Review GOG Plays The Age of Decadence

[Jaesun]

That's Martin.

 

[hiver]

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...

Oh, really? I never saw that mentioned. Or taken in consideration in your "argument".

I also didn't mention that you could aim at particular body parts in Fallout either so why mention it here

Because youre stupid?

(although to be fair Fallout had a much worse aim for the eyes exploit readily available)?

never used it.

With ONE character it doesn't make much difference in gameplay whether you make a quick or aimed attack,

Youre stupid.
Disingenuous really, but your stupidity comes from the fact that you think you can just get away with it.

whether you aim high or low, at eyes or torso.

Stupid.

Those are just examples of faux tactical choice resulting in minor variations of hit chance and damage effect.

No they are not. And you are stupid.

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.

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

tl;dr What Jarl said.

Nah, not really sunshine, no.

 

[Mrowak]

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...

Oh, really? I never saw that mentioned. Or taken in consideration in your "argument".

I also didn't mention that you could aim at particular body parts in Fallout either so why mention it here

Because youre stupid?

(although to be fair Fallout had a much worse aim for the eyes exploit readily available)?

never used it.

With ONE character it doesn't make much difference in gameplay whether you make a quick or aimed attack,

Youre stupid.
Disingenuous really, but your stupidity comes from the fact that you think you can just get away with it.

whether you aim high or low, at eyes or torso.

Stupid.

Those are just examples of faux tactical choice resulting in minor variations of hit chance and damage effect.

No they are not. And you are stupid.

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.

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

tl;dr What Jarl said.

Nah, not really sunshine, no.

TL;DR version of your post:

No, U 'rong. U stoopid.

of hiver.

 

[hiver]

I clearly pointed out what exactly is stupid. Reading comprehension of Mrowak.


--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

But it does make a difference which options you select. That's why some people struggle to beat many fights while others can beat the hardest fights (like the "low INT" palace fight). Your choice of weapon, attack types, and support items (nets, bolas, alchemy stuff) makes a huge difference. Saying that it doesn't matter which attack type you pick is the dumbest fucking statement, considering the game's difficulty, but hey, it's commie and he has a reputation to uphold.

Carry on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

Nets reduce your opponents' THC and Dodge. Less THC - higher chance to survive. Bolas can immobilize your opponent for a few turns, letting you focus on and deal with other opponents, which is a big help. Obviously, bolas, much like ranged attacks aimed at the legs, should be used before your opponents get close to you.

 

[Mrowak]

I clearly pointed out what exactly is stupid. Reading comprehension of Mrowak.

But you didn't write why. Without the why you are just whining about someone else being critical.

--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit. The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character. The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose. Except that because enemies are often more numerous they tend to get more dice-rolls per turn. So you end up with a tedious exercise of dice-rolls.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

Additionally in the former case the player would not be very invested in the battle - a *single* failure state can mean a failure across the board. In the latter case, it means an exciting turn of events which would complicate things but not prevent a victory - and extra challenge that keeps you on your toes. That's why IMO the focus of AoD combat system is completely misplaced.

In before we learn Fallout 1&2 were tactical masterpieces...

 

[BobtheTree]

Fallout combat is only slow if you're too dumb to find the menu option that speeds up combat.

 

[Vault Dweller]

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit. The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character. The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose.

And if you're good, you win too, 9 out of 10, but who needs to be good when you can just click on enemies and hope you get good roll and your opponents bad roll.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

Ah, yes, X number of characters... If only you could send your fighters to swarm your opponents one by one, what tactical nirvana it would have been... If only...

Don't get me wrong, Mrowak, it's not about you saying that combat is boring. You have a god given right to think that something is shit and I've been here long enough to retain the ability to take such comments personally. It's your arguments that make me wonder if you have suffered some brain damage. Turn-based is boring because you move per turn than sit and wait for the opponents to move? Isn't that what turn-based combat is all fucking about? You're repeating what RT consoletards say without any shame even if your reasons are different. Snap out of it, bro.

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

First, you can keep fighting and still have a chance to win (based on your skills) even when crippled. Second, the example is flawed. What if the knight then attacks and breaks the arms of the companions as well? If only we had more companions? You should be prepared for a battle and you should be prepared for "unfortunate events".

What you describe - what if something bad happens early in combat - is a common issue. When I played Conquistadors, quite often the enemies would take out 2 out 6 party members, *greatly* reducing my chances to win the fight. I can say the same thing - shit happened so now I simply HAVE to reload or I can keep on fighting. The number of party members means shit here.

