Age of Decadence - Video Preview @ IndieRPGs

That is very funny. At it is exactly the reason why GMs like him soon play alone because all players have left. So he makes a cRPG that can reach a wider audience and can find those rare people that would not leave that is almost impossible to find otherwise.

They can have each other, as I said I value other things in both PnP and cRPG.
I'll never click like or dislike on anything, ever. I hate the new like system almost as much as I hate Facebook. Just saying. :)
My comment was not directed at you. But if you feel likes it is, that is your right.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
When I played Blackguards or Xcom I knew they were not roleplaying games, but for AoD I was told it is a good roleplaying game. I guess I was a victim of false advertising.

RPGs are all subjective. Number crunching products are often paraded as RPGs. A product that leads you to crunch numbers from the start is a good product for number crunching.
It follows: that is a good RPG.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
That is just your opinion, just as valuable as mine. My character was honorable towards his employer. Not the level of Samurai but enough so he follows his orders and tasks.

I don't fail to graps anything, you fail to grasp I am just stating my opinion and I have said that I accept this is not a game for me and couple of you kept coming and naming me personally because you are afraid my opinion is going to scare away other players.
So by trying to discredit me and show me as a bad player you think that will negate my opinion in eyes of others.

Do you also go to Steam forums and click Nay on each negative reviews? If you do, you can proudly call yourself a fanboy.


I don't care at all what others in this thread are thinking at the moment as you're the only one who seems to call the game stupid ...

You adding something completely unrelated to the topic is what may negate your opinion in front of others.

Who cares what I do on steam... Not that I do that, mind you. I prefer playing games than clicking on reviews of games I have already played.

Again, see Vince's point ....

It's not about you being a bad player per se but about you making statements as discussed before.

Vince and I have both tried to explain to you that it's about your statements of how the game is stupid and badly designed.

Anyway, I'm stopping now as it seems you can't grasp that point.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I don't care at all what others in this thread are thinking at the moment as you're the only one who seems to call the game stupid …

You adding something completely unrelated to the topic is what may negate your opinion in front of others.

Who cares what I do on steam… Not that I do that, mind you. I prefer playing games than clicking on reviews of games I have already played.

Again, see Vince's point ….

It's not about you being a bad player per se but about you making statements as discussed before.

Vince and I have both tried to explain to you that it's about your statements of how the game is stupid and badly designed.

Anyway, I'm stopping now as it seems you can't grasp that point.
I didn't call the game stupid just that it is stupid towards players. There is a big difference here. I did say that I think it is based on bad design which is my right.

As for the rest, the format of your post prevents me from understanding what you are talking about exactly.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
I'd like AoD even if it was difficult if it had mage gameplay. It's not so much the difficulty, it is the setting. I like high magic, epic, fantasy. Combat is the least interesting aspect of crpgs for me. I'm an exploration, magic, loot guy who loves epic fantasy. AoD isn't my prefered niche. If I was a C&C guy or a tactical combat guru, then I'd be all over it. Archangel's original post(s) were about how the game plays out. Not my cup of tea, though it definitely is for a good portion of this site's members.

P.S. I'm all for Vince's success though. Anyone who sticks to their guns for 10 years should be rewarded, unless their name is Cleve ;) Besides, he is an old-old-old RPGCodexer from the Saint Proverbius days :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,821
I did say that I think it is based on bad design which is my right.

It is not bad design. It is not designed.

Military functions are not necessarily roles. Military functions, when they came as roles though, could include honour.

Samurais for some time held a role in their society.
One samurai did not choose to embrace honour. The demand of honour came with the role. And what honour meant was not self defined by the samurai but the society at large.
A samurai running away from a battle did not act dishonourably because he decided that running away from a battle was dishonourable, it was a dishonourable act because the society at large determined it as a dishonourable act beforehand.
A samurai did not show up the next day to tell that after all, it was all subjective, that the issue of honour was a simple matter of opinions, that other people could think subjectively that him running away was dishonourable but that in its own subjectivity, he did not think that running away was dishonourable and finally, that people should agree they disagreed and other stuff like that.

Roles are constraining and their demands are not assessed by the person who takes up the role but by an extern entity that dictates the appreciation.

