Game News Age of Decadence February Update

[LittleJoe]

The danger is that they tell us so much about the game that by the time it's released we've lost interest in it.

I tried the last demo, but it was virtually unplayable.

VD seems to be more interested in making a concept (the perfect rpg), than making an enjoyable game.

Or VD is interested in making an RPG that's far from perfect, but simply different and thus doesn't appeal to everyone. Just a thought.

That's rubbish. You tried to make a game that eliminates the stuff you don't like, and accentuates the stuff you do like.
So far it hasn't worked. I would suggest that you make a few compromises in order to make a playable game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What's the issue?

No need to play innocent
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/wasteland-2-kickstarter-update-25-reactivity-up-the-wazoo.80815/

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...rter-update-25-reactivity-up-the-wazoo.80815/
I glanced through it when it was posted. Seemed ok. Didn't read the thread. So, what's the issue? Can you be kind enough to sum it up for me?

Tags that are shown? Feedback on your skill investment. We'll give you an option to disable them when the game is released.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...tivity-up-the-wazoo.80815/page-4#post-2513573[/quote]
It's a non-issue. Basically, what you want to say represents your intent to achieve a certain outcome. A skill check can help you make a stronger statement, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. Basically, what you think is going to happen isn't necessarily what will happen, not to mention that the outcome that seems like a good idea at the moment may not be such a good idea later on.

In other words, people who think that the tagged lines are always the best in AoD didn't play the game enough to find out that it's not always the case.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The danger is that they tell us so much about the game that by the time it's released we've lost interest in it.

I tried the last demo, but it was virtually unplayable.

VD seems to be more interested in making a concept (the perfect rpg), than making an enjoyable game.

Or VD is interested in making an RPG that's far from perfect, but simply different and thus doesn't appeal to everyone. Just a thought.

That's rubbish. You tried to make a game that eliminates the stuff you don't like, and accentuates the stuff you do like.
So far it hasn't worked. I would suggest that you make a few compromises in order to make a playable game.

You seem to imply that just because you didn't like the game it surely means that nobody liked the game, for how could it possibly be otherwise? Don't you think it's kinda silly?

60,000 people voted for the game on Steam, so I think it's a bit premature to declare that "it hasn't worked".

 

[Infinitron]

Oh look, it's somebody who doesn't like Age of Decadence!

 

[Captain Shrek]

Vault Dweller

1) First there was a keyword system where keywords would reveal dialogue based on skill checks.
2) They modified it to a keyword system with full sentences revealed by hovering them on the keyword.

Can't summarize thread.

This is not a big change by itself. The question is really about implementing skills.

But your explanation is good. i did not know that Tags != auto success. Which is great. The issue I wanted you to discuss a bit beyond that.

Why have 'skill check succeeded tag' at all? Can't we just get new options and decide whether to use them or not? A stronger statement is best described by the words in the sentence and tone they convey. A good writer can deliver that, but I accept that it is the pure reader in me talking instead of the player. Care to identify your reasons why the tag is better?

 

[LittleJoe]

The danger is that they tell us so much about the game that by the time it's released we've lost interest in it.

I tried the last demo, but it was virtually unplayable.

VD seems to be more interested in making a concept (the perfect rpg), than making an enjoyable game.

Or VD is interested in making an RPG that's far from perfect, but simply different and thus doesn't appeal to everyone. Just a thought.

That's rubbish. You tried to make a game that eliminates the stuff you don't like, and accentuates the stuff you do like.
So far it hasn't worked. I would suggest that you make a few compromises in order to make a playable game.

You seem to imply that just because you didn't like the game it surely means that nobody liked the game, for how could it possibly be otherwise? Don't you think it's kinda silly?

60,000 people voted for the game on Steam, so I think it's a bit premature to declare that "it hasn't worked".

I haven't played the game, because it doesn't exist yet.
As for those 60,000, I was one of them.
They were voting for an ideal that you haven't yet delivered.
Some people actually like walking around the game world.
And they don't want CnC so intrusive that you have to have a walkthrough in order to progress.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller

1) First there was a keyword system where keywords would reveal dialogue based on skill checks.
2) They modified it to a keyword system with full sentences revealed by hovering them on the keyword.

Can't summarize thread.

Not sure I like #2 (I mean why go with the keywords at all then), but I'd rather wait and see how the system works before criticizing or praising it.

Why have 'skill check succeeded tag' at all? Can't we just get new options and decide whether to use them or not? A stronger statement is best described by the words in the sentence and tone they convey. A good writer can deliver that, but I accept that it is the pure reader in me talking instead of the player. Care to identify your reasons why the tag is better?

It's not that simple. If you have one speech skill or very different non-combat skills, it's easy to see which skill is being used. When you have multiple speech skills, it's much harder. For example, persuasion is the art of convincing someone, whereas streetwise is about lying, taking advantage, and manipulating, and trading is about making deals. In reality, some persuasion is always involved in all 3 cases. You can't just say "Buy. Is a good deal!" Similarly, there is usually some trading element in conning someone, etc. So the lines are very blurred. We go by the intent - is the intent to convince that you're right, or to fool, or to exchange something (not necessarily an item) for whatever it is you need, but still...

 

[Vault Dweller]

I haven't played the game, because it doesn't exist yet.

I meant the demo, since that's what we were talking about.

As for those 60,000, I was one of them.

Why, thank you.

They were voting for an ideal that you haven't yet delivered.

Well, I surely hope that most people who voted did try the demo instead of imagining something ideal and totally awesome.

Some people actually like walking around the game world.

What stopped you?

And they don't want CnC so intrusive that you have to have a walkthrough in order to progress.

I have no clue why they would need one.

