Age of Decadence Launched.

[Cantousent]

I'm actually considering buying this game.  On the plus side, it's supposed to be well considered and an honest to goodness attempt to recapture some of the ol' skool aspects of gaming I have loved over the years.  On the negative side, I have a bit of Codexian fatigue.  On the mitigating of the negative side, I have noticed that the Codex isn't the hive minded group of contemptuous haters as which some folks have depicted them.  On the down side of the plus side, I don't have time to finish other new games I have genuinely enjoyed, such as Dragonfall.

 

Anyhow, no matter what, I think we should congratulate the designers of AoD.  I'm a hack who lacks talent, but I refuse to let my personal deficiencies prevent me from appreciating the accomplishments of others.  Good luck with sales, you glorious AoD bastards.  I might just buy the game to support independent developers.  I just hope I'm not burned for it.  <.<

[Nonek]

The first sign of a good game in my opinion: I've restarted half a dozen times with differing characters and builds, i'm facing a glorious tyranny of choice and am thoroughly enjoying my exploration.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Nonek

[ShadySands]

I'm loving it so far

 

My assassin is the terror of starting town

[Cantousent]

I haven't bought it yet, but I've actually found that my Shady friend and I have pretty similar tastes and that's the one fine grain of sand that tips the scale in favor of purchase.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Do you still have to hoard skill points and metagame with saves in order to be able to complete the game? Do you still have to heavily min-max for combat otherwise?

They tried to address those concerns, for example you now get more skill points. How well they've succeeded you'd have to judge for yourself, it's not an easy balance.

 

 

If only they had more time to balance!

 

I keed I keed.  I have been enjoying Dead State, so I'm hoping this is as enjoyable.

 

It's not a time issue, it's conceptual. If you make battles reasonable for a balanced character, they become easy for a full combat build. Not an easy problem to solve.

 

In other news, apparently AOD has been selling very well. They are now able to do the generational space ship RPG that they've been planning, which is excellent news!

[Tigranes]

I'm actually considering buying this game.  On the plus side, it's supposed to be well considered and an honest to goodness attempt to recapture some of the ol' skool aspects of gaming I have loved over the years.  On the negative side, I have a bit of Codexian fatigue.  On the mitigating of the negative side, I have noticed that the Codex isn't the hive minded group of contemptuous haters as which some folks have depicted them.  On the down side of the plus side, I don't have time to finish other new games I have genuinely enjoyed, such as Dragonfall.

 

Anyhow, no matter what, I think we should congratulate the designers of AoD.  I'm a hack who lacks talent, but I refuse to let my personal deficiencies prevent me from appreciating the accomplishments of others.  Good luck with sales, you glorious AoD bastards.  I might just buy the game to support independent developers.  I just hope I'm not burned for it.  <.<

 

It's not a Codex game, it's basically a one man game then a couple of multi-purpose significant contributors coming on board.

 

AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. 

 

It's a unique thing. For better or for worse its a very pure distilled vision, without the million compromises where unique features become gimmicks and design philosophies become watered down. Which is why some people will hate it, some people will love it. Hey, there's a free demo.

 

(Also, if you thought, regardless of the rest, Alpha Protocol or MOTB were amazing because they gave you such unique roleplaying options that you don't find elsewhere, then AOD gives you a ton of that. Ever talked one enemy group into fighting another enemy group and solve both of your problems? Ever disguised yourself as a guard, scaled the walls with rope, backstab a guard, jump down onto the floor, then smooth-talk the palace's owner about why all that means he should hire you? Ever gone on an assassination mission and then shot your partner in the face to defect to the target's side? Well, there we go.)

[Orogun01]

 

I'm actually considering buying this game.  On the plus side, it's supposed to be well considered and an honest to goodness attempt to recapture some of the ol' skool aspects of gaming I have loved over the years.  On the negative side, I have a bit of Codexian fatigue.  On the mitigating of the negative side, I have noticed that the Codex isn't the hive minded group of contemptuous haters as which some folks have depicted them.  On the down side of the plus side, I don't have time to finish other new games I have genuinely enjoyed, such as Dragonfall.

