Preview Age of Decadence R4 Preview at GameBanshee

[Tigranes]

When trying to enjoy a game, best to listen to people who enjoy that game, rather than those who don't. After all, if you don't enjoy it either, you won't be playing it, right?

Seems like you missed the posts where I praise AoD and find enjoyment in playing it. You must have been reading too much RPG Codex if you think criticism automatically equals "game is shit."

Here's my essential attitude towards AoD, 6 pages ago: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...view-at-gamebanshee.88659/page-6#post-3025631

I am extremely critical of some very flawed design decisions at AoD's core. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the game or the effort it reflects..

Sorry. It's hard for me to keep track and I jumped the gun. In that case, let me respond seriously: I definitely think hybrid characters are viable and there isn't a huge gap between succeeding with a specialist and doing so with a hybrid. I mean, to the extent that you need to learn the ropes a lot to succeed with even a specialist. You're going to be pretty proficient with AOD's systems if you finish Teron with an all out fighter I think - e.g. the merc Antidas battle is a bitch even if you spend all your points on combat. So at that point, I definitely think hybrid characters are viable and can be fun. In fact, in some cases with some backgrounds they're easier than specialists.

The amount of metagaming required to get that far is yes a subject of debate and criticism, but I think as it stands, if you can beat it with a specialist, it's not much of a step to doing it with a hbyrid. I don't think that part is a big problem.

 

[Lhynn]

On an almost unrelated note... Wrong, the point of RPGs is not to limit the tools to what the player knows, it is to expand his possibilities. The world shouldnt scale with him forcing the character down a min maxing path, easy stuff should always be present.
Back on topic
I just dont see what would you miss from your AoD experience if combat and non combat skills were completely separated in terms of skillpoints to distribute.

 

[Grunker]

When trying to enjoy a game, best to listen to people who enjoy that game, rather than those who don't. After all, if you don't enjoy it either, you won't be playing it, right?

Seems like you missed the posts where I praise AoD and find enjoyment in playing it. You must have been reading too much RPG Codex if you think criticism automatically equals "game is shit."

Here's my essential attitude towards AoD, 6 pages ago: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...view-at-gamebanshee.88659/page-6#post-3025631

I am extremely critical of some very flawed design decisions at AoD's core. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the game or the effort it reflects..

Sorry. It's hard for me to keep track and I jumped the gun. In that case, let me respond seriously: I definitely think hybrid characters are viable and there isn't a huge gap between succeeding with a specialist and doing so with a hybrid. I mean, to the extent that you need to learn the ropes a lot to succeed with even a specialist. You're going to be pretty proficient with AOD's systems if you finish Teron with an all out fighter I think - e.g. the merc Antidas battle is a bitch even if you spend all your points on combat. So at that point, I definitely think hybrid characters are viable and can be fun. In fact, in some cases with some backgrounds they're easier than specialists.

The amount of metagaming required to get that far is yes a subject of debate and criticism, but I think as it stands, if you can beat it with a specialist, it's not much of a step to doing it with a hbyrid. I don't think that part is a big problem.

I think we agree roughly, just from different perspectives. I think we disagree about what a hybrid is. Like I said, building a primary combat character and spending a few leftover points in other skills once in a while is viable. But good luck fighting if you divide the points roughly equally (without complete understanding of both the combat and the fights - i.e. learning by rote).

Wrong, the point of RPGs is not to limit the tools to what the player knows, it is to expand his possibilities.

BINGO

What is this bullshit, I agree with Lhynn? The way most RPGs work is that when you spend skill points and acquire tools, your options are expanded and you can handle obstacles better/more dynamically. The way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills. It is a linear and restrictive design, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (again, cats and dogs), but it is completely at odds with AoD's focus on choice and non-linearity.

I just dont see what would you miss from your AoD experience if combat and non combat skills were completely separated in terms of skillpoints to distribute.

