Age of Decadence Launched.

[Darkpriest]

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.

 

I feel exactly the same way.

[HoonDing]

Can you make a pure Speech build and finish the game without combat?

[Starwars]

Yes. Easiest done through the Merchant guild questline.

[Darkpriest]

Can you make a pure Speech build and finish the game without combat?

 

yes, you can, but you need to save scum and hoard skill points and allocate them while you need them. Make sure you allocate them only for main line quests.

 

And yes, merchant is the one with the easiest talky talky route.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Darkpriest

[HoonDing]

yes, you can, but you need to save scum and hoard skill points and allocate them while you need them.

Sounds fun.

[Rostere]

 

 

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?

 

I can only speak of the state of the game about a year ago, but I firstly played it for about 2 hours. At that point, I thought that the writing was bad and the music was nauseating. Then I started it again a week later on a whim with a new character build. I realized how different the paths were and how interesting the game world was and played for 10+ hours straight. For me, AoD is in the top 5 of RPGs ever. Especially because it does away with so many stupid things from modern RPGs.

[Gairnulf]

AoD is a classic and one's reaction to it pretty much demonstrates whether you can tell a good RPG or not. The only recent game of its caliber is Underrail. In my book, if you don't appreciate AoD's quality, you're wasting your time playing RPGs, period.

[Fenixp]

AoD is a classic and one's reaction to it pretty much demonstrates whether you can tell a good RPG or not. The only recent game of its caliber is Underrail. In my book, if you don't appreciate AoD's quality, you're wasting your time playing RPGs, period.

Awww, you got me really hyped thinking Underrail got released, but it didn't. I am not happy.

 

Anyway, yeah, not true scotsman would dislike Age of Decadence, surely! Seriously, I do like the game a lot, but it has a very big share of quite objective issues. Its non-combat 'mechanics' lack direly needed predictability, they're inconsistent and it's pretty much impossible to play the game without a good deal of savescumming. It is a good RPG, but I can definitely see why would some people absolutely hate it.

[majestic]

Ah, "minor" question on how to achieve one of the endings:

 

 

As far as I know the "Burn It" ending requires that all three lords be killed, directly or indirectly. I've been thinking about how to best approach this. The Imperial Guards questline pretty much allows one to kill two of the three but I'm not sure how to kill all of them without blowing up Maadoran. Which would require a character capable of getting Kingslayer, exploring the Abyss and waking the Dreamer, because in all of my attempts so far when joining the Imperial Guard the assassination attempt in Maadoran fails prior to arrival (i. e. the Merchant's Guild storyline).

 

Or am I missing something totally obvious?

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by majestic

[Tigranes]

For anybody that enjoyed the game, indieDB is doing a thing where top 5 games getting a vote get some free advertising. If you liked AOD at all, it's basically one guy who quit his job and worked on it for ten bloody years, and now just wants to make enough money to keep making games (which he is quite close to doing), so I wish him best of luck. No registration required, single click.

 

http://www.indiedb.com/games/the-age-of-decadence

[Wrath of Dagon]

AOD is half off on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/230070/

[213374U]

Oh, there is a thread for this game?

 

So, any good reason why the most important choice the player will make is the character build? That alone determines most of the consequences you will encounter. I've read this is justified because the game "is not a power fantasy", and "C&C bro" -verbatim from the devs- but this is absurd given a) the bodycount you can end up with and, b) the plot itself. It is also ill-advised on a conceptual level because by definition it is the complete opposite of an informed decision.

 

This extreme fixation with locking the player out of not only certain quest and plot branches (understandable) but basically everything that is not their sphere of specialization right out of the character creation screen really baffles me. Apparently it is anathema to the designers that somebody could be a Navy SEAL *and* hold an engineering degree. One might argue that such a person will probably never win the world heavyweight championship or the Nobel Prize, but they will be reasonably competent in both fields. Not in this game: as a generalist, your experience will mostly consist of a long string of [failed] checks, interspaced with the "Game Over" screen.

