Underrail vs Age of Decadence

[hell bovine]

Nothing wrong with choosing your "adventure" in a dialogue and suffering the consequences of your choice. The more branching and states a game has, the better, if they are well-written.

You miss the point - the problem in this case is not with introducing enough consequences of dialogue-driven quests, it's about how they are solved. After creating a character proficient in sword-waving, you still want to play the combat yourself, because assigning skill points to a character is about as challenging as assigning weapon proficiency. How fun would a game be, if all encounters were resolved automatically, based on a simple sword-waving check? You have 5 points in swords? Congratulations, you win the fight. And yet this is how dialogue checks work in both AoD and Underrail (and many other games; dialogue usually seems to get the short end of the developer's stick).

 

[Irenaeus III]

It seems you don't understand how dialogues work. It's ok.

 

[FeelTheRads]

was not capable or unwilling to implement quest sequence breaking

No, you don't get it. That's intended. Everything works as it should.

try all the options until you find something which is more profitable for you.

How else are you gonna enjoy the awesome writing?

I mean...

where save-scumming and meta-gaming are a necessity instead of last resort options

You sure you don't want to read completely different sentences in your next playthrough? Joke's on you, 1 playthrough is not enough to revel in this masterpiece of storytelling where you need to play it again to figure out who and what some characters and events mentioned in your first playthrough are.

 

[Tito Anic]

Great thread

It has potential of to be let out into Cosmos

 

[hell bovine]

It seems you don't understand how dialogues work. It's ok.

Oh really? So is there any other challenge to the dialogue checks in AoD or Underrail besides to whether you meet the skill requirement? (if you can even call that a challenge)

 

[Irenaeus III]

I'm wasting precious post counts debating this idiocy. Bye.

 

[Goral]

Underrail beat AoD in the combat and exploration department, but is worse in everything else.

I would argue that AoD is better in combat department too because almost all fights are challenging and are interestingly set up. In AoD you have 8 pure combat skills and each one makes your run different (playing as a spearman and playing as an axeman is quite different, it requires using different tactics and you get unique attack types, the same goes for a bowman/crossbowman and a throwing master). Also, there are always opponents that force you to change your tactics, e.g. if you fight Mack The Knife it's better to use a lighter weapon because even though your hits won't be as devastating you will make more damage due to higher chance of hitting a dodge master.
In UR you can use the same tactic for every opponent, there is no one that will force you to do things differently. The very first build I made was a gunslinger and I played a bit with it during EA. I knew what my mistake was when making this build so I took it into account and created my 2nd build once the game was released in 1.0 state and what do you know, every single encounter looked basically the same. And somewhere in the middle of the game I could one-shot any opponent (and I didn't even know that sniper would be so powerful). It's similar with other builds.

What's more in AoD the initiative, your positioning and the sequence of your actions matters more than in UR. Often moving away is the most optimal move because it's a proper turn-based game and the sequence of your actions do matter. Let's check this fight for example: http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/28482212341397668/EF4B7336AD21FCFA4B24174AD42449CF2C8EEA40/
Firstly, it matters who you kill first. Killing the wrong guy might make it easier for others to flank you (plus you can lose more HP because you left someone with high THC and damage per turn alive). Secondly, it matters what initiative your opponents have and in the case of the screenshot above if I go to the right square I can get rid of one opponent for a while because he has to take the long way since his comrades who had higher initiative blocked him passage so they could attack me. No such thing in UR. Sure, there are opponents that you should get rid off first (e.g. a sniper that can one-shot you or a psi-master that can make you think you're a vegetable) but these things aren't as important as in AoD.

Furthermore in UR there are way too many trashmobs or very annoying set-ups that aren't challenging but are tedious. Also, what's the point of having many different builds available if in the end every encounter looks basically the same? Every build is using traps, grenades and energy shield (if you don't you're either stupid or you want the challenge), these things make everything much much easier and you can use them at ANY level. Alchemy, crafting and nets/bolas make fights easier in AoD too but not every build can use them to their advantage due to limited amount of skill points (and in the case of bolas and nets limited amount of them). In UR you can spam your enemy with traps and watch how retarded the AI is. But the thing that makes AoD much more enjoyable to me is that they're dynamic and fast contrary to UR ones where everything is in slow motion.