 

Anyhow, no matter what, I think we should congratulate the designers of AoD.  I'm a hack who lacks talent, but I refuse to let my personal deficiencies prevent me from appreciating the accomplishments of others.  Good luck with sales, you glorious AoD bastards.  I might just buy the game to support independent developers.  I just hope I'm not burned for it.  <.<

 

It's not a Codex game, it's basically a one man game then a couple of multi-purpose significant contributors coming on board.

 

AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. 

 

It's a unique thing. For better or for worse its a very pure distilled vision, without the million compromises where unique features become gimmicks and design philosophies become watered down. Which is why some people will hate it, some people will love it. Hey, there's a free demo.

 

(Also, if you thought, regardless of the rest, Alpha Protocol or MOTB were amazing because they gave you such unique roleplaying options that you don't find elsewhere, then AOD gives you a ton of that. Ever talked one enemy group into fighting another enemy group and solve both of your problems? Ever disguised yourself as a guard, scaled the walls with rope, backstab a guard, jump down onto the floor, then smooth-talk the palace's owner about why all that means he should hire you? Ever gone on an assassination mission and then shot your partner in the face to defect to the target's side? Well, there we go.)

 

My problem as usual is the THC0, I can only watch soccer when i'm drunk.

[Gromnir]

 

I'm actually considering buying this game.  On the plus side, it's supposed to be well considered and an honest to goodness attempt to recapture some of the ol' skool aspects of gaming I have loved over the years.  On the negative side, I have a bit of Codexian fatigue.  On the mitigating of the negative side, I have noticed that the Codex isn't the hive minded group of contemptuous haters as which some folks have depicted them.  On the down side of the plus side, I don't have time to finish other new games I have genuinely enjoyed, such as Dragonfall.

 

Anyhow, no matter what, I think we should congratulate the designers of AoD.  I'm a hack who lacks talent, but I refuse to let my personal deficiencies prevent me from appreciating the accomplishments of others.  Good luck with sales, you glorious AoD bastards.  I might just buy the game to support independent developers.  I just hope I'm not burned for it.  <.<

 

It's not a Codex game, it's basically a one man game then a couple of multi-purpose significant contributors coming on board.

 

AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. 

 

It's a unique thing. For better or for worse its a very pure distilled vision, without the million compromises where unique features become gimmicks and design philosophies become watered down. Which is why some people will hate it, some people will love it. Hey, there's a free demo.

 

(Also, if you thought, regardless of the rest, Alpha Protocol or MOTB were amazing because they gave you such unique roleplaying options that you don't find elsewhere, then AOD gives you a ton of that. Ever talked one enemy group into fighting another enemy group and solve both of your problems? Ever disguised yourself as a guard, scaled the walls with rope, backstab a guard, jump down onto the floor, then smooth-talk the palace's owner about why all that means he should hire you? Ever gone on an assassination mission and then shot your partner in the face to defect to the target's side? Well, there we go.)

 

can't express how much we disagree.  perhaps you like the game, and that is fine, but is hardly brilliant and its notion o' choice and consequences and/or role-play is complete misguided.

 

aod is skinner box mentality, and not particular inspired at that.  there is clear wrong choices in character generation and quest progression that the player gots no way o' divining before failure/death. player choices do not necessarily result in new and different routes opening up to the player.  more frequent you discover that 'cause o' unimaginative design, "wrong" choices result in a simple dead end.  is much more difficult for a developer to make diverse choices in character generation and gameplay viable and fun. is much easier for developer to simple prune the bifurcations o' a quest tree, or to make combat that is only challenging AND fun for a limited number o' potential builds.  bad consequences is okie dokie with Gromnir, but am not in favor o' such being unforeseeable.  is more difficult to artful inform player that "here there be dragons" before getting game over message. 3/5/9 hours into game you discover that aod provides choices, but offers only a few viable options?  is not brilliant.  is lazy.  is limited. is anachronistic. 

 

...

 

and the writing is...

 

*shrug*

 

anybody who applauds aod w/o noting writing shortcomings is gonna have a difficult time complaining 'bout excessive exposition and uninspired character development in future crpg titles.