 

If in Fallout 3/NV it is hard not to be an unstoppable Gary Stu swimming in money and mastering every conceivable sphere of human activity, this game is the extreme opposite. As a specialist fighter, you will barely survive the toughest, optional fights, RNG permitting. You won't be able to make much sense out of the lore of the game with such a build, though. As a more social-oriented character, don't expect to survive an ambush by a bunch of hobos. That is, of course, unless you take metagaming and savescumming to the next level, learn exactly the what, where and when of the minimum checks you need to pass to open up options leading to more skill points, and exploit that. That's probably the only way to make it with a jack-of-all-trades character, and the Steam playthroughs I've seen seem to confirm it.

 

With that out of the way, I'm enjoying it sufficiently not to put it down. After accepting that I will suck at everything except <build focus> I'm having fun and will probably replay once or twice. It is true that different character backgrounds and skillsets allow for different resolutions and outcomes, the lore is interesting enough to carry the story, and the game manages to portray decadence pretty well. I've even felt that "Fallout with swords" vibe a few times, inbetween fits of blinding rage. I'm actually digging the music too, but it can get repetitive especially in the cities. The division between social and combat skills is brilliant in its simplicity, and it's great that you get rewarded with combat/social points depending on how you handle problems. Combat is... serviceable albeit uninspired, as are most characters I've come across. Areas are generally small, both in scope and actual size, and the largest city in the world is large in name only. Skill/stat checks are ubiquitous but also wildly inconsistent in difficulty and application.

 

I'd say worth the discounted price, but approach with the mindset that this game has some seriously rigid design, and unless you are willing to cheat, there is no way around the limitations imposed as a result. It's a role-playing game, provided you play strictly the roles the designers allow; otherwise it's an exercise in frustration. Tigranes' post describes the game well enough, but one has to wonder to what extent stuff that sounds good on paper actually makes for fun games... even if the execution were flawless.

 

Still, an excellent effort for an indie studio's first game. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with for their colony ship RPG.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Still, an excellent effort for an indie studio's first game.

 

I found it to be incredibly grating, for reasons I've more or less elaborated on here.

 

Does the writing get less edgy and one-dimensional later on, or should I just write it off as Not For Me? (Never managed to finish a Fallout game in my life either.)

[213374U]

 

Still, an excellent effort for an indie studio's first game.

 

I found it to be incredibly grating, for reasons I've more or less elaborated on here.

 

Does the writing get less edgy and one-dimensional later on, or should I just write it off as Not For Me? (Never managed to finish a Fallout game in my life either.)

 

No, no I don't think the writing changes in that sense. Everyone is pretty much a **** in this game, and I don't think I've ever come across a single genuinely nice character who doesn't intend to rip you off somehow or has some skeletons in the closet. It's part of the mood-setting, but I can't find fault with your criticism. The game certainly doesn't lack things that may potentially piss you off, so if the writing feels outlandish, forced, or you just don't like it, don't bother. Time is too valuable to waste doing stuff you hate on your own dime, and this is one of those "love it or hate it" products.

Edited June 24, 2016 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I think that was the big difference between this and Dead State.  I ended up caring about the people in Dead State.  AoD is filled with jerks.

[Zoraptor]

I thought the number of characters in Dead Space was simply too many to care much about any of them- they ended up as ciphers or stereotypes with little character development. I'd prefer fewer NPCs; and though I'm pretty sure there won't be a sequel IIRC Brian Mitsoda said much the same thing about there being just too many NPCs to flesh out.

 

I don't really know about AoD. It's like someone seeing corruption in the church and deciding that the solution is Scourging. Yeah, rpglites tend towards being vanilla cheese fests designed mostly to not offend or challenge morons but the solution is not hard core just for the sake of it, the hard core has to actually be good in and of itself. Having said that, while everyone pretty much is an arse in the game it's a setting where altruism doesn't make much sense since everything is in decline and the setting is fundamentally depressing and brutal; and the extreme specialisation is definitely a choice to aid replayability so justifiable in context/ theory though I'd certainly agree it's far too extreme in implementation.

