Preview Age of Decadence R4 Preview at GameBanshee

[Infinitron]

Tags: Age of Decadence; Eric Schwarz; Iron Tower

Over a year ago, Eric "sea" Schwarz previewed the Age of Decadence demo for GameBanshee, and gave it a glowing appraisal. Well, since then, the game has gone through three major revisions, an entire new city has been added to it, and it's been released on Steam Early Access. Certainly, enough has changed to warrant giving the game a second look, and that's what Eric has done, in a new preview posted on GameBanshee today. His opinion this time, however, is significantly less glowing. I quote:

Philosophical Differences

I admit, I loved The Age of Decadence when I first played it, and in many ways I still do. The world and its lore, the characters, the dry wit and cynicism, seeing the story from many different perspectives, the fact that your choices do significantly influence the game's outcome and your path through it, the attention to detail and the intelligent quest options that let you do some really great things that I often found myself wishing to do in other RPGs, that's all there.

However, when I first played it, I also assumed the game would have grown and evolved a bit more with time. While it definitely has in several ways, with more quest options and, of course, a brand-new city, I can't help but feel as though it's still lacking in some fundamental ways. The game is, mechanically, pretty complicated, but that all takes place in barely-interactive dialogue trees, or within combat. There's no real exploration, no puzzles (except the puzzle of when to put skill points into what), no skill use in the environment, little resource management or attrition to deal with; even crafting and alchemy have no use for non-combat characters at all. All those other little game mechanics and systems that flesh out an RPG into more than the sum of its parts are simply absent from The Age of Decadence.

This leads to what I consider to be The Age of Decadence's biggest weakness. Its gameplay for non-combat characters feels like it boils down to playing Windows Calculator - trying to figure out how many skill points are available, and exactly what combinations of options for quests are feasible based on how one's skills can be levelled up. This renders it little more than frustrating trial-and-error, where rather than building a character that fits your vision of what's useful, you have to hoard those skill points and only spend them when you absolutely have to, on the options the developer has decided to offer. If you happen to find a situation where you can't get more skill points, or allocated points the "wrong" way - which is very possible - it's game over, either due to an instant death in-dialogue, getting stuck in a fight you can't win, or simply having no more options available, and your only recourse is to reload an old save, or start a brand-new game entirely. There's no free world to explore, no enemies to grind more skill points on, and your path through the game is ultimately on rails; and it can grind to a halt in a way that's extremely jarring.

Now, this definitely in part down to a difference in design philosophy - The Age of Decadence is a very focused and lean game, with little unnecessary bloat. But, the more I play it, the more I feel that this philosophy does not work for me - two years on, and what I could accept as "design choices" are things I am beginning to feel are real flaws. The fact is that skill checks, in themselves, aren't really an engaging or fun mechanic - and lacking a lot of those extra features and gameplay elements one expects from an RPG, The Age of Decadence feels lean to a fault. If you aren't involved in combat, when the great writing and quest options fall away, and all you can do is crunch numbers, figuring what quests you can do in what order and with what options. Frankly, the game simply isn't very much fun.

Closing Thoughts

All that said, The Age of Decadence is still a very accomplished title, and is definitely beginning to follow through on the promise it's demonstrated for the last several years of its development. The things it does well, it does very well - probably better than any other RPG on the market right now, if I have to be honest, and that includes heavy hitters like the upcoming Wasteland 2. However, now that the initial shock and awe factor has worn off, my opinion of the game has cooled. And, part of me thinks that what I value in RPGs has changed a bit since I last looked at it.

Either way, I am definitely excited to see how Maadoran is fleshed out over the coming months, and perhaps even more, how the game will finish up once its final city is introduced. More than any, The Age of Decadence has crafted a truly reactive story and world, and I am eager to take part in its conclusion once the full game is released.
​

Well then. All of that is basically true, but wasn't it already obvious in the initial demo? Remember kids, inflated expectations are bad for you. Don't have them.

 

[hiver]

I just dont agree, really.

I guess its a matter of accepting the gameplay or not, ultimately.
for example, i would say that the game presents a lot of exploration and different options to try out, even in a single build play, if you basically - go with the flow.
Which is what you do for any game, more or less.

