Aod News Main Thread

[Irenaeus II]

 

[Tigranes]

Thread won, everybody pls evacuate the premises

 

[Lyric Suite]

I was summoned here, but i don't know why. Somebody feel me in so i can rage away.

 

[Tigranes]

I was summoned here, but i don't why. Somebody feel me in so i can rage away.

Someone had the temerity to suggest that a 20th century philosopher might have had a point worth discussing

 

[Ninjerk]

And something something Beethoven.

EDIT: It's almost certainly Kali Yuga-related.

 

[Irenaeus II]

I was summoned here, but i don't why. Somebody feel me in so i can rage away.

I summoned you. I wanted your opinion on this word salad by our illustrious member Lacrymas.

The concept of taste has no relevancy in art. It has a tortured history that is kind of hard to convey. Kant argues (in Critique of Judgement) that genius, by way of taste, is what we use to evaluate art. I think he defines this as good taste. He uses this because he realizes the problem that arises when you judge art on objective quality. This objectivity comes from the European traditions (not folklore traditions, that's different) in the various arts. Good taste is defined by the educated/knowledgeable people in their respective spheres, this is called intersubjectivity (20th century terminology). Subjectivity that can't be denied and is true for everyone (who is educated), basically. This is why we can say for sure that Beethoven is a genius. Tradition as objectivity is very relevant in this case. Gadamer (in Truth and Method) points out that the idea of taste is irrelevant when you can judge art by intellectual means which have this basis in tradition. It's a lot more complicated than this, this is only a very, very simplified overview.

 

[Lyric Suite]

So basically objectivity exists, but i'm still going to call it subjectivity 'cause lol fuck you. How about objectivity is possible, end of story?

Modernism is fucking mental.

 

[Irenaeus II]

I just had to google and look at one pic of Gadamer to know he's the standard jewish "intellectual". Kevin B. MacDonald would like a word.

Modernism can't die soon enough.

 

[hivemind]

when will you publish your thesis on proper selfie technique ?

 

[Irenaeus II]

Just hold the camera towards a mirror and let reality do the rest.

 

[RedScum]

Spoiler

"Yo bro, got some sweet merch just around the corner."

 

[Goral]

Another interview with Vault Dweller, this time on Polish site that no one has heard about:

For some reason the interviewer decided that releasing his conversation in two parts would get him more entries but somehow I doubt it. Nothing interesting or new here and the only part remotely worth quoting is this:

For many years The Age of Decadence seemed like many people's “last hope” for an old-school, hardcore PC RPG, but since then, and thanks to Kickstarter we have titles like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 or Dead State. Don't you feel like you've missed the opportunity and lost your niche?

VD: Pillars is a hardcore RPG? Anyway, InXile is bringing TB combat back, making AoD more accessible for people who wouldn't give it a chance otherwise. RPGs take years to make, but only a few weeks to play. There's plenty of room for everyone as the games you listed are all very different.

Oh, so you don't see Pillars as a hardcore RPG? What in your opinion defines a hardcore cRPG then?

VD: Pillars of Eternity is a mass-market RPG, which is understandable considering that Obsidian is a fairly big company and can’t afford to make niche games with limited appeal. Obsidian played it safe and didn’t take any risks there. After all they didn’t make a ‘spiritual’ sequel to games that put Black Isle on the map, did they?


The way I see it, hardcore RPG is challenging to a fault, has no hand-holding, requires commitment to figure out the rules. In the olden days if you can’t figure out the system it was your problem. These days it means that developers failed you.

 

[t]

The way I see it, hardcore RPG is challenging to a fault, has no hand-holding, requires commitment to figure out the rules. In the olden days if you can’t figure out the system it was your problem. These days it means that developers failed you.

Interesting. Discuss??

 

[Lacrymas]

Eeehhh, I agree with the challenging part, but I'm not sure what he means by "requires commitment to figure out the rules". If someone invites me to play Belote or Poker (for the sake of argument, let's say I'm not familiar with the rules), but nobody tells me how to play or what the rules are it would just be frustrating. Sure, after a while I might be able to pick up what is going on, but it seems unnecessary. AoD does have a tutorial and one of the major premises of the game is that you can speak your way through it, so there's no figuring out the rules there :p Using the rules to challenge is what it should be, not withholding knowledge of them. If the mechanics are bendable and universal enough as to allow a lot of personal skill levels to be reached, then good job, you've got good rules. Meatboy comes to mind. RNG isn't challenge apropos. There is nothing skillful or challenging about rolling all sixes on a set of dice. There is also the opposite of that (PoE) where the mechanics are so badly done, the challenge (or lack thereof) can't be properly tuned nor assessed in a meaningful way.

