Preview Age of Decadence R4 Preview at GameBanshee

[J_C]

Considering the small size of our team, we definitely value solutions that saves us time.

I can totally understand this and it is a valid reason for doing things. On the other hand:

We can hide the options behind inventory movements, giving the illusion that you can use any item on any object, but in the end, you will only be able to do what the developers scripted. In general we are more "honest" in that regard, and it's the way we want to play our game. Yes, we are making a game we want to play, not one that sells, or fits everyone's expectations.

There are times when you have to be honest, but this is not one of them. Yes, using things in your inventory in a given situation is just an illusion, because obviously you can only use 1 item on 1 object and that is scripted. But I (and many other) want this illusion. It helps me believe that I'm playing game, and not just doing a CYOA sequence.

 

[Elhoim]

There are times when you have to be honest, but this is not one of them. Yes, using things in your inventory in a given situation is just an illusion, because obviously you can only use 1 item on 1 object and that is scripted. But I (and many other) want this illusion. It helps me believe that I'm playing game, and not just doing a CYOA sequence.

So... The reasoning is because you and many others want it? You realize that's pretty subjective, right? Because I can argue that I and many others don't like that illusion (or not find a real value for us) and love the "CYOA" sequences, and it will be just as valid.

Not trying to be a antagonistic for the sake of it, of course, just pointing out that in this particular issue it's more of a matter of preference. And at the end of the day, what we enjoy from our work is doing the type of game we like, even though we are fully aware that some decisions go against the desires of many RPG players.

 

[almondblight]

- We will not add "use any object on" interactions. It would be a fake freedom, since those things would only work where we script them. We will definitely try to make a couple systems more, but we won't be making direct item use since we don't have the environments to support that design.

The advantage of this, particularly when it comes to adventure games, is that the challenge comes from the player having to figure out a puzzle. If you have a number of objects and a number of things they can interact with, it's very difficult to just "try everything," so you have to think about it and figure out the way to make it work. If you're given 3 options - particularly if those 3 options are only things that are scripted to work - then that element of the gameplay disappears.

Now expecting a small team to create a game that's either an RPG or a stat-based adventure game depending on the player might be a bit much. But that's typically where gameplay seems to come from in games based on environment interaction and dialogue (adventure games).

 

[Elhoim]

- We will not add "use any object on" interactions. It would be a fake freedom, since those things would only work where we script them. We will definitely try to make a couple systems more, but we won't be making direct item use since we don't have the environments to support that design.

The advantage of this, particularly when it comes to adventure games, is that the challenge comes from the player having to figure out a puzzle. If you have a number of objects and a number of things they can interact with, it's very difficult to just "try everything," so you have to think about it and figure out the way to make it work. If you're given 3 options - particularly if those 3 options are only things that are scripted to work - then that element of the gameplay disappears.

Now expecting a small team to create a game that's either an RPG or a stat-based adventure game depending on the player might be a bit much. But that's typically where gameplay seems to come from in games based on environment interaction and dialogue (adventure games).

To make it clear: We would definitely consider adding some item on object interaction if it's an interesting gameplay device, like a "puzzle" in the adventure game design sense, but not just add it for the illusion of action.

 

[hiver]

Im totally against these suggestion about removing or minimizing text adventure options.
The amount of different things you can do through them is unsurpassed by any game i know of.

And no thanks, i would not prefer to click over ten items to guess the correct one.
Or have character skills importance lowered and player skills made more important
Go play fing skyrim or bioware games if you want that!

Plus, it is completely false that diplomatic characters are not actively playing. Thats just a load of bullshit.
Different diverse choices and twists are at every angle of almost every quest and you get to influence major events and factions and NPCs through that gameplay. You do choose what to do and how, in most of these situations, except in those you find yourself in because you failed some earlier checks or made a wrong decision. Which are all reasonable and believable setups.

The matter is actually that some posters here dont like the WAY thats playing and then represent that in completely false ways, as if there arent any choices and options to take in such playthrough.
They dont like it, and they would prefer if it was playing like Fallout or W2 - but that does not mean such gameplay is not in the game - AT ALL.
Its just done in a different way.


Elhoim
seriously, is it such a problem if double skills checks where the player is, for example, required to have 3 in streetwise and 4 in etiquette (or any other combination), would count the total amount - so 4 in streetwise and 3 in that other skill would still succeed?
Especially in side quests.

As in the example of that noble lady side quest, 3 in streetwise and 4 in etiquette - or - 4 in streetwise and 3 in etiquette, - i dont see how it makes such a big difference. Isnt it believable that higher streetwise would cover for lack of one point in etiquette, in such a situation, when talking to such a non-critical NPC?
It does not make the skill check any easier. You still need to invest ... 45 skill points (if i got that right) in these two skills altogether, whichever way you do it.
And the check would still require these two specific skills, not some others. While if you have 3-3 or less, you would still fail.