In other words, i can see why Eric doesnt like it himself, but i wouldnt take that to mean that the game is lacking. Actually.

 

[sea]

I just dont agree, really.

I guess its a matter of accepting the gameplay or not, ultimately.
for example, i would say that the game presents a lot of exploration and different options to try out, even in a single build play, if you basically - go with the flow.
Which is what you do for any game, more or less.

In other words, i can see why Eric doesnt like it himself, but i wouldnt take that to mean that the game is lacking. Actually.

Cross-posting, since I knew this would come up and just want to clarify things and get it out in the open:

For me the issue is pretty much: "well, this game doesn't have much other than combat and dialogue trees, so to add any sort of non-combat challenge we have to make those dialogue trees really hard to get through and move the challenge factor over to character-building". The problem is that this penny-pinching of every skill point you get, hoarding it up, constantly saving/loading the game to get through (or just coincidentally building the "right" character the first time, which also happens) simply in itself is not enjoyable. What makes skill checks fun in other RPGs is what they enable in a wider context of gameplay systems, but in Age of Decadence there is no real wider context.

That said, though, I think Vince's writing is goddamn excellent and I love the quest construction and options available. The combat is also still fantastic, even though the balance seems to have changed radically every time I sit down to play it. That has not changed and I want to make that abundantly clear, it's just that two years on and the more I play of the game, I'm either realizing I want something else out of an RPG, or that, worse, Age of Decadence is not much fun for non-combat players, because it simply does not have the mechanics and systems to support such a play-style properly.

I still have tons of respect for what Iron Tower have accomplished. Like I said, what the game does well, it does really well.

 

[Kem0sabe]

The fact is that skill checks, in themselves, aren't really an engaging or fun mechanic - and lacking a lot of those extra features and gameplay elements one expects from an RPG, The Age of Decadence feels lean to a fault. If you aren't involved in combat, when the great writing and quest options fall away, and all you can do is crunch numbers, figuring what quests you can do in what order and with what options. Frankly, the game simply isn't very much fun.

The WL2 preview was way too lenient if you compare both previews.

 

[Infinitron]

He wants *gasp* a traditional RPG.

 

[felipepepe]

I think what people expect of RPG is the problem... by common understanding, W2 gives you all a RPG should give; exploration, turn-based combat, looting, dialog, skill checks, etc... none of them are executed in a brilliant way, but it checks all the boxes. AoD is irregular, with fantastic writing and complex combat, but little to no exploration. More even, if you're playing a "dialog-character", even combat gets kind of removed from the equation...

In that sense, W2 is clearly a better "tradicional RPG", even if AoD is a better "game".

 

[sea]

I think what people expect of RPG is the problem... by common understanding, W2 gives you all a RPG should give; exploration, turn-based combat, looting, dialog, skill checks, etc... none of them are executed in a brilliant way, but it checks all the boxes. AoD is irregular, with fantastic writing and complex combat, but little to no exploration. More even, if you're playing a "dialog-character", even combat gets kind of removed from the equation...

In that sense, W2 is clearly a better "tradicional RPG", even if AoD is a better "game".

But that's the thing (and I touched on this in the preview). I don't feel Age of Decadence is a better game. That argument is basically "if you execute every single element of your game well, and cut out everything that's not good, the game must be excellent", which ignores that games are very often more than the sum of their parts. I don't feel you can take mechanics in a vacuum, and just because Age of Decadence has great combat and a great character system, does not make it a great RPG or even a great game outright, especially when an entire part of the game, its non-combat elements, are not just weak, but actively unenjoyable.

It doesn't really have to do anything with whether it's a "traditional RPG" or not. It has to do with whether everything in it works well, not just in bits and pieces but as a fully functional and cohesive whole. And as I said, as time goes on and the more I play of it (and other games) the more I feel the answer to that question is "no", and that becomes less excusable as a design decision and more an outright flaw to the effectiveness of the overall product.

 

[Grunker]

I dunno. I recall VD ackknowledging the "blind skill point mini game", i.e. that if you spent your skills wrongly without having a chance to know, down the line you'd get a game over screen and a "please restart." Sounds like that persists.

