Preview Age of Decadence R4 Preview at GameBanshee

[Vault Dweller]

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

I guess he means "exploration" in the sense "exploring environments".

Meaning what, exactly? Let's take 3 games - BG, Fallout, and Avernum (exploration-heavy). In BG you explore painted backgrounds, looking for chests and hidden caches to click on. In Fallout and Avernum you run around the maps looking for people to talk to. You don't explore environment. You reveal maps.

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...

First, it's not entirely correct and people miss quest options all the time (I know that because I have to explain what they missed). Second, what's there to figure out in, say, Fallout?

For example, in Fallout, the player may notice that the wall in the radscoprpion cave is weak and use dynamite if he has any, sealing the cave. In AoD, such an option would be hidden until you pass your Per check. In Fallout, you can decide how to free Tandi - pay, sneak, fight, etc. None of the options requires figuring out and that's one of the best examples. RPGs aren't adventure games. There is very little to figure out there, especially in isometric games, so let's not pretend that we dropped a key aspect there.

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.

What's with some people complaining by "arbitrary" skill checks? Is it RPG Codex or adventurecodex?

 

[CappenVarra]

- 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.

And let's not forget that axe fighters used to be a scourge of shield builds, while currently I've played 3 block characters and haven't had a single shield split. So the biggest issue with AoD combat at the moment is enemy AI.

Talking about the big picture:

- Purely subjectively, I'm having loads of fun playing the game, and the AoD pre-order was the best gaming purchase I made in a long, long time.

- More objectively, I can understand why people complain that the non-combat challenges of the game are a bit on the simplistic side. However, this same complaint has been repeated a zillion times over the last 2 years, and beside a few minor tweaks which were implemented (hybrid skill checks testing a sum of two skills etc.), none of the complainers managed to come up with a viable alternate system that would fit the game. Even if such a replacement non-combat challenge resolution system can be designed on paper, it's highly unlikely it can be implemented in this game in a reasonable time frame - development resources should be focused on finishing and touching up game content and enemy AI, and that's what we're likely to get for AoD v1.0. And I'm perfectly fine with this.

- While we're at it, scripting fixes count as content. For example, every time you unequip a characters weapons and write a script that automatically equips something else (example: Teron gang fight CS option conjures a bronze Jambia out of thin air, AG3 first fight equipped my sword+shield dude with a Gladius and no shield, etc.) - try to remember the character's previously equipped items and either restore them automatically where it makes sense (the AG3 fight), or perhaps add a "equip remembered weapon set for X AP" button to the combat UI otherwise.

- After AoD1 release, that party-based dungeon crawler set in the same universe can be made, bringing further improvements of the combat mechanics and enemy AI.

- Only then (during AoD 2 developement) should significant time and effort be spent on thinking about drastically different non-combat mechanics for a more complex resolution system. If I was to engage in pie-in-the-sky theory, I'd say something along the lines of: for social skills, CHA is the equivalent of STR for combat (increasing or decreasing the magnitude of the effect, for example -20% to +40% of the skill is the "effective skill" used in checks), while INT is the equivalent of DEX (increasing the versatility i.e. determining how much skill "replacement" is allowed - for example INT 4 means that a Persuasion 5 check can only be passed with that skill, while each point of INT up to 10 increases the "leeway" to use other skills instead - so an 8 INT char could pass that check with 4 persuade and 5 streetwise/etiquette, while a 10 INT char would get along with 3 persuade and 3 streetwise/etiquette or something along those lines)... Or even use a unified resoultion mechanic, where each skill has a stat affecting "chance to work" and another affecting "effect magnitude" - PER/DEX and STR for combat skills, INT and CHA for social, PER and INT for crafting/alchemy/lore, PER/DEX for sneak/steal/lockpick, blah blah... Eh, that's just something I came up with in 15 minutes, and I'm not even sure it would be more fun to play than straight checks...

 

[made]

It seems you don't think much of exploration or puzzles in RPGs, VD. Have you ever played one where those elements were implemented in a compelling/fun way, if so which one?

 

[Infinitron]

It seems you don't think much of exploration or puzzles in RPGs, VD. Have you ever played one where those elements were implemented in a compelling/fun way, if so which one?