 

is nothing inherent wrong with a glorified rat maze o' a game.  is nothing inspired or brilliant 'bout such design neither.  is also kinda the opposite o' what we believe role-play is 'bout. be that as it may, sometimes anachronistic can be fun and nostalgic.  enjoy the nostalgia. but recognize the flaws.  regardless, aod is a rather simple conditioning program as 'posed to creative, clever or inspired rpg.

 

we got loads o' mechanical quibbles, but am gonna leave those aside as we ain't played final release (don't plan to) so is possible that considerable/few/no changes were made to those mechanical issues we observed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 17, 2015 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. 

 

 

You actually make it sound like a decent game!

 

Now, I tried the demo and walked off decidedly unimpressed due to the terrible graphics and the fact that the only thing making me yawn more intensely than post-apocalyptic environments is pseudo-Roman environments. Also, I found the writing to be not strong enough to compensate for these - admittedly largely subjective - shortcomings.

 

So, does it get better later on?

Edited October 17, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Darkpriest]

 

It's not a time issue, it's conceptual. If you make battles reasonable for a balanced character, they become easy for a full combat build. Not an easy problem to solve.

 

In other news, apparently AOD has been selling very well. They are now able to do the generational space ship RPG that they've been planning, which is excellent news!

 

 

Yeah, well and here is where the game is becoming something I do not like... Forcing someone into min-maxing, just to have a shot at combat encounters IS a bad design...

 

I am not sure if it is still the case, but if the default stats for given profession are unplayable, it means that the game is badly balanced..

 

There are no reasons in an RPG game to min max, other than break the RPG system... if min-maxing people want to play easy mode, let them, but do not force people with more balanced and realistic RP builds be completely useless...

 

There used to be points in the game where you had to have perfect knowledge of how many levels and how many points you will need to have in non-combat skills to just pass it, because whenever you were forced into a combat situation, you were useless with a balanced build. And such situations being considered optional (because you had an option to complete it with dialog right?) is too punitive...

 

You could not complete modules without metagaming knowledge and with fairly balanced stat builds (no min maxing, but still showing primary stats). The only exception seemed to be the Merchant's path, which was somewhat doable, but in the 2nd city you were forced back to metagaming.

[Tigranes]

 

 

AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. 

 

 

You actually make it sound like a decent game!

 

Now, I tried the demo and walked off decidedly unimpressed due to the terrible graphics and the fact that the only thing making me yawn more intensely than post-apocalyptic environments is pseudo-Roman environments. Also, I found the writing to be not strong enough to compensate for these - admittedly largely subjective - shortcomings.

 

So, does it get better later on?

 

 

*shrug* both what I said and what you said will be true, for your playing experience. If you found graphics, setting and writing poor in Teron, then it won't change 180 degrees later. At the same time, everything I mentioned are real examples of what you can do in this game, and there are many more like it all over the game. 

 

It's not black and white. I wouldn't argue with anybody - AOD does require a lot of trial and error, and you can't start with any character and get by every battle. At the same time, it's factually untrue that the 'recommended' starting attributes are unplayable, and it's factually untrue that only minmaxed combat builds have a chance at fighting. Hybrid builds that spend as many skill points on noncombat skills as combat still manage to kill dozens of people, all the while stealing and sneaking their way to success. It's just that unlike Skyrim, you can't be the best thief in the universe + best talker + best fighter + best in bed all at the same time. 

 

Here, it's helpful to think about real numbers and situations instead of thinking on paper, because the latter encourages us to be black and white. Consider:

(1) Maybe you could spend 50% of your skill points on combat, and you'd be good enough to beat 80% of the fights without more than one or two reloads. In that case, anybody that puts in more than 50% and specialises in combat, are going to be a walking tank and beat everybody. By extension, any tough choices - "do I trick this poor dude or do I steal his weapon? Do I avoid this fight or do I walk into an ambush?" becomes meaningless because you know you can beat them all. 

(2) But maybe you have a situation where if you spend 50% of your skill points on combat, then you're still good enough to beat some of the fights, but you're just not going to be good enough for some others. Let's say, for every fight where you go in, use your consumables, come out bloody but alive, but every other fight, you're going to have to ask for help from NPCs (at a price), or maybe use your noncombat skills to make the fight easier, or even run away. And maybe you're playing a game where all of those options, including running away, actually have their own rewards and consequences. 

