Age of Decadence Reviews

[t]

AoD does look worse than BG1. So what?

 

[croitav]

I will quote myself from dead state thread:

Two things entertains me in a "massive car crash that drags a crowd to look at the disaster" way concerning these new 3D, NWN look-alike cRPGs that are coming out of Kickstarters and the likes as part of the "cRPG revival" squad. The first is how they look (and many times play) disgustingly bad. I'm not a graphics whore by any means, I still consider hundreds of DOS and 80's games in general to be very pretty, but this is just shit. JA2 for instance is a hundred times more beautiful and interesting to look at. Some games manage to be very appealing just through a single screenshot that leaves your mouth watering with desire to play it, like the game magazines did when we were young. Perhaps thousands of new 2D assets ends being more expensive than this 3D piece of crap, but it's all their fault and their total lack of resources management that they can't pull it off. People did 2D games that looked better and had better visual presentation than this shit and AoD way back in the 80's. Camera rotation like this is, 99,99% of times, terribly worse than a static, well resolved angle that shows everything.

So yeah, bg1 looks better. Like 100000000000000 times better.

 

[Goral]

Whether it looks better or worse than a popamole game like Baldur's Gate is beside the point. The guy said:

I don't care much about cool awesome graphics, I still think Deus Ex is uncomparably superior to Deus Ex Mankind Divided; but these graphics are worse than Baldur's Gate 1

He also said:

The transition between different parts of the quests are a horrible idea, just a fade to black and you appear in another place, two lines of dialogs, another fade to black, then in another place; no continuity whatsoever

Most of these "transitions" are optional now but you have to be retarded to want to waste your time on pointless walking (so a Bethestard basically). And there is continuity and the plot is very consistent and logical but you need to know how to read to notice that. But the guy says that there is no continuity, lol.

And he said that the combat is atrocious when it's one of the strongest points of the game and one of the best combat systems in any RPG.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Perhaps thousands of new 2D assets ends being more expensive than this 3D piece of crap...

Perhaps?

For an indie studio 2D is simply not a viable option. Creating 3D assets is MUCH cheaper and much faster. As a bonus it gives you better customization, which is why 2D avatars tend to have 3 generic types of armor and basic weapons.

... but it's all their fault and their total lack of resources management that they can't pull it off. People did 2D games that looked better and had better visual presentation than this shit and AoD way back in the 80's.

Which "people"? Studios working with publishers (i.e. with proper resources and budgets)?

So yeah, bg1 looks better. Like 100000000000000 times better.

I'd be really surprised if five people working part-time on a shoestring budget managed to produce better visuals than sixty people with Interplay footing the bill.

 

[hivemind]

2d is hipster shit

low quality 3d is the comfiest thing in existence

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Well, duh, it would be strange if I found a retarded review helpful.

Why would you find any review helpful? Matter of fact, why do you even spend your time reading reviews, when you already played the game? Is VD paying you for downvoting critical reviews again?

 

[Goral]

Why do people read reviews of games they've played? Why does Codex PoE review have so many comments?

 

[MRY]

Sometimes I think there is a little bit of a disconnect between developers and players on issues like the graphics in AOD. If someone doesn't like the graphics, then a complaint about them -- even in comparison to AAA or AA titles -- strikes me as entirely legitimate. We get a fair amount of those with Primordia too. From an end-user standpoint, regardless of the relative budget sizes of Primordia and Whispered World, Primordia costs $2.50 on Steam right now and The Whispered World costs $1.99. AOD costs $7.50 and BGII:EE costs $6.79, even if their budgets were totally disproportionate. It's not insane to treat them as apples-to-apples comparisons from a user-preference standpoint.

What is insane, though, is when the negative reviews are framed as a "Why?" question, e.g., "Why would Primordia be so low resolution when Daedelic has shown you can make beautiful adventure games that look like Disney cartoons?" It seems reasonable to bitch about the product, but the pipeline is what it is. If anything, the mystery with AOD isn't why the graphics aren't POE level, but why the graphics aren't much worse and why the portraits are so damned good.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sometimes I think there is a little bit of a disconnect between developers and players on issues like the graphics in AOD. If someone doesn't like the graphics, then a complaint about them -- even in comparison to AAA or AA titles -- strikes me as entirely legitimate. We get a fair amount of those with Primordia too. From an end-user standpoint, regardless of the relative budget sizes of Primordia and Whispered World, Primordia costs $2.50 on Steam right now and The Whispered World costs $1.99. AOD costs $7.50 and BGII:EE costs $6.79, even if their budgets were totally disproportionate. It's not insane to treat them as apples-to-apples comparisons from a user-preference standpoint.

What is insane, though, is when the negative reviews are framed as a "Why?" question, e.g., "Why would Primordia be so low resolution when Daedelic has shown you can make beautiful adventure games that look like Disney cartoons?" It seems reasonable to bitch about the product, but the pipeline is what it is. If anything, the mystery with AOD isn't why the graphics aren't POE level, but why the graphics aren't much worse and why the portraits are so damned good.