You might be interested in this little conversation we had earlier this year: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...icle-made-me-think-of-age-of-decadence.81696/

I agree that exploration is one of the major RPG elements

 

[Vault Dweller]

Full quote:

"I agree that exploration is one of the major RPG elements, but this element (for me) works only in sandbox RPGs. In most games it is reduced to clicking on containers. Take Deus Ex: HR, for example. It had that #11 feature from the list - the wall punch, which was mostly used to give you access to hidden storerooms with loot.

Now, just because it was done poorly in so many RPGs doesn't mean that it can't or hasn't been done better, but it does mean that the 'moar loot' implementation can be easily skipped and nothing of value will be lost. Improving exploration is a worthy goal but it was never *our* goal. We'll leave it to Jay since he feels so strongly on the subject."

 

[Infinitron]

Full quote:

"I agree that exploration is one of the major RPG elements, but this element (for me) works only in sandbox RPGs. In most games it is reduced to clicking on containers. Take Deus Ex: HR, for example. It had that #11 feature from the list - the wall punch, which was mostly used to give you access to hidden storerooms with loot.

Now, just because it was done poorly in so many RPGs doesn't mean that it can't or hasn't been done better, but it does mean that the 'moar loot' implementation can be easily skipped and nothing of value will be lost. Improving exploration is a worthy goal but it was never *our* goal. We'll leave it to Jay since he feels so strongly on the subject."

You still don't think it's "fluff", though!

 

[Vault Dweller]

It seems you don't think much of exploration or puzzles in RPGs, VD. Have you ever played one where those elements were implemented in a compelling/fun way, if so which one?

I don't like puzzles in RPGs because I don't think they belong there. In adventure games it's perfectly acceptable for a good puzzle to block your progress for a day. In RPGs - not so much. If I have a solve a puzzle before venturing into a dungeon and it takes a day, it will be very frustrating because that's not what RPGs are about. As a result the puzzles that do make their way into RPGs are so easy that they aren't worth implementing. In my humble opinion, of course.

As for exploration, only sandbox games because only these games have the sheer size to make exploration interesting and rewarding. In most RPGs you have a local map, covered by the fog of war, so you run around to reveal the map looking for quests, shops, and loot. I liked exploration in Gothic 1 and 2. You could find a way into Khorinis without having to bribe guards or buy pass or laborer's clothes, which was pretty cool.

 

[Johannes]

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.

Reactivity in most RPG's, is not a core element but very squarely in the fluff territory.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because it's still an unexplored (pun intended) territory, so it's usually something slapped on top of the existing design that doesn't really affect things much and can hardly be considered more than a gimmick (aka fluff). Most "RPGs" still offer baddies to kill and chests to loot.

 

[made]

That's a good article, Infinitron.

I don't like puzzles in RPGs because I don't think they belong there.

I must (humbly, of course) disagree. Without puzzles, what is an RPG but a mindless grindfest interspersed with multiple-choice dialogues and barrel-looting?

Now, what's a puzzle? Anything that makes you pause and think about the solution. How complex or trivial or gimmicky it ends up is down to implementation.

The cool thing about puzzles in RPGs and what differentiates them from adventure puzzles is that you can combine player skill and character skill in their solutions. Say you need to open that dungeon but it's locked by an... ANCIENT MECHANISM! So perhaps you need a character with [tech] or [archeology] skills to figure that out, but then you still don't know what to do with it, so you must explore ruins of old and [find hidden] texts and tomes that provide clues if a character can [read] them which you, the player, then piece together to figure out the sequence of (ancient) runes and levers to unlock the door. Perhaps you also need to [repair] it first using spare parts scavenged or traded elsewhere... you get my point.

It's the same as with exploration and combat. 9 out of 10 RPGs get it wrong, but think of all the untapped potential.

 

[tuluse]

What's with some people complaining by "arbitrary" skill checks? Is it RPG Codex or adventurecodex?

Aren't blobbers famous for having puzzles you'd have to solve to move through the dungeons?

 

[hiver]

To me its not even a matter of which is better and why. I love several games with different kind of active environment interaction, from Fallouts, BG1-2, to extremes like FPS Stalker and even skyrim, as long as i explored the wilderness and managed to pretend im not playing that game. - hell, i even liked w2 gameplay in some ways.
i just see AoD as a different kind of game, and its nice to have a different game, once in a while.

