Preview RPG Codex Re-Preview: The Age of Decadence

[tuluse]

I humbly disagree.

Let's take Deadwood, for example (it's a lawless place). A land-baron can hire thugs to intimidate others and probably would end up owning the place. Some nobody with money who tries to hire some thugs will probably be robbed and killed by those very thugs.

If we have time, we'll definitely add this cautionary tale to the game.

You should put in a small quest or quest option where you can hire a bodyguard and then when the fight starts he's like "I thought I just had to look tough, see ya" and books it leaving you alone. That would be delicious.

 

[Absinthe]

There is money and there is money.

A lot of money for a nobody in the hands of that nobody doesn't mean much. A lot of money for a faction in the hands of that faction means a lot.

Usually you develop some pretty strong pull with a local faction. And for fuck's sake, for people like the assassins, money is money. They operate an honest business that way.

Pretty sure that Kemnebi mentions that he doesn't shit where he lives, so he doesn't handle local problems.

Hm. At the very least it'd be useful to let players try only to get the news that they're shit out of luck. Similarly I think hiring the assassin's guild to kill Cassius is worth trying even if obviously the assassins will tell you they don't take hits on guests under Antidas's protection, especially given the recent spot of trouble with the trader who dies in the vignette. Things like these tell players that the game is aware of what they're trying to do but at least there are in-world reasons why they can't do that.

 

[Cadmus]

1) You aren't forced to fight. You could get into fights if you ignore warnings and common sense but that's a different story. For example, in Teron you can get into a fight with:
- some thugs harassing passerby - the game warns you in advance (gives you an option to approach or turn away)
- a pickpocket gang - it's your choice if you decide to follow the girl and get your money back
- Miltiades' thugs - you get a streetwise warning and the common sense warning
- the squatters - I don't recall the options there but they would attack only if you explore the tower, find the artefact and either refuse to pay or lack speech skills to convince them to leave you alone.

2) The whole point of playing a non-combat character is avoiding fights because you can't fight. Hiring thugs would change that. Kinda like saying you can play a non-combat combat in Arcanum by hiring enough thugs to fight for you.

I'm saying that the option not to fight is hidden behind dialogues like "let's see what the problem is with this woman/leave" or "try to catch the little girl that stole your money/be a cuck" which is a bit different than "do you want to approach this gang of drunk niggers?"
I might very well be wrong and be forgetting some options you get when you get into a situation like this but I remember thinking "oh ok let's go see what's it all about" which leads to tons of reloading because a bunch of cutthroats just swarms you.
I have a feeling you are kinda so familiar with the game that your logical conclusions for what some dialogues do come from the meta-knowledge and I as a new player have to learn by trial and error. If that's what you were aiming for, sure, good for you, I'll try it out anyways but I didn't think it worked too well in some cases. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand what the game is telling me, I admit that's possible. I have problems if you want me to apply a logical, in-world solutions and expectations to the game's events if I don't know what is and what isn't possible in the game.

I still think the project is absolutely cool, so don't take this the wrong way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm saying that the option not to fight is hidden behind dialogues like "let's see what the problem is with this woman/leave" or "try to catch the little girl that stole your money/be a cuck" which is a bit different than "do you want to approach this gang of drunk niggers?"

If you catch the girl, it doesn't lead to a fight. You can even set her 'straight' if you're a thief (she'll go to Cado and will eventually start working for Levir in Maadoran). If you fall for her trick (streetwise will warn you that she's too eager) to take you to the hideout, you will be offered a choice: to fight or walk away. If you decide to fight, you can hardly complain.

I might very well be wrong and be forgetting some options you get when you get into a situation like this but I remember thinking "oh ok let's go see what's it all about" which leads to tons of reloading because a bunch of cutthroats just swarms you.

You're probably thinking of Miltiades who offers you a deal that's way too good to be true and leads you into an ambush. Again, streetwise and common sense warnings.

I have a feeling you are kinda so familiar with the game that your logical conclusions for what some dialogues do come from the meta-knowledge and I as a new player have to learn by trial and error. If that's what you were aiming for, sure, good for you...

No, we expect the new player to play in a manner fitting his/her characters. All these quests, situations, and checks didn't appear out of the blue, they were designed with certain builds/playstyles in mind. For example, one of the rules was to never force a talker to fight without a warning or a chance to walk away. That's why you never run into some thugs or monsters and can talk to both 'demons'.