 

[V_K]

It seems you don't understand how dialogues work. It's ok.

Oh really? So is there any other challenge to the dialogue checks in AoD or Underrail besides to whether you meet the skill requirement? (if you can even call that a challenge)

Looks like Ireanaeus played so much AoD, he started acting irl like he's clicking through a dialog tree: pick the inane argument with the [persuasion] tag attached, ragequit when the check fails.

 

[hell bovine]

It seems you don't understand how dialogues work. It's ok.

Oh really? So is there any other challenge to the dialogue checks in AoD or Underrail besides to whether you meet the skill requirement? (if you can even call that a challenge)

Looks like Ireanaeus played so much AoD, he started acting irl like he's clicking through a dialog tree: pick the inane argument with the [persuasion] tag attached, ragequit when the check fails.

Give him time, he'll re-do his character and start posting as version IV.

 

[Goral]

hell bovine and V_K
You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response). Pure talker gameplay is for story fags, personally I've enjoyed it. And fighting with a super weak build was also fun.

 

[V_K]

You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response).

That's even worse. There's not enough gameplay in them already, and you're suggesting removing the only means of strategizing there is.

 

[ArchAngel]

Underrail beat AoD in the combat and exploration department, but is worse in everything else.

I would argue that AoD is better in combat department too because almost all fights are challenging and are interestingly set up. In AoD you have 8 pure combat skills and each one makes your run different (playing as a spearman and playing as an axeman is quite different, it requires using different tactics and you get unique attack types, the same goes for a bowman/crossbowman and a throwing master). Also, there are always opponents that force you to change your tactics, e.g. if you fight Mack The Knife it's better to use a lighter weapon because even though your hits won't be as devastating you will make more damage due to higher chance of hitting a dodge master.
In UR you can use the same tactic for every opponent, there is no one that will force you to do things differently. The very first build I made was a gunslinger and I played a bit with it during EA. I knew what my mistake was when making this build so I took it into account and created my 2nd build once the game was released in 1.0 state and what do you know, every single encounter looked basically the same. And somewhere in the middle of the game I could one-shot any opponent (and I didn't even know that sniper would be so powerful). It's similar with other builds.

What's more in AoD the initiative, your positioning and the sequence of your actions matters more than in UR. Often moving away is the most optimal move because it's a proper turn-based game and the sequence of your actions do matter. Let's check this fight for example: http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/28482212341397668/EF4B7336AD21FCFA4B24174AD42449CF2C8EEA40/
Firstly, it matters who you kill first. Killing the wrong guy might make it easier for others to flank you (plus you can lose more HP because you left someone with high THC and damage per turn alive). Secondly, it matters what initiative your opponents have and in the case of the screenshot above if I go to the right square I can get rid of one opponent for a while because he has to take the long way since his comrades who had higher initiative blocked him passage so they could attack me. No such thing in UR. Sure, there are opponents that you should get rid off first (e.g. a sniper that can one-shot you or a psi-master that can make you think you're a vegetable) but these things aren't as important as in AoD.

Furthermore in UR there are way too many trashmobs or very annoying set-ups that aren't challenging but are tedious. Also, what's the point of having many different builds available if in the end every encounter looks basically the same? Every build is using traps, grenades and energy shield (if you don't you're either stupid or you want the challenge), these things make everything much much easier and you can use them at ANY level. Alchemy, crafting and nets/bolas make fights easier in AoD too but not every build can use them to their advantage due to limited amount of skill points (and in the case of bolas and nets limited amount of them). In UR you can spam your enemy with traps and watch how retarded the AI is. But the thing that makes AoD much more enjoyable to me is that they're dynamic and fast contrary to UR ones where everything is in slow motion.

Everything you said here applies to Underrail. It matter a lot in Underrail who you kill first. Try to ignore the disabler and lets see how that ends up...

Also it is widely known AR/Sniper characters in UR are simple and require no tactics during combat. Play a PSI or Stealth/Crossbow and lets see how every combat is identical.

 

[Goral]

You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response).

That's even worse. There's not enough gameplay in them already, and you're suggesting removing the only means of strategizing there is.

lol
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Play the game and then make retarded comments here. If you remove the tags you actually have to read what your response says, otherwise you can just look on the tags to know which response to choose.

 

[ArchAngel]

You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response).