It means that a RPG must first define roles and what expectations come with them and second include in some form or another mechanics to understand and appreciate the various concepts that qualify behaviours.In PnP versions, the GM is tasked with that.

In the present case, there is no design to support the notion of honour. Acting the character of a mercenary with honour does not come from the game, it is a mental construction in the mind of the player that is supported by no design in the game.
Roles are preset and the definition of their underlying concepts is not left to the person who assume the role.

Being a mercenary with honour has no meaning in the game. Honour and what it means to be honourable is not defined in the game.
One player could come telling that not killing the assassin and/or the thugs is what honour means.
Roles do not work that way. The definition and the appreciation is not left in the hands of the person who takes up the role.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Sorry for necroposting, but AoD is a game I care about. And sorry for the long post, but I try to be as clear as possible.

I don't want to sound rude, and I am not trying to pretend I know better than anyone else, but I do think that most people are missing the point in this thread, including Vince and co. I don't know every player's expectations, but me, when I receive a quest/task in a RPG, I expect to be given a fair chance of success (not hand-holding, just a fair chance).

* SPOILERS ALERT *

So, what is your first quest/task as a mercenary ? Protect Gracius. What are your chances of success ? 0 %. (I don't care if the assassin is easy to kill or not, my role is to protect Gracius, not to kill the assassin.) So, the first thing you learn is that the game can give you a quest and then deny you the way to succeed, just because it wants you to fail. Fair enough. It's a scripted quest.

So, let's move on to the second quest : Escort Vardanis to the thieves' guild and protect him. What are the chances of success ? 10 % (as Vince wrote). The goal here is not to kill the thieves (I can do that), it's to save Vardanis. The real problem is not the ambush, it's not the thugs, the problem starts when you are denied the options to do your job at protecting the guy. You can't have him flee or stay behind and let you do the fighting. You can only let him die without interfering or, if you choose to fight, watch how he's programmed to seek his own death instead of helping you help him. (I accepted gladly that I couldn't save Gracius, but here, I feel cheated.)

I know that the quest to protect Vardanis is optional, but the game is manipulating the player into accepting it. First, it does not let you refuse right away. When the innkeeper makes the proposition, you can only reply something like « I wouldn't say no to a few coins ». By forcing that reply, the game sends you a message : « you play a character who's more concerned about money than ethics ». The game is manipulating you into accepting the quest, because it's consistent with A) the behaviour of your character (money driven), and B) the background of your character (mercenary). So everyone who replied to Archangel that he should have refused or that he was trying to play a hero, just forgot - or deliberately ignored - that the game is literally inviting the player to accept. It wants you to accept so it can teach you a lesson. It wants to tell you « don't try to play a hero », but the problem is that it's not offering you to be a hero, it's only offering you to do your job and be consistent with your character. The lesson is flawed.

So, after being given a quest with 0 % chance of success, followed by a quest with 10 % chance of success, what's next ? Let's assume you don't go to Cado (I don't remember that part well enough to comment). You go to Feng, who asks you to kill Cassius. The normal thing to do would be to seek information about Cassius (and Feng), to know if you should kill him or not. Where is Cassius ? Feng told you he's at the inn. So let's have a chat with Cassius, to see if he seems like a nice guy or not. But, wait ! Cassius is not there, he will only be there if you have agreed to kill him ! Once again, I feel cheated. The game will hide Cassius in limbo until I have agreed to kill him (so I can suffer the consequences later). If the game wants to force me into a blind decision, it should do so within the story (Feng could say something like : « Last time he was seen, he was heading to the inn. Get him before he talks to Antidas and turns him against me. ») The game should not use a cheat to force me, that's - here comes the big word - bad design.

* END OF SPOILERS *

So, what's the take home message after 3 quests ?
1. The game can make you fail just because it wants to.
2. It can manipulate you into accepting an almost impossible quest.
3. It can also cheat to keep valuable information away from you, just because it doesn't want you to make an informed decision.
And all that, right from the start ! These are the first things you learn about the game.

So, what's the consequence ?
Next time you fail, you wonder if it's by your own fault or by the game's will. You start to wonder if it's worth to try another strategy… or if you should just forget that quest because you'll end up failing every time anyway, since this is how the game makers want it. I know not everyone is alike, but personally, it's when I start wondering if things are worth it or if I am just wasting my time that I stop caring about a game.

