Game News Age of Decadence Combat Demo - the Remix

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Honestly, I'm disappointed by the lack of options in combat. Pretty elementary. Not much to spice things up. No shield bashing, no pommelling, no grappling. No hand-to-hand options while equipped with a weapon. Not even blocking/deflecting with a weapon. No "fake/surprise" attacks (for the lack of a better term). No "I'll charge on my opponent and hope he won't strike me before I hit him to ground" (in before "too complicated"). Characters don't ever seem to lose turns on the ground, knocked down (possible this is in but never happened to me). That said, I'm not sure if it's possible to get knocked down without being killed at all. I do remember being knocked down by a crossbow shot once, but I can't recall whether that was when/because I died. There also seem to be distinction/differentiation issues between weapons. How's a short spear different than a sword? Or a sword than a dagger? Other than AP costs of course.

Well, I have found it much more enjoyable than BG or even Goldbox combat and almost as enjoyable as Fallout combat (misses gore and witty descriptions of criticals), though better balanced.
Still, more like "accepting it for what it is" rather than being really satisfied.

 

[Good Ol' Drog]

Fallout's combat was honestly nothing special. Stand still and aim for the eyes. Very simplistic.

 

[Melcar]

The combat demo was done to showcase the combat and keep us interested in the never releasing game of theirs. If you think it was released for "hey, look the awesome combat we got" they you're wrong. VD always goes on about what the main strengths of the game are and never spends too much time detailing and/or praising combat in AoD; he is much more willing to tell us that the game can be finished diplomatically than how the combat will work.
I was never that thrilled that the first thing we would have to experience AoD was going to be a combat demo. Since VD always goes on about how bitching C&C will be and this and that, having a combat demo to show off the game was really lame. From a marketing stand point (and to keep the project interesting to increasingly annoyed fans) I can see why it was done. VD is a high level marketing wizard no?

 

[Melcar]

God dammit double post.

 

[entertainer]

The combat demo was done to showcase the combat and keep us interested in the never releasing game of theirs. If you think it was released for "hey, look the awesome combat we got" they you're wrong. VD always goes on about what the main strengths of the game are and never spends too much time detailing and/or praising combat in AoD; he is much more willing to tell us that the game can be finished diplomatically than how the combat will work.
I was never that thrilled that the first thing we would have to experience AoD was going to be a combat demo. Since VD always goes on about how bitching C&C will be and this and that, having a combat demo to show off the game was really lame. From a marketing stand point (and to keep the project interesting to increasingly annoyed fans) I can see why it was done. VD is a high level marketing wizard no?

 

[Serious_Business]

The combat demo was done to showcase the combat and keep us interested in the never releasing game of theirs. If you think it was released for "hey, look the awesome combat we got" they you're wrong. VD always goes on about what the main strengths of the game are and never spends too much time detailing and/or praising combat in AoD; he is much more willing to tell us that the game can be finished diplomatically than how the combat will work.
I was never that thrilled that the first thing we would have to experience AoD was going to be a combat demo. Since VD always goes on about how bitching C&C will be and this and that, having a combat demo to show off the game was really lame. From a marketing stand point (and to keep the project interesting to increasingly annoyed fans) I can see why it was done. VD is a high level marketing wizard no?

 

[Silellak]

Characters don't ever seem to lose turns on the ground, knocked down (possible this is in but never happened to me). That said, I'm not sure if it's possible to get knocked down without being killed at all. I do remember being knocked down by a crossbow shot once, but I can't recall whether that was when/because I died. There also seem to be distinction/differentiation issues between weapons. How's a short spear different than a sword? Or a sword than a dagger? Other than AP costs of course.

Why I'd expect such things? I don't know. Maybe because this demo, being indie and all that, didn't seem like something that would be much different than what you'd possibly get from a mainstream title. Combat, at least with multiple opponents, is challenging alright, but challenge alone isn't all that interesting, especially with broken & non-adaptive AI. When you discover what works for any given opponent, it never fails, which cheapens/negates every other attack option because you never need them any more against the same opponent. Against single opponents, combat is very static and dull.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much you played the demo. Did you look at the readme?

