Game News Age of Decadence September Update

[tuluse]

Hey Vault Dweller, since you have your attention on this thread:

I have one problem with your game (I've pre-ordered anyways since I think it's still good despite the problem, and I respect what you're trying to do). My problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not you will succeed in a skill check, not even the slightest clue. This isn't a big problem for most of the game, but there are a few parts where it seems like the only way to play is save scumming. A specific example is the thieves guild when you are stealing the gold. There are 4 steal checks in a row. You have no idea if you will pass the next check or how close you came to failing the last check. So there is really no "game" to play at this part. It's just flipping a coin deciding should I click stop or not.

Do you see any solution to this problem, or would you change your design from the beginning if you knew then what you knew now?

 

[suejak]

Yeah, I hated that too. It's not even a game that way, as you say. You have no idea how difficult things are.

 

[villain of the story]

The camera can't be fixed. Well, maybe it can be, if we focus on it exclusively for the next 6 months, but it's a luxury we don't have, and overall, the camera is very low on the priority list.

That is sad because it really fucks up the game flow and feels very clunky. And a few changes are all it might need to get it to feel good:

(1) Raise the camera entity way higher, high above the tallest structures with collision (or don't set collision to high structures at all) and set a very narrow FOV so it looks more like orthograhic projection eg ISOMETRIC while still retaining a perceivable amount of perspective. Camera collision is very annoying in AoD demo. This would naturally resolve that.

(2) Restrict camera controls. Rotating and panning is ok but tilting up and down too much is not. You might even go as far as adding an option that makes the camera rotate in increments of 22,5° or even 45° and an ability to temporarily rotate it by 5-10 degrees in either direction. Really, too much control over camera have never done anyone any good in an overhead view 3D game and all the best examples have focused and simple controls.

(3) Make roofs disappear when the camera can not see the player character instead of only when the PC enters the designated areas. This was very annoying in the demo.

(4) It feels very cheap, clunky and annoying when the camera gets stuck in places or stopped dead due to collision in the demo. Instead, try something like allowing the camera to move just a little further in inches in the same direction at a very low speed when it collides with something and then quickly move it back out of the collision. It will feel more fluid, responsive and managable.

 

[Syl]

Vault Dweller I think your view on the teleportation issue is flawed.

A feature designed for replayability that frustrates people on their first playthrough is completetly counter-productive.

If you want people to replay your game, you first have to make sure that they play it once.

 

[suejak]

I don't think he's making it for other people. He's making it for himself. At least that's what he said.

 

[villain of the story]

Not sure I understand the question. What does 'focusing on financial success" mean? We'll make the best game we can and we'll do our best to generate enough awareness and put it in front of many people.

I just met a cRPing young couple a couple days ago. Lovely people. Very well aware of the state of the industry, up to date with a lot of things, fans of TB, have played all the 90s' classics and everything. They hadn't heard of AoD. I have mentioned it before: there are a lot of people out there who would love to hear about your game but have yet to know about it, despite your protests in the past that if someone loves old school TB games, he or she will eventually find out about AoD. I don't know what you are doing wrong.

They were normal people, though, that couple; they have heard of but never registered at the Codex.

Fucking normals.

 

[villain of the story]

Hey Vault Dweller, since you have your attention on this thread:

I have one problem with your game (I've pre-ordered anyways since I think it's still good despite the problem, and I respect what you're trying to do). My problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not you will succeed in a skill check, not even the slightest clue. This isn't a big problem for most of the game, but there are a few parts where it seems like the only way to play is save scumming. A specific example is the thieves guild when you are stealing the gold. There are 4 steal checks in a row. You have no idea if you will pass the next check or how close you came to failing the last check. So there is really no "game" to play at this part. It's just flipping a coin deciding should I click stop or not.

Do you see any solution to this problem, or would you change your design from the beginning if you knew then what you knew now?

I sort of agree with this. I felt the need of an appraisal, a feedback system. Not a signboard telling you exactly how many points you need but once I've invested heavily in a couple of skills, I should be able to have a rough idea of my likelihood of overcoming certain challenges related to my skills and be able to form a sensible opinion and decide whether I want to keep going or stop and look for other solutions.