My simple argument - and proof that you're mistaken about the tactical aspect - is that the mileage varies greatly. If the game wasn't tactical, everyone would have a more or less the same experience, but it's not the case. We have people who can't beat the fight fights, we have people who can beat some fights, and we have people who can beat any fight with any weapon types.

Quoting Dhruin:

"I think you might be surprised at the variety of tactics available. During testing, I lagged behind many of the other testers. Sometimes I'd try, say, one of Galsiah's builds and still fail badly. If the build was the same and he could win the whole arena and I repeatedly failed halfway through, that means the choices during combat were the difference.

It took me a while to get my head in the right place. Positioning can be important, sometimes a different weapon is better (faster, rather than more outright damage, for example) and so on. It's more subtle than most games and that took some adjusting for me."

 

[Saduj]

I clearly pointed out what exactly is stupid. Reading comprehension of Mrowak.

But you didn't write why. Without the why you are just whining about someone else being critical.

--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit. The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character. The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose. Except that because enemies are often more numerous they tend to get more dice-rolls per turn. So you end up with a tedious exercise of dice-rolls.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

Additionally in the former case the player would not be very invested in the battle - a *single* failure state can mean a failure across the board. In the latter case, it means an exciting turn of events which would complicate things but not prevent a victory - and extra challenge that keeps you on your toes. That's why IMO the focus of AoD combat system is completely misplaced.

In before we learn Fallout 1&2 were tactical masterpieces...

I agree with what you're saying about the tactical possibilities of controlling multiple characters. And that randomness can really screw you at times...

But there is definitely more skill involved in AOD combat than you're giving credit for.... As VD keeps saying, there is a reason why certain people can consistently beat certain fights while others claim they are impossible. And it can't be chalked up to luck. If you're one of the people who has won all the hard fights and you're saying there is little strategy involved, then your opinion has some credibility behind it because you've mastered the system and didn't find it all that challenging to do so. But alot of people seem to use their inability to pick up any strategies in AOD combat as evidence that strategy does not exist.

And as far as what is "boring", that's just a matter of opinion. I know people who say every PC game is boring and a waste of time.

 

[hiver]

But you didn't write why.

Yes i did. Nuu -huh!

--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit.

Ah cmaaaan,.. he didnt mention all the attack choices you have, pretended they dont even exist - and then he went on to claim it doesnt matter anyway.

The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character.

Well the fuck - it is better then just standing there swinging at the opponent. Aint it?

Btw i want to see a gameplay video of both of you and commie winning fights like that in AoD.

The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose.

What the fing F - NO.

I never had any damn luck in any of those fights!

Is my copy the only one without LUCK attribute Vince? Godamn it!!! I object!
I want to win fights in AoD because of Luck! And be awesome too!
Dragons!

Except that because enemies are often more numerous they tend to get more dice-rolls per turn. So you end up with a tedious exercise of dice-rolls.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

Aachh blah, blah, blah i want party based game and im juuust goiiing to complaaaaian and coommmmmmplaaaaaaiiinnn and overblow everything i can!!

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

Additionally in the former case the player would not be very invested in the battle - a *single* failure state can mean a failure across the board. In the latter case, it means an exciting turn of events which would complicate things but not prevent a victory - and extra challenge that keeps you on your toes. That's why IMO the focus of AoD combat system is completely misplaced.

Aach! gimme a fucking break.

In before we learn Fallout 1&2 were tactical masterpieces...

Fallout 1&2 were masterpieces.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Fallout combat is only slow if you're too dumb to find the menu option that speeds up combat.

But that just speeds up the cool animations, which makes it simplistic AND horrible-looking to boot. The combat is still slow in that you and your oppenent are plinking away at each other hoping for a 9000-damage critical. You are easily amused Bob, I personally prefer my combat to be of a more viscereral nature.

 

[BobtheTree]

You want more visceral combat? Go play Fallout 3.

 

[Mrowak]

But you didn't write why.

Yes i did. Nuu -huh!

--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit.

Ah cmaaaan,.. he didnt mention all the attack choices you have, pretended they dont even exist - and then he went on to claim it doesnt matter anyway.

The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character.

Well the fuck - it is better then just standing there swinging at the opponent. Aint it?

Btw i want to see a gameplay video of both of you and commie winning fights like that in AoD.

The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose.

What the fing F - NO.

I never had any damn luck in any of those fights!

Is my copy the only one without LUCK attribute Vince? Godamn it!!! I object!
I want to win fights in AoD because of Luck! And be awesome too!
Dragons!