It doesnt seem like any sort of big tolerance range at all. Or as making it easy.

While it doesnt demand any big change to the game systems at all - just tweaks of whats already there.

 

[Elhoim]

Elhoim
seriously, is it such a problem if double skills checks where the player is, for example, required to have 3 in streetwise and 4 in etiquette (or any other combination), would count the total amount - so 4 in streetwise and 3 in that other skill would still succeed?
Especially in side quests.

As in the example of that noble lady side quest, 3 in streetwise and 4 in etiquette - or - 4 in streetwise and 3 in etiquette, - i dont see how it makes such a big difference. Isnt it believable that higher streetwise would cover for lack of one point in etiquette, in such a situation, when talking to such a non-critical NPC?

That one should have been a double-check, fixed it

 

[hiver]

I dont understand. Does "double-check" mean it requires both skills to be at precise levels or that the total sum of both skills are getting the player through, if sufficient?

 

[Invictus]

Elhoim I get the vibe from playing the non combat character of the Quest for Glory games where you could have several solutions based on your character for a puzzle; take the gold ring puzzle from the start.
You could climb the tree if you where a thief or another character with climbing skill
You could throw rocks at the nest if you were the fighter or just wanted it to do it that way with anither character that had the throwing skill
You could cast the fetch spell if you were am mage or a character with magic skills
The thing is that all of these solutions have a "class specific" solution but you also get the option to do it another way if you built you character that way
Since AoD plays more like an adventure game for the non combat classes this was a natural comparison for me but it fits what most of us are trying to say; the closer a chracater sticks to its "class specific" skills the more steamlined the game will be but the more restrictive for trying different paths

 

[J_C]

There are times when you have to be honest, but this is not one of them. Yes, using things in your inventory in a given situation is just an illusion, because obviously you can only use 1 item on 1 object and that is scripted. But I (and many other) want this illusion. It helps me believe that I'm playing game, and not just doing a CYOA sequence.

So... The reasoning is because you and many others want it? You realize that's pretty subjective, right? Because I can argue that I and many others don't like that illusion (or not find a real value for us) and love the "CYOA" sequences, and it will be just as valid.

Not trying to be a antagonistic for the sake of it, of course, just pointing out that in this particular issue it's more of a matter of preference. And at the end of the day, what we enjoy from our work is doing the type of game we like, even though we are fully aware that some decisions go against the desires of many RPG players.

As I see it, reading the topics, more people prefer that inventory based puzzles compared to text adventures. To clarify, I like CYOA stuff, I just don't like that every item/skill based puzzle has to be solved by them. CYOA should be used during normal dialogues, and I would prefer to have fallout type skill/inventory usage for item/skill based puzzles.

Im totally against these suggestion about removing or minimizing text adventure options.
The amount of different things you can do through them is unsurpassed by any game i know of.

Yes, but this is because AOD uses a text adventure for every skill/item based puzzle. If FAllout would have used this text adventure feature for everything, it would have just as many as AOD.

So, to summarize...

- We will be adding more environment interactions like the ones of Feng's house, the blacksmith, Camilla's house, etc.
- We are adding alchemy ingredients around the locations that you can harvest with your alchemy skill (some of them are already in Teron in the latest version).
- We will be opening up some areas for interaction like the mine, especially the interior (damn, how would I love to have there that TB sneak system I talked about before...).
- We will be making a lockpicking system with different lockpicks, oils and acids, based from all the situations we created in dialogue.
- We will continue to make many options dialogue based. Personally, I found Darius Tomb to be a good mix of environment interaction and dialogue options.
We will definitely try to make a couple systems more,

YEEEEEEEEEY!

but we won't be making direct item use since we don't have the environments to support that design.

Sigh, OK, I understand.

- We will not add "use any object on" interactions.

BOOOOOOO

It would be a fake freedom, since those things would only work where we script them.

But this is not a bad thing IMO.

 

[hiver]

Invictus
Its not like that at all. The more you stick to your class - the more options you have - in AoD, for your chosen background.
Its not "restrictive" by itself. Because this is a game that provides different paths through the game based on the chosen background. So the more you focus your build as it should be - the more options you get and can succeed in.

As I see it, reading the topics, more people prefer that inventory based puzzles compared to text adventures.

More people? Where?

CYOA should be used during normal dialogues, and I would prefer to have fallout type skill/inventory usage for item/skill based puzzles.

Well you cant!

Im totally against these suggestion about removing or minimizing text adventure options.
The amount of different things you can do through them is unsurpassed by any game i know of.