It could be that even the appraisel itself could be based on skill rolls depending on the situation. Examples:

(1) A lock so exquisite, it is nigh impossible to get a sense of its mechanism despite all of your knowledge of the trade (despite the mechanism actually being quite simple).
Roll success: You make an accurate guess about its difficulty.
Roll fail: You think it's pretty difficult. Not sure whether you could handle it.
Roll something: You just can't figure it out.

(2) A trap so diabolic, it looks like the most basic and simplistic mechanism, almost alluring you to get it over with.
Roll success: It's a very complex mechanism, cleverly made to look like a simple one to seal the fate of its prowler.
Roll fail: It indeed looks as simple as it looks.

 

[laclongquan]

I don't think he's making it for other people. He's making it for himself. At least that's what he said.

I couldnt care less if he makes the game to impress one impressionable young tit. As long as it provide enjoyment to my gaming, it's all good.

 

[suejak]

I don't think he's making it for other people. He's making it for himself. At least that's what he said.

I couldnt care less if he makes the game to impress one impressionable young tit. As long as it provide enjoyment to my gaming, it's all good.

I don't really know what you wanna say there, but yeah, what I mean is that he doesn't seem to care if other people in general to enjoy his game at all. He is making it for his own enjoyment.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Fallout to Arcanum -- these games feature tons of freedom and genuine gameplay. It's depressing to think of games a simple list of intentional choices lain out by some hack designer. No, in most good RPGs you build at least one unique character and invent your experience yourself, by interacting with the world the designers made and applying yourself to their world and ruleset. That is what makes them games.
It's really odd to me that you guys are essentially excited to play a game of "click-down-the-path-Vault-Dweller-has-written-for-me-and-read-what-happens."

Could you please list them, because when I played everything was pretty much predetermined. I am genuinely interested.

 

[suejak]

Fallout to Arcanum -- these games feature tons of freedom and genuine gameplay. It's depressing to think of games a simple list of intentional choices lain out by some hack designer. No, in most good RPGs you build at least one unique character and invent your experience yourself, by interacting with the world the designers made and applying yourself to their world and ruleset. That is what makes them games.
It's really odd to me that you guys are essentially excited to play a game of "click-down-the-path-Vault-Dweller-has-written-for-me-and-read-what-happens."

Could you please list them, because when I played everything was pretty much predetermined. I am genuinely interested.

List what? You had full free movement over the gameworld. It was entirely up to you how you wanted to deal with something, and it was only sometimes "select this option to proceed". Think about the crafting system in Arcanum. Think about how you can exploit the crafting system to set up your own solutions to a variety of problems.

This issue isn't really about specific examples, but here are some. In that mine with the monsters that degrade your melee weapons, you have to think of a way through. What I decided to do was have Magnus (I think that's his name?) make a TON of those low-level balanced swords, and equipped everybody with one no matter what their standard attack was in a normal situation. This was an original solution that I created by utilizing the resources I, uniquely, had available to me, to solve a specific problem. It was not a matter of clicking a dialogue option.

I've been having save game issues in my recent attempt to replay Arcanum, which has resulted in me playing the same area over and over, so I'm a little short on fresh examples. However, I always have trouble killing the imps (kobolds?) in the first cave in the game, but I want the loot from the cave at the very least. Virgil has a healing spell, the kobolds don't hit for much, and my character is fast, so the best solution became that I lure the kobolds into surrounding Virgil while he takes their slight hits and heals himself and I run by to open the chest, get the loot, and then we leave without breaking combat. This is a solution beyond "Avoid the cave" and "Kill the monsters". I've yet to see a combat situation in AoD that can be resolved in any way but -- or serve any purpose except -- one party killing or being killed.

I'm sure there are some good quest-related examples as well, but I'll have to play a bit further to refresh my memory on that. I haven't even completed a quest yet.

 

[SuicideBunny]

heh.. i originally registered this acc to complain about aod interface after hours of occasional lurking... that was 5 years ago, and it looked as if it would be out any day now back then....

 

[l3loodAngel]

Could you please list them, because when I played everything was pretty much predetermined. I am genuinely interested.

List what? You had full free movement over the game world. It was entirely up to you how you wanted to deal with something, and it was only sometimes "select this option to proceed". Think about the crafting system in Arcanum. Think about how you can exploit the crafting system to set up your own solutions to a variety of problems.

A free movement in a predetermined world, that let's you walk, where devs let you walk? That is an illusion of freedom rather than the freedom.
Could you please name those solutions if there are plenty?