 

[Captain Shrek]

It's not that simple. If you have one speech skill or very different non-combat skills, it's easy to see which skill is being used. When you have multiple speech skills, it's much harder. For example, persuasion is the art of convincing someone, whereas streetwise is about lying, taking advantage, and manipulating, and trading is about making deals. In reality, some persuasion is always involved in all 3 cases. You can't just say "Buy. Is a good deal!" Similarly, there is usually some trading element in conning someone, etc. So the lines are very blurred. We go by the intent - is the intent to convince that you're right, or to fool, or to exchange something (not necessarily an item) for whatever it is you need, but still...

Look.

let me first specify that is NOT criticism. It may become one when I find something worth criticizing and even then you'd probably have the advantage of experience.

Still.

The problem you pose is easily solved renaming the skills as:

Bluff (art of lying)
Appraise (art of valuing)
Streetwise (Knowledge of human behavior/nature)

and calling the collective set as Persuasion skills.

 

[Vault Dweller]

First, persuasion is more than the collective set of what you've listed. It's an ability to present your position in a convincing way, support it with arguments, refute counter-arguments, and so on. Second, no matter how you rename skills, there is some crossover and room for confusion.

 

[Captain Shrek]

First, persuasion is more than the collective set of what you've listed. It's an ability to present your position in a convincing way, support it with arguments, refute counter-arguments, and so on. Second, no matter how you rename skills, there is some crossover and room for confusion.

I think it is the emphasis on the delineating elements than the commonalities we are talking about, right?

 

[Goral]

(...) I would suggest that you make a few compromises in order to make a playable game.

The thing is, AoD is more than playable, it's enjoyable. But for certain people of course. Even despite not the best camera work (which isn't that bad once you read FAQ and use Ctrl button to rotate the camera - BTW, an optional in-game tutorial or a tip-window could be a good idea) it's still lots of fun. And combat is one of the best selling points of this game IMO. Sure, you can't become a slayer who can destroy everything in his path (like in Fallout) but that's precisely the point. I for one like it. And from what I've read they've already made compromises by making it easier than it was.

 

[Infinitron]

AoD takes three aspects of Fallout - C&C and reactivity, skill-based character building and interaction, and turn-based combat - and massively expands and improves them.

Those who are disappointed with AoD have discovered, to their horror, that those three elements weren't the most important thing for them in an RPG after all.

Poor Vault Dweller is merely guilty of listening to the Codex's favorite CRPG buzzwords and actually taking them seriously.

 

[Gord]

I haven't played the game, because it doesn't exist yet.
As for those 60,000, I was one of them.
They were voting for an ideal that you haven't yet delivered.
Some people actually like walking around the game world.
And they don't want CnC so intrusive that you have to have a walkthrough in order to progress.

I've criticized quite a lot about the first version of the (story) demo, but the second version has already improved on those points, imho.
Did you try this version? Because there's less teleporting and less hard/absolute dependence on some arbitrary combination of skills.
It still might not be what many of us would envision, but I'd say it's much closer, definitely.
I still haven't decided if I will buy it (or even preorder), but I'm now seriously considering it, which is much more than after the first demo.

 

[Broseph]

I only played the first demo and thought that it was shit. I admit I need to give AoD another chance, and I will, eventually.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Those who are disappointed with AoD have discovered, to their horror, that those three elements weren't the most important thing for them in an RPG after all.

So what did they really want?

 

[Broseph]

Those who are disappointed with AoD have discovered, to their horror, that those three elements weren't the most important thing for them in an RPG after all.

So what did they really want?

A good game?

 

[Infinitron]

Those who are disappointed with AoD have discovered, to their horror, that those three elements weren't the most important thing for them in an RPG after all.

So what did they really want?

Well, you can see what people are complaining about. They want exploration and so-called "filler content". A world that is about more than constantly manipulating people in an urban setting.

I think it's mostly a matter of pacing. The Codex would have unanimously praised the content of AoD if it existed within a more traditional RPG.

Personally, I appreciate AoD for what it's trying to do, and I don't have a problem with it, even though I disagree with VD's views on CRPGs in general.

 

[Scruffy]

but can the name be changed to "age of decline", to make it more codex-friendly?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

If someone doesn't like AOD it means that tb combat is not one of the most important aspects of a good crpg for him? :scratches head:

 

[Infinitron]

If someone doesn't like AOD it means that tb combat is not one of the most important aspects of a good crpg for him? :scratches head:

What I'm saying is, if those three elements, and them alone, aren't enough to make a good RPG for you, then there must be something else that is equally important.

 

[Broseph]

Who is this retarded shit?

I ask myself the same question when I read your posts.

Infinitron brings up some interesting points and for the most part I agree with him. I owe it to myself to play the new demo to see if my issues with it have been remedied...

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

If someone doesn't like AOD it means that tb combat is not one of the most important aspects of a good crpg for him? :scratches head:

What I'm saying is, if those three elements, and them alone, aren't enough to make a good RPG for you, then there must be something else that is equally important.

Well, there is, but it's strictly connected to these - a gameplay.

Also, that conclusion of yours is pretty flawed in case of AoD, tb combat there is very meh so how can my dislike for it mean that I value other things in crpgs more?

 

[Infinitron]

Also, that conclusion of yours is pretty flawed in case of AoD, tb combat there is very meh so how can my dislike for it mean that I value other things in crpgs more?

Well, okay, but most of the people complaining about AoD aren't complaining about the combat.

What's your problem with it? Did you like Fallout's combat?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Fallout's combat was passable, not anything great, but quick and childishly (there, I said it) satisfying through its gory animations.

AoD's combat is neither of these, but it's everything Fallout's combat was criticized for (and if Fallout gets criticized, it's mostly for combat) and also just forcefully inserted to the "C&C-skill-based gameplay".