Once again, I think the game would require too much redesign for this to happen (you'd need to reduce the amount of skill points you gain for both pools so you don't become a master of everything, and because of that you'd need to rebalance a lot of stuff probably). In theory though, I completely agree that something like this would be the optimal solution.

Anyway, since this discussion started I've been playing a bit again. I gotta say, Vault Dweller, you've really gotten the vignettes to a point where they feel and play very different now. They're the best thing about AoD and I don't hesitate to use the word brilliant. Some Dragon Age dev should play AoD and feel ashamed (and as you know, I quite like Dragon Age).

 

[V_K]

The funny thing is that Deus Ex is the "prime example" of an RPG well done.

I believe DX is mentioned here more as a prime example of "different solutions for different builds" approach well done. Another one, with better RPG credentials would be Quest for Glory, which:
a) Makes you actually think of a solution to a given problem, not just click the dialog option suggested by you skills;
b) Has most failures non-lethal and skills grindable;
c) Better communicates your character's role by limiting hybridisation.

The whole thing basically boils down to the ages-old "player skill vs character skill" debate. At one extreme, and it's true that DX is quite close to that, there are various non-RPGs. But at the other extreme there's Progress Quest, and currently non-combat playthroughs in AoD are only slightly more exciting than that. AoD strives to be challenging - but you can't do challenging without engaging some player skill, only frustrating.

 

[hiver]

The way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills. It is a linear and restrictive design, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (again, cats and dogs), but it is completely at odds with AoD's focus on choice and non-linearity

No. Actually it is not.

What it actually is - it is at odds with choice and non-linearity that you would prefer.


btw, Elhoim
how about this: targeted attacks get connected to skill points investment into a specific weapon.
You actually start the game with only fast-regular-power attacks, while the rest is added as you invest more points into the weapon skill?

And - Or - you can learn those from NPCs, or from fighting and surviving the Arena tougher opponents.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Grunker
I meant your dislike for the specific implementation of the CYOA elements used by VD. by the time I realised, too late to edit post.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wrong, the point of RPGs is not to limit the tools to what the player knows, it is to expand his possibilities.

BINGO

What is this bullshit, I agree with Lhynn? The way most RPGs work is that when you spend skill points and acquire tools, your options are expanded and you can handle obstacles better/more dynamically.

Now ask yourself why.

Because 95% of RPGs are relatively easy. Combat is the main path and everyone's expected to succeed. Then you invest into more skills and add more options to your repertoire. Sneaking Tandi out is great and all but why would you want to sneak her out (or pay for her) when killing them is doable and more fun? I'd be surprised if most people didn't free her a non-combat way and then came back to finish the job. You know, because you can.

The way I see it, it's bullshit. Some guy fresh out of a vault should not be able to kill a bunch of raiders unless he's a specialist.

As for AoD, here is how the game is designed. Combat is hard (because it's an active aspect), which forces you to specialize. Non-combat is easy (because it's a passive aspect), so you can easily afford to have more skills. Most combat solutions have non-combat options, enabling jacks. The rest depends on you (on your understanding of the combat system). Some people feel that they must max physical stats and go with 2 combat skills. Obviously, they won't have any points left to invest in other skills and they are the loudest when it comes to complains that you have to pick a path and stick with it (but at least they can play the game (so god bless them), unlike people who can't and complain that the game is impossible).

In reality though, you can do more with less and you don't need to max stats and skills. So, the idea is that after you survive the first couple of quests, you can start adding more skills and diversify your skill portfolio. It's easier than you think, which is what other people are saying.

The way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills.

You almost make it sound like it's a bad thing.

It is a linear and restrictive design, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (again, cats and dogs), but it is completely at odds with AoD's focus on choice and non-linearity.

It's linear and restrictive if you put all your points in one skill. Not to mention that you do get plenty of non-skill-based choices.