 

[Johannes]

I think what people expect of RPG is the problem... by common understanding, W2 gives you all a RPG should give; exploration, turn-based combat, looting, dialog, skill checks, etc... none of them are executed in a brilliant way, but it checks all the boxes. AoD is irregular, with fantastic writing and complex combat, but little to no exploration. More even, if you're playing a "dialog-character", even combat gets kind of removed from the equation...

In that sense, W2 is clearly a better "tradicional RPG", even if AoD is a better "game".

How is AoD a better "game"? For the non-combat parts/characters it's a CYOA with stats basically, a CYOA where your options are severely limited by a skill point assignment minigame. It's still a damn good CYOA for the most part, this is what makes it worthwhile, but the skill point assignment part is definitely not engaging gameplay. If the games challenge comes from careful assignment of skill points it would need a more complex system for that like say, even Princess Maker has.

 

[J_C]

Well, according to this preview, I would say that VD should start make the non-combat part of the game more interesting, and focus less on combat. Because the latter is already pretty well designed, but the game is lacking on other parts.

 

[Lhynn]

Well. I want to ask, what would happen if they were to separate non combat and combat experience pool? thus allowing characters that are strong at fighting and good at something else.

Honestly asking, how do you guys think it would affect the game?

 

[Saduj]

I agree that non-combat characters aren't as fun to play in AOD but I guess my questions would be: Why would anyone expect a non-combat character to be as fun to play as a combat character? How many games even offer a non-combat path, let alone make it as fun as playing a character that engages in combat?

Also, the skill point hoarding/metagaming seems to be less necessary for non-combat (or all combat) characters. IMO, the Thief is the hardest character from a skill point allocation standpoint b/c it has to be well balanced between combat and non-combat. From my experience, I've always had an abundance of skill points when playing a non-combat character. IMO, its fair to say "You don't get a full game experience if you play a non-combat character". But I would argue that you don't get the full game experience unless you play five or six different careers anyway. The noncombat playthroughs don't take as long and end up adding a lot from a plot/lore standpoint.

All that said, there doesn't seem to much to the Grifter class, unless I missed a lot when I played one. Other than the first quest and one reference to "Grifter" during a skill check with Feng, I didn't see any unique content for this class. Unless I missed a bunch of content, I would think this class could just be removed. A non-combat "Drifter" would be the same thing anyway.

Well. I want to ask, what would happen if they were to separate non combat and combat experience pool? thus allowing characters that are strong at fighting and good at something else.

Honestly asking, how do you guys think it would affect the game?

This has been added at character creation. During the game, you can earn combat and non-combat specific skill points too. But quest rewards are general skill points that can be used for either. I think the partition during character creation is helpful, less so during actual gameplay. Really I'd prefer to be able to allocate skill points however I want once the game starts.

 

[Johannes]

Well, according to this preview, I would say that VD should start make the non-combat part of the game more interesting, and focus less on combat. Because the latter is already pretty well designed, but the game is lacking on other parts.

The simplistic base mechanics for CYOA parts are already set in stone, how would you do that without revamping half of everything?

 

[felipepepe]

But that's the thing (and I touched on this in the preview). I don't feel Age of Decadence is a better game. That argument is basically "if you execute every single element of your game well, and cut out everything that's not good, the game must be excellent", which ignores that games are very often more than the sum of their parts. I don't feel you can take mechanics in a vacuum, and just because Age of Decadence has great combat and a great character system, does not make it a great RPG or even a great game outright, especially when an entire part of the game, its non-combat elements, are not just weak, but actively unenjoyable.

It doesn't really have to do anything with whether it's a "traditional RPG" or not. It has to do with whether everything in it works well, not just in bits and pieces but as a fully functional and cohesive whole. And as I said, as time goes on and the more I play of it (and other games) the more I feel the answer to that question is "no", and that becomes less excusable as a design decision and more an outright flaw to the effectiveness of the overall product.

Isn't Arcanum's combat absolute shit? And isn't Arcanum the Codex's 5th Best RPG of All Time? Despite big flaws in some areas, the rest of it is so well done it makes up for it, and even more, it's memorable for those who played it.

