Interview Vault Dweller interviewed about The New World and more at GoHa.Ru

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

I didn't enjoy AoD that much, that said I didn't regret playing it.

Few things that stood out for me in a positive way - a) it was innovative b) they did it all themselves without crap like EA or KS. A bunch of great ideas and flawed execution leading to a mixed-to-positive impression overall.

I am looking forward to what the team can do next, there's a lot of potential here.

 

[Infinitron]

b) they did it all themselves without crap like EA

Age of Decadence was in Early Access for two years.

 

[Lurker King]

There are also "stats" that are not what's usually thought of as stats (aka attributes), such as reputation, kill count, etc, that could influence choices. We had some in AoD.

You forgot to include your past actions, your knowledge about certain items and locations, etc.

Other times, it's okay to have something else than stats/skills determine a choice, because choices shouldn't always be about what you can do. Sometimes, it's ok to make choices based on what matters to your character. You know, shit like values, principles, how you like the NPC in front of you, etc. Context could also play a role.

You could make these choices in AoD multiple times, e.g., you could be altruistic enough to give up the elixir and save the secret village. The problem is that most of time these choices will backfire because you live in a cruel world and because it was an intended design choice to punish players for following retard generic cRPG habits. It is easy to make the player make choices based on his principles. What is hard is to make these choices rewarded by a realistic game world.

AOD offers several choices for characters with specific skills, but few of them are choices based on "personal opinions" or clever/unexpected ways of dealing with the quests.

Read above.

Perhaps for some, this is really the pinnacle of RPG design.

The problem with these “puzzle game” criticisms is that they all beg the question by repeating obvious things. You state that your choices are determined by you skill/stats/past actions as if this was a bad thing per se, but you are incapable of elaborating one miserable argument to justify this preference. You need to elaborate a viable alternative that is more fulfilling to you that does not imply that character building only matters in combat and the game world is completely retarded. Every time you repeat the same thing without providing this alternative you are just proving that you have an arbitrary preference for fluffy skill checks and action games labelled as cRPGs. We had these discussions one million times and you still can't present one argument. Just repeating the same thing wouldn't make it more plausible, you know?

For me, I regret that VD don't have a team three times bigger, with two or three more writers on the same level as him.

I don’t. One artistic vision makes the game world more cohesive and personal.

 

[Lurker King]

We need to interpret these puzzle-game criticisms with a grain of salt, because they are obvious rationalizations intended to justify generic cRPG habits:

“This is a puzzle game!”.

Read: “I don’t want skill and stats to matter outside combat”.

“But muh personal choices do not matter!”

Read: “Personal choices should be always rewarded even if they are irrational, egotistical and devoid of logic”.

“The game world is suffocating”.

Read: “The game world should be an egotistical theme park designed to satisfy my urge to kill things and interact with my abilities”.

And so on. It’s basically the twilighted zone here, where the reality is inverted on its head, so that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and logic is thrown out of the window. This is the equivalent of newspeak in game design, because it is a way of talking about things that is intended to protect arbitrary preferences from the reality of things. Anyone who indulge in these criticisms is a self-indulgent and delusional fool using fallacious reasoning.

Vince "fixed" these problems with a increase by use system and they will bitch even more, because they are not talking any sense. It's a red herring for fluffy skill checks and awesome exploration devoid of challenges.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

 

[Abu Antar]

I played AoD as a pacifist without any knowledge about much. I just went with what seemed appropriate for my character and it worked. Some paths were closed, but I was allowed to cross, double cross and triple cross my way through the game. My character was quite the piece of scum, actually.

 

[Lurker King]

I enjoy stat and skill checks in games, but it's frustrating to run into walls i can't get around unless i either grind for that specific check, or start the game over. I quite like systems that incorporate a gradient of success/failure, rather than a hard fail/pass result. So maybe i'm not amazing at the skill, but i manage to further the story, get into the area, or get the companion. Even if i also suffered a material or resource loss, or if the companion does't like me very much, or if they don't bring some cool gear to the party, like if i aced the check better. It's a bit more work for the designer, but it removes much frustration.

Yet, they invested a lot of time implemented fail-and-go scenarios that are promptly and conveniently ignored by most butthurted players, because they are so distressed by failures that they easily dismiss and misinterpret the whole thing. Players are more impacted by their negative experiences because this goes against their build in expectations about game design. Therefore, they erroneously assume that have fewer choices and hide in their shells looking for protection, afraid of failure and repeating builds. Go figure.