Or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand what the game is telling me, I admit that's possible. I have problems if you want me to apply a logical, in-world solutions and expectations to the game's events if I don't know what is and what isn't possible in the game.

If I have to guess, most issues are due to people being used to different games with different internal rules. It takes some time to get used to AoD.

 

[Aenra]

the older i get, the less i type

- has demo out. They don't take my money first, let me have a look afterwards as is current trend. As has been come to think of it
- has story. The kind worth reading
- rewards patience, allows thinking

will buy when it is done, 101%
if i could afford to, am a poor sod, i'd have bought it already

preview complete

 

[Brandon]

Punishing hybrid builds is also a great way to ruin the Praetor's day though since the Praetor is set up to be a hybrid diplomat/fighter.

Actually I think Praetor checks might be slightly too easy right now (Shh nobody tell VD) whereas even 'normal' non-hybrid merchant builds have a very tough time finding enough skill points after the Maadoran nerf. Ganezzar is also difficult, but I'm hoping that's due to lack of side quests. Thieves as always are also hard to get right, but there is already some good feedback on that on the forums just waiting for Ganezzar to wrap up so it can be looked at.

I think this can all be solved from tweaks and player feedback. Since this game wants to be both difficult and as non-metagame as possible, it requires some very precise testing and tweaking to achieve that balance.

I've been mostly waiting til all the locations and quests are in place, but I plan to do some further very in depth testings and write-ups myself.

If I start a character in AoD, do you consider it a mistake to make a fighter who is also a smooth talker? Is that objectively suboptimal, at least currently?

Depends on the guild, really. The last time I played Imperial Guards, I felt that hybrid fighter/talker was actually the most optimal way to play even over pure fighter. I haven't tested that playstyle with Ganezzar yet however, might start a new build tonight.

 

[tuluse]

In my playthroughs (admittedly months old now), I found 80/20 hybrids the best. Just enough martial or civic skills to get past an easy combat or get a few things from dialog, with the vast majority of points spent on what you're good at. I found 100% in either direction and 50/50ish characters much harder to figure out.

 

[hiver]

Ability to hire any sort of mercenaries should be in the game for diplomatic characters - BUT - only when the story and narrative would make it seem reasonable.
Again, instead of going for dumb crude extreme design decisions such as allowing something everywhere in every case or not allowing it at all, one should design such options adhering to internal logic and coherence of the game story.

The notion that diplomacy path should be made with only dialogue options that never result in any fight is complete convoluted unrealistic fantasy notion.
Thats not what "diplomacy" is limited to.

As you can see in the game itself, you are already making various deals and affecting other factions in bigger ways, often ending in those NPCs getting killed, or whole factions destroyed.


Instead of simply hiring mercenaries left and right, which would be completely stupid idea, the player who goes down one of the diplomatic paths should be able to influence factions in the city so they do some things for him, much as the examples of bandits and thieves guild already shows.
Some smaller such events could be made - guided by the narrative itself - where the player talks one of the factions into "jumping in" into some problem.
No need to allow that for every quest and situation, instead just choose those where it would fit.

- you can constrain these options though internal narrative reasons, lack of money, and branching gameplay that closes different routes depending on choices - which is all already part of the game.
Thieves and Assassins wont simply do any job you have for them, nor could you pay for their services with just money - since other "political" matters have to be taken in consideration.
You could hire thugs to do something for you but that should not result in the best outcomes.

Plenty of stuff to play with there.

It only becomes unsound, incoherent and stupid is if its done in some extreme way where such options are allowed all the time. And in a way that would turn the game into a party based game.
Which would be completely unfitting for the setting as it is, and for the narrative of the game as it is.

You should be able to make such deals from time to time, with varying consequences. Most of such deals should be resolved off screen, (just like bandits attacking the mines, or thieves attacking the bandits does) and in a few cases where you would be a part of such a fight you should never be able to control the "mercenaries" yourself.

The only problem with this approach is that it would require more time spent on making the game, not that its unsound in any way.

Since this game wants to be both difficult and as non-metagame as possible,

Its one of the most meta gaming games - ever.