I agree that the end-user shouldn't care (and I'm not using the team/budget thing as an excuse) but he should be aware, if for no other reason than to manage expectations. Plus I mentioned the budget in response to "... but it's all their fault and their total lack of resources management that they can't pull it off. People did 2D games that looked better and had better visual presentation than this shit and AoD way back in the 80's," which is a whole new ball game.

And while it's true that AoD costs more than BG2: EE, the price is a relatively minor factor because the two games couldn't be more different. So if all one cares about is the visuals, BG2 is a better game. For the record, BG2 is also a better game if one prefers RTwP, heroic fantasy, DnD, tons of monsters and spells, epic adventure, party-based, etc. If that's EXACTLY what you need, does it really matter if it costs 6.79 or twice as much? It's not like you have a lot of options if you prefer this type of games.

 

[MRY]

Yeah, I wasn't criticizing your point so much as riffing off it.

The quantity of options depends a bit on how you define "this type of game" and on what kind of player you're talking about. For example, I am endlessly surprised by the number of Primordia steam reviews that claim (and why should I doubt them?) that Primordia is their first point-and-click or even their first adventure game. How can this be? What would possess someone to play Primordia before [insert Lucas / Sierra title]. Through a certain lens, Primordia is one of a very small number of choices for classic-style adventure games today, and they're all cheap, and short, so why not play them all? But for a lot of players, I think they actually haven't played the majority of the classics, or even the contemporary games.

Applied to AOD, I would actually not be surprised if some non-trivial number of your players have never played Fallout, Arcanum, Dark Sun: Shattered Lands, Realms of Arkania, etc. -- in other words, there actually are probably a decent number of major-studio products in more or less the same niche, and as you expand outwards to Gold Box Games, PoE, TTON, Larian games, MOTB, etc., etc., there are even more. Even on the Codex, there are players who haven't played the classics. And outside the Codex, there are even more. It's easy to think that players come to AOD like wanderers across a vast desolate plain happy to drink from any watering hole, however muddy, but I actually think a good share of your players are choosing AOD even in fields of plenty.

Ultimately, AOD is unlike any other game -- that is true of most good RPGs, or even good adventure games. But at the level of approximation that players apply, I'm not surprised that some of them say, "I dunno, it's not as pretty as PoE, I'm going to play PoE instead," even though that is a little like saying that because a peach has a bruise on it, you're going to eat a falafel instead.

 

[Lurker King]

Why would you find any review helpful? Matter of fact, why do you even spend your time reading reviews, when you already played the game? Is VD paying you for downvoting critical reviews again?

Probably due to the same reason we keep discussing about PoE system ad nauseam. Because we are curious and like to sperge about these subjects, what else? If anything, it will satisfy our psychological curiosity in players' hypocritical way of thinking and priorities.

Sometimes I think there is a little bit of a disconnect between developers and players on issues like the graphics in AOD. If someone doesn't like the graphics, then a complaint about them -- even in comparison to AAA or AA titles -- strikes me as entirely legitimate.

But is not legitimate to state that graphics are not important and then say that the game is bad due to poor graphics. It`s hypocritical. Besides, it is a sign of shallowness to complaint about AoD graphics. You could complain about the graphics of let's say, Plato, PtD or Dungeon, but this? The game looks fine and every player used to BG should feel at home because it has some degree of artistic care and detail - the usual complaints about NWN2 graphics also sound like a prejudiced meme that should be put to sleep. Gee, you will find players inside the Codex who made reviews and didn't play the dam game because of graphics! That's a sign of decline if I ever saw one.

 

[MRY]

The backwards ` is clearly a dog whistle to start an AOD mob uprising. :D

 

[AbounI]

Insert Bouh in the Arena, and AoD will definitly be better than BG2.

 

[huskarls]

Crafting was one of the only things underrail did bad, and it was my game of the year over AoD. All of the non-combat/non crafting skills are useless because there is never a better weapon you can steal or find behind a locked door or buy with special skill checks. Most of the itemization was also +5 swords compared to +2 swords loot, very little was unique items like the taser or the stealth generator field. The only unique field, biology, was balanced behind unfun fishing mechanics to make using special potions every fight unlikely, which I thought was poorly done compared to AoD where special potions would require limited ingredients that could also function as loot. It seems like a pointless question since you already have the crafting/exploration balance correct, but I suppose I would emphasize unique craftables over being better in raw stats so you feel like you are playing a alchemist/gadgeteer rather than merely having higher numbers

 

[Goral]

Crafting was one of the only things underrail did bad

No:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...s-age-of-decadence.106415/page-3#post-4341927 (worse in combat department)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...awakens-released.105387/page-151#post-4319112 (much worse endgame)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...he-age-of-decadence.97976/page-6#post-3884255 (worse in the graphics department)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/toee-or-aod-or-ur.105900/page-2#post-4293735 (much worse everything else)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...s-age-of-decadence.106415/page-5#post-4343979 (it has no purpose hence it's often being compared to MMOs)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-at-rps-and-its-negative.115343/#post-5122302

The only thing UR is better at is exploration.