Yes, but this is because AOD uses a text adventure for every skill/item based puzzle. If FAllout would have used this text adventure feature for everything, it would have just as many as AOD.

Well it didnt! Because its a different type of a cRPG - which was done by pros, few at first but a whole dev studio later and several millions of moneys!

What are you people thinking? That just repeating "i want, i want, i want" is going to magically make it possible?

If AoD would try to have such gameplay there would be only one single path through the game - and it would take ten more years.

 

[V_K]

There are times when you have to be honest, but this is not one of them. Yes, using things in your inventory in a given situation is just an illusion, because obviously you can only use 1 item on 1 object and that is scripted. But I (and many other) want this illusion. It helps me believe that I'm playing game, and not just doing a CYOA sequence.

So... The reasoning is because you and many others want it? You realize that's pretty subjective, right? Because I can argue that I and many others don't like that illusion (or not find a real value for us) and love the "CYOA" sequences, and it will be just as valid.

But there's nothing stopping you from making the actual CYOA sequences more puzzle-like, is there? Offering some "wrong" choices for example (now, I only played the demo some months ago, so maybe they are already in, I don't know)? Or making somethinh hybrid, like instead of offering the player a "Use an item A" option, make it "Use an item" and then let the player pick the right one from inventory (with some unfortunate consequences for picking the wrong one, so that it wouldn't be just blind browsing). Just anything to make a non-combat playthrough more like a game and less like a book.

 

[Johannes]

Would awarding 1/2 EXP for failing quests help? That would give you some skill points to spread around at the very least.

That's a great idea I think.

Ideally I'd like to have a character system in a game like this that'd be more realistic than the typical RPG "gain skill point -> spend skill point" powerups, with the character concept being mostly set in the get-go, and improvement happening trainers and such for the most part, giving you a less abstract progression and also less skill point hoarding.

But when the game is set with the current simple system for good most probably, making the progression a bit less dependant on slippery slope of constant success would be an excellent adjustment.

 

[CappenVarra]

While everybody is talking about improving the non-combat parts of the game (hell, I even have some ideas but I'll sit on them for a while), here's a quick off-the-top-of-my-head list of improvements for combat:
- Add a Restart Combat button that takes you to turn 0 in combat mode of the last fight (the point before any combatant acts) to death screens - retrying different options is hard fights would be so much easier this way - instead of having to spend 30 seconds loading the game and repeating dialogue choices when retrying the Aurelian Mine fight for example.
- Have more enemies use Aimed: Head attacks, or add a proportional (5%?) chance that any attack is directed to the head area and uses helmet DR and crit protection; as is, helmet choice is mostly cosmetic since enemies won't target the PC's head even when it makes perfect sense, and the helmet THC penalty is meaningless since there's no reason to use heavier helmets that have it.
- Add shield (and possibly helmet?) crafting, with appropriate techniques and looted shield decomposing. It is needed.

 

[Longshanks]

A lot of long winded rambling trying to justify one point of view or another.

Four simple facts about Age of Decadence...

1. It runs better, is smoother and looks better than any of these crpg betas we are currently playing;

2. Its more fun to roleplay (we are talking about roleplaying games right?) than any other crpg done in the last 10 years;

3. it has the best turned based combat on a crpg since JA2/ToEE;

4. Is probably the most reactive crpg made till now.

I think, feel, that these facts are undisputed by most crpg fans, 2,3 and 4 alone make the release of AoD something that the release of Wasteland 2, Original Sin or Blackguards can never be... benchmarks that we will be pointing out to for years to come.

This. It's good to pick apart what is wrong with the game, but in doing so let's not lose sight of what it does well. Most modern RPGs spend far too much time on what is RPG fluff (exploration, environment interaction, story, graphics etc...), they will then claim that they lack the time or resources to work on the more core RPG elements, reactivity in particular. Iron Tower have approached it the other way around, focusing on the core elements and eschewing some of the fluff. As a small team with limited resources, this was absolutely the correct thing to do. My guess is that they will build on some of the support aspects in future games (AOD has already come a long way), and will be in a far better place to do so having first developed the leaner AOD.

 

[hiver]

- Have more enemies use Aimed: Head attacks, or add a proportional (5%?) chance that any attack is directed to the head area and uses helmet DR and crit protection; as is, helmet choice is mostly cosmetic since enemies won't target the PC's head even when it makes perfect sense, and the helmet THC penalty is meaningless since there's no reason to use heavier helmets that have it.

Yeah, i would agree with that.
Im not sure but i think enemies generally dont go for aimed attacks a lot. I cant remember having my aiming being reduced or weapon knocked out or being hit in the legs, for example.
Certainly the more capable and dangerous ones should go for it more often (might make them miss a few times too!).

