Talk:Disco Elysium

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: WP:NVIDEOGAMES says this needs more seources than it currently has. Only 1 of its sources appears to count towards notability..

Lopifalko (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Lede - how to discuss critical praise

@Dissident93: - I know we both chat over at List of video games considered the best , so I'm a little surprised at your slant here. It's simply too soon to say "greatest ever" in any way that doesn't grossly overrate contemporary reviews. WP:PEACOCK explicitly discourages this kind of general comment about being The Greatest Ever. I do agree that calling out one awards ceremony can be undue, and in time, perhaps this statement can be modified to something like "Disco Elysium won multiple best-of awards from critics, including X, Y, and Z." Finally, this game won't stay PC exclusive forever. I really don't see the issue with keeping to what's verifiable here - that it won a major prestigious award - rather than something vague that reads like fan gushing. SnowFire (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with you, but can it really be WP:PEACOCK if multiple sources agree on a common thing? (else that entire list would fall under it too) It's better to put why they think it's among the best PC RPGs instead of that generic comment though. I only put that there because I was planning on expanding the reception section later, and it needed something in the lead until then to note the general consensus. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it can be, because most of what we have now aren't "good" sources for such a claim. Contemporary reviews aren't useful for such a statement and should be discounted. You can say "The game received critical acclaim" and that covers it. "Best ever" requires time to distinguish review hyperbole from actual greatness. It'd be like claiming a sports team was the best ever before the championship match was even played by citing local newspaper columns that were hyped about the team. Anyway, I think the new lede looks better, so thanks.

Also, taking a reverse slant, I think you actually underplay the game by merely saying "4 awards". As far as a reader not deeply familiar with one particular awards ceremony goes, they could have been award for Best Cat or Cool Game We Liked or other "fluff" awards. It's more powerful to say that it won Best RPG and Best Narrative and be specific that yes, it won some "real" awards. SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Saying that the game is among the best RPGs, assuming you have multiple RS citations that support it, wouldn't really be an issue of WP:RECENTISM IMO. I understand what you mean, but your sports team example would be more accurate if they were saying this before the game released. Multiple sports reporters saying that the most recent sportsball championship was among the best ever is valid, even if most of the articles are written only a day or two after the event.

As for the exact award names, I omitted them for WP:LEAD generalization reasons, not to downplay them. I don't think it's really WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume the game will receive more nominations in the future, and some wins out of that, especially since most of the other ceremonies haven't taken place yet. As an example, if other award shows nominate the game for best writing/story/narrative, then you can generalize the entire part to read "Disco Elysium received universal acclaim from critics. Its narrative and conversational systems in particular were praised, with it receiving several awards and accolades for it." or something similar. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Chapo Trap House" Podcast Specific Episode Mention in References

@Dissident93: I strongly believe the Chapo Trap House podcast episode which specifically talks about this game should be pointed to in the references. They majorly contributed to the game's creation, despite not being paid, and they talked about the game in the podcast and contributed important information about the games development. Mentioning that Chapo Trap House was involved (and pointing to the podcast which talks about it) doesn't violate Wikipedia rules as "promotional".. its a fact of the games creation. Is there some alternate way the podcast can be mentioned as contributing to the game that you would find acceptable, or are you simply going to completely prohibit any mention? Chapo Trap House has its own Wikipedia entry and is the highest earning Patreon for any podcast. It is not a non-notable contributor to the game. If you listen to the section of the podcast mentioned in my note which you removed/reverted, you will note that the information given is quite relevant to anyone interested in how this game was created, and I believe this information is worthy of being disseminated here. I would also like to hear what other contributors think --Radical Mallard (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I assumed this podcast you spoke of was just some random fans talking about the game, which obviously would not count as a credible source. Has Chapo Trap House been cited in other articles before without issue? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I assume so. But my point is since this article does mention that voices were contributed already, isn't it a good idea for us to point to the episode of the specific podcast where the contributors discuss their experience with doing voices for the game? I think it is similar to pointing to Rolling Stone articles where people talk about contributing to a project in part of the article - the difference is that the relevant information is in a Chapo Trap House podcast episode and not an interview that a magazine did with Chapo.--Radical Mallard (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It really just depends on how credible the citation is. If it comes directly from the people themselves, then yes it can be used. If it's just a bunch of fans discussing it, then no. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I understand now... and yes, It's most definitely not fans discussing the game, it's the actual voice actors. Thank you for clarifying. May I re-add the reference? --Radical Mallard (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Yeah, since it's directly from the actors themselves. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Future"

