Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

What do you think about AoD?

Rate AoD

  • Good

    Votes: 123 58.3%
  • Bad

    Votes: 10 4.7%
  • Meh

    Votes: 78 37.0%

  • Total voters
    211

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
AoD got mixed reaction on the Codex. Some people liked it and praised it, saw people disliked it and ranted endlessly. Business as usual, I suppose. Still, I'd like to know what the locals think about the game.

So, what do you think about the game (good, bad, meh) and why (what's the main reason why you liked or disliked it)?
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,003
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Good, with room for improvement.

Good: the text adventure parts are fun; the combat is solid and encounters are very challenging; the character system is good and every skill has a use (thanks to the frequent text adventures); the setting is interesting

Bad: too much reliance on pop-up dialogue fields - would be better to have less of those (don't pop up a dialogue field as soon as the player enters an area, but let him explore by himself more); controllable companions would be preferable to AI-controlled ones due to more fun combat
 

SuicideBunny

(ノ ゜Д゜)ノ ︵ ┻━┻
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
8,943
Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Torment: Tides of Numenera
Good, with room for improvement.

Good: the text adventure parts are fun; the combat is solid and encounters are very challenging; the character system is good and every skill has a use (thanks to the frequent text adventures); the setting is interesting

Bad: too much reliance on pop-up dialogue fields - would be better to have less of those (don't pop up a dialogue field as soon as the player enters an area, but let him explore by himself more); controllable companions would be preferable to AI-controlled ones due to more fun combat
pretty much this.
 

likaq

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,198
Good.

+ no filler combat
+ pointless walking reduced to minimum
+ nice setting and good story
+ very challenging encounters and good combat
+ best spear combat in history of video games
+ good writing and awesome stats/skills checks in dialogues
+ no useless skills
+ fun text adventures
+ fabulous C&C
+ multiple solutions to quests
+ great gfx

- release date : 2013

:love:
 

hiver

Guest
Good, with room for improving various features of it.

But thats pretty much a given for any RPG.

The closest game to what many of us expected from real improvements of games like Fallout i ever saw in my life.
Great combat. Merciless and dangerous. Great mechanics. I love it even if i have fantasies about few tweaks to make it even better...somehow!
Great writing and well thought out serious adult setting which is pretty fucking rare thing. No pandering to lowest common denominators and ego stroking.
Love that its not some intellectual wankery and that its straightforward when it needs to be. MCA agrees with me :smug:

Therefore:
Vince - :salute:
Excellent visual art and visual atmosphere as a whole. :salute:Oscar.
Runs pretty great... :salute: Nick.
Animations are awesome. :salute: Ivan.

Of course i dont compare this to games made with teams of hundred+ people and 50 - 100 million dollars budgets.
Still, it looks better than a lot of them in these sections of design - And maybe i value it a bit better because i personally know how much work went into it.

C&C :love:
Text adventures - great.
Dialogue is pretty good - but i dont like that skill requirements and whether you succeeded or not is visible (i already argued against it).
I like fast traveling - but i dont like that it isnt presented better and made into an option even more (already argued for it).
Attributes importance and influence can be improved a bit, even though it works.

And so on... there is nothing i can think of that i actually completely dislike in it. And far more things that i like then those i would prefer to see improved.

Conclusion:
my money has been transferred to your account already.
 

quasimodo

Augur
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
372
Good.

Combat: Good. The only way to improve it would be to have fully controllable party.