Do you see the problem here ? It's not about the difficulty, it's not about how many points I put in Dodge or what equipment my character is wearing. It's about trust. If I can't trust the game to give me a fair chance of success when I'm offered a quest, how can I know, when I fail, if it's by my own fault or by the game makers will ? And if I can't be sure my failures are my own, how can I learn from my mistakes if I am not even sure they're mistakes in the first place ?

This is not a problem that can be solved by giving spoilers or advices on how to build the character. It can only be solved by letting players know they can trust the game to offer them real solutions, by letting them know that if they fail, it's by mistake not by design.

In conclusion, I truly believe there is a problem with the Mercenary's quests. A problem I did not encounter when I played the Loremaster's path (a playthrough I really enjoyed BTW :)). And I'm not trying to convince people not to buy the game, I'm trying to convince people to help me make Vince and co. realize there is something wrong.

P.-S. – My experience is based on the public demo, not the Steam beta.
P.-P.-S. – Anybody who calls me a troll will be called a fanboy or fangirl. :)
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
157
Location
Laval, QC, Canada
I don't want to sound rude, and I am not trying to pretend I know better than anyone else, but I do think that most people are missing the point in this thread, including Vince and co. I don't know every player's expectations, but me, when I receive a quest/task in a RPG, I expect to be given a fair chance of success (not hand-holding, just a fair chance).
I'm well aware that there are certain expectations, formed by decades of playing games that established, cultivated, and enforced them.

Roughly, they can be summed up as:

- you're a hero (i.e. an individual capable of handling any task, especially if it involves violence)
- all tasks are scaled appropriately even if a game doesn't support level-scaling (see the Baldur's Gate's level 1 assassins), thus you're never really in danger; even when you're stopped by bandits demanding money, you know that you can easily defeat them.
- the quest givers don't lie to you and as a rule don't pursue any hidden agenda; plus they are nice and kind people and not dicks like your boss at work.
- being Good is better and more rewarding than being (an) Evil (shit)

Overall, it's pretty much the opposite of what real life is like. Now, I understand that heroic fantasy and wish fulfillment exist precisely because real life is like that. It's nice to be a hero for a change, it's nice to be appreciated and praised.

I'm not saying that heroic fantasy sucks. It doesn't. I'm saying that it's not the only way. AoD is a different game, with realistic characters and motivations. It requires some adjustments.

So, what is your first quest/task as a mercenary ? Protect Gracius. What are your chances of success ? 0 %. (I don't care if the assassin is easy to kill or not, my role is to protect Gracius, not to kill the assassin.) So, the first thing you learn is that the game can give you a quest and then deny you the way to succeed, just because it wants you to fail.
It's not that we want you to fail. It's that you aren't a hero who can change events just by showing up. Sometimes they are outside of your control.

So, let's move on to the second quest : Escort Vardanis to the thieves' guild and protect him. What are the chances of success ? 10 % (as Vince wrote). The goal here is not to kill the thieves (I can do that), it's to save Vardanis.
Why should the chance by any higher? You just blindly signed up to protect the trader without having any idea what he's doing, why, what his history is with the thieves guild, etc.

You can easily walk away, so you aren't forced to fight. You can also kill the thugs to feel better about the whole thing and if you're one hell of a fighter you can save Vardanis. In my opinion, these are very logical outcomes.

I know that the quest to protect Vardanis is optional, but the game is manipulating the player into accepting it. First, it does not let you refuse right away. When the innkeeper makes the proposition, you can only reply something like « I wouldn't say no to a few coins ». By forcing that reply, the game sends you a message : « you play a character who's more concerned about money than ethics ». The game is manipulating you into accepting the quest, because it's consistent with A) the behaviour of your character (money driven), and B) the background of your character (mercenary). So everyone who replied to Archangel that he should have refused or that he was trying to play a hero, just forgot - or deliberately ignored - that the game is literally inviting the player to accept.
I disagree. Yes, the first reply is "wouldn't say no to a few coins" - NOT to the innkeeper's carefully worded proposition but to the idea of making money on the side. It's a cautious reply that fits a mercenary.