Is this section even pertaining to the game Disco Elysium? Isn't it more about the future of ZA/UM and a conflict between the original developers and the company, which, however, doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the game? As the game is finished, with a Final Cut released, I think no changes to the game except for minor patches are to be expected. So, maybe the section is not fitting the topic and should be removed? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no article about ZA/UM, and this makes the best place to discuss the developers and what has happened to them. Masem (t) 13:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, but it's still not about the game. This article is about the game Disco Elysium, not about later conflicts between ZA/UM and the developers (that, consequently, didn't affect this already released game). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

they released a camera/posing mode on the same day as the first court hearings.

so there is an argument for it being relevant. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

hearing was 13 march ~13:00, case nr 2-22-8663 in "Harju Maakohus Tallinna kohtumaja" (cit: search on https://www.riigiteataja.ee)

photo mode was released 16 march (cit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KsrRLlrBl0, various gamenews outlets) Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Its name can be read in Russian as either "for the mind" or "from the mind"

The second claim is definitely not true. Reciprocist (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says otherwise? --Masem (t) 13:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Preposition "za" has meaning "for" or "after", "beyond", not "from". It can't mean "from" in any context. [1]. I guess it is a word play, because in Russian "zaumniy" means literally "beyond reasonable", and has meaning "too complicated", "impossible to understand"--Reciprocist (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Fun fact: While "za um" combination of words indeed has a similar meaning in Russian; the full phrase, "vzyatsya za um", is a phraseologism e.g an idiom. You should divide the phrase into 4 parts: "Vzyatsa za um literally means "to grab oneself by/via the mind". And the meaning of the idiom is... well... what about "drag/pull yourself up by your bootstraps" one? So in a sense, "ZA/UM" is ought to be interpreted as some foreign analog for "BOOT/STRAP". Профессор кислых щей (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

> because in Russian "zaumniy" means literally "beyond reasonable"

Whoopsie-poopsie, "zaumniiy" (заумный) has a bunch of slightly different meanings: "sophisticated" / "hard to grasp" / "overcomplicated". But it's not a synonym for an "beyond reasonable" as in "astronomical" or "ridiculous" Профессор кислых щей (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this even mater Tankfarter (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Setting" needs work

The setting as I found it wanted to explain the ideologies as how they are different from their closest sibling in the real world, but this both overcomplicates the explanation and requires writing it as if we assert that the fiction was exclusively written with historical materialism in mind, which it might have been, but you don't want to sleep walk into that framing.

It is also doing a disservice to the text, as it goes through a lot of work to make the ideologies hard to pin down. On the one hand, they are exactly what they seem, on the other, they are as complex and faceted as their real life equivalents.

Yes, Moralism is centrism with religious overtones, but saying that that is different from the real world would require us to assert centrism currently doesn't have religious overtones. It also misses anything the Sunday Friend, The Desserter or the aerostatic representative say about the moral intern, it's unwavering devotion to a highly abstract goal of human peace and well-being, someday, hundreds of years from now, perpetuating harm today, shelling those that revolt. It is an explicit perspective in the text that the only goal of Moralism is control over oneself and the world.

Yes, Revacholian Nationalism is Fascism, and the text makes clear this is the case, that these terms are a coat of paint over old ideas, but it's also not up to Wikipedias standard to make one link to the other, because there is ambiguity and uncertainty there, Wikipedias editing standard can't really deal with it.

Either someone has to find a clever way to make it simple, understandable and correct or you just hand-wave it by saying "the fiction is historical materialist". Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot do any interpretation without violating WP:NOR so the setting section should only cover what is "obvious" from the game or what has been discussed in reliable sources. There's certainly a lot that could be said in regards to philosophy etc about the game's setting but we require sources for anything that is deeper than what we can read from the game's text. — Masem (t) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that this interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines means you either can't have a correct section that describes the ideologies or you have to write the opposing interpretations together, because almost everything related to the ideologies is from the perspective of an unreliable narrator whose account is in conflict with another account. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bestseller or commercial success?

Is this game supposed to be bestseller and/or commercial success or neither? Why? Thomas Wiencek (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have no idea of sales, so its impossible to say. It is a critically acclaimed game but that's not the same as sales. Masem (t) 04:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)