Anyway, since this discussion started I've been playing a bit again. I gotta say, Vault Dweller, you've really gotten the vignettes to a point where they feel and play very different now. They're the best thing about AoD and I don't hesitate to use the word brilliant. Some Dragon Age dev should play AoD and feel ashamed (and as you know, I quite like Dragon Age).

Why thank you.

 

[Brandon]

So at that point, I definitely think hybrid characters are viable and can be fun. In fact, in some cases with some backgrounds they're easier than specialists.

This was certainly the case for the Imperial Guards. You can skip all the hardest fights by solving those quests with talking, and have enough combat skills to do the other fights.


There is tons of choice in AoD, a lot of it just happens to be front-loaded into character creation. It is a design choice by VD, and one that I am enjoying. I've had more fun rolling up different types of characters and seeing how they can progress than I have in any other rpg in quite a while.

I will agree that hybrids are much more fun for this gameplay style as the combat allows for more player input while in game, but even with dialogue I still have options. In my IG game I could have saved Cassius and used Persuasion to progress, but instead I killed him and used Persuasion to solve Dellar's quests a different way. And there are of course multiple ways to switch factions, or even take off for Maadoran early. (And there are lower skill fights in Maadoran, so you don't need to milk every skill point from Teron to progress with combat.)

 

[Kalin]

The funny thing is that Deus Ex is the "prime example" of an RPG well done. What about PST? What can be learned from it?

I think Age of Decadence mirrors a lot of what made Planescape: Torment so enjoyable, and it obviously has very much superior combat. The choices available to the player are also great (in fact, the endgame ought to be much more diverse), and the addition of being able to examine things in the environment and trigger overhead descriptions is spot on! (Just needs to trigger further away from the PC, having to run all the way up to whatever it is that is being examined can cause problems with pathfinding).

Where it falls a bit short is in terms of interactable NPCs to fill you in on the backstory, point you in the right direction, trigger small fights, provide insight on certain quests and of course, give you small quests themselves. In Planescape, areas like the Hive hubs or the Clerk's Ward and Upper Ward are full of people you can interact with, which makes the locations feel much more alive. Teron and Maadoran feel quite empty still, there may be people in the streets, but since most cannot be interacted with in any meaningful way they are really just props (granted, Planescape has those as well, but even they can be interacted with to a certain point). The dialogue itself is also a bit too bareboned. Age of Decadence is very straight-to-the-point, whereas Planescape has a lot more foreplay with loads of question the player can ask about, leading up to the critical choices (and in some cases, opening up new ones).

Obviously, it is all a matter of resources, and given the small team I am surprised you guys have managed to turn Age of Decadence into the excellent game that it is. The backstory is especially impressive since you made it all from scratch, whereas Planescape: Torment borrowed plenty of content from an already existing setting. Also, you have a lot more factors that ought to be considered in dialogue (reputations, skills, faction and rank, completion of previous quests), which makes it even more demanding to add something new.

Still, whether it is realistic or not to actually add it, more dialogue, characters and quests would ultimately produce a magnificent union of epic glory, catering perfectly to story and combat enthusiasts alike.

Heck, it would be just like this:

Spoiler

Vault Dweller is now ready for the marriage that will make him CEO of the World of Monocled Gaming. The Inhuman King, Lord High Todd Howard, has come to officiate at the wedding, and gives his blessings to Vault Dweller. "You have taken pieces of old things, and made them into new and powerful things. You made things better by turning them into their opposites. You found ancient secrets of the industry, and now use them to make another new thing, joining together the people of orderly-taken turns and tactical combat with the people of deep stories and branching dialogue trees." The Inhuman King could say more, but does not. Although not even Vault Dweller knows it yet, the Inhuman King knows what is to come. This is the first day of a great new company, a company that will one day take Vault Dweller's name. If, in the years ahead, Vault Dweller is true to his wisdom and mystical insight, he will one day become like a god, and sit at Timothy Cain's side. The company he leaves behind will grow and strengthen, and the exploits of its future executives, writers and programmers will become legend. They will one day enter a desperate struggle with a great corporation, and its last CEO will forever change the face of the world. All of this will be possible because of the courage and forethought of Iron Tower Studio, who came to the World of Monocled Gaming when it was wild, and remade it in their own image.