 

So AOD requires you to be honest. Do you want to play a game where the game only throws challenges that you can win comfortably without minmaxing? If so, OK. I have no intention of judging you, it's your leisure time. Then you won't like AOD. Do you want to play a game where you really do make tough choices, and you really do want a challenge, and you want to be wounded, blooded, make compromises, in order to survive and reach your goal? That's what AOD does, in a way that very few games have even partly done. 

 

Again, I have no intention of telling everybody to play AOD. Giftd, for example, I am pretty sure would hate it. Doesn't make him any worse a human being. I love the game, personally, and think that for people with specific tastes that AOD caters to, it truly is a unique experience. 

[Zoraptor]

You actually make it sound like a decent game!

 

Now, I tried the demo and walked off decidedly unimpressed due to the terrible graphics and the fact that the only thing making me yawn more intensely than post-apocalyptic environments is pseudo-Roman environments. Also, I found the writing to be not strong enough to compensate for these - admittedly largely subjective - shortcomings.

 

So, does it get better later on?

You'd be best waiting for a discount probably, and unless you're desperate for a game to play. If you didn't like the demo that is usually a good indication. The story does get 'better' the more you play, but the graphics won't and in order for the story to get better you have to want to play; if you don't it won't.

[Nonek]

I'm enjoying myself immensely, finally a game that allows one to have roles other than in combat and takes a step away from the regressive path that games have been following for so long. I have to admit that lately in RPGs it's felt like i'm simply a rat in a cage, pressing a button to get a treat, they have been dumbed down so greatly in aid of accessibility and removed any challenge, strategy or forethought. It's nice to see that AoD is actually innovating and progressing rather than streamlining and degenerating.

 

Quite nice to have a Romanesque setting rather than the bog standard fantasy fayre as well.

[Fenixp]

Okay, Age of Decadence is one of the most bizarre RPGs I have ever played. It's incredibly compelling, yet broken on so many levels. The game has amazing combat mechanics - seriously, they're incredible, very polished and surprisingly clear. Also, every RPG needs a sandbox arena as a part of its tutorial, I got stuck there for two hours. The world and writing are amazing, I'm pretty much in a constant state of depression while playing the damn thing and the first thing I learned is that goody two shoes dies fast, so I cheat, rob and kill my way towards hopefully improving the larger picture. The first time I saw the Abyss sent shivers down my spine. The graphics are spartan but effective and all you need to survive is to use common sense. Mostly...

 

... Mostly because the devs clearly bit more than they could chew. Most of the issues with this game come down to the fact that it presents many of its quests in the interactive book format. This means two things: 1.) Player interactions are strictly limited to what writers thought of, 2.) Gameplay is not partitioned properly

1.) Good RPGs tend to give players a world with which they may interact creatively using the tools developers gave the player, potentially in ways devs never expected. Let's say a designer deems it appropriate to place a door somewhere in the game. Every single such door will then have the same set of interactions associated with it, with predictable outcome. Lockpicking skill will open the door quietly. Bashing the door open will aggro nearby enemies. Blowing it up will aggro everybody. Important thing is that these options are consistent, with predictable results. Additionally, no matter many how many skills there are in the game, to make those work, you just need to properly associate them with these objects. Bad design is when writers and scripters don't take all your options into account, but the worst thing that's gonna do is raise some eyebrows.

 

AoD, on the other hand, only offers what writers could think of at any given moment. If you see a lone guard, sometimes you can attack him. Other times you can't. Sometimes you can impersonate a member of some group. Other times you can't. Hell, at times, the game doesn't even offer a choice to back out of a situation you could easily back out of, whereas in proper gameplay you could just walk out. Which brings me to...