Wasteland 2 is a RPG just going through the motions; you played this game before, and better. It brings nothing new to the table, nor it executes the old concepts in a interesting way. It doesn't suck, nor it shines; it's simply mediocre. AoD's demo from 2 years ago was more interesting than the entire W2 beta is. And it will be the same when both games are released. W2 will get mad hype and raving reviews about signaling the "rebirth of RPGs" and all that, while few will notice AoD... but later, I bet that AoD will have more fans and more endorsement, while W2 will just be replaced by any other cRPG.

 

[sea]

Well, according to this preview, I would say that VD should start make the non-combat part of the game more interesting, and focus less on combat. Because the latter is already pretty well designed, but the game is lacking on other parts.

The simplistic base mechanics for CYOA parts are already set in stone, how would you do that without revamping half of everything?

I agree that non-combat characters aren't as fun to play in AOD but I guess my questions would be: Why would anyone expect a non-combat character to be as fun to play as a combat character? How many games even offer a non-combat path, let alone make it as fun as playing a character that engages in combat?

I can think of a few good ways, though it would require a lot of work:

• Actually have the player use the alchemy system to make potions/poisons to create quest-related items, and same for crafting system.
  
• Stop doing all skill and item use in dialogue. Adopted the Fallout approach of using skills and items on objects and characters in the environment to create that sense the player is actually doing something, even if ultimately that something is "unnecessary". Basic example from one quest: player finds stone, has to combine with a rope to create a lodestone, then has to use that on a well itself to pull up the hidden item - currently this is all done in dialogue.
  
• Make money important for things like buying clothes, jewelry etc. which is necessary to integrate into various parts of society (this already happens, sort of, but usually you can just pick Disguise and automagically receive Loremaster's Robes or whatever, which is dumb).
• Have some dialogue trees that are more than just a succession of skill checks that are auto-win. Include alternate methods to persuade NPCs that don't rely on skill checks as much, but are more difficult and require the player make compelling arguments based on the personality of the NPC. The ending of Arcanum did this to great effect, and so did Neverwinter Nights 2's trial section, with its perfect integration of past player action, character stats, and logic/deduction/reasoning skills.
  
• Introduce looting of containers and examining objects as important in solving quests (that feeling of tactility is so important and is lost by doing everything in dialogue).

There's a lot you can do, really, but of course, the game is already well into production and the gameplay style itself is mostly set in stone, so I don't expect it to change. But just saying, you don't have to have combat or tons of exploration to vary non-combat gameplay.

Isn't Arcanum's combat absolute shit? And isn't Arcanum the Codex's 5th Best RPG of All Time? Despite big flaws in some areas, the rest of it is so well done it makes up for it, and even more, it's memorable for those who played it.

Wasteland 2 is a RPG just going through the motions; you played this game before, and better. It brings nothing new to the table, nor it executes the old concepts in a interesting way. It doesn't suck, nor it shines; it's simply mediocre. AoD's demo from 2 years ago was more interesting than the entire W2 beta is. And it will be the same when both games are released. W2 will get mad hype and raving reviews about signaling the "rebirth of RPGs" and all that, while few will notice AoD... but later, I bet that AoD will have more fans and more endorsement, while W2 will just be replaced by any other cRPG.

I fully appreciate the innovation in Age of Decadence and I think the game does some awesome and amazing things. But I also think that Wasteland 2 is more fun to actually play, mechanically speaking. Even its more simplistic and easier combat is a bit more engaging for me due to full party control. For me, fun wins out over innovation and even a fantastic story with more C&C than anything else ever in the genre, and that's what puts something like Arcanum above Age of Decadence in my opinion. Sue me.

Ultimately, though, it's down to personal preference and what you value in an RPG game. A lot of Codexers seem to really enjoy hardcore combat-oriented games with little to no meaningful gameplay outside of it (Temple of Elemental Evil, Knights of the Chalice, Blackguards, etc.) so it certainly makes sense a lot of people here would also appreciate Age of Decadence for the same reasons.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Roughly an year ago

Well, according to this preview, I would say that VD should start make the non-combat part of the game more interesting, and focus less on combat. Because the latter is already pretty well designed, but the game is lacking on other parts.

The simplistic base mechanics for CYOA parts are already set in stone, how would you do that without revamping half of everything?