Being knocked down can occur one of several ways. It's the "passive effect" for the Hammer and Crossbow class of weapons, so there's a random chance it will occur on any hit. The chance increases based on how high your skill is. Also, any Aimed Attack for the Head has a chance of causing a knockdown. Standing up from a knockdown takes, I believe, 4 AP, but doesn't result in a full loss of a turn.

I am surprised you think all weapon classes play the same, when they're far more distinct than most medieval-weapon-era RPGs. Spears (1 and 2 handed) have the passive Interrupt effect, which gives you a chance of automatically attacking anyone who attempts to move into your weapon range, slightly damaging them and pushing them back if successful. This is significantly different than the Sword passive effect, which gives you a higher chance of scoring a critical hit (same as bows). Axes destroy shields (obviously), and Daggers have the passive effective of bypassing armor, to the point where, in the current build, they're incredibly overpowered.

Compare this to DnD, where daggers are basically just swords with lower damage, and the only difference between a sword and a hammer/mace is that one does Slashing damage and the other does Blunt damage.

Also not sure why you think the AI is broken & "non-adaptive". I find they adapt to my tactics well. If I stay back, they change to ranged weapons, or close in on me so I can't retreat without triggering an Attack of Opportunity. If I close in, they close and (if possible) surround me. If I get knocked down, they spam Power Attacks on me (since you have a 95% chance of hitting anyone who is prone). If they have a 2-handed weapon and I have a 1-handed weapon, they'll try and stay diagonal from me so I can't hit them, but they can hit me. If I have a shield, they'll switch to armor-piercing ammo. If I'm not wearing a helmet, they'll go for aimed attacks to my head. Ranged attackers will go for leg shots to keep me slow and away from them. Some of these tactics are based on how skilled the NPC is considered, though, so earlier opponents won't be smart (or skilled) enough to make aimed attacks to the head if you are helmet-less. A sword-and-board fellow with 80/80 in sword/dodge will fight a lot worse than a sword-and-board fellow with 200/200 in sword/dodge. While there are still certain ways the AI can be exploited, those issues are being worked out. What exactly were you looking for, AI-wise?

And sure, combat is more dull against single opponents. What RPG doesn't have fairly dull 1-on-1 combat, with the exception of perhaps mage duels in higher-magic games? I think AoD does a better job making 1 on 1 weapon-based combat entertaining than most RPGs do.

The reason ITS released a combat demo has been discussed before. They don't want AoD to fall into the same bucket as the great RPGs like Torment, Arcanum, Ultima 7, or Bloodlines, where people rave about how good they are "if you ignore the combat." From what I've seen in the combat demo, they're already there - combat is easily more entertaining than in any of those games. Also more so than the Fallouts, I would say. Considering that combat is entirely optional in the main game, they've really put an impressive amount of thought into their system.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

One thing that annoys me about the AI is that they keep stand off when they are fighting against a ranged character instead of rushing him.

 

[Elhoim]

One thing that annoys me about the AI is that they keep stand off when they are fighting against a ranged character instead of rushing him.

And following your PC in a wild goose chase? Besides, they rush if they have no ranged weapons to counter them, using a fast weapon so that they have more AP for running.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

From what I've seen, they usually cautiously approach my character.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Honestly, I'm disappointed by the lack of options in combat.

Characters don't ever seem to lose turns on the ground, knocked down (possible this is in but never happened to me). That said, I'm not sure if it's possible to get knocked down without being killed at all.

There also seem to be distinction/differentiation issues between weapons. How's a short spear different than a sword? Or a sword than a dagger? Other than AP costs of course.

Why I'd expect such things? I don't know. Maybe because this demo, being indie and all that, didn't seem like something that would be much different than what you'd possibly get from a mainstream title.

Combat, at least with multiple opponents, is challenging alright, but challenge alone isn't all that interesting, especially with broken & non-adaptive AI.

Trolling? Each of these statements is false, which should be obvious to anyone who played the demo for more than 20 min.

 

[MetalCraze]

Trolling or not the combat of AoD is pretty meh. In Fallout a single character TB was mainly ok due to guns, but in a medieval setting where lots of stuff is going on in melee that just can't be fun. Meaning that it lacks the fun of party based TB combat (RoA) and the fun of a single char RT H'n'S (Diablo) - it's just in-between with both "funs" stripped away.