What he should reasonably say is that nowadays developers are afraid to ramp up the challenge, because of console droolies. PC exclusive games are somewhat more free with high difficulty (Age of Wonders 3, AoD etc.) That isn't universal btw, Rayman Origins was also on consoles, but there were some very challenging optional stages that required mastering and creative use of the mechanics. I'm also all for difficulty levels if they are done right and not just an increase in numbers. Though lack of difficulty options + difficult game in general is good and I'd like to see more of those.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Eeehhh, I agree on the challenging part, but I'm not sure what he means by "requires commitment to figure out the rules". If someone invites me to play Belote or Poker (for the sake of argument, let's say I'm not familiar with the rules), but nobody tells me how to play or what the rules are it would just be frustrating. Sure, after a while I might be able to pick up what is going on, but it seems unnecessary. AoD does have a tutorial and one of the major premises of the game is that you can speak your way through the game, so there's no figuring out the rules there :p

You have to figure out the system to be good at combat. Sure, you're told the basic rules but it takes more than that to kill your way through the game. That's what I meant.

The best mainstream example is ToEE. When it was released the mainstream media claimed that it was too complicated and was like a Chinese fucking puzzle. Only DnD geeks could decipher the rules and "normal" people didn't stand a chance. Of course, the game was easy but that's not the point. The days when you were expected to figure out a system and use your brain are long gone.

 

[Lacrymas]

The best mainstream example is ToEE. When it was released the mainstream media claimed that it was too complicated and was like a Chinese fucking puzzle. Only DnD geeks could decipher the rules and "normal" people didn't stand a chance. Of course, the game was easy but that's not the point. The days when you were expected to figure out a system and use your brain are long gone.

If the rules are plainly laid out in the game, then there's no excuse for not reading them, so their criticism is not serious or valid. After you understand the system is when the game should shine in its difficulty, not before that (*cough* DA:O *cough*). I don't think the word commitment even fits in here. Playing an instrument is a commitment, but the mechanical part of it is not difficult, just time consuming. The game should be challenging in a way to force you to use the established rules to overcome it. That doesn't translate to commitment, it translates to well-thought-out mechanics/challenges dynamic. If it takes you a long time, fine, but that's missing the point. I now know what you mean, but the wording grinds on me and it should be clearer. The saying that "language forms our values and world-view" isn't wrong :p

 

[Vault Dweller]

If the rules are plainly laid out in the game, then there's no excuse for not reading them, so their criticism is not serious or valid.

It's not about reading them. Take chess, for example. You can go over the rules in 2 minutes but it will take you much, much longer than that to figure out how to use these rules effectively and combine them into effective strategies. Naturally, no RPG is like chess so you need considerably less time to become good at killing things but if a game is challenging, you still need more time and commitment than simply going over the rules.

With AoD we had 3 releases: demo, early access, launch. Each time we went through the same scenario:

- new players claim that the game is too difficult and frustratingly impossible
- we and other players explain the rules but the explanations have no effect without said time and commitment
- many players give up and leave in frustration
- some stick around and keep trying until they get it, until something clicks and they suddenly see the rules as a coherent system and understand how it works

That doesn't translate to commitment, it translates to well-thought-out mechanics/challenges dynamic. If it takes you a long time, fine, but that's missing the point.

A system you can figure out instantly isn't worth playing. So, yeah, that's exactly my point. You have to take time to figure it out, which is no longer fashionable because failure to succeed is now seen as a design flaw.

 

[Goral]

Lacrymas
IMO AoD combat rules are easy to understand and tutorial isn't even needed. I and many other people with at least half a brain didn't need it. If a player can't figure out such simple mechanic then he's retarded and should play Fallout 4 instead, simple as that. The way I see it there are 3 types of AoD players:

1) Those who figure out everything on their own
2) Those who need to be shown the ropes
3) Complete retards who can't play even after the handholding

Most today gamers belong to the third category, hence they play Fallout 4 or Mass Effect and something like Age of Decadence, Serpent in the Staglands or Underrail is beyond them.

 

[Lurker King]

So basically objectivity exists, but i'm still going to call it subjectivity 'cause lol fuck you. How about objectivity is possible, end of story?

Indeed. Some interesting references:

Smith, Barry C. The Objectivity of Tastes and Tasting. In Questions of Taste: the philosophy of wine. Oxford University Press (2007). You can download the paper here.