Except that because enemies are often more numerous they tend to get more dice-rolls per turn. So you end up with a tedious exercise of dice-rolls.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

Aachh blah, blah, blah i want party based game and im juuust goiiing to complaaaaian and coommmmmmplaaaaaaiiinnn and overblow everything i can!!

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

Additionally in the former case the player would not be very invested in the battle - a *single* failure state can mean a failure across the board. In the latter case, it means an exciting turn of events which would complicate things but not prevent a victory - and extra challenge that keeps you on your toes. That's why IMO the focus of AoD combat system is completely misplaced.

Aach! gimme a fucking break.

I see you have really declined a lot hiver. There's no discussing with you anything, just you, yourself and thou. Meh...

In before we learn Fallout 1&2 were tactical masterpieces...

Fallout 1&2 were masterpieces.

They were excellent games but when it comes to combat they were not only nothing special - they were quite lackluster and simplistic.

 

[Jaesun]

What's next? Arguing with Volourn?

 

[Mrowak]

I clearly pointed out what exactly is stupid. Reading comprehension of Mrowak.

But you didn't write why. Without the why you are just whining about someone else being critical.

--->

Liar, liar - pants on fire...

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit. The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character. The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose. Except that because enemies are often more numerous they tend to get more dice-rolls per turn. So you end up with a tedious exercise of dice-rolls.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

Additionally in the former case the player would not be very invested in the battle - a *single* failure state can mean a failure across the board. In the latter case, it means an exciting turn of events which would complicate things but not prevent a victory - and extra challenge that keeps you on your toes. That's why IMO the focus of AoD combat system is completely misplaced.

In before we learn Fallout 1&2 were tactical masterpieces...

I agree with what you're saying about the tactical possibilities of controlling multiple characters. And that randomness can really screw you at times...

But there is definitely more skill involved in AOD combat than you're giving credit for.... As VD keeps saying, there is a reason why certain people can consistently beat certain fights while others claim they are impossible.

I am not saying they are impossible. I am saying they are not that complex, and frequently quite boring. Even if it is quite difficult, difficulty on its own does not amount to fun.

And it can't be chalked up to luck.

No one's saying it is entirely, because if that was so I wouldn't even propose party-based combat... but huge portion of it, in my opinion too huge, relies entirely on dice-rolls and min-maxing. I can get when I fail a battle repeatedly because I do something wrong, make a bad tactical call have the wrong build or something along those line... The thing is there aren't really that many tactical decisions in there. Frankly most are relagated to battle preparation, which would be a good thing, except there's a huge issue of player's metagaming knowledge.

If you're one of the people who has won all the hard fights and you're saying there is little strategy involved, then your opinion has some credibility behind it because you've mastered the system and didn't find it all that challenging to do so. But alot of people seem to use their inability to pick up any strategies in AOD combat as evidence that strategy does not exist.

Again - I am not saying there is no strategy involved - if there weren't it wouldn't be a good candidate for a party-based game.

And as far as what is "boring", that's just a matter of opinion. I know people who say every PC game is boring and a waste of time.

The greatest issue I have with AoD is that ultimately the player is left with little to do. Sure he makes a build, gets equipment, min-maxes stats and issues a few orders on the battlefield, but it sometimes seems like after all of this is established the game would rather start playing itself - considering both of its core facets: how dialogues are contructed and how little input tha player has in combat in comparison with his enemies.

 

[Roguey]

Fallout combat is only slow if you're too dumb to find the menu option that speeds up combat.

Still too slow in some cases, needs SFall.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No one's saying it is entirely, because if that was so I wouldn't even propose party-based combat... but huge portion of it, in my opinion too huge, relies entirely on dice-rolls and min-maxing.

Which tells me that you didn't really understand the system and how many options you have to reduce the effect of dice-rolls. The fact that you talk about min-maxing (you mentioned twice) only reinforces this opinion.

To put it simply, the only people who think that min-maxing is a good (or the only) real strategy are the people who have no idea what else to do to increase their chances to win a fight, which is why they feel that dice-rolling is too important.

 

[hiver]

I see you have really declined a lot hiver. There's no discussing with you anything, just you, yourself and thou. Meh...

Good eyesight you have there.

They were excellent games but when it comes to combat they were not only nothing special - they were quite lackluster and simplistic.

-edit- look Mro, youre a bro so ill do you a favor and talk in reverse a bit.
You see, my answers are as they are - because those kinds of "arguments" really do not - i repeat: DO NOT solicit any other kind of answer. To do so would be to acknowledge their worth and treat them as actual arguments, rather then just misguided personal opinions.
Oh gees...this was exhausting...