 

[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.

And let's not forget that axe fighters used to be a scourge of shield builds, while currently I've played 3 block characters and haven't had a single shield split. So the biggest issue with AoD combat at the moment is enemy AI.

Among many other specific AoD things, yes.

Talking about the big picture:

- Purely subjectively, I'm having loads of fun playing the game, and the AoD pre-order was the best gaming purchase I made in a long, long time.

Pretty much, yeah.

- More objectively, I can understand why people complain that the non-combat challenges of the game are a bit on the simplistic side. However, this same complaint has been repeated a zillion times over the last 2 years, and beside a few minor tweaks which were implemented (hybrid skill checks testing a sum of two skills etc.), none of the complainers managed to come up with a viable alternate system that would fit the game. Even if such a replacement non-combat challenge resolution system can be designed on paper, it's highly unlikely it can be implemented in this game in a reasonable time frame - development resources should be focused on finishing and touching up game content and enemy AI, and that's what we're likely to get for AoD v1.0. And I'm perfectly fine with this.

Definitely. of course.

really, the only critiques or suggestions that one can reasonably and realistically give would be ones about specific things in the game as it is.
Talking about a different kind of a game, or type of RPG or some bigger mechanic alteration doesnt make much sense.
- frankly im surprised how far they got, considering they are working on two games lately, however much they downplayed it.

- While we're at it, scripting fixes count as content. For example, every time you unequip a characters weapons and write a script that automatically equips something else (example: Teron gang fight CS option conjures a bronze Jambia out of thin air, AG3 first fight equipped my sword+shield dude with a Gladius and no shield, etc.) - try to remember the character's previously equipped items and either restore them automatically where it makes sense (the AG3 fight), or perhaps add a "equip remembered weapon set for X AP" button to the combat UI otherwise.

That one comes up regularly

- Only then (during AoD 2 developement) should significant time and effort be spent on thinking about drastically different non-combat mechanics for a more complex resolution system. If I was to engage in pie-in-the-sky theory, I'd say something along the lines of: for social skills, CHA is the equivalent of STR for combat (increasing or decreasing the magnitude of the effect, for example -20% to +40% of the skill is the "effective skill" used in checks), while INT is the equivalent of DEX (increasing the versatility i.e. determining how much skill "replacement" is allowed - for example INT 4 means that a Persuasion 5 check can only be passed with that skill, while each point of INT up to 10 increases the "leeway" to use other skills instead - so an 8 INT char could pass that check with 4 persuade and 5 streetwise/etiquette, while a 10 INT char would get along with 3 persuade and 3 streetwise/etiquette or something along those lines)... Or even use a unified resoultion mechanic, where each skill has a stat affecting "chance to work" and another affecting "effect magnitude" - PER/DEX and STR for combat skills, INT and CHA for social, PER and INT for crafting/alchemy/lore, PER/DEX for sneak/steal/lockpick, blah blah... Eh, that's just something I came up with in 15 minutes, and I'm not even sure it would be more fun to play than straight checks...

best use that sparingly.

it would be swell if charisma could be buffed in that manner, even if in less direct ways, but maybe such characters should earn less SP - on account of getting things done more easily - ergo they would apply less effort - and therefore learn less overall.
Which means it would reduce SP increase from Int, ... which is good, because otherwise that kind of a build would be way overpowered.

 

[J_C]

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?

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.

This reply is especially dumb because neither I, nor others repeated "I want I want I want" all the time. I just said that what I prefer, what I would like to see in the game.

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!

What a meaningful reply.

 

[hiver]

it was just some half baked joking, that looks weird , on the internets.

 

[serch]

Probably too late for this, but I think that the butthurt about how the game manages social situations it's about AoD losing a level. If you chose a combat-oriented-PC you first make a plan about how to develop his stats (an easier one than with a social char) then play the awesome combat minigame. Social chars first play this stat game (a more difficult version as they have to spread themselves thinner) and win or lose without further minigames. It would be great if social situations had their own ones, obviously no oblivionesque, but something that will let you soft lose or hard lose even if you have the stats needed to pass the encounters, like dumb or innapropiate argumentations that fail even if you have a very good social char, or some options that come back later to bite you in the ass. Some minor combat added to social chars, via bodyguards, assassins, gladiators you hire to fight in the Arena for you,... will add something too to social chars. This way, with a second kind of challenge, you could be a little more forgiving with social chars in the stat game, and give them some extra social skillpoints that allow them to make more rounded PCs. Another kind of counter would be social duels, with dice rolling, that is the way in which some PnP RPGs tend to give an extra complexity to social oriented chars, so some research may be in order.

Disclaimer: I really like the game as it is and perfectly understand that it's impossible to add these things at this state in development.

PS: You may also add some expensive objects that help in social situations to counter rigid skillchecks, add some more complexity and balance the economy: drugs, documents, expensive clothing...

 

[hiver]

Damnit!


What if! What if the game would show all the dialogue lines - without any additional indication which is which or how many points the check for it is set at?
So if you would choose the wrong response, in which you have no skill points - you would fail. While some easier, side quest checks would be managable with synergy from dual ... skills... hey.. Hey! hey guys! weapon skills have synergy! make civil skills have synergies!!!

hmm... Would that be interesting to play?


- i think dialogue is written well enough to be that distinctive, just by itself - btw.

 

[Excidium]

I don't think the auto-pilot nature of the non-combat bits can be fixed.

 

[Raghar]

From when is DX:HR an RPG? Also it had an exploration. Do you remember all these vents? You found these by exploring.

 

[SCO]

Nominating AoD to the Visual novel category on the next game of the year poll
The next lone wolf 7th sense is probably going out too, so it's got competition besides Long Live the Queen and Black Chicken Games.

 

[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.

Reactivity in most RPG's, is not a core element but very squarely in the fluff territory.

Which was kinda my point . As I explained, I consider the character and his stats and skills to be the core of an RPG. Anything which strongly interacts with these, for me, is more important than anything which does not. Reactivity based on character build is, along with combat, one of the strongest ways to differentiate between builds and provide concrete roleplaying. Environment exploration, as one example, does nothing to enhance this.

That does not mean there is anything inherently wrong with making exploration, for instance, a major element of an RPG. It's absolutely essential for the "Adventuring" type. Can't roleplay an adventurer without adventuring (though to suggest it as a critical element, I think is simply objectively wrong). My only point has been that an over focus on these side elements (in terms of RPGs) can mean that more difficult and more time consuming concrete roleplaying, like reactivity based on character build and decisions, can be watered down or completely ignored. Iron Tower, with AOD, is doing things the other way around. Concrete roleplaying is at the core of their RPG and the fluff elements only added in where they make sense and where the time and resources exist to implement them.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

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

I guess he means "exploration" in the sense "exploring environments".

Meaning what, exactly? Let's take 3 games - BG, Fallout, and Avernum (exploration-heavy). In BG you explore painted backgrounds, looking for chests and hidden caches to click on. In Fallout and Avernum you run around the maps looking for people to talk to. You don't explore environment. You reveal maps.

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...

First, it's not entirely correct and people miss quest options all the time (I know that because I have to explain what they missed). Second, what's there to figure out in, say, Fallout?

For example, in Fallout, the player may notice that the wall in the radscoprpion cave is weak and use dynamite if he has any, sealing the cave. In AoD, such an option would be hidden until you pass your Per check. In Fallout, you can decide how to free Tandi - pay, sneak, fight, etc. None of the options requires figuring out and that's one of the best examples. RPGs aren't adventure games. There is very little to figure out there, especially in isometric games, so let's not pretend that we dropped a key aspect there.

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.

What's with some people complaining by "arbitrary" skill checks? Is it RPG Codex or adventurecodex?

I'm sorry if i misunderstood and i'm sorry i didn't read the whole topic, and i don't intend to criticize AoD by this.

Fallout's typical cursor switching to "examine" is all adventure. And i believe the game was structured on a threeway situation problems solver.

You could resort to fist, to skills or to little tricks that had neither. And it's those "little tricks" that opened a world of environmental interaction and exploration
Example: two sides, one power generator. You can kill a side, you can use science on generator, or you could see a message pop up in the text window "you see a guy playing with a weird gizmo". So just by speaking to him you'd take it, possibly you'd trade it with another item, and just used it on the generator to shut the thing off without skills or brawn.

How is that not a puzzle from adventures?

Same goes with Deus Ex. You need to inspect a pc, you hack it or you explore to find in the near painting the code. Warren Spector knew about adventures when he put those little puzzles. He thought i give you ALL the choices. And that's why i CAN play RPG's, i'm just an adventurer who seriously hates maths and uses rulebooks against insomnia.

Frankly, to state RPG's aren't adventures has always sounded to me like saying in real life i can't touch objects. "adventures puzzles" isn't some kind of radioactive zone of videogaming, it's just realistic actions and realistic ways to solve realistic problems. No designer considers this interaction and that's why every virtual world feels inevitably empty, just little bits that light up when you hover over them with the mouse.

And that's why games of the golden age always feel magical, because back then every designer had played text adventures, and they ALL put a sprinkle of item puzzles in their game. That magic is called hybrid, and in our robotic mindset of "adventure is this, rpg is that", we irremediably lost this natural and beautiful and more than anything PRIMITIVE thinking of hybrid. Because only savages can think hybridally.

 

[Rake]

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

I guess he means "exploration" in the sense "exploring environments".

Meaning what, exactly? Let's take 3 games - BG, Fallout, and Avernum (exploration-heavy). In BG you explore painted backgrounds, looking for chests and hidden caches to click on. In Fallout and Avernum you run around the maps looking for people to talk to. You don't explore environment. You reveal maps.

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...

First, it's not entirely correct and people miss quest options all the time (I know that because I have to explain what they missed). Second, what's there to figure out in, say, Fallout?

For example, in Fallout, the player may notice that the wall in the radscoprpion cave is weak and use dynamite if he has any, sealing the cave. In AoD, such an option would be hidden until you pass your Per check. In Fallout, you can decide how to free Tandi - pay, sneak, fight, etc. None of the options requires figuring out and that's one of the best examples. RPGs aren't adventure games. There is very little to figure out there, especially in isometric games, so let's not pretend that we dropped a key aspect there.

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.

What's with some people complaining by "arbitrary" skill checks? Is it RPG Codex or adventurecodex?

I'm sorry if i misunderstood and i'm sorry i didn't read the whole topic, and i don't intend to criticize AoD by this since i have no real idea how th

Fallout's typical cursor switching to "examine" is all adventure. And i believe the game was structured on a threeway situation problems solver.

You could resort to fist, to skills or to little tricks that had neither.
Example: two sides, one power generator. You can kill a side, you can use science on generator, or you could see a message pop up in the text window "you see a guy playing with a weird gizmo". So just by speaking to him you'd take it, possibly you'd trade it with another item, and just used it on the generator to shut the thing off without skills or brawn.

How is that not a puzzle from adventures?

Same goes with Deus Ex. You need to inspect a pc, you hack it or you explore to find in the near painting the code. Warren Spector knew about adventures when he put those little puzzles. He thought i give you ALL the choices. And that's why i CAN play RPG's, i'm just an adventurer who seriously hates maths and uses rulebooks against insomnia.

^That. Don't take it as critisism for AoD as from what i played so far i love the game and i believe it's almost perfect for what it wants to achieve, but at the same time is very different from Fallout .
Codex favorite games ALWAYS had a heavy dose of Adventure elements. PS:T and Fallout were prime examples of this (i always felt Fallout was even more adventure-like than PS:T), and given that you like those games i don't get the sudden dismissal of Adventure elements in RPGs.
Again, i don't say AoD needs these elements, but i can see where some of the complaints come from.

 

[FeelTheRads]

i don't get the sudden dismissal of Adventure elements in RPGs.

You should have noticed that VD suddenly dismisses everything that didn't make it into his game. Like he believes that he distilled the perfect RPG formula.. but wait, if you don't like it means it's not for you. In other words, his game can't be criticized.

 

[Vault Dweller]

First, there is a reason why some RPG aspects didn't make it into the game. I didn't think much of them before and I don't think much of them now. There is no 'suddenly' there. Second, I've never made any claims that AoD is perfect and beyond criticism. In fact, I said many times that it's far from perfect, has many flaws, and will surely rub many people the wrong way because we took too many liberties with the established design.