I also find it's pretty ironic how the first demo of a "C&C-fap-fap-fap-oh-god-C&C-based game" is all about combat with all those discussions in GRPGD and all.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fighting with bow/crossbow isn't very different from using guns in Fallout and a big part of enemies in Fallout 1 were melee fighters.
While it's not The Riddle of Steel, it's pretty good for what it is.
But yeah, a party would be nice.

I also find it's pretty ironic how the first demo of a "C&C-fap-fap-fap-oh-god-C&C-based game" is all about combat with all those discussions in GRPGD and all.

It's probably because C&C can be described on forums, while the combat must be personally experienced.

 

[Silellak]

Fighting with bow/crossbow isn't very different from using guns in Fallout and a big part of enemies in Fallout 1 were melee fighters.
While it's not The Riddle of Steel, it's pretty good for what it is.
But yeah, a party would be nice.

I also find it's pretty ironic how the first demo of a "C&C-fap-fap-fap-oh-god-C&C-based game" is all about combat with all those discussions in GRPGD and all.

It's probably because C&C can be described on forums, while the combat must be personally experienced.

Seriously, how the fuck would a C&C demo even really work? The best kind of C&C involves long-term gameplay consequences to your actions. So all we have left is short-term C&C - do you really want a demo that's all dialog trees or something? You can get pretty much the same thing just by reading the Let's Play threads on the ITS forums.

A Combat Demo is important for ITS for several reasons:

- It allows them to release an actual deliverable, to prove to both the public and any potential publishers that the product is real and already quite polished at this stage
- It allows potential buyers to get a sense of the game itself and the combat system in particular, and provide direct feedback on both to ITS.
- It allows the game itself to be tested on a large number of users' computers, which given the technical issues discovered (and fixed) in the combat demo, is very important, especially for an indie company like ITS that lucks the funding to do any sort of large-scale platform testing

I also don't get the "Fallout combat was better because it had guns" argument, given that both melee and ranged combat in AoD is already better than Fallout ever was. Would I prefer a party-based RPG? Sure, I always have preferred that in general. But as far as single-character, turn-based RPG go, AoD has probably the best combat system I've seen. I also get the feeling that the game itself lends itself much more towards a single character, and that having an entire party would unnecessarily complicate things.

 

[denizsi]

Honestly, I'm disappointed by the lack of options in combat.

Characters don't ever seem to lose turns on the ground, knocked down (possible this is in but never happened to me). That said, I'm not sure if it's possible to get knocked down without being killed at all.

There also seem to be distinction/differentiation issues between weapons. How's a short spear different than a sword? Or a sword than a dagger? Other than AP costs of course.

Why I'd expect such things? I don't know. Maybe because this demo, being indie and all that, didn't seem like something that would be much different than what you'd possibly get from a mainstream title.

Combat, at least with multiple opponents, is challenging alright, but challenge alone isn't all that interesting, especially with broken & non-adaptive AI.

Trolling? Each of these statements is false, which should be obvious to anyone who played the demo for more than 20 min.

Here we go again. Instead of asking what was wrong, it's an outright "each of these are wrong". Well, no, they aren't. I'm sorry you can't handle everything being a developer. My post accurately reflects my experience with the demo. So, no, you are the one full of false information if you insist on calling me a troll or that I'm giving false information. I'm also sorry your game code doesn't seem to operate %100 same on every configuration, otherwise there wouldn't be the initial bugs of the first demo even after months of a closed beta at all.

 

[MetalCraze]

Seriously, how the fuck would a C&C demo even really work?

Not in a next-gen Codexer way obviously!

http://download.cnet.com/Fallout-demo/3 ... 08318.html

 

[Silellak]

Seriously, how the fuck would a C&C demo even really work?

Not in a next-gen Codexer way obviously!

http://download.cnet.com/Fallout-demo/3 ... 08318.html

Did that come out a year before the retail release? You do know ITS is releasing a standard demo alongside or shortly after the retail release, right? Would people have complained if Black Isle had released a stand-alone combat demo in order to help test and balance their combat system?

ITS made a decision as a company that releasing a combat demo before anything else would be beneficial to everyone involved, and I explained the likely reasoning behind that. The only "arguments" you've given in response are "but Fallout combat is better because it has guns" and "lol I thought AoD was about C&C lolololol combat demo lololol".