Now back to my usual speed:

 

[Jaesun]

hi/v/er

 

[hiver]

hi/

/er

here, fixed that for ya.

 

[Mrowak]

He didn't lie, and his criticism is quite legit. The tactical choices are not that tactical. All it boils down to is rolling dice and kiting your opponents around the battlefield. It's good that there are varied weapon types and that you can make aimed attacks, but that's a very small degree of control you can exert over just one character. The game really is about hacking&slashing with stats doing most of the combat for you. If you are lucky - you win. If not - you lose.

And if you're good, you win too, 9 out of 10, but who needs to be good when you can just click on enemies and hope you get good roll and your opponents bad roll.

And yes AoD combat is pretty boring - you get one move per turn, then sit and wait for the opponents to move (and roll) - excitement abound... not. There's not much for the player to do. This system could have worked wonders in tactical based game where you control x number of characters. Here, it's just wasted potential.

Ah, yes, X number of characters... If only you could send your fighters to swarm your opponents one by one, what tactical nirvana it would have been... If only...

Swarm opponents? :/ Where did I write anything along those lines?

Don't get me wrong, Mrowak, it's not about you saying that combat is boring. You have a god given right to think that something is shit and I've been here long enough to retain the ability to take such comments personally. It's your arguments that make me wonder if you have suffered some brain damage. Turn-based is boring because you move per turn than sit and wait for the opponents to move?

Isn't that what turn-based combat is all fucking about? You're repeating what RT consoletards say without any shame even if your reasons are different. Snap out of it, bro.

It appears I confused you. Let me clarify: turn based games are not boring, but there is a reason in some games TB works (e.g. Jagged Alliance, Fallout... Tactics) and in others it does not (Arcanum or Fallouts). The thing you are overlooking here is cooperative aspect in TB games - the very notion of having characters collaborate for the common goal creates a multitude of tactical opportunities. Even on the most basic level, the maneuvres such as flanking, providing cover fire, combined attacks, attacks of opportunity improve complexity of any encounter. The ability to control the battlefield - whereby characters' positioning in realtion to each other can be bring you tangible benefits or can gimp you significantly - is one of the key considerations in favour of TB. No other form of combat system provides greater clarity and simplicity, allowing you to *time* actions of each of you characters with meticulous precision and ponder on your next moves freely, without any constraints.

There is also a one great potential for C&C is relatively easy to achieve in party-based TB: varied encounter objectives, whereby you have to decide what you prioritize, and depending on your decision and performance the encounter could end in a number of ways. Kinda hard to do that if you can control actions of just one character.

AoD kinda handwaves this critical reason for implementing TB combat, concentrating on micro control... which is cool to have except that it still is pretty simplistic, and historically worked well as an addition to TB games, not as their main focus. In the end because of this limitation, and nothing really filling up the void, one can't shake off the feeling that a huge part of the game is played by the stats for you.

To better illustrate the point: imagine the following scenario: your character and his two companions are ambushed by a knight and his 5 lackeys. Now let's your enemy lucked out - he had a critical success and broke PCs arm in turn 3. In AoD this would lead to game over (thank you very much > proceed to Load game screen) because you can do nothing with a crippled character, and your AI controlled companions offer you no opportunity to make up for this random fuckup you had no idea would happen. In any other tactical game, if you had control over your two companions it would just mean changing tactical approach. Despite a random failure there's still a chance to prevail e.g. if you draw the fire off your main character or use some bombs/nets that the companions had so that you can withdraw your heroe and recover him.

First, you can keep fighting and still have a chance to win (based on your skills) even when crippled. Second, the example is flawed. What if the knight then attacks and breaks the arms of the companions as well? If only we had more companions? You should be prepared for a battle and you should be prepared for "unfortunate events".

What you describe - what if something bad happens early in combat - is a common issue. When I played Conquistadors, quite often the enemies would take out 2 out 6 party members, *greatly* reducing my chances to win the fight. I can say the same thing - shit happened so now I simply HAVE to reload or I can keep on fighting. The number of party members means shit here.

But it does mean a lot. It statistically reduces the chance of a complete failure on account of partial failure the player had no control over (you can't control critical hits). Your single (even temporarily) gimped character in turn 3 means RAEP - the player can do nothing but watch himself die due to event that was completely outside of his control == frustrating and boring. One of many characters that can be saved due to player's own tactical decisions with other chars means just tables turning - now you have to adjust positiong, weapon types and stances == engaging and rewarding. The latter is gameplay... the former is just stat-crunching.