This issue isn't really about specific examples, but here are some. In that mine with the monsters that degrade your melee weapons, you have to think of a way through. What I decided to do was have Magnus (I think that's his name?) make a TON of those low-level balanced swords, and equipped everybody with one no matter what their standard attack was in a normal situation. This was an original solution that I created by utilizing the resources I, uniquely, had available to me, to solve a specific problem. It was not a matter of clicking a dialogue option.

Fairly standard shit. It's like in resident evil 2 you gave to win a level with limited ammo.

Edit:

However, you CAN think of non-standard solutions to fights, that even old fags don't know about.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2941.0.html

I've been having save game issues in my recent attempt to replay Arcanum, which has resulted in me playing the same area over and over, so I'm a little short on fresh examples.

Yeah... But there should be plenty according to your description of freedom.

However, I always have trouble killing the imps (kobolds?) in the first cave in the game, but I want the loot from the cave at the very least. Virgil has a healing spell, the kobolds don't hit for much, and my character is fast, so the best solution became that I lure the kobolds into surrounding Virgil while he takes their slight hits and heals himself and I run by to open the chest, get the loot, and then we leave without breaking combat. This is a solution beyond "Avoid the cave" and "Kill the monsters". I've yet to see a combat situation in AoD that can be resolved in any way but -- or serve any purpose except -- one party killing or being killed.

Well there are two problems with this freedom. First there are no Kobolds in AoD and second thing is that there is no magic. It might make sense to run away from enemies out of the cave and that they won't chase you after you have looted them, but I am not sure that would make sense in AoD setting.

Combat situations can be resolved through dialogue if you have the needed skills and there are plenty skills for that, but when the fight breaks out what do you expect?

I'm sure there are some good quest-related examples as well, but I'll have to play a bit further to refresh my memory on that. I haven't even completed a quest yet.

Please do

 

[Vault Dweller]

I have one problem with your game (I've pre-ordered anyways since I think it's still good despite the problem, and I respect what you're trying to do). My problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not you will succeed in a skill check, not even the slightest clue. This isn't a big problem for most of the game, but there are a few parts where it seems like the only way to play is save scumming. A specific example is the thieves guild when you are stealing the gold. There are 4 steal checks in a row. You have no idea if you will pass the next check or how close you came to failing the last check. So there is really no "game" to play at this part. It's just flipping a coin deciding should I click stop or not.

Do you see any solution to this problem, or would you change your design from the beginning if you knew then what you knew now?

I'm not sure it's a problem. I'm not sure that games should give you any indication of when you're getting close. I definitely didn't like it in New Vegas.

As for the design and this specific example, yes, you have no idea, so you have to make a call. Do you take 2-3 or go for all 4? You wouldn't know whether or you'd succeed or fail in real life, so the same principle applies here. If you fail, you either fight or flee, so you still have options there. If you die, you die. Learn your lesson, do better. Overall, I'd suggest playing the game as you'd play a roguelike - dying is part of the experience.

Anyway, what Oscar and I are working on should be able to fix that problem, at least to some degree.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yeah, I hated that too. It's not even a game that way, as you say. You have no idea how difficult things are.

Right. Games should always tell you how difficult things are and color-mark challenges so that you know what's appropriate for your level.

Vault Dweller I think your view on the teleportation issue is flawed.

A feature designed for replayability that frustrates people on their first playthrough is completetly counter-productive.

If you want people to replay your game, you first have to make sure that they play it once.

The same winning principle can be applied to just about anything and is the main reason behind the decline of RPGs - thou shalt not frustrate people, thou shalt please as many people as possible.

Overall, the game was well-received (for an indie) and the #1 complaint isn't the teleporting but the combat difficulty. Apparently, if I want people to play the game more than once, I have to make sure they beat the first fight.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Wow, this is really how you people play video games. It's just mind-blowing to me.

Even something like Icewind Dale. Ok, so they made a bunch of encounters. You made your party. Hence YOU decide, with almost completely freedom, how you will interact with their encounters. Your game is full of choices. Suppose you made an entire party of mages. Your experience is going to be decided by that choice. Suppose you make a standard 2-fight, thief, healer, 2-mage party: that's your choice and the result is your chosen experience. Do you understand?

