Age of Decadence Reviews

[Goral]

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is amazing. Bring on the expansions, CD Projekt RED. I'm ready.

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a surprisingly relaxing pastime, and there's a lot of it. Played one or two hours a day, it can last for a very, very long time.

For now, I'll enjoy Risen 3 for what it is: A decent game with very, very rough edges.

Like its stylized landscapes, The Banner Saga is capable of evoking a lot with a simple brushstroke, enough not to feel strangled by its short length and mechanically narrow focus. And while, unfortunately, the precision of the art isn't matched by a similar precision of design, it's still a commendable first effort, and a game well worth experiencing.

And now AoD:

But its praiseworthy elements don't quite work together in concert and the game ends up feeling schizophrenic as a result.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't quite work.

:D :D :D

And this is what he wrote on IT forum 2 years ago:

I know I've been hyper-critical of Vince's (understandable) OCDness with system and content design, but I'm still pretty giddy when I see updates like these. This game is definitely shaping up to be unique and has a strong personality despite not being pixel art nor a side-scroller (not that *good* side-scrollers are easy to design, but that's something for another day). I'm still p. glad I pre-ordered.

 

[Goral]

Review in Italian:
http://multiplayer.it/recensioni/158031-the-age-of-decadence-gioco-di-ruolo-puro.html

 

[Bubbles]

Review in Italian:
http://multiplayer.it/recensioni/158031-the-age-of-decadence-gioco-di-ruolo-puro.html

8.9 out of 10 or out of 100?

 

[Goral]

8.9 out of 10 or out of 100?

Out of 10, you can see the scale when you vote yourself.

 

[Bubbles]

And now AoD:

:D :D :D

Yeah, it really is one of the harshest reviews ever published on Gamebanshee. Even the DA:I review, which is quite negative, still has that "actually quite fun, much like Kingdoms of Amalur" stinger you quoted from. Either the reviewer really violently disliked the experience of playing AoD, or it has something to do with his history on the ITS forums.

 

[hell bovine]

Eh, after finishing my merchant playthrough I have to agree with the following:

"It's a game that kills as many characters as a roguelike but lacks the thrills of a new playthrough that are embedded in the very DNA of those games. Every single scenario, every single interaction was handcrafted by a developer. As a result, often the challenge lies not in understanding the gameplay systems but in learning the developers' logic and the content of the game. Making a new character just to have enough points to pass a skill check isn't really an interesting experience, just a tedious one."

Even though it wasn't as much as trying to figure out what the developers wanted, but the character design in itself, that made it such a boring experience towards the end.

AoD makes a really good first impression: the first town was done really well, you are just figuring the ropes and you have a new and shiny (brownish) world to explore. I actually gave my weakling merchant some combat skills figuring she might take on some of the weaker opponents; no she couldn't, and that was amusing to watch. Because of that, however, I've decided to go all talking skills, thinking if she can't fight, then obviously she needs to become better at chatting people up. Unfortunately, that took all the challenge out of the game. And this is bad character design.

I seriously doubt that giving your character 6+ skills in swords & shield will make him a slaying machine. But replace that with persuasion and streetwise (and some minor other skills, but you've got plenty of points to distibute) and that was the experience with my sweet-talking merchant. After arriving at the second city, she got her missions, talked to the people in question, passed her persuasion checks and congrats - you've succeeded! Rinse, repeat. Everyone seems to be easily convinced by a single conversation with a no-name upstart merchant. Really? Where is the challenge in that?

History shows that the sort of political power games the merchant guild is playing are dangerous and deadly. Neither is the case in AoD, however.
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." N. Machiavelli.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If we make it dangerous and deadly, your character will die, plain and simple. In general, playing a merchant is the easy mode. It's there for story-telling reasons and presenting events from a different perspective.

 

[Rostere]

Eh, after finishing my merchant playthrough I have to agree with the following:

"It's a game that kills as many characters as a roguelike but lacks the thrills of a new playthrough that are embedded in the very DNA of those games. Every single scenario, every single interaction was handcrafted by a developer. As a result, often the challenge lies not in understanding the gameplay systems but in learning the developers' logic and the content of the game. Making a new character just to have enough points to pass a skill check isn't really an interesting experience, just a tedious one."

Even though it wasn't as much as trying to figure out what the developers wanted, but the character design in itself, that made it such a boring experience towards the end.