Writing: Good

Graphics: Looks so good I would prefer walking to teleporting.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
You already know what I think, but I'll sum up again for the heck of it:
  1. Obviously, C&C is awesome and well done. Really appreciate this. Best part is seeing a large world around you that seems to operate on its own, and you see all different activities and sides of the people and events in it depending on who you ally with, what order of events you do, what choices you make, etc.
  2. Encounters are cool, the city felt less like a straight-up quest hub and more like a place with, you know, things going on. Could be improved - I'd like to see more of these as the game goes on, maybe even hold back a few and unlock them as quest progress goes on, just to make it worth revisiting locations or give you something to do in them when on later quests.
  3. Combat is nicely done, though I can see it getting boring. Real tactics are required to survive and success isn't clear-cut by any means. Having controllable companions, even if it were temporary for certain situations, would really help things out, but that might be beyond the scope of the engine.
  4. Writing is excellent, it's kind of a preference thing but I really enjoy the dry wit and the fantastic descriptions of all the characters and locations when you first encounter them. Nitpick - dialogue could use more "flavour" options, yes I know that it feels like fake choice, but having a few lines to choose from instead of one can help with the feeling of role-playing. So long as you do have a few extra lines here and there, I don't really care if not every single option leads to something new. Perception and presentation of dialogue options is just as important as the options themselves.
  5. Character system is awesome, everything is useful and mixed skill checks discourage straight-up cookie-cutter archetype builds.
  6. Interface is good, very intuitive, nice hotkeys and layout. No complaints here, it's basically an evolution of more classic RPG interfaces and works perfectly.
  7. Graphics are good even if the art style is a bit odd sometimes - I guess inconsistent is what I'd call it. It's in this odd place between having a totally realistic look and a cartoony stylised look (especially with character designs) and it doesn't quite work for me - but honestly, that's a minor gripe.
  8. Teleporting around is annoying. I understand the need for it (no point having the player walk all the way back somewhere through areas already visited) but it hurts spatial awareness and kind of makes the game feel like a series of encounters rather than a consistent, large world to explore.
  9. Need more interactive items and lootables. Not every building can have a quest in it, but even a few things here and there can help justify the space better. Obviously the game isn't a dungeon crawler so it's silly to have gold coins in every barrel, but as a player I want to feel rewarded for exploring, and a small snippet of lore, background info, insight or an item or two (maybe crafting supplies, i.e. firewood or junk that can be melted down?) adds to that sense of exploration.
  10. On a related note, it'd be nice if certain stuff like lockpicking could be used in the game world by actually clicking on objects, rather than through a dialogue screen.
  11. More sound effects. Ambient noise for crowds of people, wind blowing in the trees, footsteps, door opening noise, etc. Sound is a huge part of selling the realism of a world and, despite great music, AoD's audio doesn't quite hit the mark yet.
 

hiver

Guest
I forgot to add that i especially like that there is no fully controllable party and that allied NPCs can behave quite nicely independently.

Incline of Ai - by a four man dev studio. Probably actually worked on by two guys out of those four.
mass market AAA studios - kill yourself.

-oh yeah - interface is awesome and inventory and skill and trading screens and stuff - even more so :smug:
 

Spockrock

Augur
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
455
I agree with Chris Avellone on almost everything concerning AoD in its current state. would add that I, personally, hate the kind of graphics you have there. reminds me of Bioware's NWN too much, and I hated that game
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
I'd say good but too close to meh in my opinion. I agree with most of everything good that's been said (likaq brings up a lot of the good points), except for the combat, which I think is a pretty big let down. There is simply too little player control. Having AI companions would have made use of the combat system to a much wider degree, and on top of this, there are too few actual tactical choices to make in combat. You might say "well, not fewer than other RPGs", but in a game as hard as AoD, where you only have control over a SINGLE character, there needs to a pretty big tactical depth to make up for the lack of tactical decisions (because of only controlling on character) and/or the difficulty (so the combat relies more on player decisions and less of hoping on catching a break).

I love the text adventures and the dialogue system, although I do think that in the light of C&C promise a surprisingly high number of consequences are game-stopping (i.e. death).

In short, too much arbitrary reloading, and too little player control. That's the main reason I probably won't shout GotY when AoD comes out. I have pre-ordered though, and I will be playing it when it comes out.
 

Helly

Translating for brofists
Patron
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
2,176
Location
変態の地獄、Rance様と
Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I loved the demo for its mechanisms, though I was wondering if translations for us europeans -french, german and so on...- are planned. I'm sure it's been answered somewhere, i'm just so lazy tonight. I don't mind playing most games in english, but when it comes to a game with walls of text and a great story, i've always been more confortable in my mother tongue. Planescape Torment's translation in french was excellent, I remember learning a fair number of old words playing it as a child. Mass effect, Dragon age and such, on the other hand, were pretty bland.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I'd say good but too close to meh in my opinion. I agree with most of everything good that's been said (likaq brings up a lot of the good points), except for the combat, which I think is a pretty big let down. There is simply too little player control... there are too few actual tactical choices to make in combat.
Just to be clear, is it criticism of all single-character systems in general or our system in particular? I thought that the post-combat demo consensus was that the combat system is fairly tactical. If you disagree, what's missing, in your opinion?
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,151
You've got it wrong, why three options ? This is the codex , its either best thing since arcanum or steaming pile of shit, no shades of grey.

