Review GOG Plays The Age of Decadence

[Vault Dweller]

One difficulty mode - Hard.

 

[Gakkone]

Combat skills = hard mode
Speech skills = easy mode

 

[Vault Dweller]

Apples and oranges. Combat is a game in itself. It's hard but the system gives you plenty of tools to even the odds. Thus noobs suffer, while more experienced players can ironman it. Dialogue checks are a passive aspect. It's about making decisions and branching out the story rather than beating the check itself. If we raise the checks, we'll increase the meta-gaming aspect and force people to map out the check values.

 

[Gakkone]

Just to be clear I'm not complaining; I love how lethal the combat is and dialogue checks our about something else than pure challenge like you mentioned. But progressing as a speech oriented character really is much easier.

 

[Excidium]

I wouldn't call the speech route easy, unless you're metagaming skill points really hard.

 

[Commissar Draco]

What Heuheuheu said You have to think twice in which of many diplomat skills to invest the few XP you get and always choose your next words with extreme care cause for diplomat combat is death sentence and besides the Codex of all places should be delighted to play the game where senseless murder is not the easier way. More henchmen based on Charisma/skills/wealth for Praetor would be nice though.

 

[JarlFrank]

Also, sometimes pure speech might not get you through everything, you might need some lore too...

 

[Mrowak]

Apples and oranges. Combat is a game in itself. It's hard but the system gives you plenty of tools to even the odds. Thus noobs suffer, while more experienced players can ironman it.

I don't believe it. Given my experience of the demo methinks there's too much stat dependence or and dice rolling to ironman it - at least on your first playthrough... Of course if you have prior experience with the game and you know exactly when you will enter into unwinnable fights with the given build it would be achieveable. But that's metagaming, so meh...

Dialogue checks are a passive aspect. It's about making decisions and branching out the story rather than beating the check itself. If we raise the checks, we'll increase the meta-gaming aspect and force people to map out the check values.

Good thing you have realised it. Bad that this aspect still remains a huge part of the game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Apples and oranges. Combat is a game in itself. It's hard but the system gives you plenty of tools to even the odds. Thus noobs suffer, while more experienced players can ironman it.

I don't believe it. Given my experience of the demo methinks there's too much stat dependence or and dice rolling to ironman it - at least on your first playthrough... Of course if you have prior experience with the game and you know exactly when you will enter into unwinnable fights with the given build it would be achieveable. But that's metagaming, so meh...

My point was that your understanding of the system makes a huge difference despite "stat dependence and dice rolling". The ironman comment is based on observing the testers playing both demos (the save system was added last).

Dialogue checks are a passive aspect. It's about making decisions and branching out the story rather than beating the check itself. If we raise the checks, we'll increase the meta-gaming aspect and force people to map out the check values.

Good thing you have realised it. Bad that this aspect still remains a huge part of the game.

I don't think there were ever any disagreements on the passive nature of dialogue skill checks, but just because they are passive doesn't mean that they don't add anything (or are something that should be kept to a minimum).

 

[Mrowak]

Apples and oranges. Combat is a game in itself. It's hard but the system gives you plenty of tools to even the odds. Thus noobs suffer, while more experienced players can ironman it.

I don't believe it. Given my experience of the demo methinks there's too much stat dependence or and dice rolling to ironman it - at least on your first playthrough... Of course if you have prior experience with the game and you know exactly when you will enter into unwinnable fights with the given build it would be achieveable. But that's metagaming, so meh...

My point was that your understanding of the system makes a huge difference despite "stat dependence and dice rolling". The ironman comment is based on observing the testers playing both demos (the save system was added last).

Still I can't help but feel that the combat system is balanced around player's controling multiple characters as opposed to one. :/ The game is set up in such a way that however well-executed your plan is, however great your build performs, one unlucky roll can mean a complete and utter failure. This combat system could have been great in a "tactics" game with multiple characters to control, whereby one bad roll means you have to adjust your tactics, as opposed to game over screen.

Dialogue checks are a passive aspect. It's about making decisions and branching out the story rather than beating the check itself. If we raise the checks, we'll increase the meta-gaming aspect and force people to map out the check values.

Good thing you have realised it. Bad that this aspect still remains a huge part of the game.

I don't think there were ever any disagreements on the passive nature of dialogue skill checks, but just because they are passive doesn't mean that they don't add anything (or are something that should be kept to a minimum).

I am not saying the dialogues ought to be kept to minimum or that they don't add anything - on their own they are solid, and they truly flesh out the world of the game. However, them being stat dependend is the major problem I see. Chiefly irksome is relegating too many mental attributes to stats resulting in "[Skill_name] I win" situations. As it is it's a little bit too much of blind trial and error instead of player doing actual research, connecting facts, realising the true scope of the problem, and applying solutions. You could beat the demo without reading a single line of text, just by clicking the label of the skills you put most points in.