Then the innkeeper explains the details and the game gives you a chance to say no (i.e. to play a man who doesn't accept offers that sound fishy). If it happened to you in 'real life', would you accept such an offer without reservations? I doubt it. The ONLY reason you accepted it is because games taught you that it's SAFE to do so. Go and crack some skulls, make some money, have some fun. That's how it works in 99% of RPGs.

It wants you to accept so it can teach you a lesson. It wants to tell you « don't try to play a hero », but the problem is that it's not offering you to be a hero, it's only offering you to do your job and be consistent with your character. The lesson is flawed.
Because there is no lesson there. We've dispensed with lessons after the first quest that serves as intro to our design and 'philosophy'.

As for the hero business, you become a hero the moment you decide not to walk away when the thugs give you a way out but to stay and fight for a man you've just met and know nothing about.

Your notion that you're just doing your job is a questionable one. You signed up to make some easy money by looking tough (that's the exact wording) not to die for Vardanis and his past actions and debts.

So, after being given a quest with 0 % chance of success, followed by a quest with 10 % chance of success, what's next ?
We don't look at the quests the same way you do. The way I see it, you start with a quest where a trader just died and you can kill the assassin (and be rewarded for it) or let him walk away. Then you get an optional quest where you can fight two thugs (and be rewarded for it) with an optional objective to save Vardanis IF you're a natural born killer.

Let's assume you don't go to Cado (I don't remember that part well enough to comment). You go to Feng, who asks you to kill Cassius. The normal thing to do would be to seek information about Cassius (and Feng), to know if you should kill him or not.
Based on what criteria? Feng doesn't claim that Cassius is a horrible person who deserves to be killed. He makes it clear that he wants him dead because he sees him as a threat (which doesn't make Cassius an actual threat to Feng as he mentions that Antidas thinks that two heads are better than one, i.e. he wants to have two loremasters).

So your decision is a simple one - are you the kind of person who can kill an innocent man just to do Feng a favor?

Where is Cassius ? Feng told you he's at the inn. So let's have a chat with Cassius, to see if he seems like a nice guy or not. But, wait ! Cassius is not there, he will only be there if you have agreed to kill him ! Once again, I feel cheated. The game will hide Cassius in limbo until I have agreed to kill him (so I can suffer the consequences later). If the game wants to force me into a blind decision, it should do so within the story (Feng could say something like : « Last time he was seen, he was heading to the inn. Get him before he talks to Antidas and turns him against me. ») The game should not use a cheat to force me, that's - here comes the big word - bad design.
I can tweak the wording so that Feng tells you where to find Cassius AFTER you agree to kill him. That would probably make more sense.

Do you see the problem here ? It's not about the difficulty, it's not about how many points I put in Dodge or what equipment my character is wearing. It's about trust. If I can't trust the game to give me a fair chance of success when I'm offered a quest, how can I know, when I fail, if it's by my own fault or by the game makers will ? And if I can't be sure my failures are my own, how can I learn from my mistakes if I am not even sure they're mistakes in the first place ?
If the game lets you continue after you fail to do what *you* think was the goal, does it really matter?

If the game ends the moment Vardanis dies, then it is indeed bad design. Fortunately, the game doesn't and that's the only thing that matters here.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
249
Thanks for the replies Vince.:party:
I have to agree with Gilliatt though, and I realize your game just isn't for me. Anyway I don't mean to be negative, and I wish you success when it's finally completed.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,179
Location
Spudlandia
Thanks for taking the time for that detailed reply, Vince. It's for sure with a different mindset this game needs to be played than your average RPG. I'm looking forward to giving it a spin once it's done.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,377
Location
Leuven, BE
I am really glad you dared to take the approach you did with the game Vince, very very brave! It is funny how people wince because they are so used to sugar-sweet easy to win games, with no real danger.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Not all people and not all games.
Some games are crazy hard even on normal, some are no challenge even on uberhard.
It was always like that, it's nothing new really.

But the more dangerous trend is happening in recent years. On PC. The plague jumped from inferior hardware consoles onto PC. No, it's not taken from MMOs. It's copied from machines that were so lousy and alzheimerized thus incapable of saving the world state anytime and anywhere in singleplayer games.
Thus I don't really care if a game is easy or not, all I need is no lollygagin' souls grinding!
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Thanks for the reply Vince. Now that I have a better understanding of what you are trying to do, I can try to give you "solutions". As an aspiring author with a master degree in French literature, I know a thing or two about storytelling. ;)

I'm well aware that there are certain expectations, formed by decades of playing games that established, cultivated, and enforced them.