AoD makes a really good first impression: the first town was done really well, you are just figuring the ropes and you have a new and shiny (brownish) world to explore. I actually gave my weakling merchant some combat skills figuring she might take on some of the weaker opponents; no she couldn't, and that was amusing to watch. Because of that, however, I've decided to go all talking skills, thinking if she can't fight, then obviously she needs to become better at chatting people up. Unfortunately, that took all the challenge out of the game. And this is bad character design.

I seriously doubt that giving your character 6+ skills in swords & shield will make him a slaying machine. But replace that with persuasion and streetwise (and some minor other skills, but you've got plenty of points to distibute) and that was the experience with my sweet-talking merchant. After arriving at the second city, she got her missions, talked to the people in question, passed her persuasion checks and congrats - you've succeeded! Rinse, repeat. Everyone seems to be easily convinced by a single conversation with a no-name upstart merchant. Really? Where is the challenge in that?

History shows that the sort of political power games the merchant guild is playing are dangerous and deadly. Neither is the case in AoD, however.
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." N. Machiavelli.

You have to think about game rewards. Certain character builds lock off certain rewards. You don't want to just "beat the game". If you can't fight at all, there is a lot you will never see. To the degree you can actually make a character which can both fight and talk, you will sometimes reap twice the rewards and have multiple paths available to you. IMO there should be slightly more challenges specifically meant for those builds - optional fights which are not very tough (for a fighting character, but which might be tough for a talker) but are thresholded by "people skills". Playing as a Praetor mixing skills was IMO the hardest I've done in AoD.

It's a fact that a talky character make the game a "choose you own adventure book", a fighty character makes it a challenging turn-based combat game - and these experiences should be very different! It's also wrong that playing a talky character is trivial. You will have to make several reloads as you try out branches which end with too difficult skillchecks. Obviously going 100% all-in for one approach and never trying anything else is the easiest way, but that also holds true for combat. It's also not true that going for a "talky" path does not require player skill. If we take sneaking in to meet Antidas as an example, you need to find a way which is tailored to your specific array of skills. This is obviously a place where a smart player can get by fast, but a dumb player is forced to reload again and again.

 

[Shadenuat]

Eh, I like when game creates hybrid-favored situations a lot more than all-or-nothing ones, like 40 Thieves 2d Maadoran quest. Straight fight with bros/less bross/different positioning, or hire extra muscle, or that AND sneak + traps (meaning combat difficulty actually scales up or down), or talk them out of attacking you - this is more fun than Merchant checks.

The funny thing about Merchant playthrough is that you seem to do anything BUT what merchants do. Don't buy & sell or organise caravans or grow and protect your business. You don't even end up that rich - fighter character would end up richier.
It's more like every quest for Merchant is a full blown massive political play / coup d'etat.

I think an additional line of side quests about growing your business and serving your interests while trying to protect them from your masters who try to keep you in check and send you on all those political missions would be a good addition to Merchant story. And make some of the missions more suicidal so player would feel that he is more of an dispensible asset unless he creates his own future for himself.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The funny thing about Merchant playthrough is that you seem to do anything BUT what merchants do. Don't buy & sell or organise caravans or grow and protect your business. You don't even end up that rich - fighter character would end up richier. It's more like every quest for Merchant is a full blown massive political play / coup d'etat.

The Commercium isn't a place where merry merchants exchange useful tips but an organization with political aspirations (see the House of Medici for analogies: from money to lending to the most powerful bank to dukedom and 4 popes). You are an employee. Imagine for a moment that you're an employee working for a major bank. Should you end up being rich after a few years?

 

[Shadenuat]

The Commercium isn't a place where merry merchants exchange useful tips but an organization with political aspirations (see the House of Medici for analogies: from money to lending to the most powerful bank to dukedom and 4 popes). You are an employee. Imagine for a moment that you're an employee working for a major bank. Should you end up being rich after a few years?

I am less concerned about lore and more about providing more player agency in the game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your agency is being able to make choices that affect the world, no?

 

[Tigranes]

I seriously doubt that giving your character 6+ skills in swords & shield will make him a slaying machine.

It does. I agree about the general point and the quote about roguelikes, but facts are facts, too.

BTW I have no idea why not getting filthy rich is a source of angst for some people, it's like getting butthurt that your Science guy in Fallout doesn't do any research or your D&D game cleric never goes to church. Firstly, 'merchant' in AOD means being a member of a Commercium, which works in a logical way and is different from, I don't know, a bloody shopkeeper or a Wall Street banker (although, notably, not so different from something like the East India Company). Secondly, why is getting super rich or buying & selling caravans suddenly an imperative for an RPG?