 

[mikaelis]

My point was that your understanding of the system...

Forgive my ignorance, as I might have forgotten some previous answers - do you intend to give us some sort of core book, which fully explains the game systems, initial lore etc.? I'd have thought that it's a part of the old fat manual book. Though, if it is separate .pdf, I am fine as well.

 

[Saduj]

Seems like GOG gave some very fair and reasonable feedback on AOD.

Why the fuck is it being repeated here?

 

[Brayko]

I wouldn't call the speech route easy, unless you're metagaming skill points really hard.

No, it's pretty fucking easy. I managed to soar through the demo first try just smooth talking. Combat, on the other hand...

 

[commie]

Combat long and boring ?

Well single character TB combat can be (long and) boring...Isn't that the critique leveled often enough at Fallout here? I didn't exactly see a myriad of combat options in the AoD demo besides going up to someone or hanging back and doing the aimed/quick attack or slash/thrust. In a party TB game even a small selection of choices like this can exponentially increase the complexity of a game, but like this? It's just about min/maxing the correct stats to be able to do more damage with your attack than the foe can do with his so that he dies first and you avoid the dreaded 'missed' just long enough to outlast the battle. Especially in AoD where it can take half a dozen exchanges of turn per fight with a single character, just swiping at each other and taking a few HP off at a time. If that isn't slow and boring then I don't know what is.

 

[Excidium]

Isn't that the critique leveled often enough at Fallout here?

I blame those fucks:

Fucking melcars shuffling around with like 40 action points for movement.

 

[commie]

Isn't that the critique leveled often enough at Fallout here?

I blame those fucks:

Fucking melcars shuffling around with like 40 action points for movement.

 

[Gozma]

I want to play da game release it please

 

[Kem0sabe]

Just replayed the beta the other day and each time i love it even more. Simply can't wait for this to be released... if they do it on GOG, even better, these days i tend to buy almost exclusively from them (odd steam title aside).

 

[hiver]

Combat long and boring ?

I didn't exactly see a myriad of combat options in the AoD demo besides going up to someone or hanging back and doing the aimed/quick attack or slash/thrust.

You missed right clicking on the icon/picture of an equipped weapon, eh?

 

[JarlFrank]

Combat long and boring ?

I didn't exactly see a myriad of combat options in the AoD demo besides going up to someone or hanging back and doing the aimed/quick attack or slash/thrust.

You missed right clicking on the icon/picture of an equipped weapon, eh?

No he didn't. He mentioned doing quick and aimed attacks.

 

[commie]

Combat long and boring ?

I didn't exactly see a myriad of combat options in the AoD demo besides going up to someone or hanging back and doing the aimed/quick attack or slash/thrust.

You missed right clicking on the icon/picture of an equipped weapon, eh?

Nope...I also didn't mention that you could aim at particular body parts in Fallout either so why mention it here(although to be fair Fallout had a much worse aim for the eyes exploit readily available)? With ONE character it doesn't make much difference in gameplay whether you make a quick or aimed attack, whether you aim high or low, at eyes or torso. Those are just examples of faux tactical choice resulting in minor variations of hit chance and damage effect. There isn't any grand tactical variety here. You still just stand there and hack at your foe until either you or he fall dead.

tl;dr What Jarl said.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I looked at the "cons" list and saw nothing but "pros". Can't wait.

More importantly, it will attract EXACTLY the kind of gamers likely to buy AoD and will only drive away folks who would never have played it to begin with. What more could you possibly want?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

RPG Game.

I like roleplaying game games.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

RPG Game.

I like roleplaying game games.

It's been done already, Matt. Let it go.

Isn't that the critique leveled often enough at Fallout here?

I blame those fucks:

Fucking melcars shuffling around with like 40 action points for movement.

That's Martin.

 

[Carrion]

AoD's combat is basically about calculating the combination of attacks that causes the biggest average amount of damage per turn and then using it until either you or the enemy is dead (better hope that the RNG is on your side). Maybe there are some cool things that I just haven't figured out but that's basically what the combat boils down to for me. I really like the use of nets and bolas, but they're not of much use when someone's stabbing your face, and most of the combat happens to be about that. I'd especially like to have more defensive options, like different combat stances or being able to use your spare AP to gain some kind of a bonus to defense or dodge skill. It also kind of sucks that you have no control over the positioning of your character, so my stealthy rogue gets thrown straight into melee against multiple opponents instead of having the opportunity to ambush them from a distance, which adds to the general trial-and-error nature of the game. I really like the combat system overall, but single-character combat would need something extra in order to be really interesting.