Age of Decadence Reviews

The real key to success in act 1 is learning how to get skill points from the easier minor quests in Teron. When you know what you can do now, do that and get skillpoints, then you can do the next thing, and so on. The raider camp and mining outpost are a bit tougher, so you should grind what you can in town first.

I know the game is supposedly not meant to be metagamed like this, but in practice it's impossible to avoid learning these things after dying a few times. Playing a hybrid becomes a lot more viable when you have the knowledge that investing X points into thievan skills will give you X+5 skill points in return for the quests they allow you to do. And some money and nice items, too, but your character should care more about personal development than lucre.

Likewise Maadoran will be a lot harder for a virgin who got dozens of skillpoints less out of Teron than the chad veteran player who ran through every quest possible.

 

That's a big joke. This game absolutely requires metagaming or your playthrough 5minutes of gameplay will be very short and frustrating

 

Is it metagaming on your 2nd playthrough to visit places you've been on your 1st playthrough? And is it metagaming if you go out of your way to explore every nooks and cranny that can be explored, even if you didn't know beforehand what awaits you?

Honest question.

 

I would say the answer is 'maybe yes' to your first question and 'definitely no' to your second.

I think that metagame is any approach to a game that uses information that transcends or uses external factors to what you are experiencing at the moment for the purpose of interfering with the game results. Of course, this distinction begins to become less clear depending on the context, but I would say that the act of playing any game, by definition, mixes with the idea of a metagame to some degree. Reading a walkthrough or watching videos that show you game events will obviously give you previous information about something you haven't experienced yet - and thus allow you to prepare for something you wouldn't theoretically know. You're using an external and previous experience to influence the results of the game, so you're metagaming. I think that this example is very clear and not controversial.

But then, what about when you die at some point in the game? You will return to your previous save (or a checkpoint) with information about what comes next that, in your first experience, you did not have. Obviously, you will use this experience to get a better result this time. But would that be metagame? If not, then what if you decide to load a save from several hours ago to change many events? If not, what if you decide to start the game again, or are playing for a second time? Here it depends on your interpretation, but that's exactly why I said that playing a game mixes with metagame, because it's impossible to separate the two things. As you play you will end up accumulating experiences about the game you will use to change your approach as needed.

The point at which this interferes with game design is in the different visions of how to treat these possible scenarios. For some developers, the player should never be able to find himself in a "dead end" situation - that is, no matter what decisions he has made previously until that point, the player must always have at least one way to go through the present situation. This design approach is based on the premise that no prior knowledge is necessary to be able to overcome any punctual challenge in the game, but has the consequence that the game will never really "punish" the player for wrong decisions, because he always has a way out. This idea works very well for action games, since essentially their focus is on the player's ability, so it's important that you're able to complete any challenge, regardless of context.

But when we talk about RPGs, that approach is no longer reasonable. If you follow that same principle, then you've become Sawyer: you feel you need to create a game where all imaginable builds would be "effective" in some way... Which essentially means that the player can never fail. Different RPGs require different levels of metaknowledge. Some require you to understand the system in advance, others require you to experiment with the characters to see what works or doesn't work, but virtually every RPG leads to some level of metagame. What is debatable is what is the limit of what is acceptable for this - or in this case, how restrictive the game is in offering solutions, and how much sense these solutions make within the context of the game. Is it plausible that a assassin's quest requires you to have a certain level of lockpick skill? Probably. But is it acceptable if it forces you to have a high level of persuasion? Probably not.

So a more relevant discussion is less whether or not something is metagame, but what level of metagame it is acceptable for an RPG to require of the player at any given point in the story without the game essentially turning into a puzzle in disguise where you memorize the correct answers.

 

Considering AoD does not reward roleplaying but encourages metagaming, I don't even understand why anyone would think to do otherwise. If you're playing a fighter build, you have to save-scum each battle. It's the same for skill points and quests. As curry said, that's the design philosophy behind the game. It's not good or bad per se, it's just a style. It's definitely annoying if you're not used to it since you basically have to save your SP until you know the exact amount you need to spend on the next quest, and to facilitate that you need to know in which order it's most beneficial to do the quests. AoD isn't quite the most extreme in this manner since there's a little bit of leeway and there are multiple ways of solving quests but it's certainly up there.