 

[Johannes]

Vault Dweller, are you really not understanding the criticism given here that AoD gameplay is too focused on the stat screen, instead of choices made in the gameworld proper, or do you just keep arguing against it out of principle?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller, are you really not understanding the criticism given here that AoD gameplay is too focused on the stat screen...

Kinda like criticizing it for being turn-based instead of real-time.

... instead of choices made in the gameworld proper...

It has both, but the presence of the former clearly upsets some people's delicate sensibilities and makes them very angry about video games.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Where it falls a bit short is in terms of interactable NPCs to fill you in on the backstory, point you in the right direction, trigger small fights, provide insight on certain quests and of course, give you small quests themselves.

Will be added. Thank you for constructive criticism and excellent suggestions in general (like the Hamza fight).

 

[Johannes]

Vault Dweller, are you really not understanding the criticism given here that AoD gameplay is too focused on the stat screen...

Kinda like criticizing it for being turn-based instead of real-time.

You didn't directly answer the question, but ok, so you are arguing just out of principle.



Oh, and another CYOA with stats for people to check out, the Lone Wolf CYOA books made into digital format with automatic bookkeeping. The questlines may not be as good as in AoD, but I like the stat system a lot more when it's so straight to the point - you choose the powers you have, and then you tackle the whole adventure with those, so no fiddling about with skillpoint allocation mid-quest like what AoD makes you do.
http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Books
Give it a try, it's free!

 

[DefJam101]

AoD's main strengths are its setting, attention to detail within the main plot and its unusual focus on things not seeming batshit retarded when you think about them in the context of the game world for more than thirty seconds. For me, its major weakness would have to be a lack of concrete "immersion" due the ever present dialog menus and lack of exploration. The game functions extremely well as a string of CYOA scenes and combat scenarios but — perhaps due to the complete lack of filler — feels more like an interactive novel than a game proper.

That said, this is a weird game and you shouldn't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit X arbitrary criterion, unless you want to go full Roguey. But you should never go full Roguey.

I can't identify with the people claiming that SP-hoarding is necessary, because I've played several characters without ever hoarding a single skillpoint and had only minor problems. Except one character, who kept dying horribly on the raider fight. I rerolled him.

• 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.

As I recall there was a lengthy discussion around this point not too long ago. I'm with you here, as are many others, but VD himself disagrees. I don't want to put words in his mouth and I can't remember exactly why he was against this sort of thing.

 

[hiver]

Vault Dweller, are you really not understanding the criticism given here that AoD gameplay is too focused on the stat screen...

Kinda like criticizing it for being turn-based instead of real-time.

You didn't directly answer the question, but ok, so you are arguing just out of principle.

Im afraid it is you who doesnt understand the question or the answer.

What you people are complaining about is VERY CLEAR. But the truth is that your complaint is basically false, or simply misguided - because the game has exploration, has options, has non linearity. Plenty of it. More then both Fallouts combined. BUT IT FING DOES THIS IN A DIFFERENT MANNER then the manner that you guys prefer, or are simply just used to.

Most of you simply prefer RPGs that give you enough scope for one big content vacuum cleaning playthrough, with one big build with most skils and game options available - with some reloads to just taste other options or a few major twists in the overall game story - if there are any.

 

[Johannes]

Vault Dweller, are you really not understanding the criticism given here that AoD gameplay is too focused on the stat screen...

Kinda like criticizing it for being turn-based instead of real-time.

You didn't directly answer the question, but ok, so you are arguing just out of principle.

Im afraid it is you who doesnt understand the question or the answer.