On another note, how long exactly do we have to be here before we're allowed to start calling others "next-gen Codexers"? 2 years? 3? I also want to be part of the Super Awesome Old Timers club, so I too can replace logical arguments with meaningless name calling.

 

[denizsi]

Honestly, I'm not sure how much you played the demo. Did you look at the readme?

Finished the first demo 6 times with 6 different skill combos. I finished the fixed demo 3 times. I read the readme at ITS, but not everything stack in my mind.

Being knocked down can occur one of several ways. It's the "passive effect" for the Hammer and Crossbow class of weapons, so there's a random chance it will occur on any hit. The chance increases based on how high your skill is. Also, any Aimed Attack for the Head has a chance of causing a knockdown. Standing up from a knockdown takes, I believe, 4 AP, but doesn't result in a full loss of a turn.

In my 9 playthroughs, I rarely aimed head and torso because it didn't seem to be worth the risk in any of the encounters -a lesson I learned the hard way in my first few games. I never dumped all my points into one single skill though, so maybe I could knock people if I did that. In my games, I didn't knock people down. Highest level any skill got to in my games was when I focused only on two skills, distributing points with roughly 10% difference of each other.

I am surprised you think all weapon classes play the same, when they're far more distinct than most medieval-weapon-era RPGs.

I didn't say I think they are all the same. I'll give you the liberty to go back and read properly.

Spears (1 and 2 handed) have the passive Interrupt effect, which gives you a chance of automatically attacking anyone who attempts to move into your weapon range, slightly damaging them and pushing them back if successful. This is significantly different than the Sword passive effect, which gives you a higher chance of scoring a critical hit (same as bows). Axes destroy shields (obviously), and Daggers have the passive effective of bypassing armor, to the point where, in the current build, they're incredibly overpowered.

Only 2 handed spears worked to keep people at bay in my games. I often scored interrupts on NPCs closing in with 1H spear as well, like I did with sword, but that didn't repel them. They simply closed in, received my interrupt and stayed next to me. So I didn't notice a significant difference between swords and 1H spears. I kept scoring criticals with more or less the same frequency with both weapons with roughly similar skill levels. Ok, I didn't play with a dagger character through the whole game -it was one of the 9+ games I quit early-, so it looks like I was unfair.

Also not sure why you think the AI is broken & "non-adaptive".

Sigh.. I won't even go into this. I explained this with examples in dicksmoker's demo impressions thread in AoD forum. Long story short: Against every opponent, I discover a tactic that works early in the fight, rinse & repeat and he's dead, because AI never responded differently.

And sure, combat is more dull against single opponents. What RPG doesn't have fairly dull 1-on-1 combat, with the exception of perhaps mage duels in higher-magic games? I think AoD does a better job making 1 on 1 weapon-based combat entertaining than most RPGs do.

No arguing there. ( edit: no arguing that AoD seems to does better than "most", but it's quite dogmatic and narrow-viewed to suggest the rest of what you said).

The reason ITS released a combat demo has been discussed before. blah blah

Not my problem, never mentioned it like one. Melcar is the one brought this up out of nowhere.

 

[denizsi]

Seriously, how the fuck would a C&C demo even really work?

Not in a next-gen Codexer way obviously!

http://download.cnet.com/Fallout-demo/3 ... 08318.html

From the comments:

Cons: No multiplayer.

 

[MetalCraze]

Did that come out a year before the retail release? You do know ITS is releasing a standard demo alongside the retail release, right?

So? I was talking about how the first demo is all about combat for a game being focused on it the least (as per VD) which can give wrong impressions to all those poor publishers that need reassurance that AoD does exist because as we all know they care because they give VD money right?

How much "C&C" is present in the Fallout demo, anyway?

Because combat and "C&C" is all that there is to RPG right?
And now count how much other stuff is present in Fallout demo besides C&C and combat. Sheesh and then you baaaaw about "mondblutians".

Would people have complained if Black Isle had released a stand-alone combat demo in order to help test and balance their combat system?

Except you can't balance the combat system with such demo.

ITS made a decision as a company that releasing a combat demo before anything else would be beneficial to everyone involved, and I explained the likely reasoning behind that.

