Age of Decadence - Screens @ Official Site

Iron Tower has finally kicked up some new Age of Decadence screens at the official site, with several shots showing off the new (and presumably reasonably final) gui graphics.
More information.

I have to say that this game is looking promising... Of course looks can be deceiving.

I hope he can pull off the ambitious goals of this indie game.

Its amazing how much interest has increased in this game along with the fancyness of its superficial and non-gameplay or mechanic aspects. Its kind of silly that people just aren't willing to notice or even learn about a game that doesn't speak to them aesthetically. I could see the reason for it if the things we played were called "video looking at things" instead of video games, but since they are called games you'd figure that would be the most important aspect of them, which isn't correct.

It looks totally like Fallout in Rome. LOL
Bethesda should sue this notorious pornstar Vince D. Weller from Huge Black Iron Tower for ripping off Beth's new intellectual property.
kidding

roqua said:

Its amazing how much interest has increased in this game along with the fancyness of its superficial and non-gameplay or mechanic aspects. Its kind of silly that people just aren't willing to notice or even learn about a game that doesn't speak to them aesthetically. I could see the reason for it if the things we played were called "video looking at things" instead of video games, but since they are called games you'd figure that would be the most important aspect of them, which isn't correct.

Click to expand...

When all a person has to judge by is screenshots, what do you expect? We haven't played a demo, we haven't seen any gameplay movie footage, the only things available are static screenshots.

What gameplay features are available are pretty obvious, the game has a heavy tilt in favour of non-combat skill use dialogue interaction, and that's great. Skills and stats clearly provide dialogue which undoubtedly contributes in ways towards your faction reputations and a variety of results are possible depending on your skills and choices. This is all wonderful and makes me look forward to the game, but those things are, as I said, pretty obvious and not really the sort of thing you can have a back and forth discussion over.
Things like gameplay, combat, music and other such things we cannot comment on, so what's left are graphics, which are the most subjective (thus discussion-causing) elements.

As you say, these are called video games. A 50/50 split, in theory. And since we don't know much about the game part, we've got the video part available to talk about. I'm not really sure where your amazement comes from.

roqua said:

Its amazing how much interest has increased in this game along with the fancyness of its superficial and non-gameplay or mechanic aspects. Its kind of silly that people just aren't willing to notice or even learn about a game that doesn't speak to them aesthetically. I could see the reason for it if the things we played were called "video looking at things" instead of video games, but since they are called games you'd figure that would be the most important aspect of them, which isn't correct.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, video games are a visual medium. It is therefore not surprising that interest increases as it conforms more to our current viewing habits. I can still enjoy games likd Fallout, or Betrayal at Krondor, but I do have a hard time now with EGA graphics, no matter how good the gameplay may be. It must be worse for younger people.

Gallifrey said:

When all a person has to judge by is screenshots, what do you expect? We haven't played a demo, we haven't seen any gameplay movie footage, the only things available are static screenshots.

What gameplay features are available are pretty obvious, the game has a heavy tilt in favour of non-combat skill use dialogue interaction, and that's great. Skills and stats clearly provide dialogue which undoubtedly contributes in ways towards your faction reputations and a variety of results are possible depending on your skills and choices. This is all wonderful and makes me look forward to the game, but those things are, as I said, pretty obvious and not really the sort of thing you can have a back and forth discussion over.
Things like gameplay, combat, music and other such things we cannot comment on, so what's left are graphics, which are the most subjective (thus discussion-causing) elements.

As you say, these are called video games. A 50/50 split, in theory. And since we don't know much about the game part, we've got the video part available to talk about. I'm not really sure where your amazement comes from.

Click to expand...

Far before the first screen shot there was a wealth of info about the game design and focus. When you find out about a new game and go to their website do you first click on the screenshots and videos or do you click on the features and faq page? I click on the features, because if the game sounds good and includes the gameplay I crave the graphics become irrelevant. Are games for playing or for looking at? The fact you have to look at them to play them brings the weight of the split down to minimal.

Would a great football game not be great if it was watched on a 12-inch old fuzzy screen TV instead of a super large HD plasma? No, the game is great independent on how pleasurable or crisp the picture quality is. Watching in HD might make the experience more enjoyable, but has nothing to do with the how great a game it is or not.