 

[Lurker King]

But this is circular reasoning because you are not actually explicitly supporting any meaningful alternative that should be the object of comparison in your criticisms. Choices governed by stat and skills are bad? Compared to what? Predictable choices, fluffy skill checks and generic game world? When you put the discussion in these terms, your whole mindset is exposed and loses its appeal. An appeal that relies on nothing more than bad cRPG habits created by lazy developers that built their careers pandering to players’ ego. Besides, as it has already being argued on multiple occasions in other threads, this “there is only way to succeed” is an unfair characterization of the ridiculous amount of scripting that is just hiding beneath the surface, and which is conveniently ignored by these accusations. Let’s take the bandit camp, one of the most challenging scenarios of the game.

Spoiler

You can (1) convince Dellar to pay the raiders to attack the Aurelian outpost [Intelligence 7], and convince the raiders to attack the outpost [Persuasion + Trading = 7] or [Streetwise 4];

(2) convince Dellar to pay the ransom of 1000 imperials [Persuasion 3], earn [+1 Peacemaker reputation];

(3) convince Dellar to pay the ransom of 500 imperials [Persuasion + Trading = 5], if you barter with the raiders for the lower ransom first [Trading 4] and earn [+1 Peacemaker reputation];

(4) pay Cado 700 imperials to deal with the raiders, thus killing them and saving the hostage [Thief background];

(5) visit the camp and give Dellar detailed information, thus granting the rescue success [Perception 7];

(6) let Dellar attempt the rescue without providing any useful information, thus resulting in the death of the hostage and many soldiers;

(7) ask the leader of the bandits to hand the prisoner over [Charisma 8];

(8) ask the leader about his past as an Imperial Guard [Perception 7 + Charisma 7] and learn about Hellgate [Lore 3];

(9) kill the leader with a dagger [Critical Strike] and intimidate the rest with one of the following checks [Combat Reputation 2], [Bodycount 9], [Strength 9 + Dexterity 7 + Constitution 8], [Streetwise 3 + Combat Reputation 1], [Streetwise 3 + Bodycount 4], or [Streetwise 3 + Strength 7 + Dexterity 7 + Constitution 7], otherwise you have to fight with the rest. One of these intimidation checks lead to another line of dialogue which requires more intimidation [Persuasion + Streetwise = 6].

So you have at the very least nine options to succeed and some of these options includes two or three combinations that are broad as you get. There are so many options that you can even fail in some of them and survive, for instance, if you fail in your attempt to kill the leader with a dagger [critical strike check], the raiders will knock you down and kick you. By avoiding the blows your dodge will increase by 5 points, but your Max HP is lowered by 2 points. Some players even fail on purpose to receive these bonuses. So when you state that there is only one option and you need to reload is in total denial to what the game actually offers, which makes me think that your criticism is just a red herring for another less than stellar suggestion, namely, I don't want stat and skills to matter outside combat.

 

[Black Angel]

I don't understand some of the arguments here about stat/skill-checks governed gameplay. Isn't the must-have thing in cRPGs and RPGs in general, the core gameplay, that it should have been governed by your builds (stat, skills, perks if there's any etc etc)? So why do you feel like this restrict the 'choices' you think the character could have? Isn't that always how it was since the older cRPGs like Fallout 1/2?

What's 'C&C' really means to you guys? Is it that:

1. A content, say a quest, have multiple solutions but each solution is available to specific build, followed by a singular outcome or unique outcome based on how a character resolve it
   
2. or that a quest have multiple solutions available regardless of your build?

 

[AArmanFV]

I remember that in Fallout one time I didn't had the intelligence or speech to convence the master, but had enough picklocking and shit to activate the bomb and nuke the entire base, and there was even a key from that super mutant fucker to do that without much skills if I recall well.

Never played it, but I once read some small-review of the game that pointed on the fact that AoD is an hybrid of C&C and MinMaxing, the reviewer said that he loved the game and at the same time hated it because of that.

 

[Drowed]

Read above.

Who said that I wanted to be a "good boy"?