From Jagged Alliance 2 to Fallout to Arcanum -- these games feature tons of freedom and genuine gameplay. It's depressing to think of games a simple list of intentional choices lain out by some hack designer. No, in most good RPGs you build at least one unique character and invent your experience yourself, by interacting with the world the designers made and applying yourself to their world and ruleset. That is what makes them games.

It's really odd to me that you guys are essentially excited to play a game of "click-down-the-path-Vault-Dweller-has-written-for-me-and-read-what-happens."

The designers intended for you to be able to create a party of all mages, or half warriors and half mages.

Fuck, in Fallout: NV you can even fail quests. And that's ok. Not because you clicked the button that means "fail". But because you made an interesting choice, perhaps killed a key party somewhere along the line. The game is designed in a way that you have freedom to write your own experience, rather than simply click through someone else's preconceived options.

Killing a key character is the same as clicking a dialogue option that says "[kill key character]". Executed differently, but same thing in the end. NV isn't offering you some magical freedom.

I think I understand what you mean, you want to discover the solutions to challenges on your own. But the way you express it is terrible - you sound like you want a game that makes content up as you play, like a dream.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I just met a cRPing young couple a couple days ago. Lovely people.
...

They were normal people, though, that couple; they have heard of but never registered at the Codex.

Well, they won't stay lovely for long after they start posting on the Codex, that's for sure. Just look at Grunker.

 

[Grunker]

I resent that. I'm perfectly lovely.

 

[Vault Dweller]

 

[suejak]

I have one problem with your game (I've pre-ordered anyways since I think it's still good despite the problem, and I respect what you're trying to do). My problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not you will succeed in a skill check, not even the slightest clue. This isn't a big problem for most of the game, but there are a few parts where it seems like the only way to play is save scumming. A specific example is the thieves guild when you are stealing the gold. There are 4 steal checks in a row. You have no idea if you will pass the next check or how close you came to failing the last check. So there is really no "game" to play at this part. It's just flipping a coin deciding should I click stop or not.

Do you see any solution to this problem, or would you change your design from the beginning if you knew then what you knew now?

I'm not sure it's a problem. I'm not sure that games should give you any indication of when you're getting close. I definitely didn't like it in New Vegas.

As for the design and this specific example, yes, you have no idea, so you have to make a call. Do you take 2-3 or go for all 4? You wouldn't know whether or you'd succeed or fail in real life, so the same principle applies here. If you fail, you either fight or flee, so you still have options there. If you die, you die. Learn your lesson, do better. Overall, I'd suggest playing the game as you'd play a roguelike - dying is part of the experience.

Anyway, what Oscar and I are working on should be able to fix that problem, at least to some degree.

This just seems so absurdly bad to me. I don't understand why you think blind skill checks are interesting or fun. If you want a parallel to reality, everyone and certainly every expert knows roughly how difficult something will be before trying it. If I'm pretty good at jumping and have done a lot of jumps in my life, I'm going to have a pretty good idea of my chances to make a given jump.

I just don't get how you think. You make weird decisions for weird reasons. It's frustrating and your game isn't fun to play. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a game.

The designers intended for you to be able to create a party of all mages, or half warriors and half mages.

I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about this. The game is designed to allow freedom of party construction. You can literally create any party you want within the bounds of AD&D rules, and that will largely set the tone for your interaction with the more intentionally designed parts of the game -- the various encounters and quests. This is in part what makes IWD a good game.

Saying, "The designers of IWD intended you to have freedom!" is not a convincing response to the complaint that AoD is ruined by overinterference by its designer. That AoD is literally a series of dialogue options consciously written by a designer is a patently different sort of "designer intention" than the intentional freedom of games like IWD, FNV, the Elder Scrolls games. Those games allow you to make your own story, to play them as games. AoD is like some kind of sentence-completion activity where all the sentence parts are provided for you on the refrigerator.

Killing a key character is the same as clicking a dialogue option that says "[kill key character]". Executed differently, but same thing in the end. NV isn't offering you some magical freedom.

I think I understand what you mean, you want to discover the solutions to challenges on your own. But the way you express it is terrible - you sound like you want a game that makes content up as you play, like a dream.

See, now, it's not, and this is important. That's like saying donating sperm and getting a baby is the same as marrying someone, loving them, having sex, and going through pregnancy together, culminating in a birth.