What you people are complaining about is VERY CLEAR. But the truth is that your complaint is basically false, or simply misguided - because the game has exploration, has options, has non linearity. Plenty of it. More then both old Fallouts combined. BUT IT FING DOES THIS IN A DIFFERENT MANNER then the manner that you guys prefer, or are simply just used to.

But that was my point exactly. In many parts the game works in ways a lot of people don't like. So I ask what is VD's point to keep arguing when it seems nobodys gonna alter their position and no new information seems to be gained. So this bad design is there to stay and VD likes it the way it is, and he's just talking back not in order to try and take notes from the criticism, but just because he enjoys arguing. Just wanted to clarify that and so I did.

Most of you simply prefer RPGs that give you enough scope for one big content vacuum cleaning playthrough, with one big build with most skils and game options available - with some reloads to just taste other options or a few major twists in the overall game story - if there are any.

Don't put words in my mouth. That's not the issue at all.

 

[hiver]

a lot of people don't like.

A lot?
So... we should make games that "a lot of people" will like? eh? :wiggles eyebrows: eh? eh? tell me more Bobby... eh?

I dont see a lot, btw. I see the usual suspects repeating their little loops in every thread like this. (plus sea but only a small part of his review talks about his dislike of rigidness of dialogue based skill checks, only a short paragraph)

So this bad design is there to stay

... so... because a "lot of people" - who you presumably know or can telepathically connect to, dont like this - that means its a bad design?
Maybe it means that youre all stupid?
Or, maybe it means, that you are all simply used to a specific design and that you dont like this one - because it doesnt give you the same things wrapped in the same shiny paper?

Most of you simply prefer RPGs that give you enough scope for one big content vacuum cleaning playthrough, with one big build with most skils and game options available - with some reloads to just taste other options or a few major twists in the overall game story - if there are any.

Don't put words in my mouth. That's not the issue at all.

That is exactly the issue. Its just that you dont even understand it yourself - largely because it would deconstruct the fake, false argument that AoD "has bad design" - according to "a lot of people" - that you simply invented but seem to think its some sort of actual truth.
You want a party based game, (how many bloody times is that going to be repeated, really?), where you would get all the skills through numerous characters in the party - and you would then play the game exactly like i describe - while crying bitter tears every time an evil skill would tell you that you cannot do whatever you want. (go play W2 beta - you will LOVE IT)

And then youre going to cry, and cry and cry until you turn blue in the face and break all the rattle-toys.

So I ask what is VD's point to keep arguing when it seems nobodys gonna alter their position and no new information seems to be gained.

i guess he should just shut up, eh?

VD likes it the way it is, and he's just talking back not in order to try and take notes from the criticism, but just because he enjoys arguing.

I wouldnt be too amiss if i would presume that "taking notes from criticism" actually should mean admitting he was wrong, that the game really has BAD DESIGN - and then proceeding to make a game you would like better, right?

And since he is not doing that - it means he just doesnt listen to the TRUTH, cannot take criticism - and argues for arguing sake?



- i just love these loops, i really do...-

 

[Excidium]

I don't know what other people prefer hiver, but what I prefer in CRPGs is to actualy play it, not passively watch it unfold before my eyes after the bulk of my input is done on the character screen.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In many parts the game works in ways a lot of people don't like. So I ask what is VD's point to keep arguing when it seems nobodys gonna alter their position and no new information seems to be gained. So this bad design is there to stay and VD likes it the way it is, and he's just talking back not in order to try and take notes from the criticism, but just because he enjoys arguing. Just wanted to clarify that and so I did.

Yes, *some* people don't like the existing design, which doesn't make it 'bad design' by default. Before we do anything about it, we need to understand the problem. That's why I argue - I want to understand the arguments better to see if we're dealing with bad design or personal preferences.

When Grunker says "the way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills", I can't say that I feel the urge to change it immediately.