 

[Shadenuat]

Your agency is being able to make choices that affect the world, no?

Affect my own character too, what he does and how he does it, but most importantly what my character wants.
In that sense, it doesn't matter much what role I pick exactly for myself and what expectations I have for that role - I could have picked any other backstory but Merchant, be it Mercenary, Drifter or Loremaster, pumped up appropriate skills and voila - I'm doing same thing in Commercium as a character with a background for Commercium.

Why is getting super rich or buying & selling caravans suddenly an imperative for an RPG?

Well doesn't AoD strike you as a game designed in a way where characters actually do act in their roles unlike others where cleric is just another fancy word for a spellcaster with heals&buffs?

So when a beginner-murderhobo has 4x times gold because he doesn't actually need any gold because he can just craft weapons and armor and go murderhoboing; but merchant has to pay 1000 gold (which, by the way, judging by economy system in the game and prices, is like a nigger with knife asking you for 10.000$ to cross a street to bus stop) to go through a group of other murderhobos instead of doing something else or hiring mercenaries to kill murderhobos for him, I find it strange.

I expect to play the strengths of a role I picked for my character in the game in an appropriate manner.

For example, if you check the Thief background, there is really some work done there in Teron & Maadoran that makes you feel that your character swims in places where other characters get mugged or lost like fish in the water - NPCs react to you differently, some people fear you, you can ask guild master for a favor to resolve a side quest, freely move around location in Maadoran where other characters get harassed, etc.
Not every background or quest line is actually written in that sort of immersive way.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

The Commercium isn't a place where merry merchants exchange useful tips but an organization with political aspirations (see the House of Medici for analogies: from money to lending to the most powerful bank to dukedom and 4 popes). You are an employee. Imagine for a moment that you're an employee working for a major bank. Should you end up being rich after a few years?

I am an employee that leads crucial negotiations that can determine future of entire organization.

So yeah, I kind of expect to end up with more than a handshake and a donut.

Both Merchant and Praetor having poor monetary gains throughout the game, just doesn't feel right. Not that I actually need the money for gameplay reasons, mind. Its just a bit of lore breaking.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Yes, that was also my assumption. Some of the things you learn just don't make any sense as "common knowledge", like the intro for Carrinas that quotes the exact orders he received from his superior. But imagining it as an omniscient narrator sharing information works perfectly fine for me.

Exactly, the intro to Cassius with details about his life is another example that works well.

 

[Lord Andre]

I've thought long and hard about this and here is my review:

AoD is as good as Fallout 1.

Edit: Someone had to say it...

 

[Aenra]

While i get VD's thinking (had the same convo with Elhoim a few days ago), i still think ITS needs pay more attention to comments such as hell bovine 's

Whether one should include an "easy mode" or not is a obviously subjective. I would dare say however the fact still remains that AoD's easy mode, aka talker builds, is way overdone. I can see how that came to be (trying to think of how to make it harder without being too obvious and failing), but that doesn't change the fact it's glaringly OP. Yes, you do miss a lot without fighting skills but when the game is a stroll in the park, does it really matter?

In regard to Tigrane's commenting..where did you see even a mention of getting wealthy or not? I don't understand your reply to his post tbh

 

[Vault Dweller]

We've been through this before.

Combat is an active aspect. If you know what you're doing, you can do more with less (balanced stats, lower skills, even go without a defense skill). Thus the challenge can remain high. Dialogues are a passive aspect. You either have the right skill/reputation/deeds or you don't. We raise the checks, we raise the metagaming aspect, forcing you to play highly specialized non-combat characters with 2-3 skills.

If anything, a pure talker path is a supplement to all the other playthroughs, not the main meal.

 

[Tigranes]

Shadenuat I get you better now, and that makes sense. I don't mind the role of the Commercium or the role of 'merchant-negotiator-problemsolver' you end up playing, but as you say, it's true that the world seems to react to your being a thief in more interesting ways. You never really feel like a powerful agent of the Commercium except in specific instances within its questline (where, of course, it's a matter of making 1 skill check and it's over).

Bit of a tangent on that note, I'd have preferred that the more difficult talking checks were staggered with actual 'listening tests' like the Lorenza dialogue - where it's not just Persuasion 8 letting you press a button, it's a matter of doing your research/reading, trying to figure out what pushes the buttons on this character, and then reacting to that. Done poorly it becomes a stupid reading comprehension test, done well, like I think Lorenza's was, and it's a good way to make the talkie playthrough not so click-click. Vault Dweller was Lorenza an example of something you considered doing more of, or was she for some reason an exception?