You just don't understand yet because you've never thought about it before. Most games are fun because they let you play them with a good degree of freedom. That's certainly true of the major RPGs. Meanwhile, AoD tries to think of everything you could possibly want to do in a given situation and give that option to you as a dialogue option. And it doesn't even let you know, even vaguely, how much of a risk you're taking. Whee.

 

[suejak]

Could you please list them, because when I played everything was pretty much predetermined. I am genuinely interested.

List what? You had full free movement over the game world. It was entirely up to you how you wanted to deal with something, and it was only sometimes "select this option to proceed". Think about the crafting system in Arcanum. Think about how you can exploit the crafting system to set up your own solutions to a variety of problems.

A free movement in a predetermined world, that let's you walk, where devs let you walk? That is an illusion of freedom rather than the freedom.
Could you please name those solutions if there are plenty?

Huh? The game is a set of open maps. You can explore them freely. "The designers designed them to be free and open!!" is not an enlightening argument.

Fairly standard shit. It's like in resident evil 2 you gave to win a level with limited ammo.

Yeah, RE2 is a good game too.

Well there are two problems with this freedom. First there are no Kobolds in AoD and second thing is that there is no magic. It might make sense to run away from enemies out of the cave and that they won't chase you after you have looted them, but I am not sure that would make sense in AoD setting.

Combat situations can be resolved through dialogue if you have the needed skills and there are plenty skills for that, but when the fight breaks out what do you expect?

No offense, but I don't see much value in talking to you. It is completely irrelevant that there are no kobolds or magic in AoD.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This just seems so absurdly bad to me. I don't understand why you think blind skill checks are interesting or fun.

Because that's the traditional RPGs design?

I just don't get how you think. You make weird decisions for weird reasons. It's frustrating and your game isn't fun to play. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a game.

So, go and play something else. See? Problem solved.

I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about this. The game is designed to allow freedom of party construction. You can literally create any party you want within the bounds of AD&D rules, and that will largely set the tone for your interaction with the more intentionally designed parts of the game -- the various encounters and quests. This is in part what makes IWD a good game.

Saying, "The designers of IWD intended you to have freedom!" is not a convincing response to the complaint that AoD is ruined by overinterference by its designer. That AoD is literally a series of dialogue options consciously written by a designer is a patently different sort of "designer intention" than the intentional freedom of games like IWD, FNV, the Elder Scrolls games. Those games allow you to make your own story, to play them as games.

And what is your story in IWD - a linear hack-n-slasher where your only choices are classes and equipment (to a lesser degree)?

You just don't understand yet because you've never thought about it before.

Comedy gold, coming from a kid who's just wandered in.

Most games are fun because they let you play them with a good degree of freedom. That's certainly true of the major RPGs. Meanwhile, AoD tries to think of everything you could possibly want to do in a given situation and give that option to you as a dialogue option.

Bingo. Now, some people like it, some people don't, and nothing else needs to be said on the subject.

 

[suejak]

This just seems so absurdly bad to me. I don't understand why you think blind skill checks are interesting or fun.

Because that's the traditional RPGs design?

What RPG? Seriously, everything fun has given you some idea of the difficulty of something, at least if it took the dialogue-options route. You can't really compare your game to Rogue.

Old games did lots of dumb shit. Game design has evolved. Parts of this evolution are good.

And what is your story in IWD - a linear hack-n-slasher where your only choices are classes and equipment (to a lesser degree)?

IWD is a tactical hack-n-slash. Yet it still gives you a lot of interactivity, a lot of freedom, and a lot to learn from. It EVEN lets you move around on the map and through towns.

You just don't understand yet because you've never thought about it before.

Comedy gold, coming from a kid who's just wandered in.

Honestly, I think I've been here longer than you. I don't remember you from Duck & Cover or NMA at all.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Old games did lots of dumb shit. Game design has evolved.

And what is your story in IWD - a linear hack-n-slasher where your only choices are classes and equipment (to a lesser degree)?

IWD is a tactical hack-n-slash. Yet it still gives you a lot of interactivity, a lot of freedom, and a lot to learn from. It EVEN lets you move around on the map and through towns.

Did you not understand the question?

 

[Infinitron]

Honestly, I think I've been here longer than you. I don't remember you from Duck & Cover or NMA at all.

Wtf?