 

I get you're exaggerating for effect, but the sentiment is still out in full force so I feel like it has to be responded to seriously. It's like people never read what the game designer himself stated as his intent. The game doesn't require you to metagame, it requires you to be consistent to the character you're playing. And instead of auto-rewarding hybridization (like most games do) it auto-rewards specialization and character consistency: if you start a talker and play that way, you can finish the game. If you start as a fighter and play as a fighter you can finish the game. And so on. If you play as a talker who splashes fighting because you simply must play those arena fights, darling! you'd better have some understanding of SP distributions so you can hoover them up. You'll need them to prepare for an encounter that's out of character for you.

Hardly. If you make an alchemist loremaster, you'll be richly rewarded in the game... for an alchemist loremaster playthrough. If you make a politicking praetor, you'll have a completely different and really cool game... as a politicking praetor. If you play as a grunt soldier, again completely different. The difference is, that's going to be your playthrough- you don't get to join all ten guilds and become the Supreme Grandmaster Archmage Assassin Knight in one playthrough. Or rather, if that's your goal then yes, you better be a tier 10 autist Codexer to make it work. People seem to have this idea that roleplaying can only mean "I get to do what I want, when I want, without having to think about the character I created". I would argue roleplaying is "I get to fully explore the character I created through consistent choices". Luckily this game allows us to do both. It's just that one is harder then the other .

What it all comes down to, in my mind, is a fundamental misunderstanding of Vault Dweller 's design philosophy for this game: specialization and consistency of character is the default, normal way to play his games. Excessive hybridization with lots of "out of character" splashes and game choices is the hard mode, requiring lots of metagaming to make work. I don't think he's ever said he doesn't like metagaming or hybridization (feel free to quote him if he has), but he has stated, over and over, that making a successful hybrid should be difficult along with rewarding in his game(s).

 

^ Pretty much. In Teron most checks are 3-4. Considering that you can start the game with 3-4 in key skills and raise them to 6, the only reason one would need to metagame is to play a fighter/mage/thief (everyone's favourite character class). The faction quests' checks are always 2-3 ranks lower of where your character's skills would be if you put all your points into 2-3 skills, meaning you can easily pass the checks if you play consistently AND develop supportive skills as well (meaning you aren't expected to play the game with 2-3 skills).

 

I don't know how badly you can misread what we wrote Kalarion or if that's just the line you memorized back then and you keep repeating it endlessly. Because nobody is talking about joining "all ten guilds and become the Supreme Grandmaster Archmage Assassin Knight in one playthrough" or "I get to do what I want, when I want, without having to think about the character I created", which are lovely strawman arguments in the first place.

It's entirely possible to make a character in AoD that fails miserably in Teron. It's entirely possible to make a character that gets stuck later in the game through poor resource management, poor character building, and poor RNG (when it comes to combat). For example, until you get really good equipment, almost every fight has the possibility of killing you and you usually don't get to run away. Similarly, at some places you can only visit once and if you don't meet certain skill requirements, you're locked out of certain outcomes. You cannot know these things unless you metagame the game. Or you're someone obsessed with AoD to the point that you play through every route multiple times but then that's metagame knowledge of your own, sort of.

Again, that's not a GOOD thing or a BAD thing. It's just a THING. It's a design style just like the way it's possible to do absolutely everything with a single character in Skyrim is its polar opposite. The EXECUTION of that style can be poorly or well done but the style itself is just that. And for the AoD-style of gameplay design, metagaming is hugely useful. It's helpful in Fallout 1&2 to know where you're getting free skill-ups and free equipment, so you can grab those first just like it helps in Baldur's Gate to know where the ability increasing tomes and the best gear is. But the games are executed in such a manner that they are forgiving to the player who doesn't know it. Can you play AoD blind? Sure you can. Does metagaming help? Most definitely.