That's even worse. There's not enough gameplay in them already, and you're suggesting removing the only means of strategizing there is.

lol
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Play the game and then make retarded comments here. If you remove the tags you actually have to read what your response says, otherwise you can just look on the tags to know which response to choose.

I understand his point. If you remove tags you don't get to roleplay because the game does not care what you said, it only cares what is your stat connected with that response. That is bad design, like half of AoD design is.

Underrail has good design. I actually hides stuff from player in conversations and expects players to find it by using correct responses. It has no stat checks, just what would get that NPCs to open up (well there are only few of these but it is good).

 

[V_K]

You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response).

That's even worse. There's not enough gameplay in them already, and you're suggesting removing the only means of strategizing there is.

lol
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Play the game and then make retarded comments here. If you remove the tags you actually have to read what your response says, otherwise you can just look on the tags to know which response to choose.

I understand his point. If you remove tags you don't get to roleplay because the game does not care what you said, it only cares what is your stat connected with that response.

Yep.

 

[likaq]

That is bad design, like half of AoD design is.

Out of curiosity, is single character turn based-combat a bad design decision in AoD?

 

[hell bovine]

hell bovine and V_K
You can always turn skill tags off (so no [Persuasion] next to your response). Pure talker gameplay is for story fags, personally I've enjoyed it. And fighting with a super weak build was also fun.

So what? Turning tags off doesn't change much about the problem I have pointed out.

 

[Shadenuat]

It seems you don't understand how dialogues work. It's ok.

Oh really? So is there any other challenge to the dialogue checks in AoD or Underrail besides to whether you meet the skill requirement? (if you can even call that a challenge)

AoD has a few "text quests" where you have to follow the logic behind character and you get hidden bonuses to your check if you pick right answers based on what you know about the character you're trying to persuade. There should have been more of it, but UR doesn't have even that. Also, compared to UR, it still has more long lasting consequences depending on what you say to people and what you do, so there's that (intimidating someone may lead person to get backup and ambush you later for revenge, there's little of that sort in UR too).

 

[Irenaeus III]

AoD has a lot to improve in skill, background reputation use in dialogue and C&C to said dialogues, but it's miles above anything new in the genre I've seen and definitively a step in the right direction on how I want my RPGs to play. Reading this thread I'm feeling a bit mushy about Underrail, but even if it's a mostly combat game, it can still be FUN to play and that matters a lot. The worse impression I'm getting from what I'm reading is how grindy it sounds, AoD had the benefit of playthrough brevity for replaying the game with different character concepts.

 

[hell bovine]

Oh really? So is there any other challenge to the dialogue checks in AoD or Underrail besides to whether you meet the skill requirement? (if you can even call that a challenge)

AoD has a few "text quests" where you have to follow the logic behind character and you get hidden bonuses to your check if you pick right answers based on what you know about the character you're trying to persuade. There should have been more of it, but UR doesn't have even that. Also, compared to UR, it still has more long lasting consequences depending on what you say to people and what you do, so there's that (intimidating someone may lead person to get backup and ambush you later for revenge, there's little of that sort in UR too).

Wrong quote (should be mine, not lk's). Hidden bonuses to a check is not what I am looking for (my character had enough in speech skills anyway), because it still makes the quest solution revolve around a skill check in the first place. And saying it's better than UR is not an argument either; like I wrote, both games fail in that aspect. What I am looking for is simple: if, for example, you want to convince the evil guy his plans for world domination are shit, then you need to first find proof said plans are shit, before trying do convince him through dialogue. Subtle enough?

 

[Shadenuat]

Wrong quote (should be mine, not lk's). Hidden bonuses to a check is not what I am looking for (my character had enough in speech skills anyway), because it still makes the quest solution revolve around a skill check in the first place. And saying it's better than UR is not an argument either; like I wrote, both games fail in that aspect. What I am looking for is simple: if, for example, you want to convince the evil guy his plans for world domination are shit, then you need to first find proof said plans are shit, before trying do convince him through dialogue. Subtle enough?

Yea fixed quote.

I understand what you want. You want something like Sea did in his module Thirst, where you could learn things about city from NPCs and then use them as arguments in dialogue quest instead of just passing a Persuasion check.
It's a good thing but you probably couldn't create every dialogue to be as complicated as running diplomatic mission to Caladon.
However, what about things like [BodyCount] or being honest or not? These allow you to get leverage for persuading people, but they depend on your actions in game, not just on putting points during a level up.