Myself i think it was really good, the combat system was challenging enough allowing multiple builds to compete, i did try multiple paths and everything is viable unless for some reason you want to melee with your bow and absolutely dont want to switch to the dagger when cornered. I dont think its that arbitrary, you really need to adapt to the weapon you are using and what your opponent is using(hes in light armor or no armor? fast strikes) its a little more deep than people think ,when i had to reload it was cause of a bad tactical choice, not cause of some dice result.
When you arent coherent and start something stupid like assaulting a fort by yourself ,you are punished, thats very different and set apart age of decadence from other similar games , i like that. The icing on the cake being the fact you can talk your way out of every situations if you made a diplomatic skilled guy and avoid completely combat if you wanted to.

I liked the quest design and options similars of the outcome of a real pen and paper sessions, nothing stupid, solutions that could have been suggested by members of my roleplaying group.
Graphically very good quite atmospheric ,interface excellent, the setting is original and a succes.

Now the bad part, id say the teleporting, its not bothering me that much but others pointed out you are forced into places and situations a bit too often. You should look forward translating the game in german and french too , i am not bothered by that but most of my compatriots dont speak one word of english.
 

Surf Solar

cannot into womynz
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
8,825
The game tickles me in all the right places, only the setting isn't my cup of tea (doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game) and I am missing a fixed camera perspective.
I am a bit neutral on the teleporting "issue", it first was more annoying (yes, I like pointless running through towns) but in the later revisions it got better.

Can't wait to throw my money at it. :)
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,485
Location
casting coach
I'd say good but too close to meh in my opinion. I agree with most of everything good that's been said (likaq brings up a lot of the good points), except for the combat, which I think is a pretty big let down. There is simply too little player control... there are too few actual tactical choices to make in combat.
Just to be clear, is it criticism of all single-character systems in general or our system in particular? I thought that the post-combat demo consensus was that the combat system is fairly tactical. If you disagree, what's missing, in your opinion?
Single-character systems can be good if there's enough different options for that PC. For example, playing as a solo sorcerer in a D&D game.

But in AoD, once you're in the battle (so assigning skill points and choosing equipment is already done), there isn't all that much you can do. You can't move around much usually. So you're reduced to choosing just who to attack with what attack, which boils down mostly to calculating probabilities (who's expected to deal most damage to me? What attack has best expected damage on this opponent?).
Webs, for example, offer some variety to it but it's still not quite enough for me.
 

joeydohn

Savant
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
344
Planescape Torment's translation in french was excellent, I remember learning a fair number of old words playing it as a child. Mass effect, Dragon age and such, on the other hand, were pretty bland.

You know how the saying goes: you can't shine shit.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
Vault Dweller: Before I begin, I'd like to say that this post ended up being a lot longer than I intended, but you asked, and I think you deserve an in-depth response. I'd also like to say that AoD's BETA left me hungry for more, but it also let me down hugely in that there's so much potential in some of the brilliant design decisions (such as the way weapons actively feel incredibly different from each other) that is squandered because of a few other, not so good decisions.

EDIT: Johannes touches briefly on what I'm going to go into depth with, actually.

I'd say good but too close to meh in my opinion. I agree with most of everything good that's been said (likaq brings up a lot of the good points), except for the combat, which I think is a pretty big let down. There is simply too little player control... there are too few actual tactical choices to make in combat.
Just to be clear, is it criticism of all single-character systems in general or our system in particular? I thought that the post-combat demo consensus was that the combat system is fairly tactical. If you disagree, what's missing, in your opinion?

The combat IS fairly tactical compared to other RPGs (which I actually state in the post you responded too), it's just not nearly tactical enough for the kind of difficulty AND limited options you have. From the bottom, I'll make three points in relation to why I think your game does not have enough direct combat depth:

1) If an RPG is as incredibly difficult as yours, I need to have many options at my disposal in any encounter. Different ways to tackle shit with the skill-set that I have (provided, of course, that I invested in combat). I don't in AoD really. I have a short list of different ways to attack where, depending on my opponent, one of them will most often be clearly favoured. Unless I've invested in other weapon skills than my primary weapon one (i.e. put point into throwing or whatever) my options are limited to almost only that short list. Movement is almost non-existant unless you're built for it.