 

[TheWorld]

Finished both a mercenary and merchant playthrough (even though I have reloaded midway several times to try different paths). Really great, one of the best games I have played in the last years. Both games where completely different, full of choices and possibilities. The combat system is really fun. I focused on hammers and I am curious to see how do the tactics change with different weapons. I was trying to play my character as a decent guy who was trying to survive, and killed only when he had too. The problem is that power corrupts... after I became a killing machine it was more "oh you don't agree? Sbam!".

I don't get all the complaints about the difficulty of the game. Is the difficulty much easier now that the game has been patched many times then before? Sure, some of the fights are hard, and I couldn't win the ending combat, but in general you always have a way of overcoming things if you come equipped and think it through.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

why the portraits are so damned good.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't get all the complaints about the difficulty of the game. Is the difficulty much easier now that the game has been patched many times then before? Sure, some of the fights are hard, and I couldn't win the ending combat, but in general you always have a way of overcoming things if you come equipped and think it through.

That's a pretty big if for some players.

 

[Andkat]

My biggest complaint with AoD was the inanity of playing a ranged character. I wound up benny hill kiting mobs of enemies, lapping the entire level over and over; in Maadoran it was especially egregious running past the same idling guard 3 times while being chased by a rabid mob of religious fanatics, and in general I felt like I was playing some kind of absurdist parody of a turn based tactical game. It would've been a bit more sensible in that regard if the game had been designed around the premise of having at least ~2 weapon skills, so that characters would typically have a large weapon with reach and a small weapon, or a ranged weapon (with AP costs being such that kiting wouldn't be a valid strategy except vs. crippled or very heavily armored opponents, but with better ranges/accuracy for ranged weapons) and a medium weapon, or a weapon specialized at high vs. low armor, etc., in addition to adding greatly to replayability and associated build choices for pure combat (beyond 'when do I invest in alchemy/crafting').

 

[Tigranes]

If you're running marathon laps around the entire map, at some point you should ask yourself why you're doing this to yourself

The half-dozen ranged characters I played never did that once

 

[Darth Roxor]

My biggest complaint with AoD was the inanity of playing a ranged character. I wound up benny hill kiting mobs of enemies, lapping the entire level over and over; in Maadoran it was especially egregious running past the same idling guard 3 times while being chased by a rabid mob of religious fanatics, and in general I felt like I was playing some kind of absurdist parody of a turn based tactical game.

i thought it was funny

by far the most hilarious moments concerning that were when you were about to close the lap and then it turned out that in front of you was an impenetrable wall of squares with a single tree stuck in the middle

 

[Zer0wing]

Right, the funniest combat so far is Mehrab encounter, if you're not a totally dedicated to be a combat character, your best bet is to hide between bums sitting by bonfire. In fact, no one gives a shit if there's a combat inside a city, which is pretty hilarious by itself.

 

[Parabalus]

My biggest complaint with AoD was the inanity of playing a ranged character. I wound up benny hill kiting mobs of enemies, lapping the entire level over and over; in Maadoran it was especially egregious running past the same idling guard 3 times while being chased by a rabid mob of religious fanatics, and in general I felt like I was playing some kind of absurdist parody of a turn based tactical game. It would've been a bit more sensible in that regard if the game had been designed around the premise of having at least ~2 weapon skills, so that characters would typically have a large weapon with reach and a small weapon, or a ranged weapon (with AP costs being such that kiting wouldn't be a valid strategy except vs. crippled or very heavily armored opponents, but with better ranges/accuracy for ranged weapons) and a medium weapon, or a weapon specialized at high vs. low armor, etc., in addition to adding greatly to replayability and associated build choices for pure combat (beyond 'when do I invest in alchemy/crafting').

My experience was absurd on the other end, ranged ended up being use 2 AP to move, shoot, repeat - basically like melee. That religious mob was stand still and spam barbed multishot.

Right, the funniest combat so far is Mehrab encounter, if you're not a totally dedicated to be a combat character, your best bet is to hide between bums sitting by bonfire. In fact, no one gives a shit if there's a combat inside a city, which is pretty hilarious by itself.

You can lure both Mehrab and the tougher Hermon to the Militades house where they have to come at you 1 by 1, they follow you through half the city heh.

 

[Black Angel]

You can lure both Mehrab and the tougher Hermon to the Militades house where they have to come at you 1 by 1, they follow you through half the city heh.

You don't have to go that far. Each fight have their own respective choke point, although with Hermon's case you would have to deal with ranged attacks anyway.

 

[Parabalus]

You don't have to go that far. Each fight have their own respective choke point, although with Hermon's case you would have to deal with ranged attacks anyway.

Militades house blocks all ranged attacks, important when you have no def skills. Didn't find a better choke for Hermon myself, all others I tried had 2-3 surround and they can still shoot at you, which one did you mean?