 

[Elhoim]

Hm. At the very least it'd be useful to let players try only to get the news that they're shit out of luck. Similarly I think hiring the assassin's guild to kill Cassius is worth trying even if obviously the assassins will tell you they don't take hits on guests under Antidas's protection, especially given the recent spot of trouble with the trader who dies in the vignette. Things like these tell players that the game is aware of what they're trying to do but at least there are in-world reasons why they can't do that.

That's a good suggestion.

 

[Azrael the cat]

My main concern is whether or not this will be one of those games where all the choices through the game are effectively reduced to one choice at the very start (like the mass effect dialogue choices coming down to a single meta choice about whether to go renegade or paragon). It would be terribly disappointing if the character development and diverse options end up being reduced to a single choice to play the combat path, the stealth path or the diplomacy path etc.

It's a tough line to walk. You need some exclusivity between builds in order to have c&c. But you also need room for the same build (other than min-max builds) to have more than one viable way of addressing most quests, or else it all funnels down to a single metagame choice during character creation. FO wasn't so easy by accident - it is the only way to date that games have managed to allow for diverse build options while also keeping a degree of choice for most quests, instead of just choosing a rail track at the start and following it through to the end.

Not saying it's impossible. But it will be a great step forward for crpg design if they pull it off,and whilst I want, say, combat builds to have advantages in combat and have some exclusivity resulting from that, if combat is always the subpar option for other builds it risks being an application of mass effect paragon-renegade reductionism to character build.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My main concern is whether or not this will be one of those games where all the choices through the game are effectively reduced to one choice at the very start (like the mass effect dialogue choices coming down to a single meta choice about whether to go renegade or paragon). It would be terribly disappointing if the character development and diverse options end up being reduced to a single choice to play the combat path, the stealth path or the diplomacy path etc.

Not the case at all.

Basically, there are two types of choices:

- multiple solutions, which are mainly determined by your build as it should be
- branching storyline - decisions that aren't based on skills but on your opinion/allegiance/beliefs/past decisions/etc.

Any game that aims to deliver C&C should do both.

 

[tuluse]

Not saying it's impossible. But it will be a great step forward for crpg design if they pull it off,and whilst I want, say, combat builds to have advantages in combat and have some exclusivity resulting from that, if combat is always the subpar option for other builds it risks being an application of mass effect paragon-renegade reductionism to character build.

AoD does have options for diplomatic characters to succeed in combat. There are scripted options for gaining allies, setting traps, etc.

 

[Cadmus]

Hm. At the very least it'd be useful to let players try only to get the news that they're shit out of luck. Similarly I think hiring the assassin's guild to kill Cassius is worth trying even if obviously the assassins will tell you they don't take hits on guests under Antidas's protection, especially given the recent spot of trouble with the trader who dies in the vignette. Things like these tell players that the game is aware of what they're trying to do but at least there are in-world reasons why they can't do that.

That's a good suggestion.

This would be so cool and it sounds like just a few lines of dialogue, will you do something like this?

 

[hiver]

My main concern is whether or not this will be one of those games where all the choices through the game are effectively reduced to one choice at the very start (like the mass effect dialogue choices coming down to a single meta choice about whether to go renegade or paragon). It would be terribly disappointing if the character development and diverse options end up being reduced to a single choice to play the combat path, the stealth path or the diplomacy path etc.

Not the case at all.

Basically, there are two types of choices:

- multiple solutions, which are mainly determined by your build as it should be
- branching storyline - decisions that aren't based on skills but on your opinion/allegiance/beliefs/past decisions/etc.

Any game that aims to deliver C&C should do both.

And AoD fails at the second since most of the branching storyline is covered in hard skill checks.

 

[Goral]

More importantly, we need someone intelligent and eloquent (and English fluent) to review AoD because so far only Underrail fanboys are writing about AoD and they make it look way worse than it really is. I would nominate VD if it wasn't his game. Maybe tuluse would be willing to do it?

Alternatively you could create another account VD (I hear that Andhaira could help you with that) and post your review that way.

 

[tuluse]

More importantly, we need someone intelligent and eloquent (and English fluent) to review AoD because so far only Underrail fanboys are writing about AoD and they make it look way worse than it really is. I would nominate VD if it wasn't his game. Maybe tuluse would be willing to do it?

Alternatively you could create another account VD (I hear that Andhaira could help you with that) and post your review that way.

I'm flattered, but if you want someone who isn't an Underrail fan, I'm not your man.