The problem with these “puzzle game” criticisms is that they all beg the question by repeating obvious things. You state that your choices are determined by you skill/stats/past actions as if this was a bad thing per se, but you are incapable of elaborating one miserable argument to justify this preference. You need to elaborate a viable alternative that is more fulfilling to you that does not imply that character building only matters in combat and the game world is completely retarded.

Alternative: the way Fallout and Arcanum did it. The reason has already been justified ad nauseam around here.

 

[Saduj]

2 The most common complain about AoD that I've stumbled upon is that it's all about min-maxing. You either have a "perfect" build or you cannot do this, that and that. Many people want to get as much content as possible with a single character, which requires the above mentioned "perfect" build. What are your thoughts on it and how do you plan to deal with it in The New World?"

I really like AoD but I don't think that this question properly framed the issue. The major problem with AoD isn't that a less than perfect build can't do everything. It is that it is very easy to be completely roadblocked in your chosen profession if you don't invest your skill points almost precisely. You can focus your skill point distribution solely on skills that are tied to your chosen profession and still get blocked very easily.

In any case, I'm glad the issue is being addressed in the new game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I really like AoD but I don't think that this question properly framed the issue. The major problem with AoD isn't that a less than perfect build can't do everything. It is that it is very easy to be completely roadblocked in your chosen profession if you don't invest your skill points almost precisely. You can focus your skill point distribution solely on skills that are tied to your chosen profession and still get blocked very easily.

Examples?

You can start the game with 3-4 points in two skills and raise them to 5-6 plus invest in a couple of other skills. Most skillchecks in Teron are 3-4, meaning that you can beat them with a character straight out of chargen and have plenty of room to grow supportive skills. Those rare checks that require 5 are for the specialists. The same concept was applied to the rest of the game, so as I far as I'm aware you can't get blocked easily when it comes to the main quest or faction quests but you can easily fail side quests which is a different story.

 

[Lexxx20]

Thank you for the kinds words, everyone!

You could also read our interview with the No Truce With The Furies developers (also available in English at the end on the first post) here.

 

[Delterius]

I would say that what VD need to do is give more options/choices that aren't directly dependent on the concept of your character.

It would be nice, but it would still be a game of character building. Ie a game made out of roleplaying. If you double the manhours spent on a game, most of that productivity is still going to the game's main mechanics.

typical AoD building is a puzzle game

I like puzzles, don't you?

 

[Saduj]

Examples?

I haven't played in a long time so I'm not going to be able to provide specific numbers. The one quest that sticks out the most as far as having to hoard skill points/meta game the checks was infiltrating the palace as a thief. I know that there were multiple ways around most of the checks in that quest and that you reworked it at one point to make the necessary skill point distribution less specific. I still went into that quest with a character who had not spent a single skill point unnecessarily and I had to be very careful with how I spent my hoarded points in order to get past it. Part of that probably has to do with how I chose to deal with the previous quests for that profession. Maybe there is another thief build that can pass all the previous quests and arrives at the point in the game more prepared for the palace quest. But I know it is possible to arrive at that quest with a thief who has zero room for error with regards to spending points. And I'm not talking about a character who was overly invested in combat or anything remotely like that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Examples?

I haven't played in a long time so I'm not going to be able to provide specific numbers. The one quest that sticks out the most as far as having to hoard skill points/meta game the checks was infiltrating the palace as a thief.

Which is an optional quest activity with many different ways in accommodating different builds: thief, assassin, talker. A thief can easily gain an audience with Antidas by stealing the goblet for Cado in exchange for the guild handling the raiders. A thief can also easily sneak into the mine and steal the power tube, thus completing the quest.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't understand some of the arguments here about stat/skill-checks governed gameplay. Isn't the must-have thing in cRPGs and RPGs in general, the core gameplay, that it should have been governed by your builds (stat, skills, perks if there's any etc etc)? So why do you feel like this restrict the 'choices' you think the character could have? Isn't that always how it was since the older cRPGs like Fallout 1/2?

What's 'C&C' really means to you guys? Is it that:

1. A content, say a quest, have multiple solutions but each solution is available to specific build, followed by a singular outcome or unique outcome based on how a character resolve it
   
2. or that a quest have multiple solutions available regardless of your build?

It's a mistary!