Overall, we gave people more skill points, we added training aimed at jacks, we split points into combat and non-combat pools. I'm not sure what else we can do to please people who want to be able to do more in one playthrough.

 

[Grunker]

When Grunker says "the way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills"

The problem isn't "I can't do thievery just because I don't have any thief-skills!"

The problem is "I almost can't do thievery because I haven't maxed out any thief-skills!"

Again, see Lhynn's suggestion about splitting up the pools. You might not like that design, but it highlights what people's problems are. If you're going to dismiss the criticism out of hand, why bother replying to it?

we split points into combat and non-combat pools

Wait... which version am I playing?

 

[Excidium]

In many parts the game works in ways a lot of people don't like. So I ask what is VD's point to keep arguing when it seems nobodys gonna alter their position and no new information seems to be gained. So this bad design is there to stay and VD likes it the way it is, and he's just talking back not in order to try and take notes from the criticism, but just because he enjoys arguing. Just wanted to clarify that and so I did.

Yes, *some* people don't like the existing design, which doesn't make it 'bad design' by default..

Classic post-Fallout CRPG threshold-based, binary stat checks IS 'bad design' by default, and AoD's entire CYOA design is bad for being built on top of it and taking it to extreme levels.

I mean, almost every change that has been done to the system like the linked skills, the joint stat checks, the reduce stat range to 1-10, everything is done to alleviate the badness of threshold-based stat checks so I figure you are aware of it and only constantly defend it because you can't really do anything major about something so fundamental at this point.

 

[Brandon]

So this bad design is there to stay and VD likes it the way it is, and he's just talking back not in order to try and take notes from the criticism, but just because he enjoys arguing.

The game is heavily focused on stats/skills/reputation-based options. If you don't like that at all, then certainly you won't like the game. I love that design.

And there are choices to be made in game. Stats are set in stone (well, in current version but apparently some can be increased in later quests), but skills can be changed. The way the game is right now, you could make a zero-combat pure talker and go through all of Teron, and then use your skills gained from the last quest to to invest in combat; start out in the arena with fights and move your way up changing to a hybrid for Maadoran. There are also different ways to solve quests with the same skillset, I can think of 3 separate uses for Persuasion to get to Antidas. You aren't just passively watching the game unfold.

As far as criticism, if you think certain quests are sparsh on options, whether skill-based or otherwise, give Vault Dweller specific examples. He has been listening to specific criticism and taking ideas from player feedback. You can read to the most recent changelog to see an example of this, or even in this very thread.

 

[hiver]

I don't know what other people prefer hiver, but what I prefer in CRPGs is to actualy play it, not passively watch it unfold before my eyes after the bulk of my input is done on the character screen.

Play. All. BACKGROUNDS. (its made for that, not to get a lot of options and all or most gameplay from all backgrounds with one character build)

And there is no passively watching it unfold. I would know if there was any.

Wait... which version am I playing?

The one far, far, far behind the times. As usual.

 

[Grunker]

No matter what VD, I agree with Marsal more and more. This discussion basically hasn't changed for months on months, there's no reason to keep replying if you're not going to change this anyway.

 

[Vault Dweller]

When Grunker says "the way AoD works is you can only do shit for which you have the skills"

The problem isn't "I can't do thievery just because I don't have any thief-skills!"

The problem is "I almost can't do thievery because I haven't maxed out any thief-skills!"

Well, you see, such vague comments aren't really helping because I have no idea what you're saying here. I replied to that post earlier, showing the checks in the first two thieves quests. You ignored that post and re-posted yours again.

So, again, you aren't expected to max out any skills (not in the demo or the early access release), so I have no idea what your point actually is.

Again, see Lhynn's suggestion about splitting up the pools. You might not like that design, but it highlights what people's problems are. If you're going to dismiss the criticism out of hand, why bother replying to it?

We did split them. You have two pools at chargen and you have combat, non-combat, and general reward pools. If you're going to criticize something...