I also find reviewing rather arduous, and I mean to do a good one for Serpent in the Staglands soon.

 

[Goral]

I'm flattered, but if you want someone who isn't an Underrail fan, I'm not your man. (...)

You might be UR fan but you're not a fanboy disregarding every UR flaw while at the same time spouting nonsense about AoD.

 

[MicoSelva]

Thanks for that MasterSmithFandango.

I feel like this game has been in development for too long. Anything being created over such extensive periods of time will undergo so many alerations that it will inevitably lose some coherence, even if it is held in firm grip by a single person - because people change over time too. I still predict it will be an excellent game, in some aspects, since endless iteration brings polish too.

I personally just am unable to get excited for it any more - and I only heard about it after coming to The Codex, when it was already in development for what, eight? ten? years. I also predict it will be a disappointment for many people, because nothing can endure crash with reality after building expectations for so long. Maybe not Duke Nukem Forever level of disappointment, but still.

 

[Zeriel]

Thanks for that MasterSmithFandango.

I feel like this game has been in development for too long. Anything being created over such extensive periods of time will undergo so many alerations that it will inevitably lose some coherence, even if it is held in firm grip by a single person - because people change over time too. I still predict it will be an excellent game, in some aspects, since endless iteration brings polish too.

I personally just am unable to get excited for it any more - and I only heard about it after coming to The Codex, when it was already in development for what, eight? ten? years. I also predict it will be a disappointment for many people, because nothing can endure crash with reality after building expectations for so long. Maybe not Duke Nukem Forever level of disappointment, but still.

I feel the opposite, "fan" projects are often an exercise in vaporware and incompleteness, so when I played the first real build of Age of Decadence I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is not only a solid game, but an exceptional one that does shit no one has ever tried to do before. Considering what they had to work with, I think AoD is about as good as you're going to get.

Perhaps that speaks to how completely different people's expectations are--I went into Age of Decadence with the view that it would be washed-up "indy" garbageware game, it was not, hence positive impressions. If people went into it expecting the second coming of Christ, well, there you go.

 

[hiver]

There wont be any such disappointments on such a level.

That would happen only if "people" would be expecting another IE game or replica of Fallout with its free emergent gameplay.
I think its very clear by now to everyone interested its not that kind of a game.

I think the audience will be pleasantly surprised by several big features of the game that practically surpass pro studios doing the same kind of games, namely writing and combat - and divergent gameplay.
but there sure will be disappointments with inane convoluted extreme skill checks for civic gameplay... although that still has a chance of being adjusted to something actually interesting to play.

Anyway, its not like there is any standard of RPG thats great in all parts, is there?
So far AoD is right on the money of being another flawed jewel of sorts.

And i say that while i would like nothing better then to punch Vince in the face a few times.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

2) The whole point of playing a non-combat character is avoiding fights because you can't fight. Hiring thugs would change that. Kinda like saying you can play a non-combat combat in Arcanum by hiring enough thugs to fight for you.

Thing is, in Arcanum hiring muscle is incredibly easy ("Come with me, let's have an adventure"), which indeed beats the point of playing as a nerd being dangerous. If a character who can't fight himself had to actually use his talents in order to acquire enough resources to hire a private gang, it would make sense both mechanics-wise (abuse your strong points to compensate for your deficiencies) and realism-wise (weaklings are more likely to hire burly bodyguards than hope to convince people not to beat them up).

Also, fucking synergies were first suggested by Hiver, yours truly. Not that anyone ever said thanks.

I wonder why. You're so friendly and easy to approach!

 

[Levenmouth]

I hope this game does succeed. I remember playing a demo of it two or three years ago and being very impressed. That was, however, before Kickstarter and during a CRPG drought. Now there are so many different games to chose from and even more on the horizon. This is, as far as I am aware, the only game centred around fantasy Romans though. Looking forward to it.

 

[Goral]

@Levenmouth
Kickstarter hasn't made this game any lesser - it's still the best cRPG there is. If you enjoyed the demo from 2-3 years ago then you will LOVE the rest.

 

[Melcar]

If it ever gets released.

 

[hal900x]

If it ever gets released.

I would say AoD is progressing more consistently than 90% of the EA games on Steam, AND they communicate very frequently and sometimes directly reply to customer questions and input. That said, I may have heard something about a slow start. These days there is measurable progress on a weekly basis.