 

How is not a good thing that if you suck at the game you can lose.

 

There's more than one way to play well, and building a good character is part of that. Compare to something like Deus Ex, where there's always more than one way through, and it allows you to get away with really fucked builds because that's only part of the equation.

 

Broadly speaking, you're doing fine, and you're approaching it with the right mindset.

There are quite a few things to do in Teron that can yield XP/gold to make the difference, many of which aren't immediately apparent. I had to comb the town multiple times in my first playthrough only to find I had missed several such encounters, combat or otherwise. And a single level up into a combat skill can make a big difference in your capabilities. The raiders and the mine are supposed to be the more difficult, major combat encounters.

(It's been too long for me to remember them off the top of my head. But there's a merchant who wants your attention near the market, there's some people to talk to at the gate, there's a couple of nondescript houses, there's a pickpocket attempt, and so on.)

Which battles are easy/hard/unwinnable depends massively not only on your player skill but your build - AOD is a game where there are very large swings on that so one build finds X fight much easier than Y, and vice versa. Going hybrid won't make things easier, probably.

Single weapon skill, and then one of block or dodge, is usually the textbook way to go, so you always know what you can rely on in terms of attack and defence, and you also know which enemies are most dangerous for you. Experimenting with different weapon subtypes within your proficiency to see what combination of THC / crit / AP / dmg you like can make a big difference. Again, AOD is a game where changing from just one axe to another or starting combat in a different square can make a huge difference.

If there are particular fights you think is winnable but you're getting stuck you can always report details here for suggestions.

 

That's not the argument. The argument was that AoD needs no metagaming, that you can play it blind and be successful and enjoy it. Yeah maybe if you're a masochist like the dude who did those Ironman runs on Youtube that Black Angel linked. AoD rewards metagaming. Just look above what Tigranes posted. My first experience of AoD was exactly same as MegaRhettButler - and I had gone through the combat demo, including the optional fight, with both a spear+block and axe+dodge builds. Yet my spear+block IG dude got his ass handed to him in Teron. You can't know how many points in STR is enough for a combat build, for one example, and unless you know the game development you wouldn't have any idea that there's power armour waiting for you near the end. I did enjoy playing AoD and it's a great game but I enjoyed it a lot more after reading character build guides and such.

 

Git fucking gud, scrublord.

Also, I didn't know Eyestabber is a masochist.

 

Still I fail to see how having high STR to be good at melee combat is meta gaming or that there are hard fights in the game. The only thing where you can really meta game is for saving skill points, but that plays more to the min-maxing nature of the player and not been OK with failing quests or missing some optional content.

 

I made my first several playthroughs of AoD blind and had a good time. It's not really difficult or anything, you just mustn't get your panties in a twist over not being able to visit some locations or not being to solve some of the game's mysteries. If you want to get all the content in one go, then yeah, you gotta metagame – that shit was never meant to be easy.

If your combat build is getting raped in Teron, then it means your build is shit and it's time to restart and try again. I also discarded my first two builds in Teron when I first started out with the game. Your complaint at this point is that not every build is viable, but that's one of the core tentets of the whole game. If you cannot get over it, don't play it.

The power armor is kinda shit though. I never had a reason to use it; it's drawbacks were just too high, even when fully powered. Anyway, that's besides the point – just how is knowing about the power armor so necessary that one cannot enjoy the game without it?

Well, good on you, I guess? I enjoyed it far more playing blind and seeing whether I'll manage to make this build work and what sort of stuff I'll encounter this time around. Only much later, when I was hunting for stuff I've missed over several playthroughs did I look up stat requirements for some of the things I didn't know how to get. But to say metagaming is necessary to play the game is just a plain lie. Metagaming is necessary if you're doing a completionist kind of run and want to see every last bit the game has to offer.