I can't remember exactly when - probably right after the fist demo came out - I suggested Vince to hide all the skill/stat checks before the selection, lower their threshold to allow more flexibility (not that much, of course) and write dumb options for characters that don't meet skill/stat requirements. I mean: disguise =>30, smart attempt to deceive a guard; disguise < 30, dumb attempt to deceive a guard. It was a theoretical escamotage to shift the attention of the player from "where should I put these 2 points?" to "What should my character do/say in this situation?". Dumb sentences was supposed to be sort of "traps".
Probably the whole idea was naive. I can't help but think that the CyoA parts of Aod would have worked better this way, though.

 

[felipepepe]

Yeah, I guess it all comes down to what's fun to you. I had way more fun figuring out how to do what I wanted in AoD than I had playing W2, where everything just happened by inertia... follow the paths, click on every dialog option, then kill whatever is in the way and you just beated the beta, hurray. But to you, that's meaningful gameplay, while AoD is just hardcore combat or runching numbers....

 

[Infinitron]

FFS, if we've reached the point where a turn-based top-down party-based post-apocalyptic CRPG is "going through the motions" then the good times have certainly arrived, haven't they?

 

[sea]

Yeah, I guess it all comes down to what's fun to you. I had way more fun figuring out how to do what I wanted in AoD than I had playing W2, where everything just happened by inertia... follow the paths, click on every dialog option, then kill whatever is in the way and you just beated the beta, hurray. But to you, that's meaningful gameplay, while AoD is just hardcore combat or runching numbers....

It comes down to the fact that in a game like Wasteland 2, I don't feel on-rails. The act of having to physically move to locations, use skills on objects, use items on characters, having more to talk about than only a tiny selection of pre-defined dialogue choices, the ability to make decisions outside of what my character build allows... that's what makes it fun for me, regardless of linearity or too much forced combat/"dungeon crawling".

In Age of Decadence, I feel like I have no freedom to do what I want in a situation because if I don't pick exactly what options are available to my character build, it's usually simply "you die, game over, try again stupid." Even in conversations I rarely get the option to express more than one opinion or feel like I'm having an actual discussion I'm in control of.

 

[felipepepe]

FFS, if we've reached the point where a turn-based top-down party-based post-apocalyptic CRPG is "going through the motions" then the good times have certainly arrived, haven't they?

We also had a turn-based top-down party-based cyberpunk CRPG earlier this year, and it was also mediocre. Just having all the right things in the back of the box doesn't mean anything; how it executes is the most important, and W2 fails to do so in a remarkable way. Evrey single system it has was done much better before, and even the whole package together feels uninspired.

having more to talk about than only a tiny selection of pre-defined dialogue choices

Even in conversations I rarely get the option to express more than one opinion or feel like I'm having an actual discussion I'm in control of.

C'mon sea, dialog in W2 is you clicking on boxes with "tell me about X" questions, ffs. And rarely you get any choice at all, most times you can just click on every box and go on your way...

 

[sea]

C'mon sea, dialog in W2 is you clicking on boxes with "tell me about X" questions, ffs. And rarely you get any choice at all, most times you can just click on every box and go on your way...

Different games, different dialogue system. I didn't say Wasteland 2 had the same type of dialogue; and it certainly doesn't rely on dialogue to carry itself.

 

[cherry blossom]

I have a slight agreement with sea. AoD could have been more involving with little effort (if identified as a design goal early on but not at this stage). His "prepare potions for side quests" example is spot-on. I'm not bothered by dialogue-hopping by itself to remove A-to-B and B-to-A bloat but the lack of a general sense of leaving the player alone and letting him or her do things as a bridge between A-to-B and B-to-A, which is rather rare in AoD.

Fuck WL2, though. Brian should stick closer to WL with the game. Start the game. Make characters. Bam: You are playing. None of that linear quest bullshit to get started.

 

[hiver]

I just dont agree, really.

I guess its a matter of accepting the gameplay or not, ultimately.
for example, i would say that the game presents a lot of exploration and different options to try out, even in a single build play, if you basically - go with the flow.
Which is what you do for any game, more or less.

In other words, i can see why Eric doesnt like it himself, but i wouldnt take that to mean that the game is lacking. Actually.