And by both of your admissions the weight a reviewer should split between the graphics of a game compared to how good a game is would be 50/50. Seeing that the graphics of AoD, Eschalon, PtD, etc, all suck, the highest these games should rate would be 50% if they had perfect gameplay.

How do people value games? No reasonable person today would say that graphics does not hold a lot of weight in how game buyers value a game and it’s relative worth. So claiming that graphics have any significant importance hurts independent developers and provides a reason for pirates to steal the game (“$25 for this ugly Piece of S**T? No thank you, I’ll find a crack. Maybe I’d buy it if it was only $10!!!). It is the duty of everyone who wants games to start putting the focus back on gameplay to educate and inform (and berate) anyone who is a game buyer into seeing that their thinking is flawed and that graphics does not translate into the value of a game whatsoever.

You can justify a huge barrier to making great games without fancy graphics and bells and whistles popular, or you can help tear down that barrier and increase the viability of games we want being made. Maybe if we spent more of our time promoting the features of AoD and informing people of why they should give the game a chance despite it’s graphics, even when it had 2d graphics, we’d be playing it right now instead of having this argument.

I have never heard about this game before? does anyone know something about it?? does the devs have any story behind them any other game? it's turn based right?? how long in the making?? etc etc?

roqua said:

Far before the first screen shot there was a wealth of info about the game design and focus. When you find out about a new game and go to their website do you first click on the screenshots and videos or do you click on the features and faq page? I click on the features, because if the game sounds good and includes the gameplay I crave the graphics become irrelevant. Are games for playing or for looking at? The fact you have to look at them to play them brings the weight of the split down to minimal.

Click to expand...

Yes, there was and is a wealth of design info and that's what caught my attention.
The thing is, to discuss features and such, it's best to do that on a game's official forums and for AoD, that is unfortunately RPGCodex. And nobody should have to go there

And by both of your admissions the weight a reviewer should split between the graphics of a game compared to how good a game is would be 50/50. Seeing that the graphics of AoD, Eschalon, PtD, etc, all suck, the highest these games should rate would be 50% if they had perfect gameplay.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Good graphics are not good because of technical achievement and the use of advanced technology, good graphics are good because of strong art direction. For the most part, I find most "next gen" games to have, by my standards, terrible graphics, because they are while technically solid, bland, dull and utterly lacking in style.
There are plenty of great graphics in old, 2D sprite-based games, graphics that I would rate very highly.

How do people value games? No reasonable person today would say that graphics does not hold a lot of weight in how game buyers value a game and it’s relative worth. So claiming that graphics have any significant importance hurts independent developers and provides a reason for pirates to steal the game (“$25 for this ugly Piece of S**T? No thank you, I’ll find a crack. Maybe I’d buy it if it was only $10!!!).

Click to expand...

Graphics do carry the majority of the weight in the public's evaluation of a game, at least in the pre-release stages. But how do I personally value a game? Gameplay first, if the gameplay isn't there the game will not keep my attention. Story and the related aspects come next, depending on the genre. Graphics are tertiary.

It is the duty of everyone who wants games to start putting the focus back on gameplay to educate and inform (and berate) anyone who is a game buyer into seeing that their thinking is flawed and that graphics does not translate into the value of a game whatsoever.

Click to expand...

No disagreement there, though perhaps berating people will only be counter-productive to your cause.

Maybe if we spent more of our time promoting the features of AoD and informing people of why they should give the game a chance despite it’s graphics, even when it had 2d graphics, we’d be playing it right now instead of having this argument.

Click to expand...

Hey, you've got a forum here, why not inform us of the features of AoD then? Obviously there's interest in the game, and obviously people are wanting to know more, so since you're up on the features of AoD, the floor is all yours!

The Age Of Decadence website is http://www.irontowerstudio.com/ for those interested.

GothicGothicness said:

I have never heard about this game before? does anyone know something about it?? does the devs have any story behind them any other game? it's turn based right?? how long in the making?? etc etc?

Click to expand...