2.) Due to the unpredictability of your actions and their results, you need to savescum. Due to the structure of quests, you can't even savescum and allocate your skills properly. I mean, if the game absolutely has to be structured this way (and I suppose that's because modelling the entirety of many interiors would take ages), at the very least allow us to save and open character sheet while in the dialogue mode. Ideally, you could also show us the threshold of those rolls so the most efficient strategy in case there are no viable options for our current build isn't "up a needed skill by one. Try again. Die. Up it by two. Try again. Die. Up it by three. Try again. Succeed"

 

All in all tho, I enjoy the game quite a bit. I do believe devs sort of dug their own grave by giving player a lot more options than they could ever account for, both in amount of skills on offer and combinations of various player decisions. But oh well.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Fenixp

[Cantousent]

I personally think playing a 'goodie two shoes' should be harder than hell in an RPG. It should be braggably hard. However, playing truly evil and murderously should be just as hard. Any successful society should require a happy medium from it members and in fact, broadly speaking, societies in reality do that.

[Volourn]

"AoD, on the other hand, only offers what writers could think of at any given moment. If you see a lone guard, sometimes you can attack him. Other times you can't. Sometimes you can impersonate a member of some group. Other times you can't. Hell, at times, the game doesn't even offer a choice to back out of a situation you could easily back out of"

 

Thats eems anti choice.

 

 

"I personally think playing a 'goodie two shoes' should be harder than hell in an RPG. It should be braggably hard. However, playing truly evil and murderously should be just as hard. Any successful society should require a happy medium from it members and in fact, broadly speaking, societies in reality do that."

 

That's nonsense. It depends on the society. In RL in the WW most 'goody two shoes' live prettu darn good/easy lives. Of course, in AOD this likely isn't the same since it is obviously 'evil'. Not surprsijng considering who made it.

[Fenixp]

Thats eems anti choice.

It's not necessarily anti-choice, I mean choices which actually have consequences would be the same regardless. Problem is that you can't use a consistent array of skills to make those choices.

 

 

Of course, in AOD this likely isn't the same since it is obviously 'evil'. Not surprsijng considering who made it.

What does that even mean? It's a post-apocalyptic settings with all social constructs collapsed, of course being nice and kind will weaken you.

 

I personally think playing a 'goodie two shoes' should be harder than hell in an RPG. It should be braggably hard. However, playing truly evil and murderously should be just as hard. Any successful society should require a happy medium from it members and in fact, broadly speaking, societies in reality do that.

Well, good news would be that it is. Trying to be an extreme is difficult in the game in general - you either prove too weak to do what must be done, or too ruthless and unreliable to keep any allies.

[Cantousent]

I think society both rewards and punishes people for being too 'good' or too 'bad.'  There are rewards, of course.  In real life, if you always take the high road, you will sometimes miss out on the job, the girl friend, material goods, or whatnot.  There is a significant disadvantage to rigorously following a moral or ethical code.  However, you do get a good reputation, generally speaking, and opportunities in other areas, which translates into sometimes having access to a job, a girlfriend, or even material advancement.  Of course life isn't cut and dried.  If you're greedy and amoral, you'll get some advantages but also some disadvantages in much the same way.  However, most people in society do, in fact, balance desire for things with a moral code.  That code is usually derived from a variety of places, such as family, religion, national, regional, and local customs, as well as personal ideas and ideals coming from other areas.  Generally speaking, humans in any society have balanced these concepts, even if the pivotal point of the balance fell in different places from culture to culture.

 

In an RPG where you must decide whether to jump in front of every innocent victim in order to take the flaming arrow in the chest, you should count on bringing a lot of bandages and you shouldn't be able to count on getting every magical sword as a reward.  In real life, truly heroic people sometimes fare quite poorly.  In such a game, if you screw over everyone you meet, you should count on people hunting you down so that your life is spent going from place to place always looking over your shoulder.

 

Anyhow, I'm determined to play AoD when I get the chance.  That way, I can speak about it from an informed position.

 

EDIT:  ...And I'm installing the game right now.  Frankly, probably can't do any more than run the intro at the moment, but I have high hopes to get to play it soon.

[Darkpriest]

well, the game is still trash on balancing. you have to min max AND select certain weapons just to be combat viable...

 

Decided to give it a go again and still the same problems occur.

 

test character:

 

Mercenary - default stats

combat stat choices - axes, hammers, block, critical strike

non-combat - streetwise, trade, persuasion

 

it feels like there is not enough skill points to progress if you want to level the skills to a reasonable level that would allow you not to get rekt by enemies at a certain point (near the end of first city you see the problems as well as some optional encounters, which you can't deal with as heavy armor and shield guy.