 

[hivemind]

dialogue skills are dump skills

Which is absolutely fine, more games should do that. Because dialog trees with binary checks aren't gameplay.

You miss the point - the problem in this case is not with introducing enough consequences of dialogue-driven quests, it's about how they are solved. After creating a character proficient in sword-waving, you still want to play the combat yourself, because assigning skill points to a character is about as challenging as assigning weapon proficiency.

The thing that triggers me the most about these kinds of complaints is that they are correct but also incredibly inane.
Nobody in the Holy Church of AoD is going to argue that the dialogue system would have not been better if it was something far more reliant on player 'skill' in dialogue beyond choosing the proper stat layout(as even our Lord and Savior, the harbinger of Incline admits and plans to make it so in the upcoming colony ship game), it's just that something like that has never been done on a large scale in an RPG. The only games that even come close are like, Alpha Protocol and maybe, maybe LA Noire, with glimpses of it in DE:HR and guess what, dialogue wheels.(also consoles)

There has never been a comprehensive strongly player skill dependent dialogue system in an RPG with fully written out responses.(I might be wrong here, and I would gladly be but I doubt it). Your complains are hardly against AoD but against a core aspect(albeit a flawed one) of the entire genre, which again doesn't make them wrong just kinda nitpicky specifically in regards to AoD.

What I am looking for is simple: if, for example, you want to convince the evil guy his plans for world domination are shit, then you need to first find proof said plans are shit,

This would be equally as simplistic and flawed. Many times persuasion is not completely or not at all about what the truth is but rather about how good of a wordsmith you are. If I have evidence that your warship of evil domination is going to explode anyhow and so you shouldn't use the princess as fuel and I can't present it properly because I'm literally autistic and can't talk to people my chances of convincing you out of your evil plan is far smaller than if I were an experienced door to door salesman that can bullshit and lie with the most sincere smile on his face. And since we are playing RPGs here the decision whether I'm playing a stuttering autist or a happy merchant should be reliant on the character's stats.

 

[ArchAngel]

That is bad design, like half of AoD design is.

Out of curiosity, is single character turn based-combat a bad design decision in AoD?

To a questions that focused I cannot answer yes or no. It is neither bad or good. If you are asking if I have something against single character turn based combat I would answer no. I love Underrail and I loved Fallout. But I also loved JA2, Xcom, ToEE, KotC and other team based turn based combat games.

 

[V_K]

There has never been a comprehensive strongly player skill dependent dialogue system in an RPG with fully written out responses.(I might be wrong here, and I would gladly be but I doubt it).

Actually, there was, problem is it just happened to be in an otherwise shitty game.

Your complains are hardly against AoD but against a core aspect(albeit a flawed one) of the entire genre, which again doesn't make them wrong just kinda nitpicky specifically in regards to AoD.

I can kinda agree with your post, but the specific problem with AoD in that regards is the exclusivity of playstyles. In your average RPG the punishment for failing a dialog check is usually a fight - that you usually can win. In AoD it's usually either an instant gameover, or a fight you can't win because your combat skills are shit (because the game punished hybridisation), the end result being complete playthoughs that consist of nothing but dialog checks - which gets tired pretty fast. In that sense Underrail's dialog checks are better precisely because there are much fewer of them. They are tolerable in small doses, giving you an alternative approach here and there, but not as core gameplay.

 

[hivemind]

Actually, there was,

I'll check it out, thanks.

I can kinda agree with your post, but the specific problem with AoD in that regards is the exclusivity of playstyles. In your average RPG the punishment for failing a dialog check is usually a fight - that you usually can win. In AoD it's usually either an instant gameover, or a fight you can't win because your combat skills are shit (because the game punished hybridisation), the end result being complete playthoughs that consist of nothing but dialog checks - which gets tired pretty fast.

Hybridization is not so bad actually, it's hard but I personally feel it adds more to the depth to the game as you think about inventing characters that can both fight and talk. But that's something that I believe is only enjoyable only for people who already like the other aspects of the game a fair bit.

But yeah I mean the pure talker runs are no doubt the low part of the game for sure.