Its true for the helmets too, usually some kind of lighter one is enough to get you through the game.
Its good to have a lot of choices though.

 

[Infinitron]

RPG fluff (exploration, environment interaction

Oh no you didn't

 

[FeelTheRads]

He is right that technically it's fluff. But it's fluff that's needed. AoD seems to have distilled too much.

 

[Longshanks]

RPG fluff (exploration, environment interaction

Oh no you didn't

Not saying this stuff can't be important, especially for some sub-genres - those hiking simulators certainly need to value their exploration. Same goes for story, it's a vital part of many RPGs, including AOD. Just that I don't consider them at the core of what makes an RPG, they can all be found in just as strong doses in other genres.

Before we get into another discussion of what is an RPG, the core for me is the character and his stats/skills. Anything that does not strongly link in with these, I consider fluff. RPGs which focus on the fluff as their main element, I feel, are weakened as RPGs: TES and exploration, Bioware and story are the two big current examples. As an RPG I think AOD has its focus perfectly placed. This is not to say all RPGs need have the same focus or will suffer as games for highlighting fluff elements (PST is one of my favourite games), but it would be nice to have more games with strong concrete roleplaying - we've not seen one for some time - and this is the primary reason that AOD is my most anticipated upcoming RPG.

 

[Infinitron]

Not saying this stuff can't be important, especially for some sub-genres - those hiking simulators certainly need to value their exploration.

Man, it's not just hiking simulators. For years, RPGs were "the cloth map genre". Exploration was a part of them almost from Day 1. RPGs that don't have a big world or big dungeon to explore are actually pretty rare, and always the focus of much criticism from fans of the genre when they do appear.

 

[hiver]

Theres plenty of exploration in AoD. I dont know what youre talking about.

 

[Longshanks]

Not saying this stuff can't be important, especially for some sub-genres - those hiking simulators certainly need to value their exploration.

Man, it's not just hiking simulators. For years, RPGs were "the cloth map genre". Exploration was a part of them almost from Day 1. RPGs that don't have a big world or big dungeon to explore are actually pretty rare, and always the focus of much criticism from fans of the genre when they do appear.

Yep. And RPGs without story or without combat are also rare. But are these elements critical? I say no, even if a strong expectation of their existence has been built up by previous titles in the genre. Also, different expectations will be found depending on a player's experience. TES fans will expect plenty of exploration. More modern Bioware fans will be more focused on an intricate story and companion banter.

 

[Infinitron]

But are these elements critical? I say no

Well, you can say what you like but other RPG fans, including "hardcore oldschool" RPG fans (not just TES and Bioware fans as you seem to be implying) don't have to agree.

 

[Mrowak]

Theres plenty of exploration in AoD. I dont know what youre talking about.

I guess he means "exploration" in the sense "exploring environments". Because as it is now in AoD 90% of the time you face a bunch of choices given to you in textbox and that's it. There is nothing to figure out or consider, only solutions given to you on a silver platter. As a result player has nothing to play with outside of combat - you just click labelled buttons. The End. Most of the time you do not have to read the contents of dialogues. That's very bad gameplay for you (if this could be called gameplay at all). You feel doubly gated - first by inability to experiment and second by arbitrary skill checks.

 

[Longshanks]

But are these elements critical? I say no

Well, you can say what you like but other RPG fans, including "hardcore oldschool" RPG fans (not just TES and Bioware fans as you seem to be implying) don't have to agree.

Not the implication at all, just the two most prominent modern examples of fluff focus, I also threw PST in there as well.

 

[hiver]

Theres plenty of exploration in AoD. I dont know what youre talking about.

I guess he means "exploration" in the sense "exploring environments". Because as it is now in AoD 90% of the time you face a bunch of choices given to you in textbox and that's it. There is nothing to figure out or consider, only solutions given to you on a silver platter. As a result player has nothing to play with outside of combat - you just click labelled buttons. The End. Most of the time you do not have to read the contents of dialogues. That's very bad gameplay for you (if this could be called gameplay at all). You feel doubly gated - first by inability to experiment and second by arbitrary skill checks.

tsk...!
I know what he means.

You dint get my drift, man.

Besides that, you always have to consider what youre doing in AoD, since different choices - which you get through investing in different skills for each build - can and do alter your plans, or ruin them, or send you down another path - since even most of the failures basically open other paths - for that build. Not to mention effects of success in various skill checks.
So thats your exploration - in AoD.

You explore quests, background paths through the game and their own twists and turns, between factions, NPCs, and overall story. And your own mettle in very good Tb combat. Which also affects everything you do, from minor to major events in the game.

Lots to explore.