 

There is too much RNG reliance in combat, and again if you do not make a super human min maxed character with high dodge and AP, you need to save scum to allocate points that allow you to pass various checks to avoid all the combat.

[Gromnir]

genuine realistic combat would be less than entertaining in a game.  one need take any number o' liberties to add appeal to an inherently terrible and exhausting exercise.  am knowing that some folks is constant demanding more realistic combat, but such has always struck us as a desire based on ignorance.  but you ain't talking combat... 'least not direct.  why we bring up combat when you is talking morality?  we will get there, promise.

 

realistic morality?  hmmm.  start with understanding that we don't know what cant and others mean by morality 'less they get specific.  is more than one definition o' morality.  regardless, extreme goody-two-shoe is possible to pull off in real life.  some such folks can be annoying if they tend towards proselytizing, and if such folks seek to subvert the dominant moral/political paradigm, then they better have an army at their back or they will end up as martyrs.   however, if one is believing in relative morality, then good is what a society deems as admirable, no?  would be peculiar if society rejected the good man, no?  it happens, but is noteworthy because is the exception as 'posed to the rule.  the typical good person lives a life that is appreciated by the small (or large) number o' people they manage to interact with during their lives.  mother teresa were known and loved by millions.  bob, the postman from amherst, mass., were known and loved in his neighborhood. is nothing inherent prohibitive 'bout being good... again, depending on definition o' morality.

 

play bad?  am not gonna go too far down the rabbit hole.  get folks to come to any kinda consensus on what is good and evil is impossible on these boards.  w/o some kinda fixed starting point, we is doomed.  even so, play the psychotic evil that is allowable in most games should have more in-game costs than is typical.  show up in a town and rob from multiple homes and perhaps kill a few folks, and even if you do so w/o witness, there will be investigations and questions and likely arrests.  the game character who do not have some kinda leverage with the local authority playing it overt bad strikes us as far less reasonable than playing good.

 

now, play a more scheming kinda evil where you do not actual commit overt acts o' violence and larceny is plausible, but again, is mechanical prohibitive.  the scheming bad guy needs a plan.  craft a complex and long-term plan when each encounter is purposeful insular and discrete is alternative implausible or undesirable.  we has suggested the option o' adding a scheme for the intelligent bad guy, but admittedly, is not a perfect solution as you would be simple following the developer's proposed scheme rather than crafting such a thing. in any event, to all outward appearances, the scheming bad guy is not gonna seem evil... which means that the bad guys is gonna need do frequent good or at least harmless in most encounters.

 

the heroic aspect may be complete divorced from morality depending on definitions being used. and in any event, one can be a bad man who has acted heroic in the past... and nothing 'bout bad past prevents a man from being heroic in the future.  however, is easy to be heroic in a game 'cause the sacrifice is never genuine... which is a mechanical necessity similar to the aforementioned lack o' realism in combat.  run into a burning building In A Game to save peggy sue and her puppy may not be a morality issue in any event, but is not particular heroic neither if there is absence o' genuine possibility o' real harm.  give imaginary gold that you got in abundance to help the imaginary homeless person?  where is the sacrifice.  w/o sacrifice, where is the heroism?  game heroism is necessarily an illusion. IF you use definition o' morality that requires the good man to sacrifice for his fellows, then yeah, play genuine good is impossible for Mechanical reasons.

 

 

am not sure how the morality conundrum is specific related to aod in any event, save as it is applicable to any and all crpgs. regardless, ordinary  and everyday good should be ez to play, whereas bad should have obvious and typical prohibitive costs.  most important is the realization that heroism is impossible to manufacture in a game. don't expect realistic heroism any more than realistic combat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

well, the game is still trash on balancing. you have to min max AND select certain weapons just to be combat viable...

 

Decided to give it a go again and still the same problems occur.

 

test character:

 

Mercenary - default stats

combat stat choices - axes, hammers, block, critical strike

non-combat - streetwise, trade, persuasion

 

it feels like there is not enough skill points to progress if you want to level the skills to a reasonable level that would allow you not to get rekt by enemies at a certain point (near the end of first city you see the problems as well as some optional encounters, which you can't deal with as heavy armor and shield guy.