So, the first point is that your RPG is incredibly difficult but does not offer enough options for the player to try different things in different encounters (with the same character - a different approach requires a new character) to combat the difficulty. You can't, say, switch weapons (skill points are too sparse), you can't shift attack modes (one will often be best), you can't use utilities such as nets (most of these are bound to skills too) and you can't shift fighting styles (tied to skills, again). So the difficulty is often rooted in something being "wrong" with your build (woops - dodge wasn't as good as you thought for this quest line!) rather than you using your build wrongly in the gameplay. This ties in to something very important in difficult gaming - you must feel, if you lose, that it was your own fault. I'll come back to this point.

2) You have us control a single character. This in itself is DEFINETELY not my favourite cup of tea, but it's not like I haven't enjoyed plenty other RPGs with such a system, so this is not a criticism of such a system in itself. Rather, IF you can only control one character, this character must as a minimum have a range of options and shit he can do so that you don't go through the same motions again and again and again. Plenty RPGs fail here, but this is no excuse for AoD. AoD also fails even more than some because movement during combat is so limited without something to make up for this lack of tactical depth.

In short, the second point is that when you give us control of fewer characters you must make that character have more to do.

3) The third point is associated with both of the above, and is, in essence, the root of the problem. I'm gonna make a statement here: Age of Decadence has HUGE tactical variety but VERY FEW tactical options when you are playing. Let me explain: All weapons in AoD function extremely differently, and trying different builds you can really feel changes in how you play and fight. However, actually playing the game with any of the available builds, you have a very, very limited set of options available to you. This is also why the response to your combat demo and the actual game were so different, IMO: in the demo, people toyed with different builds and used the tactical variety. In the game, people played a character with limited options. So all this tactical variety is wasted from a player perspective because in any given playthrough you're only using 1/100 number of options there are, and will never be given access to new shit to do. The only tactical variety that happens while you are playing is encounter-based; i.e.: you are now attacked by a spear-wielder, how do you use your build now? However, even here in most cases you try to force yourself into a position as quickly as possbile where you can do whatever one-trick pony-thing your build wants to do.

I am pondering writing an article about this (something along the lines of "why good RPGs allow you to actually do shit in combat"), becuase it's something I feel most RPGs squander. I'm behind the questions in the RPG Codex Interviews with Legends of Eisenwald and Dead State that sound something like "yo, what will we actually be doing in combat?", but AoD gave me the inspiration. In my eyes, you've created one of the deepest weapon systems, if not THE deepest, in any RPG ever, however short of the enemies you face, the player doesn't actually get to use that depth actively while playing. Instead of a set of options at the player's disposal, the player gets to choose one at character creation and use that the whole game. This isn't necessarily bad - in an easy game you wouldn't care, and in a party-based game different characters in the party would make up for each of the characters being one-trick ponies. A single-character RPG could make up for this by grouping weapons that feel differently together in the same skill, for instance (Small Weapons cover everything from a pistol to an uzi) or by giving non-skill related tactical options. However, in a difficult, single-character RPG, the lack of options becomes a glaring problem.

Now, back to my point about losing being your own damned fault. I've played P&P for many, many years, and designed, gamemastered and played in a large number of excrutiangly difficult encounters. In the well-designed ones, losing is clearly your own fault. You didn't utilize the options at your disposal correctly, and thus, you lost. You did the wrong thing on your turn, you underestimated a given factors role in the fight, or whatever, and you got put down. In AoD, far too often when you lose you can't explain why - either you got fucked by the RNG, but far more you simply "gambled on the wrong horse" (i.e. made a bad choice in character creation). In my humble opinion, your laughing replies to the outcry about the difficulty when you released the BETA were arrogance that mistook what was people having a hard time identifying why they lost, or people losing to something that wasn't their fault, with rage against the very nature of difficulty. You concluded that people who loved Wizardry or decade old, impossible platformers weren't men enough to handle AoD's difficulty. As I've stated many times, there is good and bad difficulty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for what you should have done instead, I've already given my opinion on this if you recall. You should have done either of these things (the two first would be ideal in my opinion):

a) Fleshed out the maneuvers like Power Attack or Fast Attack, and given more active choices in combat that were all valid. More maneuvers (unlocked at different levels of weapon skill, even), different ways to use each maneuver. I wouldn't mind if these things came at the exclusion of some weapons, since immediate tactical variety for me is more important than being able to replay with another type of character - especially when the game has so much replay value in other areas anyway. Not that you should include magic, but magic is a good example of what I mean; with spells a character always has different options for different situations.

b) Made the game party-based, so that we could use more of the options presented at the character-selection screen that we never get to see again while playing.

c) Made some alternative mechanic that could make up for the lack of variety inherent in the system. Utilities that everybody could use? Focus more on movement-mechanics? Anything, really, that added immediate tactical variety.

d) Made the game is easier (which I would actively oppose :P).