I fail to see how a combat demo is beneficial to anything. Assuring potential sheecustomers that VD spent 4 years to make a half-assed combat demo that has more bugs than features and showing how you can fuck up Tribes 2 engine? Well yes.

The only arguments you've given in response are "but Fallout combat is better because it has guns" and "lol I thought AoD was about C&C lolololol combat demo lololol".

No the arguments I've given in response is that AoD combat is very mediocre and has nothing special. You hit enemies, they hit you back. Fallout (as being the closest example) was better as most of the time the combat was ranged which was giving you a bigger freedom of movement. And of course I stated that my personal preference when it comes to TB is party combat. What else is there to argue about?

On another note, how long exactly do we have to be here before we're allowed to start calling others "next-gen Codexers"? 2 years? 3? I want to be part of the Super Awesome Old Timers club too, so I too can replace logical arguments with meaningless name calling.

Logical arguments? Like "how can you make a C&C demo" and then after getting an answer "but it has not enough C&C so it doesn't count!!"
It isn't the time, it's the inability to try and learn that there were examples in gaming which did it better and right and going all baaawww which is what ESF/IGN/Gamespot crowd does.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

And sure, combat is more dull against single opponents. What RPG doesn't have fairly dull 1-on-1 combat, with the exception of perhaps mage duels in higher-magic games?

Any RPG whose creators actually bothered to do any research on western martial arts.
The Riddle of Steel, for example.

 

[denizsi]

Come on now. The whole point of combat demo is a gesture to the community, I think. LP threads have already demonstrated a good amount of C&C scenarios so combat was the only thing that we had to experience first hand to have any idea about, and combat alone can make or break (see Arcanum) a game. In the end, having a combat demo is better than not having it at all and it could (though I can't say it does other than being a bug-hunting session) serve a fine test bed if VD/ITS had any doubts regarding its entertainment value.

Not that I'm not totally loving the dogmatic cocksucking reactions this demo is getting.

 

[Silellak]

Also not sure why you think the AI is broken & "non-adaptive".

Sigh.. I won't even go into this. I explained this with examples in dicksmoker's demo impressions thread in AoD forum. Long story short: Against every opponent, I discover a tactic that works early in the fight, rinse & repeat and he's dead, because AI never responded differently.

Out of curiosity, how would you prefer the AI to work? Keeping in mind that NPCs have the same limitations the PC does - a set number of skills at varying levels, only so many items in the inventory to work with, etc. In some ways, battles in AoD are won before they're even fought through planning and preparation. Maybe having NPCs throw nets or carry additional shields or something would be a nice addition, but for the most part, once you've discovered a strategy that works against a particular enemy, it's not going to take long to kill them anyway, due to the "every character has fairly low hitpoints" aspect of the game.

Not my problem, never mentioned it like one. Melcar is the one brought this up out of nowhere.

Sorry, this particular part of the post wasn't directed at you, just at the way the conversation in the thread had gone since your post.

 

[denizsi]

Also not sure why you think the AI is broken & "non-adaptive".

Sigh.. I won't even go into this. I explained this with examples in dicksmoker's demo impressions thread in AoD forum. Long story short: Against every opponent, I discover a tactic that works early in the fight, rinse & repeat and he's dead, because AI never responded differently.

Out of curiosity, how would you prefer the AI to work?

Not the way it does, or at least has in my games. Go to dicksmoker's demo impressions thread and read my examples. I'm not reading the rest of your post because I gave you an answer, upon which you changed your stance, meaning you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about and probably assuming that I had the exact same experience you had and didn't like it myself.

edit:

I still didn't read the rest of your post for the above reason in strike, but decided that even your reply is idiotic. In your above reply, you're quoting how the AI worked for me, which is a symptom of a braindead fucking idiotic AI and by replying to it with what you said ("Out of curiosity, how would you prefer the AI to work?"), you're showing that you're comfortable with the AI being braindead fucking idiotic, otherwise you wouldn't ask how I'd prefer it to work differently, no? I'm sorry, you're FUBAR. There can be no further discussion with you that follows logic unless you start learning to make sense.

 

[Twinkle]

I also don't get the "Fallout combat was better because it had guns" argument, given that both melee and ranged combat in AoD is already better than Fallout ever was.

BS. Has a potential of being better != being better.