Vaultman

Love it!

What's wrong with the AoD engine again?

The problem is one of consistancy, where you can easily beat up a whole bunch of people and kill the Overseer without even breaking a sweat, this with the player character being a level 1 weakling (and using skills that the character is rather weak in to start with). And why on earth should tutorials be so easy that you can basically kill enemies (full-grown humans with weapons) by sneezing at them. I don't see what's wrong with his complaints so far. And hell, in his second post there's some positive stuff as well and he says that it looks like it'll be a better game than Oblivion. Just to clarify. I posted my impressions, not a review. I commented that the entire vault 101 area was ridiculously easy and didn't seem logical. A kid shouldn't be able to kill everyone and just walk out, especially after the girl tells you that even with a gun you can't handle all the security guards. Generously giving me high to hit chance with a weapon I'm not skilled with seemed odd as well. You say it's a tutorial? Ok. a) What does it teach you? Does it teach me the importance of skills? Does it motivate me to play in the manner fitting my skills? b) Who says that tutorials should be easy? I thought they should show you game's concepts and teach you how to use various skills, not show you how much fun it is to play in the god mode, pwning everyone. Yes, the Temple of Trials was horrible, but what does that have to do with anything?

We've added Michal Madej (The Witcher's lead designer) and Leonard Boyarsky, so in case you guys are interested in that kind of read, take a look.

I wouldn't describe it as being defensive or confrontational, but it's been noted that my "cultural background" is different. You haven't read far enough and you didn't understand the nature of the debate. There was a dialogue option followed by a logical, in my opinion, conclusion. Much to my surprise, a lot of people had a problem with what they stated was an unexpected conclusion. After an epic forum battle I agreed that the other side had a valid point and changed and expanded the situation. As for the party-based vs single character debate, by all means, start one and make some arguments. I'd appreciate if you start it on our forums though to give more people a chance to participate. Yes. Absolutely. 4 years ago I would have probably agreed with you, but not now. I've seen some amazing ideas coming from the community and each of those ideas is well worth the hassle of sorting through ****. Can you work on something 24/7? A weak defense. What context will make exploding nuclear cars, drinking from toilets to regain health, harmless radiation, nuclear explosions that you can use in close combat, portable nuclear shelters that look like phone booth and cost a quarter, etc sound less stupid?

I'm new here.

Goes without saying, old boy. I'm always interested in what people have to say about the game and I'm sure you know that I can handle criticism and don't really take negative comments personally. For the record though, I don't remember coming here and asking for opinions about AoD, but I like good debates and am always willing to participate in one.

Reaction to what? Was there some constructive criticism that I've overlooked? Here is what's been criticized so far: - the designer's views are myopic so his game will most likely suck. No examples of the "myopic" views was given. - the designer is from the Codex and "vd" is a fitting name - the game looks boring because the production values are relatively low (comparing to the latest games) - the game looks amateurish and probably done by people who don't know what they are doing. - hammer rebounds in an extreme manner - throwing spears at people while being attacked by melee opponents is unrealistic - equipping large items should take several turns - why is there a list of attacks? Only an idiot would think of something like that. - too many attacks, which is a proof that the game was designed without any thoughts. - environment should be interactable (an example given to support the notion is pure fantasy and hasn't been done even in multi-million-dollar-budget RPGs going exclusively for the eye candy and awesome cinematics. So, what exactly did you expect me to do? What unsupported idea I should have eagerly embraced? Just curious. We started with a 2D engine. The reaction to screens was brutal. We've had to upgrade to get a fighting chance. That's all there is to it. I'm here, which means I'm interested in what you guys have to say. However, that doesn't mean that I'll treat each comment as a potential goldmine and will wait patiently until some negative remark will evolve into something we can actually consider and work with. I can give you several examples of changes I was talking about in the article. Originally the character system was a bit different. There was another "feature" that I really, really liked, but quite a few people didn't like it and didn't get it. After some discussions a well worded argument helped me realize that the feature is flawed and can't be fixed (it's a long story). I removed it immediately. Another example is the interface. Those who followed the game didn't like it, explained what they didn't like and why, made convincing arguments and suggestions, and it has been changed, reflecting the community's preferences. Same with the sound effects. And here is the most convincing example. Start reading from this post: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...msg4090#msg4090 Click on the link. You won't see the screenshots if you aren't registered, but you don't need to see the screens to understand the situation and discussion. Because I do listen and because I can easily prove that I do and list numerous examples supporting this theory. Care to explain? I put together this article when I was with the Codex. It's called The Wonderful World of Fallout 3. Can you honestly say that you don't see anything stupid there? Something that should have been tweaked or removed? Mind you, I'm not expecting a "true Fallout sequel", whatever that is. I'm perfectly aware that Bethesda's vision and style are very different from the original Tim & Co team's vision and style. I expect nothing but a PA game inspired by Fallout. I dislike, however, the amount of dumb **** Bethesda has managed to put into the game so far.

I thank thee for the wisdom and would like to offer one in return. Putting more thoughts into "everything sucks" opinions might be a better way to get people to express interest in what you have to say. I forgive you. People who appreciate Alpha Centauri can't be that bad, can they? 1. Can you be more specific? 2. The "it's not realistic" argument? 3. Usability. Make the cost 2-3 turns and nobody will even think of doing it. 4. What seems to be the problem? See, now you are making assumptions. I have explained our combat system in great details. I appreciate your detailed feedback, but if you decide to spend your evening criticizing a game, shouldn't you get a bit more familiar with its concepts? Care to elaborate? Engine limitations. We have throwing nets that have exactly the same effect. Am I forgiven? I agree. Lucky for us, we are not making a "neofallout" game. Tactical potential? I thought everything sucked. No, it's not a party-based game. Yes. No idea. Here is a link: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=89.0

Allow me to express my deepest appreciation for your support and intelligence, and to extend a personal invitation to our forums. Mi casa su casa and all that.