Its been 90% done for 7 years now. They are just tweaking the fine points. Gallifrey put the games web address in his last post's last sentence. There is a lot of background info. It is a turn-based single-character game (like Fallout without followers). It is focusing on choice and consiquences. The website and screenshots do a good job of highlighting it without spoilers. If you want more info the games forum is at rpgcodex. That forum isn't that bad, but does have the occasional naughty word, but I don't suggest going there if you don't want huge spoilers and a lot of them (VD likes to share).

For instance, for a no spoiler example, you are talking to someone, what your attribute levels are at is very importnat for the choices you see, and the choices you choose are very important to how that plays out. There will be a lot of options on not just what you say, but also what you can do and how, so text windows will be used a lot, a la Realms of Arkania.

Again, no reason to go to the forum, as every new person says something then VD is "improving his game" because of the feedback for years on end. I call for total fan silence until the game is released.


Gallifrey, I'm missing your point I think. If we are on the same page, why are we arguing? Are you saying graphics make a good game or no?

roqua said:

Gallifrey, I'm missing your point I think. If we are on the same page, why are we arguing? Are you saying graphics make a good game or no?

Click to expand...

We're on the same page, Roqua
I do not believe that graphics make a game good, but I do appreciate graphics which I consider to be good. And by good I do not mean technically next-gen fancy and advanced, but good as in good art direction and style. But graphics can be "bad" and the game still excellent.

Gallifrey said:

We're on the same page, Roqua
I do not believe that graphics make a game good, but I do appreciate graphics which I consider to be good. And by good I do not mean technically next-gen fancy and advanced, but good as in good art direction and style. But graphics can be "bad" and the game still excellent.

Click to expand...

I agree that good graphics make the experience of playing a game more enjoyable (in the short term at least), but I'll stick by my guns that how good a game is and it's graphics (or art direction/quality of art) are independant of each other.

So we're basically on the same page.

GothicGothicness said:

does anyone know something about it??

Click to expand...

The Age of Decadence is an isometric, turn-based, single-player 3D role-playing game set in a low magic, post-apocalyptic fantasy world, inspired by the fall of the Roman Empire. The game features a detailed skill-based character system, non-linear gameplay, multiple skill-based ways to handle quests, choices & consequences, and extensive dialogue trees.

Click here for more details:
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/

does the devs have any story behind them any other game?

Click to expand...

Nope.

it's turn based right?? how long in the making?? etc etc?

Click to expand...

It's turn-based - RPG Vault is about to post a combat article + video. It's been in development for 3+ years.

roqua said:

Its amazing how much interest has increased in this game along with the fancyness of its superficial and non-gameplay or mechanic aspects. Its kind of silly that people just aren't willing to notice or even learn about a game that doesn't speak to them aesthetically. I could see the reason for it if the things we played were called "video looking at things" instead of video games, but since they are called games you'd figure that would be the most important aspect of them, which isn't correct.

Click to expand...

When I said the game is looking promising I wasn't talking about how kewl the graphix look. I was talking about how the screenshots are showing us things we've only read about, like skills, dialog, inventory management, etc.

Remember... I'm one of those guys that plays old great games (from the 80s and early 90s) to this day because they're great games. Graphics are on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to when I decide whether or not I will buy a game.

V.D.'s game is being seen by some as a holy grail of sorts... having all the great turn-based game-play that many of us hunger for... heavy on stats, dialog, choices, etc.

That's what I meant by

narpet said:

I have to say that this game is looking promising... Of course looks can be deceiving.

I hope he can pull off the ambitious goals of this indie game.

Click to expand...

narpet said:

When I said the game is looking promising I wasn't talking about how kewl the graphix look. I was talking about how the screenshots are showing us things we've only read about, like skills, dialog, inventory management, etc.

Remember... I'm one of those guys that plays old great games (from the 80s and early 90s) to this day because they're great games. Graphics are on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to when I decide whether or not I will buy a game.

V.D.'s game is being seen by some as a holy grail of sorts... having all the great turn-based game-play that many of us hunger for... heavy on stats, dialog, choices, etc.

That's what I meant by

Click to expand...