Yeah, but that is the thing. In FO and FO2 you also had a giant map to explore, filler combat, the game is piss-easy, etc. Of course, there are some gated content in some parts, but most of it is open and accessible. So when they complaint about AoD’s design, what they really mean is that they want a easy game with sandbox approach and fluffy checks. This is ironic because that is the same type of criticism that every Bethesda player will direct against AoD. These people are closet popamolers.

Alternative: the way Fallout and Arcanum did it. The reason has already been justified ad nauseam around here.

You didn't justify anything. You just repeated the same thing as if this was self-evident truth. It’s not. Just because you want fluffy character building with ego pandering does not mean that is a reason. Far from it.

Examples?

I haven't played in a long time so I'm not going to be able to provide specific numbers.

Of course you don’t. You people never do, because you are basically making shit up as you go in order to rationalize your game prejudices, but you are incapable of providing one single example to justify your statements. DO YOU HAVE ANY EXAMPLES INSTEAD OF HIDING YOURSELF BEHIND BLANK STATEMENTS AND VAGUE GENERALITIES BASED ON SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS?

 

[Saduj]

Examples?

I haven't played in a long time so I'm not going to be able to provide specific numbers. The one quest that sticks out the most as far as having to hoard skill points/meta game the checks was infiltrating the palace as a thief.

Which is an optional quest activity with many different ways in accommodating different builds: thief, assassin, talker. A thief can easily gain an audience with Antidas by stealing the goblet for Cado in exchange for the guild handling the raiders. A thief can also easily sneak into the mine and steal the power tube, thus completing the quest.

I haven't played in a long time so I'm not going to argue the specifics of this.

My question would be, how many people play AoD without finding themselves meta gaming more than they do in other rpgs?

Edit: I'm open to the possibility that the answer to my question may surprise me. But I clearly think the answer would be that most people meta game more heavily than they do in other games and they feel it is out of necessity.

 

[Saduj]

Of course you don’t. You people never do, because you are basically making shit up as you go in order to rationalize your game prejudices and justify your personal impressions. You just assert the same thing over and over, but it is incapable of providing one single example that justifies your statements. DO YOU HAVE ANY EXAMPLES INSTEAD OF HIDING YOURSELF BEHIND BLANK STATEMENTS AND VAGUE GENERALITIES BASED ON SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS?

Shut the fuck up. I think its a great game that compares with classics in the genre. That I don't have specific skill point distributions memorized going years back is to be expected, asshat.

 

[FeelTheRads]

“But muh personal choices do not matter!”

Read: “Personal choices should be always rewarded even if they are irrational, egotistical and devoid of logic”.

Actually, no, read as exactly what it is: instead of you playing the game, the game plays you.

AoD is just an advanced CYOA, which means you just have to figure out what stats you need to take certain paths.

Which makes all these touted skill checks simply guesswork.

You're not offered obstacles which you have to figure out how to bypass.
You're offered a list of options and if it happens that your skills are adequate, you pass them.
Because according to VD, figuring out stuff is pointless, games should just give you buttons on which to press to push forward.

That's not RPG gameplay. That's CYOA "gameplay".

Just because you want fluffy character building with ego pandering does not mean that is a reason. Far from it.

Yeah, well you're a moron. And stop using retarded words. What the fuck is fluffy character building?
Character building in Fallout and Arcanum shits all over AoD's garbage.
Yes, in Fallout and Arcanum you are actually playing the game. You decide what to do and your character skills help you in doing it. You're not simply taking one of the paths that VD decided to script for.
Lauding a game for having a ton of scripting.. lol. If that's not decline then I don't know what is.

 

[Lurker King]

Actually, no, read as exactly what it is: instead of you playing the game, the game plays you.

AoD is just an advanced CYOA, which means you just have to figure out what stats you need to take certain paths.

Which makes all these touted skill checks simply guesswork.

You're not offered obstacles which you have to figure out how to bypass.
You're offered a list of options and if it happens that your skills are adequate, you pass them.
Because according to VD, figuring out stuff is pointless, games should just give you buttons on which to press to push forward.

That's not RPG gameplay. That's CYOA "gameplay".

So what is your alternative? Do you think that your choices should not be restricted by stats and skills? Why do you think that stats and skills should affect your choices on combat, but no your choices outside combat? Do you need character building if it does not reflect your character's abilities? Do you have any cogent argument at all to answer these questions? You don’t. You just vent like an angry teenager with edgy remarks because you the facts are not on your side. So you vent, because you are powerless.