Cross-posting, since I knew this would come up and just want to clarify things and get it out in the open:

For me the issue is pretty much: "well, this game doesn't have much other than combat and dialogue trees, so to add any sort of non-combat challenge we have to make those dialogue trees really hard to get through and move the challenge factor over to character-building". The problem is that this penny-pinching of every skill point you get, hoarding it up, constantly saving/loading the game to get through (or just coincidentally building the "right" character the first time, which also happens) simply in itself is not enjoyable. What makes skill checks fun in other RPGs is what they enable in a wider context of gameplay systems, but in Age of Decadence there is no real wider context.

That said, though, I think Vince's writing is goddamn excellent and I love the quest construction and options available. The combat is also still fantastic, even though the balance seems to have changed radically every time I sit down to play it. That has not changed and I want to make that abundantly clear, it's just that two years on and the more I play of the game, I'm either realizing I want something else out of an RPG, or that, worse, Age of Decadence is not much fun for non-combat players, because it simply does not have the mechanics and systems to support such a play-style properly.

I still have tons of respect for what Iron Tower have accomplished. Like I said, what the game does well, it does really well.

yeah, as i said, for you.
all those things you note, they are like that only for you.

im quite liking it. to me its like it is and it does its own thing in pretty, pretty good ways.
youre certainly not the first who would prefer a different kind of rpg instead of how it plays, either.

what can i say. .. dont drink the poison that harms you.

The combat is also still fantastic, even though the balance seems to have changed radically every time I sit down to play it.

yeah what? thats been the development cycle style for the whole development time. getting better constantly. itinerating - improving. horrible i know.

t comes down to the fact that in a game like Wasteland 2, I don't feel on-rails. The act of having to physically move to locations, use skills on objects, use items on characters, having more to talk about than only a tiny selection of pre-defined dialogue choices, the ability to make decisions outside of what my character build allows... that's what makes it fun for me, regardless of linearity or too much forced combat/"dungeon crawling".

yeah, about that,...sorry for AoD not playing like w2.

imagine, if it only was team based, eh=+?

 

[Lhynn]

-shameless and probably useless attempt at brofist harvesting-
Brofist this if you think hiver should get his nose out of Iron Towers asscrack enough to know that not every piece of criticism about AoD is A- negative, B- directed at him, C-uh, im not smart/witty enough to come up with a 3rd one, help me out people.

 

[crawlkill]

This leads to what I consider to be The Age of Decadence's biggest weakness. Its gameplay for non-combat characters feels like it boils down to playing Windows Calculator - trying to figure out how many skill points are available, and exactly what combinations of options for quests are feasible based on how one's skills can be levelled up. This renders it little more than frustrating trial-and-error, where rather than building a character that fits your vision of what's useful, you have to hoard those skill points and only spend them when you absolutely have to, on the options the developer has decided to offer. If you happen to find a situation where you can't get more skill points, or allocated points the "wrong" way - which is very possible - it's game over, either due to an instant death in-dialogue, getting stuck in a fight you can't win, or simply having no more options available, and your only recourse is to reload an old save, or start a brand-new game entirely. There's no free world to explore, no enemies to grind more skill points on, and your path through the game is ultimately on rails; and it can grind to a halt in a way that's extremely jarring.

This is what I found. I put all my points into social skills as a starting grifter and the first NPC I came across who had a social challenge I failed them on. Because I had Streetwise 3 and Persuasion 4, instead of Persuasion 3 and Streetwise 4, as I vaguely determined by recreating my character. I found myself just sitting on my skillpoints until a dialogue check came up that I failed, at which point I'd reload and dump one more point into the skill I thought was too low, which usually did it. And that was with ten Charisma and ten Intelligence, too.

I dunno. I didn't hate it, but it didn't feel very...vibrant, and certainly not a fluid way to play the game. If I'm playing a social character who has literally not put a single point anywhere but social skills, I feel like I should reliably be able to pass social checks. And it's not even as if I have to be a "specialized type" of social character to do it, either, because you almost always need -two- different social skills to pass a social check, as far as I could tell. Shit's weird. But he's already got my money and I suppose I don't begrudge him it either way. As it stands, though, wouldn't really recommend it to anyone who wasn't looking for a punishing solo turn-based combat game.