to be altered in a way than its game mechanics became completely different, then it is a fake RPG.

Disagree.

I believe people are way too focused on the idea that a computer RPG has to be a mirror of tabletop RPGs, just because that's what they started as.

Which is why I stick to the idea that cRPGs (true mirrors), RPGs (e.g. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), Action RPGs (Dark Souls, Ys, Secret of Mana), are all RPGs. Could you still beat Dark Souls without engaging in its RPG elements? Probably, but it requires a very skilled person. It would be as valid as saying you can beat other cRPGs relying on lucky rolls all the time.

It is just a definition. If a game diverge substantially from this definition, it became another genre. A game like Dark Souls is cpmpletely different from a game like Disco Elysium. How can they belong to the same general "RPG"? It is symptom that there is something very wrong in the definition of "RPG" if both these games can be considered the same genre.

Can Disco Elysium be easly adapted to a TTRPG. Yes.
Can Dsrk Souls be easly adapted to a TTRPG. Hardly.
Ergo we can remove Dark Soul from RPG. Problem solved.

 

[Kev Inkline]

If a computer RPG can easily be translated to a TTRPG without changing its nature, then it is indeed a RPG. Conversely, if it has to be altered in a way than its game mechanics became completely different, then it is a fake RPG.

Disagree.

I believe people are way too focused on the idea that a computer RPG has to be a mirror of tabletop RPGs, just because that's what they started as.

Which is why I stick to the idea that cRPGs (true mirrors), RPGs (e.g. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), Action RPGs (Dark Souls, Ys, Secret of Mana), are all RPGs. Could you still beat Dark Souls without engaging in its RPG elements? Probably, but it requires a very skilled person. It would be as valid as saying you can beat other cRPGs relying on lucky rolls all the time.

It is just a definition. If a game diverge substantially from this definition, it became another genre. A game like Dark Souls is cpmpletely different from a game like Disco Elysium. How can they belong to the same general "RPG"? It is symptom that there is something very wrong in the definition of "RPG" if both these games can be considered the same genre.

Can Disco Elysium be easly adapted to a TTRPG. Yes.
Can Dsrk Souls be easly adapted to a TTRPG. Hardly.
Ergo we can remove Dark Soul from RPG. Problem solved.

Dark Souls TTRPG:

 

[OSK]

and most of the Codexers never played RPGs of the '80s and '90s.

That can't possibly be true... Why even be on the codex then?

Political beliefs and/or behavioral issues that prevent them from posting on more mainstream sites.