I hope that, even if you disagree, you follow what my personal concerns are.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
I'd also like to defend teleporting: In my opinion, disliking it is a matter of taste. I don't think there is a case for calling it a bad design decision. Exploration is not a hard requirement for a game in my eyes, and the criticism of teleporting mostly reflects those that wished for more exploration. There isn't even a good defense for sea's spatial awareness argument IMO, since the game is so text-based you quickly fall into the nature of the game's narrative structure.

I'm not yay or nay when it comes to the teleporting, rather, I'm pretty indifferent. It works for AoD.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
Before I start, you should know that I have not yet played much with the 2nd version of the demo.
It's still on my list, but I'm right now playing some other games I'd like to finish first.

The good:
I liked the setting
Sometimes pretty imaginative quest design.
Game successfully avoids many cliches.
Atmosphere (setting, story and presentation) was done very well.
The availability of different solutions (and resulting consequences) to a quest is something I liked very much in the demo.
Connected with the previous point: non-combat solutions.

The stuff that could use improvement:
The combat system itself seemed very functional to me but could use a bit tweaking (defense vs attack, special attacks, etc). Guess that player-controlled companions would help, too.
Really, the combat is practically made for controlling more than one character.
(Grunker was obviously writing while I made this post, I think he does a good analysis of some issues with the combat in the game)
The arbitrary nature of skill-checks (improved since the 1st demo, as I understand it)
Encourages too much reloading (one recent game that had an interesting mechanic there is Frayed Knights and the Drama Stars system).

Overall, from my impressions in the demo I guess my verdict will be something like "flawed gem".
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,107
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I am pondering writing an article about this (something along the lines of "why good RPGs allow you to actually do shit in combat"), becuase it's something I feel most RPGs squander. I'm behind the questions in the RPG Codex Interviews with Legends of Eisenwald and Dead State that sound something like "yo, what will we actually be doing in combat?", but AoD gave me the inspiration. In my eyes, you've created one of the deepest weapon systems, if not THE deepest, in any RPG ever, however short of the enemies you face, the player doesn't actually get to use that depth actively while playing. Instead of a set of options at the player's disposal, the player gets to choose one at character creation and use that the whole game. This isn't necessarily bad - in an easy game you wouldn't care, and in a party-based game different characters in the party would make up for each of the characters being one-trick ponies. A single-character RPG could make up for this by grouping weapons that feel differently together in the same skill, for instance (Small Weapons cover everything from a pistol to an uzi) or by giving non-skill related tactical options. However, in a difficult, single-character RPG, the lack of options becomes a glaring problem.

:bro:
To me, AOD is exactly what you'd expect to get from a game made by an archetypal Codexian Fallout fan (single character control only with snarky grittiness and a major hard-on for C&C).
To address these problems, the game would have needed more input from a party-based tactical combatfag at the design stage (paging MMXI)

Maybe in the next game?
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,107
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Another thing:

A single-character RPG could make up for this by grouping weapons that feel differently together in the same skill, for instance (Small Weapons cover everything from a pistol to an uzi) or by giving non-skill related tactical options.

Possibly not a good idea. It reminds me of something I wrote in the cooldowns thread. It seems to be very hard to properly balance a game where a single character can potentially do anything.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
Another thing:

A single-character RPG could make up for this by grouping weapons that feel differently together in the same skill, for instance (Small Weapons cover everything from a pistol to an uzi) or by giving non-skill related tactical options.

Possibly not a good idea. It reminds me of something I wrote in the cooldowns thread. It seems to be very hard to properly balance a game where a single character can potentially do anything.

Possibly you're right. And if you noticed, I present options a) and b) as my personal favourites. However, I was listing what could fix our immideate problem, and I'm also not sure that giving access to more weapons or to more utility-mechanics would create a super-character.

However, I do think you have a point with the super-single-character (fighter/mage solo in BG), and it's a cheap-shot reason to reinforce my argument that party-based games are teh graet, so let's just say I agree with you :P
 

shadow9d9

Learned
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
94
I have no interest in demos. I will play it when it comes out, if ever.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom