Age of Decadence Reviews

Also people cannot differentiate between salves and potions.

 

How do we design a tutorial simple enough for someone like that? It's impossible.

 

He still gave AoD 6.5 out of 10 though. That's quite a generous score for AoD.

 

Recent GOG reviews:

 

Drop the N-Bombs Exterminate them all.

 

I think we have enough data to identify a pattern: AoD is extremely unpopular among people who are compelled to voice an opinion despite not knowing what they're talking about.

 

Pretty accurate. There is little payoff for investing SP into secondary skills. There are also invisible hard gates on content that are not tied to stats.

 

HeathGCF said:

1/5

This review actually hits the mark about AoD, albeit I wouldn't give it 1/5, I would give it a generous 3/5 (it's an indie game made in Torque after all).

 

It's not accurate, you can create a very different assassin/loremaster/etc. (there are dozens viable builds, just check this thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/230070/discussions/0/490123197946992902/ ) and succeed. Going "specific way" usually lets you see most assassin/loremaster/etc/ content but if you stray off the beaten path you might see even more (or less) and still succeed (even if you fail some of the quests, finishing game will still be possible). What's more, ALL quests can be done in more than 2 ways and that means that there's often a way which doesn't require you to fight. And it should be obvious that creating an assassin with assassin-like skills will be more optimal than assassin with skills more fitting to a merchant. The alternative is what Bethesda does, i.e. no matter what you choose you're awesome and you can't fail. So yeah, if someone prefers Bethesda way he won't like AoD (but that's what demo is for).

Does Fallout 1 (my favourite game along with Sacrifice and AoD) have more freedom in creating your character for example? I would argue that no because you end up using the same skills with practically every build (sometimes in different proportions but usually not because there are only few skills worth investing in). There are some slight differences here and there, e.g. when you play as a dumb character but they're not that great (dumb character is actually rather disappointing because you lose most of the interesting stuff unless you cheese by using mentats, it's only a fanservice for fans who have finished Fallout dozens of times).
It makes improving your character easier though and it's much easier to become a demi-god here that can wipe out every being in Fallout world and it's super fun but what AoD does is enjoyable too IMO and a nice change.

Jazz_
It doesn't "hit the mark", see above.

 

Oh no!

Ban all "invisible hard gates on content" unless they're tied to stats. Then it's okay.

 

One problem is that the missed opportunities in the form of hidden skill/stat checks have prerequisites to appear – they are not like the skill checks in W2, which show you every option you are missing. That’s what is more misleading about AoD. You can easily ignore tens of hours of content in one single segment of the game, just because the game is not spoon-feeding you with content. The other problem is that the game is harder than most cRPGs. This makes most players risk averse and skeptics about the possibilities of experimentation and different builds. Hell, I saw good players complaining that some awesome builds were impossible because they were struggling in some parts. For all these reasons, AoD can be a tough sell, but the reward for someone who won’t feel discouraged is immense.

 

It has hard gates on content based on the perception of the player, not the character.

 

They should have gated the arena in some way, thats for sure.

 

Without hard gates on content, the inevitable result is level scaled content. Bah~ So we know where the reviewer stand.

 

morons, morons, morons...

 

This is what happens when you gift a game to someone who's not game's target: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197992641369/recommended/230070/

Surprise surprise, Fallout 4 and Skyrim are games he spend most time playing (88 and 56 hours respectively compared to 4 hours in AoD, lol).

I blame MediantSamuel and the like.

 

Wut, why me?

 

I'm referring to your generosity in giving keys away but I'm half-joking.

 

Those seem like legitimate criticisms to me, actually.

I try to warn new players about the consequences of moving from one city to the next because it's an unconventional way of doing things and if no one tells them they won't understand.

 

Old One

The warning is loud and clear and it's logical you can't finish bandit's quest (it's a ransom situation, they wouldn't wait forever), same goes for Auerlian Outpost who were waiting on backup. The guy must have tried to do these two locations earlier but failed and decided to leave them for later but obviously he didn't bother to read with comprehension. Anyway, a single reload would be easy enough, he could also leave these quests alone if he had gone far but seeing he played only 4 hours it's obvious that he only spent some time in Teron and didn't even finish all the quests.

Well, this one is more valid I guess but the warning is also there and "believing we're alone" is naive. You're next to some house so its residents might have seen you for example (or passersby), you're also fighting for quite some time (and even if you're playing as assassin you leave alone a witness - the thief) so...
There is a point to this and that is - always expect the worst in AoD and don't assume that your opportunism is without risks. All Teron quests give you a taste of what you can expect later on but at the same time it's so quick to do them all (if you skip the reading) that I really don't see a problem here. In Fallout 1 there were quests like these too, e.g. negotiation quest, if you would step in without making a save earlier you could rage quit like this retard/loser. Seriously, gamers nowadays can't accept failure AND won't bother to reload because that's not how it works in Fallout 4 or Skyrim. WTF?

 

Modern education.

 

I do think the 'make one choice (build) at the start, follow the consequential path for that choice the rest of the game' is a legitimate, though exaggerated, criticism. There are a lot of different 'sub-builds', where you can open up different paths and gameplay by developing secondary skills. You can tell that it was a late adjustment though, after people made that criticism regarding the demo. Still, it's clear they made a very large effort to improve that aspect, and continued to add more content for hybrid builds throughout the post release patches.

I'm not convinced that it's POSSIBLE to handle 'letting players make strategic choices outside the character build screen' AND 'satisfying difficulty that makes your build choices matter' well in the one game. FO needed to be easy (though not as easy as it is) in order to create a gamestyle where the same build has numerous ways of approaching each challenge, as it means that there have to be options the player can successfully take using their 3rd or 4th highest skills, not just the ones they've specialised in. It's a trade off, and they're both legitimate styles of game - there's no shortage of people who enjoy both Fallout AND AoD.

I do think the jack of all trades, master of none, is wrongly maligned. It's never been implemented well, but there's no reason it can't be even in an AoD type game. Instead of making them 'the character that can do everything, because the game is so easy', think of them as the hustlers and scrappers of the game world. It should be a tough but satisfying choice - one where you've got to be constantly hustling, always looking for easy marks, and where missing an opportunity means death. A character that needs to make smart choices about who to fight, like the low-status guy in jail who needs enough smarts to identify which new prisoner they can publicly beat up, so that the tough prisoners don't make him their bitch. Not great at making money, but they need to take the deals they CAN get, because they don't have the speechcraft to talk past the guard without a bribe. But they also need to pick when a guard IS gullible enough to be fooled by a mediocre conman like him, or else they'll run out of cash real quick.

If would be harder for the player than any specialist build, but that can be balanced by the game recognising them for what they are - a survivor. In an urban 'real world' ghetto setting, they're the guy who's never going to rule the streets, get rich or become a cop. But by avoiding gang trouble, making a bit of cash by selling cheap handguns to the young gang wannabes, knowing to turn down the chance to make big money by selling them automatic rifles (because that would give the opposing gang a motivation to kill him), having enough stealth to hide his cash so that he only gets robbed occasionally, knowing not to track down the thieves when he does get robbed ('hey man, I don't want no trouble '), keeping out of trouble with the cops by giving them occasional info but knowing when to keep his mouth shut so he doesn't get labelled a snitch.... and he just might outlive the lot of them. Gangs and mob bosses rise and fall, and he just keeps on hustling.

 

We made a lot of changes since the demo but this aspect was in from day one.

Naturally, your build determines a lot (as it should) but the multiple solutions, which was the design foundation, ensure that there is more than one way of doing things, which is what makes different builds possible. Then you have different choices which ensure that not only you can handle the same thing in different ways but you can also make very different decisions and unlock different branches. For example, you can convince Antidas to kill the rest of the guards or force Mercato to join Antidas. Different skills required. As a thief, you can steal the mandate, redirect the shipment, steal the cargo and disappear. Or you can ambush the shipment highwaymen style. All these things were in the demo and weren't added later.

 

And this my friend, is to remind you that GOG is not the grognard heaven people idealize.

That's why I never do that.

Retard said: "But Bioware and Bethesda would never do that!"

 

Interesting to know. It does lend further support to the suspicion that there is a necessary trade-off between the FO and AoD methods of C&C. Again, I think they're both valid styles - variety in game design is a good thing, and I'd rather play a series of crpgs with different design philosophies, then to have them all follow my 'favourite' style (variety is a benefit in itself).

I do think that the AoD style is far better suited for making jack-of-all-trades interesting, in the 'hustler/survivor' sense described in my previous post. However, it also seems like the kind of thing that would demand an unjustifiable allocation of resources (requiring far more time than on other builds, for a difficult option that few players will pursue, and which many will criticise as broken/unplayable, by not realising that the 'path' for that build is that they need to scrap for every opportunity within their means, and where overambition is painfully tempting but also certain death).