Also, what I mentioned before: in the latter case we shift the focus of the battle to active collaboration improving player's ability to react to unforseen situations (which means less save/loads). We also makes enemy actions and possible permutations of outcomes both predictable and manageable enabling the player to make more informed decisions on the spot, as opposed to relying on metagaming knowledge.

My simple argument - and proof that you're mistaken about the tactical aspect - is that the mileage varies greatly. If the game wasn't tactical, everyone would have a more or less the same experience, but it's not the case. We have people who can't beat the fight fights, we have people who can beat some fights, and we have people who can beat any fight with any weapon types.

A thing I'd like to clarify: I do not consider the combat system in AoD to be "Oh My God, banal, shit, popamole". Quite the contrary - it is evident you've thought about it a lot and accounted for great many number of factors in your designs (the importance of placement of your single character being the chief important one, IMO). The fact that I am advocating using your system in larger scale should convey to you I think you did many things right... I just find your system to be bafflingly misplaced - created outside of the context it could have worked wonders.

 

[hiver]

I just find your system to be bafflingly misplaced - created outside of the context it could have worked wonders.

 

[Severian Silk]

Volourn hacked into Hiver's account.

I wasn't able to get past the merchant ambush with my hammer warrior after retrying several dozen times. Not sure what other strategies I could have gone for.

So far AoD is not on my 'to buy' list after trying the demos. It feels too much like a puzzle game.

:shrug:

 

[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.

But it does make a difference which options you select. That's why some people struggle to beat many fights while others can beat the hardest fights (like the "low INT" palace fight). Your choice of weapon, attack types, and support items (nets, bolas, alchemy stuff) makes a huge difference. Saying that it doesn't matter which attack type you pick is the dumbest fucking statement, considering the game's difficulty, but hey, it's commie and he has a reputation to up

Carry on.

I said that it makes a difference. Seems that both you and Hiver cannot fucking read. I won't bother quoting the relevant passage because of your inherent butthurt at any criticism of your boring as fuck min/max CYOA adventure game with shitty 'I hit/miss you-you hit/miss' me single character combat. I mentioned that there are differences in chance and damage probability due to the different actions you can take which DOESN'T IN ANY FUCKING WAY CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU WALK UP TO AN OPPONENT AND TAKE TURNS HACKING AWAY UNTIL YOU OR HE IS DEAD before moving onto the next one and repeating the 'what hit option to use' puzzle with the next one!

"Oh wow, guy has no helmet, better do a aimed head shot" is the extent of the 'depth' of your game.

Volourn hacked into Hiver's account.

I wasn't able to get past the merchant ambush with my hammer warrior after retrying several dozen times. Not sure what other strategies I could have gone for.

So far AoD is not on my 'to buy' list after trying the demos. It feels too much like a puzzle game.

:shrug:

Yeah exactly, the combat choices are not really choices as there is only one or two ways to really overcome a particular opponent and you just have to make sure you plow your points into exactly the right stats and then pick the right combat option. In a way VD has painted himself into a corner here as the focus on single character(which is my main criticism of this type of approach in this game) actually deliberately prevents pursuing combat success with a jack of all trades type of character as that would make all options viable and thus generic and in a single character game like this it just doesn't work(you'd end up with a standard unbreakable and boring Bethesda style allrounder).

I'm actually upset not just being a hator. I wanted this game to succeed but the lack of party is the real killer here that makes combat a puzzle based chore: one way of doing things right, 100 wrong ways. OH and before VD mentions alchemy or ranged or whatever as alternatives, let me just retort that picking an alternate combat option in no way alleviates the inherent lack of variety as it just replaces one 'all or nothing' type of attack with another. If you pick ranged weapons for example you pretty much still have to min/max stats to get benefit of that and pretty much ONLY use ranged weaponry in actual combat as that's where your ONLY chance of success will lie.







Oh and incline of GOG for kicking this turd to the curb in favor of RPG maker games.

Nah, not really...no matter my critique of this it's actually pretty pathetic how it got a 'thanks but no thanks' reaction compared to the true avalanche of pixel art and casual turds that GoG has accepted.

I actually want VD to succeed(I bear him no ill will for his slander as it's understandable when confronted with the fact the last decade has been a lie) and then get to work on a proper party based game using the basic combat mechanics from AoD and cutting down on the CYOA which not only should make the game a lot quicker to make, but it's not all that necessary as a party game is much more likely to have a combat focus by default. So VD it is you that should 'carry on'.

PS. I also bear no ill will to Hiver who is just following his natural DarkWhite Knight impulse to protect what he perceives to be the weak.