 

There is too much RNG reliance in combat, and again if you do not make a super human min maxed character with high dodge and AP, you need to save scum to allocate points that allow you to pass various checks to avoid all the combat.

For a combat character most required combat in now pretty easy, at least in the first city. Presumably it would allow a balanced character to still be able to do some battles and avoid others. I haven't actually tried a balanced character but I'm planning that in my next playthrough. One thing to keep in mind about combat is that you can't necessarily do it in a straight forward way, you have to analyze why you're failing and come up with a strategy, and it requires a decent understanding of the combat system.

 

As far as some of the other criticism I see, yes the game doesn't have emergent gameplay. It's all scripted and relies heavily on text/text adventures, both because Vince likes text and because they have limited resources.

[Cantousent]

Aw well, Gromnir, ya wretch, I always get the impression that you're actually 'heroic' in real life, which makes me jealous.  I completely agree with what you're saying.  ...But, from a guy who wants to be heroic and falls short, I like the idea that there is at least some consequence.  Okay, the reality is that giving 'realistic' consequences for being the good guy is probably not 'realistic' in terms of computer games, but can't they find a way to reward people in the way that most folks get rewarded for being the 'good guy' in 'real life?'  Namely, the fact that you feel good about what you've done because *you* knew it was good, not because someone gave you twenty gold and a magic weapon?

 

...And the fact is that all game designers will be forced to conceive these moral or ethical dilemmas.  To me, it's like corporations always being bad in a game whereas the quasi- or pseudo-'freedom' fighters tend to the 'good' guy.  In real life, even though the vast majority of western civilization has benefited from large commercial endeavors, popular culture has diminished them relentlessly.  A game that recognizes this reality, that reality that some win at the expense of others and society as a whole advances as a result, would be great, but at least a game that doesn't pretend that life gets better just because we manage to diminish commerce would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

I don't think I'm actually arguing against you, my 'half-orc' friend :Cant's goading grin icon:, but only that I want to find the sweet spot in the design that accommodates my own views while still being palatable to other players.  Nevertheless, I have to admit that the only reason I even saw this thread is because you posted in it and I took a gander, Grom, ya bastard.

 

EDIT:  funny, I had the wife read this because I was afraid that my current state of mind might be compromised and she said that she didn't want games to present real moral dilemmas to her.  lol  comedy.  I guess that scores one in il Khan's column.

[Gromnir]

we got nothing 'gainst offering the player hard choices.  we got nothing 'gainst making right choices less obvious.  even so, we recognize that the nature o' these crpgs makes moral dilemmas inherent different regardless o' the degree o'... immersion.  can't do moral dilema same as movie or tv or book.  can't do same as rl.  

 

we will note that our most frequent complaint with handling o' good v. bad consequences is gonna be disappointment with the bad guy consequences and options.   the bad guy options, almost w/o exception, is petty and/or opportunistic. our sense o' esthetics makes bad guy choices an unlikely option, but the limits o' game design is a significant obstacle towards improving the complexity o' moral choices.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Raithe]

I will say that while I do like that this game won't hold your hand about a whole heap of things, I do kind of feel like it also means I missed picking up a bunch of side-quest type things in my first run through.  And side-quests are in many ways one of the key things that helps flesh out the world and provides you with more background info about characters, events and places usually. 

 

Unless you spent a serious amount of time moving, and then running the cursor over everything on screen to find out if its an item clickable or a person you can speak to.... I think that you will miss stuff really easily.

[Fenixp]

Okay, the nature of how is the game designed is getting on my nerves. It all comes down to what I mentioned previously in the thread - there's an NPC who has a crucial component of a certain device and the only way to get this component is to kill him. If you persuade him to leave you alone, he leaves the area and there is no longer any way of obtaining this device. If this was any other RPG, I would have picked his pockets or found some creative way of disposing of him. At one point, rubble is blocking your way, and the only way to bypass it is to have high enough strength. I can think of tons of ways of removing that rubble, including explosives, hiring a mercenary etc., but the game gives you no such options. The whole thing encourages metagaming on a massive scale, and if you want to roleplay a character, you'd better make sure to look up which statchecks at what value are you going to go against in advance if you want that build to be viable.