My comment was in general and just happened to be posted after yours. I figure from the games you like and talk about that the graphics issue wasn't an important factor for you.

edit: I used to be that when a newsbit on AoD was made someone would chime in that it looked like crap, and if only the graphics would get better the game would be playable. So I actually should have said that instead of generating more interest, it generates less negative comments on graphics. Which is good i guess since I don't have to get on my soapbox as much, even though I still somehow managed to. I guess I love my soapbox.

roqua said:

My comment was in general and just happened to be posted after yours. I figure from the games you like and talk about that the graphics issue wasn't an important factor for you.

Click to expand...

I kinda figured that... I just wanted to make sure people know where I stand on the whole "graphics" thing... (I'm sure that our regular readers/posters already know my feelings since I've voiced them many times )

I thinkAoD is looking good in all ways, and I wouldn't call the graphics exactly pimped out. I agree that in the modern video games market, graphics quality is frequently egregiously overemphasized, but it's also a legitimate selling point, unfortunately.

It's kind of like the "looks" vs "personality" debate in dating. A physically unattractive person may have more to offer than an empty-headed babe, but who gets the attention? Obviously, if you care about the game you're making, you want to make the most of what you have, make it as good as you can. That includes how it looks.

It can only be to the game's advantage to have an attractive package. If there's nothing inside the package, that would make it an issue.

I don't think that's the case here.

Just my two cents, roqua. I don't mind your soapbox at all.

magerette said:

I thinkAoD is looking good in all ways, and I wouldn't call the graphics exactly pimped out. I agree that in the modern video games market, graphics quality is frequently egregiously overemphasized, but it's also a legitimate selling point, unfortunately.

It's kind of like the "looks" vs "personality" debate in dating. A physically unattractive person may have more to offer than an empty-headed babe, but who gets the attention? Obviously, if you care about the game you're making, you want to make the most of what you have, make it as good as you can. That includes how it looks.

It can only be to the game's advantage to have an attractive package. If there's nothing inside the package, that would make it an issue.

I don't think that's the case here.

Just my two cents, roqua. I don't mind your soapbox at all.

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with anything you said, and agree with it all, but answer this: wouldn't the world be a better place if people stopped being so superficial when picking potential mates? Doesn't it make more long term sense to strive to find a partner based on long term factors like being able to stand each other?

I find my wife very physically attractive, and I'd trade her looks in for her to posses an ounce of sanity and reason in a second. And, if you stay with someone for a long time you will see them at one time or another in their worst form and at their ugliest, at that point you need to have something else that makes you stay around besides looks. Don't you think that big fat fatty with all the acne and body hair in wierd places deserves the chance to have someone look past her/his "packaging" and see what is on the inside and see if that is attractive? Shouldn't we downplay the superficial in all aspects of life?

Having said that I was a very superficial person before marriage, if I had to do it again my value-system would be 100% different. The hottest girl has morning breath, fat-rolls when they lay in akward positions, hairy armpits when they don't shave, stink up the bathroom with their stinky poop, etc.

Should people leave their partner if the partner became a cripple? Is love that shallow it should be based on looks or have looks factor into at all? How many people are losing out on their soul mates because they can't get past the initial disgust factor?

Of course we'll need pretty, scantily clad women to pose for "me-time" picture and video material, just as women will need Fabio-type guys for their imagined pleasure. But that just short term gratification. To relate that to rpgs, we can have cgi movies for graphicwhoreness, and crpgs for long term marriage.

Alot riding on this for vault dweller, I'm interested to see if all his critiques of other games cannot be placed on his as well.

roqua wrote:

Doesn't it make more long term sense to strive to find a partner based on long term factors like being able to stand each other?

Click to expand...

You crack me up, man.

Yes, the world would be a better place if people were less superficial and governed more by reason and compassion. And you have said some very true things about relationship (though as usual, sometimes a little editing would make them more palatable. )

Unfortunately, I've observed over my lifetime that all the things that would make the world a better place are never implemented because they take too much effort or require people to be less greedy. As Bob Dylan says: "I've seen thousands who could have overcome the darkness/For the love of a lousy buck, I watched them die..."

I think VD is doing his share to attempt to light our crpg darkness with this game, and hopefully it will be "marriage material."