We have 7 combat tracks and 12 non-combat ones. The tracks were done by a professional gaming composer. I agree with you on the "energetic and lethal" part, but you are mistaken about the lack of animation variety. We have over 100 unique animations. For example, fast, regular, and power, aimed, and special attacks with the same weapons have different animations. We have different animations for one- and two-handed weapons. We even have throwing nets animations, so while the animations may fail to satisfy your taste and requirements, they don't lack in variety. By what standards? Graphics? What design are you talking about? Visual? Because if you mean anything else, then we should be talking about regress. Bioshock was a pretty and very artsy game, but System Shock 2 is a much, much better game, even after all these years. Thanks.

Obsolete? How does one RPG make another obsolete? Without comparing AoD in any way to PST, would the Aliens RPG make PST obsolete? DOS Box has been downloaded over 2.5 mil times in 2007 and is one of top 50 downloads of all times. What does that tell you about "obsolete" games? Every part? That sucks. Maybe we'll get more lucky next time. Based on constructive, well presented and supported criticism, not based on knee-jerk reactions and general dislike of this type of games. Do you mind being a bit more specific? We're looking for ways to improve them and would appreciate a good feedback.

Yes. After I saw the tweaked combat video with added sound effects, I was fully convinced.

Argued about what? Troika's games? How is that relevant? I don't know. You tell me. http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/749/749013p1.html http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/809/809015p1.html http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/714/714762p1.html http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/716/716455p1.html I wouldn't compare France and Russia to Greenland and Lithuania, but I'm sure you know better. Translation: lalalalala i'm not listening lalalalalala Well, I'm not a classy guy like you, Gromnir, and I'm not as well versed in the ways of the world, but I see nothing wrong in using links in one's replies. Had I started spamming the boards, starting new threads every time a new AoD article or interview hits the net, then it would be "tacky". Otherwise... The game has been in development for 4 years. You can say that I'm intimately acquainted with reality at this point. I'm sure that that's exactly how you see yourself. Other than working on a game and showing gameplay videos and screens? Nothing, I guess. Yep. You've got me, Grommy. RockPaperShotgun, RPG Vault, GameBanshee, PC Gamer, Scorpia, etc are all run by Codex members. I fooled everyone but you, eh? I criticized "our game is the most awesomest game like evar"-type hype, not marketing and informing people about game's features and such. Anyway, it's been a pleasure as always, Grommy.

This statement is false. AoD was noted by RPG Vault, PC Gamer UK, GameBanshee, PC Powerplay, above mentioned Kieron Gillen of the Rock Paper Shotgun fame, Future France (a trackload of French gaming mags), and quite a few other sites. CRPG.ru named it as one of the most anticipated games. If I may make a suggestion, Gromnir... Why don't you drop your silly bias against me and actually discuss either the game or my design ideas. That would be more productive and interesting. Done what? I posted links to articles I wrote for RPG Watch. These articles explain and illustrate AoD's gameplay. Since someone made a remark about the "hardcore" nature of the game, wondering if the game is for him, I posted the links as the most direct and specific answer. What's wrong with that again?

I'll take that as a compliment. Well, apparently a lot of people share my myopic views and would like to see an RPG reflecting them. Go figure, eh? http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...msg8869#msg8869 Now, purely out of curiosity, when it comes to game design, where exactly do we disagree? I guess people don't look at my resume. The dumb bastards look at the game videos, screenshots, and detailed articles instead. You are too kind, Grommy. Clue: Pavlos isn't a "codexian", he's a StarWarsKnights journalist. Similarly, Kieron Gillen isn't a "codexian", but he too expressed some interest in the game and asked me a few questions for RPS. Another "go figure" moment. I'm no longer with the Codex. I was, uh, voted off the island. It's a long story.

Good and evil are the most subjective concepts. If you don't mind, I'll link you to a discussion where this very issue was debated (including the Ep 3 reference) http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...p=493339#493339 On the other hand, it would have been nice if MOO3 developers listened to the fans, wouldn't it? The key word is "convince", not complain, whine, or demand. It's very easy to make design mistakes. Bethesda thought that auto leveling is a great idea, but it was greatly disliked/hated by most people, even those who liked Oblivion. The game would have been much better if Bethesda was more open for suggestions. Same goes for Fallout 3. http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=79 http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=82 If you like what you see there, then you'll like the game.

You mean you can't actually offer any facts backing up your position? How disappointing. That doesn't actually make much sense to me, but ok. Why not? You know that the guardian was lying to you before, and his "maybe you will live to see the daylight again" remark doesn't sound awfully reassuring. It makes sense for a character in this situation to seek ways to gain some leverage and increase the survival odds, instead of relying on the lying guardian's goodwill exclusively.

I do dislike when different options lead to the same outcome, but even the Codex would require some proof that that's indeed the case. Anyway, the first option leads to a fight once you did what you were asked to; the second option leads to a nice double cross opportunity since you are fully aware that the "demon" is full of **** and most likely won't play fair. I don't mind criticism at all, I simply disagree with your "objective" assessment.

I highly doubt it. When the Codexers see dialogues with skillchecks they jump up and down with joy like little children. It's hard to believe but it's true.

Jumping to conclusions, Kharn? No. The outcomes are different.

I saw it, Kaftan. Thanks.

The interview is fake. A person by the name of JE Sawyer doesn't exist.

Thing is that popular games that many people like tend to sell in great numbers. Of course it depends on your particular definition of many. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No arguing here.