 

So in the end it's... dunno, really. 90% of the way to potential excellence, 10% of the way to pointless frustration.

 

[disclaimer: I haven't finished it, so ideas are subject to change]

[Hurlshort]

I relied heavily on the wiki page when playing Dead State.  It was the only way I could keep track of all those people.  

Edited June 25, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Lexx]

Weird, I had no problem with all of them. Also I didn't talked to all of them every day (there was no need to- and when something important happens, they come to you).

 

Had great fun with Dead State, though, yes, fewer characters would have been better. Also they made NPCs walk around the base, without giving them nametags... result was obvious: I've spend way too much time trying to find certain NPCs, which was annoying as hell. And I think the ending came way too fast. First there was nothing for a few weeks, because apparently I've looted the locations way too efficient, and then suddenly "hurry up, it's thy endgame tyme!"

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Having said that, while everyone pretty much is an arse in the game it's a setting where altruism doesn't make much sense since everything is in decline and the setting is fundamentally depressing and brutal

 

 

There's a difference between "everybody is a selfish idiot with no impulse control or long-term thinking" and "people are not altruistic". The second is not particularly realistic, but may be a valid approach of setting presentation, while the first is just edgy for edginess' sake.

[Nonek]

Made a nice change from the usual squeeing, cheesy idiot banter that we are usually subjected to in my opinion, at least AoD had a little bottom rather than the vapid mediocrity that is oh so popular.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Nonek

[Harry Easter]

I actually had a good time with AoD, but I think it had balancing issues. The XP you got for solved Quests weren't enough and the skillchecks to high. I did everything I could, but my Praetor was never able to reach his goals, not because I played BAD, but because I didn't got enough XP or at least another option. The first city was actually the best part in the game. Maybe they could have build the story solely around this placing, instead of blowing all their grand ideas in the beginning.

 

The world had potential for a lot more stories or even a bigger game, if they had the budget.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Harry Easter

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since I couldn't figure out how to mod the game, I think for my next combat play through I'm going to hold back 30% of SP to not invest in combat skills. As far as non-combat, I guess if you don't think the game gives you enough SP you could cheat some with dlgaddskillpoints() from the console (hit the key with ` to open).

[Harry Easter]

Not a bad idea, thank you. I will think about it for next time.

[Tigranes]

You actually get SP a lot more generously after Teron - but it's easy to reach Maadoran and start splurging. I always leave some SP in reserve while playing, which isn't the ideal solution but a practical one.

[213374U]

I actually had a good time with AoD, but I think it had balancing issues. The XP you got for solved Quests weren't enough and the skillchecks to high. I did everything I could, but my Praetor was never able to reach his goals, not because I played BAD, but because I didn't got enough XP or at least another option. The first city was actually the best part in the game. Maybe they could have build the story solely around this placing, instead of blowing all their grand ideas in the beginning.

You actually get SP a lot more generously after Teron - but it's easy to reach Maadoran and start splurging. I always leave some SP in reserve while playing, which isn't the ideal solution but a practical one.

 

Yeah. In Teron you really have to choose between killing people, and talking/skillcheck-ing your way past problems. Not enough SP to build a character that can reliably do both. From what I've read, this is by design, as the devs intended that players realize they are woefully inexperienced nobodies in a harsh world, at the beginning of the game.

 

In the end, high INT really makes a difference. May not seem like much judging by the tooltip, but a minimum 8 INT is a must if you want to try a 'balanced' playthrough (and as the devs advise, you shouldn't try this the first time around). With a ton of metagaming it's possible to build a character that can choose how to resolve situations rather than being forced into a certain path due to specialization choices. I built a successful hybrid and had like 50 unspent SP by the end of my second playthrough.

 

Even with the relatively few CP gained from winning each fight, it's essential to kill anyone that is killable if you want to be a proficient fighter and something else. The rationale is easy to understand, but it's a design choice that not everyone will like.

 

And yeah, The difference in content between Teron and the rest of the cities is enormous. Hopefully lessons learned from and money made with AoD will make their colony ship game better in this regard.