Aenra I was responding to his entire posts, but latching on to the idea that 'you don't even get very rich' as an example. In any case, I think his point as clarified later is a valid one, as I write above.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller was Lorenza an example of something you considered doing more of, or was she for some reason an exception?

Tried something different with her and the praetor investigating Senna's murder if you kill him for Lorenza. Wish we could do more of it, will definitely do more in the colony ship game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

From the comments to GameBanshee review:

The game is broken because:

"This is clearly a skills-based game, and yet it often defaults to inscrutable attribute checks for quests. IMO that's broken, it's just pig-headed stupidity to adhere to attribute checks for anything when skills are where character development occurs. It's basically saying: our character system is skills-based, except when it isn't - oh, and you won't know when that is without a lot of meta-gaming."

It seems that people are so used to the illusion many character systems provide that any attempt to make stats and skills matter (beyond making you more awesome in combat) rubs them the wrong way and make them think that something is broken here.

 

[cherry blossom]

What is with the whining over the character introductions? Put yourself in any period of time, including the present, take any semi-public figure and you would immediately know a similar blurb of information about that character without actively pursuing any knowledge, for good or ill.

"Hillary Clinton has been involved with politics for almost two decades, even before she received spotlights -and sympathies- when her husband, then the President of the United States, made the headlines with a scandalous extramarital affair. Since then, she was elected a Senator twice, ran for presidency and she still managed to secure her position as the Secretary of State when she lost the presidential race to her rival. Today, she continues to be an important political figure and is one of the strongest presidential candidates with aspirations of what the future should look like. The exact nature of the factors behind her steady climb aside, her openness to political influence in exchange of financial endorsements has been a more reliable topic for prospective benefactors following the heavy trail of deficits and debts her campaigns leave behind."​

The funny thing about Merchant playthrough is that you seem to do anything BUT what merchants do. Don't buy & sell or organise caravans or grow and protect your business.

That's a very Disney-oriented perspective. Business is all politics and the more twisted and convoluted the bigger it gets unless you're running a small-scale operation. Stuff like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (which is a nightmare happening on a scale beyond what transpires in AoD) don't just casually happen while you buy, sell, grow and protect your business, for instance. Otherwise, you don't need a merchants guild with a dedicated quest-line for the kind of experience you suggest, short of making Merchant Tycoon.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the story of Antonius Messalla in the game:

Spoiler

"Master Messalla had declined the offer to become one of the guildmasters of the Commercium. All of a sudden, nobody was buying his goods, the levies went up, and his caravans were attacked the moment they left towns. In the end, he lost most of his goods, as well as his people. He had to sell the company for next to nothing"

In the world of AoD, you don't get to do that kind of stuff and go anywhere with it in a meaningful capacity, Commercium won't allow it. You either end up getting involved with their politics or end up broke, most likely in a grave.

A lot of the complaints about the game seems to come from a fundamental rejection of what the game actually is versus unmet expectations rather than actual shortcomings. And in case you haven't noticed, AoD isn't an open-world sandbox type of game where you can play even a ninja cartographer, either.

 

[valcik]

It seems that people are so used to the illusion many character systems provide that any attempt to make stats and skills matter (beyond making you more awesome in combat) rubs them the wrong way and make them think that something is broken here.

That's the most valuable thing in this game IMO - the replay value. My excitement for next playthrough grows greatly with every single stat check failed. Personally, I'd prefer to have those failed checks hidden (i.e. without noting which attribute was low) for even more surprising future playthroughs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What is with the whining over the character introductions? Put yourself in any period of time, including the present, take any semi-public figure and you would immediately know a similar blurb of information about that character without actively pursuing any knowledge, for good or ill.

"Hillary Clinton has been involved with politics for almost two decades, even before she received spotlights -and sympathies- when her husband, then the President of the United States, made the headlines with a scandalous extramarital affair. Since then, she was elected a Senator twice, ran for presidency and she still managed to secure her position as the Secretary of State when she lost the presidential race to her rival. Today, she continues to be an important political figure and is one of the strongest presidential candidates with aspirations of what the future should look like. The exact nature of the factors behind her steady climb aside, her openness to political influence in exchange of financial endorsements has been a more reliable topic for prospective benefactors following the heavy trail of deficits and debts her campaigns leave behind."​

Pretty much.