Yeah, well you're a moron. And stop using retarded words. What the fuck is fluffy character building?
Character building in Fallout and Arcanum shits all over AoD's garbage.Yes, in Fallout and Arcanum you are actually playing the game. You decide what to do and your character skills help you in doing it. You're not simply taking one of the paths that VD decided to script for.
Lauding a game for having a ton of scripting.. lol. If that's not decline then I don't know what is.

Using FO and Arcanum as pinnacles of gameplay is laughable because these games actually play themselves. They are so easy and broken!

 

[AbounI]

IMO, AoD is both a RPG and a CYOA: wanna play a merchant? Ok, but be warned you'll have to assume your own choices, specially when it's a matter of avoiding combats. Wanna play an Imperial Gard? Be sure to you'll have to deal with the Great Houses.
Every little action leads to a reaction, and many situations can be solved in different ways.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I really like AoD but I don't think that this question properly framed the issue. The major problem with AoD isn't that a less than perfect build can't do everything. It is that it is very easy to be completely roadblocked in your chosen profession if you don't invest your skill points almost precisely. You can focus your skill point distribution solely on skills that are tied to your chosen profession and still get blocked very easily.

Examples?

You can start the game with 3-4 points in two skills and raise them to 5-6 plus invest in a couple of other skills. Most skillchecks in Teron are 3-4, meaning that you can beat them with a character straight out of chargen and have plenty of room to grow supportive skills. Those rare checks that require 5 are for the specialists. The same concept was applied to the rest of the game, so as I far as I'm aware you can't get blocked easily when it comes to the main quest or faction quests but you can easily fail side quests which is a different story.

Gaelius aasasination quests in palace with thieves IIRC. It requires many skill points and a wide array of skills so if the player does not save a ton of points he might be easily screwed. And there were at least few more. I managed to get around them with my knowledge, but gaining it takes time.
Tbh I believe that there should be less than optimum path for players with not enough skill in certain ability. As opposed to insta death or plain walking away and becoming unemployed. Unless such way is implemented constant bottle necks will be a problem.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Actually, no, read as exactly what it is: instead of you playing the game, the game plays you.

AoD is just an advanced CYOA, which means you just have to figure out what stats you need to take certain paths.

Which makes all these touted skill checks simply guesswork.

You're not offered obstacles which you have to figure out how to bypass.
You're offered a list of options and if it happens that your skills are adequate, you pass them.
Because according to VD, figuring out stuff is pointless, games should just give you buttons on which to press to push forward.

That's not RPG gameplay. That's CYOA "gameplay".

So what is your alternative? Do you think that your choices should not be restricted by stats and skills? Why do you think that stats and skills should affect your choices on combat, but no your choices outside combat? Do you need character building if it does not reflect your character's abilities? Do you have any cogent argument at all to answer these questions? You don’t. You just vent like an angry teenager with edgy remarks because you the facts are not on your side. So you vent, because you are powerless.

Retard. You have no facts. You only have a fucking diseased fanbot brain.
I think stats should affect choices. Things is you can't figure out that in AoD it's choices that affect stats. What you pretend is "playing" in AoD is dancing to VD's tune, like a fucking puppet.
And I'm not sure why you ask me for alternatives. I'm not a game designer. Nor do I pretend to improve RPG design with my CYOA.

But if you want alternatives looks for any RPG which are not CYOAs.

Yeah, well you're a moron. And stop using retarded words. What the fuck is fluffy character building?
Character building in Fallout and Arcanum shits all over AoD's garbage.Yes, in Fallout and Arcanum you are actually playing the game. You decide what to do and your character skills help you in doing it. You're not simply taking one of the paths that VD decided to script for.
Lauding a game for having a ton of scripting.. lol. If that's not decline then I don't know what is.

Using FO and Arcanum as pinnacles of gameplay is laughable because these games actually play themselves. They are so easy and broken!

Retard. It's not about being easy or not. Yes, I know, instant death on whatever script VD decided must be "difficult" is very hardcore and and all that, but I'm talking about you having input in how you play the game. You can't seem to understand that all these fucking scripted skill checks mean fuck all if the result is just following one of the scripts. They mean NOTHING. All you do is guesswork. Or rather hopework.