 

You're still going strong with the strawmen dude. Stop taking everything as a personal attack. I clearly wrote: "how many points in STR is enough" not "high STR is good". You're not a braindead shitposter. My point was and is that with metagaming knowledge, you know exactly how many points to put into STR so that you can semi-reliably handle all the fights in the game, allowing you to put more points into other stats. Yeah obviously it's min-maxing, again that's not the point. And sure, if you have time and interest to play through AoD seven times, good for you. Not everybody does. Again, I'm not advocating that it should be possible to do/see everything in one playthrough. That's not how AoD was designed. But being able to see almost everything in 3 playthroughs instead of 6 is also a massive difference.

Good on you. Next time, try not to generalize your personal experience as a universal truth. There are plenty of comments here and on Steam and on other forums how that's certainly not the experience of a lot of players. Not to mention that you probably played the combat demo and you followed the game development, both of which gave you an advantage compared to someone really playing blind.

Somehow you managed to turn my objective statement that AoD follows a certain design philosophy into a value judgement that it's shit and I shouldn't play it, despite me saying repeatedly that it ISN'T a value judgement and that I have completed the game and even enjoyed it. But fuck me, better to keep stuffing that strawman. You know it is possible to have a discussion without exaggerating and going hyperbolic with everything?

What are you smoking? The power armor is awesome when fully powered. And it gives you stat increases like in Fallout.

You're contradicting yourself here. You're saying that metagaming isn't necessary, yet you yourself admitted that you restarted the game 3 times just for Teron. And now you're being all hyperbolic again like Kalarion was being earlier. I don't know if you guys are autistic or what, thinking that this is a purely binary matter of 1/0 or YES/NO. It isn't.

 

I really enjoyed the game and keep getting back to it every once in a while.
Colony ship is a D1 purchase and i sure hope the Inquisition game comes next

 

Seriously? You try to tell me off like this after running wild with genralizations about how only a masochist would make a blind playthrough? A lot of people went and played AoD blind without metagaming and had a good time.

I didn't, though. Hell, I wasn't even on the Codex back then, much less knew who VD is or that he was making a game.

It's not a strawman, though. Hell, most of the things you call a strawman aren't actually strawmen. I pointed out that if "needing to know how many points in STR is enough" necessiates metagaming, then any game that doesn't let every build pass, by that logic, requires metagaming. First of all, that's ridiculous, second of all, not letting every build pass is one of the core tenets of the game. If one cannot get over that, then it's not the game for him.

Takes helmet slot and shield slot, which had always been a deal breaker for me. I just found better uses for the power tubes than the power armor. Again, whether you know or not know about the power armor has no bearing over whether you can enjoy the game or not.

How am I contradicting myself? You think that the player seeing he built his character like shit, and thus deciding to start again, is metagaming?

 

Guys, I just started playing in Teron and I am mercenary siding with the IG. I have picked axe and shield as my weapons.
I have some skillpoints. What should I increase? Should I increase axe? Or perhaps should I increase shield? Or maybe axe?
Any metagaming protips?

 

Please. Just because your weak ass pussy can't git gud without metagaming, doesn't mean anybody who did are masochists.

 

You sound like 'normie' who doesn't have enough time to play games yet you sit and play through 'turn-based, hardcore role-playing game' (store's description) and then come here to complain about that the game doesn't bend to you and allow to beat it and see everything (muh content) with any few builds you want, really? Maybe you should play some AssCreed instead?

Realizing that your build sucks is a metagaming now? I'd say metagaming is looking for some guide online to distribute stats beforehand like you did but to conclude that the game encourage it?

 

Dunno, I usually tend to increase defensive skills over offensive, but! it could be more beneficial to do contrary - as youwill eliminate threat faster, and will take potantially less blows.

 

GarfunkeL might as well give it up. There's no reading comprehension to be found here.

 

This is bullshit. The same bullshit over and over again. Again. And again. Your experience does not make fact. It's your experience. You. Not the fucking game. You. I'm no Einstein but I enjoyed it just fine playing a hybrid on my first playthrough, where is my nobel prize, right? Fuck off.