Hume, David. Of the Standard of Taste. In: The Philosophical Works of David Hume, edited by T. H. Green and T. H. Grose. 4 volumes, London: Longman, Green, 1874–75. You can read this classic essay here.

Kivy, Peter. Hume's Standard of Taste, Breaking the Circle. British Journal of Aesthetics 7 (1):57-66 (1967).

Kieran, Matthew. Aesthetic Knowledge. Chapter 34 in S. Bernecker and D. Pritchard (eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology (London: Taylor and Francis), pp. 369-379. You can download the chapter here.

Zangwill, Nick. Beauty. In Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Oxford Companion to Aesthetics. Oxford University Press (2003). [You will find some discussion about Hume's argument for the standard of taste]

 

[Lurker King]

VD: Pillars is a hardcore RPG? Anyway, InXile is bringing TB combat back, making AoD more accessible for people who wouldn't give it a chance otherwise.

Master Avellone said that being honest about other people’s work is bad for business because developers are corporatists and can’t take criticism a poisonous attitude. That is the rules, you hear?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, Master Avellone felt so strongly about Pillars that he had to leave the company he co-founded.

 

[Lacrymas]

A system you can figure out instantly isn't worth playing.

Why? "Figuring out" a system isn't the same as mastering it, nor using it to your advantage to overcome challenges. Like Goral said, AoD's mechanics aren't hard to understand or come to terms with. Why would a time frame be of the utmost importance here and the thing that separates casual games from hardcore ones? Time in this case is incidental, if we go by that logic, I can create the most obtuse and mind boggling set of rules ever and it would take decades to decipher, would I then have created the most hardcore and challenging game ever? No, of course not.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A system you can figure out instantly isn't worth playing.

Why? "Figuring out" a system isn't the same as mastering it, nor using it to your advantage to overcome challenges. Like Goral said, AoD's mechanics aren't hard to understand or come to terms with. Why would a time frame be of the utmost importance here and the thing that separates casual games from hardcore ones? Time in this case is incidental, if we go by that logic, I can create the most obtuse and mind boggling set of rules ever and it would take decades to decipher, would I then have created the most hardcore and challenging game ever? No, of course not.

You're looking at it the wrong way, I think.

Imagine you got yourself a brand new RPG. You install it, glance at the rules, start playing and kicking ass (i.e. any mainstream RPG designed around you kicking as much ass as your ego can handle). Alternatively, you start playing it, get your own ass kicked over and over again. This ass-kicking is what's forcing you to dig deeper and try to understand the system better. That time frame is what separates 'learn to play' games from 'press X to ass-kick' games.

As for AoD mechanics, they aren't hard to understand but it will still take a new player some time to figure out how to beat the training fight or the first fight or the mine (which one of these will stop you dead depends on your level of competence).

 

[Lacrymas]

You're looking at it the wrong way, I think.

Imagine you got yourself a brand new RPG. You install it, glance at the rules, start playing and kicking ass (i.e. any mainstream RPG designed around you kicking as much ass as your ego can handle). Alternatively, you start playing it, get your own ass kicked over and over again. This ass-kicking is what's forcing you to dig deeper and try to understand the system better. That time frame is what separates 'learn to play' games from 'press X to ass-kick' games.

As for AoD mechanics, they aren't hard to understand but it will still take a new player some time to figure out how to beat the training fight or the first fight or the mine (which one of these will stop you dead depends on your level of competence).

BiowEArean "press x to awesome" design is shit, yes, but it's not because it takes less time. It takes less effort and thinking to progress and achieve things. Thinking is a very vague and unhelpful term, I know. Effort is not synonymous with time though. Yes, sometimes it means putting more hours into something, but that's not always the case. If you put more effort into hauling something, then it actually takes less time. It all depends on the context. If someone spends 1 hour on a very difficult fight only to fail, but someone else spends that 1 hour into the tutorial prodding into the mechanics and winning that fight easily after that, then where's the time frame here? The second person is rationalizing and deciphering the systems which leads to victory, while the first one is just mindlessly consolizing the fight. Yes, you are right that the difficulty is the key factor here, but not time. The intellectual pursuit (of the second player) is what ultimately separates the two players and, by extension, hardcore from casual games.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, you are right that the difficulty is the key factor here, but not time. The intellectual pursuit (of the second player) is what ultimately separates the two players and, by extension, hardcore from casual games.

You need time to figure out how to overcome the challenge (otherwise it's not much of a challenge to begin with).

The mainstream design preaches that the player should not be inconvenienced by the failure, that the player doesn't play games to be fail but to be awesome. The hardcore design is the very opposite. It revolves around overcoming obstacles by figuring out the system and getting better.