Roughly, they can be summed up as:

- you're a hero (i.e. an individual capable of handling any task, especially if it involves violence)
- all tasks are scaled appropriately even if a game doesn't support level-scaling (see the Baldur's Gate's level 1 assassins), thus you're never really in danger; even when you're stopped by bandits demanding money, you know that you can easily defeat them.
- the quest givers don't lie to you and as a rule don't pursue any hidden agenda; plus they are nice and kind people and not dicks like your boss at work.
- being Good is better and more rewarding than being (an) Evil (shit)

Overall, it's pretty much the opposite of what real life is like. Now, I understand that heroic fantasy and wish fulfillment exist precisely because real life is like that. It's nice to be a hero for a change, it's nice to be appreciated and praised.

I'm not saying that heroic fantasy sucks. It doesn't. I'm saying that it's not the only way.

You're condescending. I came with an open mind (and already had a walkthrough with a loremaster). I didn't ask to be a hero, I didn't ask for the triumph of Good vs. Evil, and I didn't ask for a pat on the back. All I asked was a fair chance of success, something the game does not provide in the first quests.

AoD is a different game, with realistic characters and motivations. It requires some adjustments.

And this is why I believe you are being unfair, and are doing it on purpose. You are well aware that it requires some adjustments, yet you don't give the players any time or any chance to adjust.

I'll repeat it again : I'm not complaining about the difficulty, I'm complaining that you are unfair. If you know it takes some adjustments, then you should give your players the time and the chance to adjust. In the loremaster's path, they have it ; in the mercenary's path, they don't.


I disagree. Yes, the first reply is "wouldn't say no to a few coins" - NOT to the innkeeper's carefully worded proposition but to the idea of making money on the side. It's a cautious reply that fits a mercenary.

I understand your point, but I still think that you lure the players into a trap. I believe giving a second option, like "I'm listening, but I'm not sure I will like it", would give the players a better sense of role-playing by offering them options instead of forcing them into one.

Then the innkeeper explains the details and the game gives you a chance to say no (i.e. to play a man who doesn't accept offers that sound fishy). If it happened to you in 'real life', would you accept such an offer without reservations? I doubt it. The ONLY reason you accepted it is because games taught you that it's SAFE to do so. Go and crack some skulls, make some money, have some fun. That's how it works in 99% of RPGs.

I accepted because it seemed to fit the character and because I taught the game would be fair to me by not making me fail twice in a row.

You said it yourself : it takes some adjustments to play AoD. I accept that, but you can't rely on forums to explain it, you need to show it in the game. And this is a good place to show it.

For a player just starting the game (i.e. a player that is not yet familiar with your game, its world and its philosophy), it's not that clear that this is risky business, and it's definitely not clear that refusing a quest might be a good way to "complete" it. By giving a more appropriate dialogue option, like : "I'm not stupid enough to think I can intimidate Cado in his own den", you would tell the players that it might not be a good idea to accept (and make them learn something about the game's world), while the actual option ("Next time") tells nothing. You would also reinforce the impression by giving skill points right after the players refuse the offer. That way, they know that refusing was not a failure.

I taught you were deliberately luring us into a trap by making the acceptance of the quest more appealing then the refusal. Now, I see that it may not have been deliberate. By using dialogue options similar to the ones I suggest, you would make the refusal more appealing than it is right now, and would not give the impression that you (the developers) try to lure the players into a trap. With these options, it becomes evident that it's the NPCs that set the trap, not the developers.

This is not only about making the players feel better, it's about giving them feedback on how they can play the game (because they don't know yet since they've just started). It's about removing some possible confusion. It may seem silly to you because you already know your game, but it's not. Making it clearer that the world is dangerous and that refusing the quest is a good and valid option is not hand-holding, it's about properly introducing the players to your game, its world, and its philosophy. It's about giving them a chance to adjust.

The way it is now, you don't introduce your players to the game and its philosophy, you throw them in the lion's den, and then you blame them if they don't understand why you're doing it.

We don't look at the quests the same way you do. The way I see it, you start with a quest where a trader just died and you can kill the assassin (and be rewarded for it) or let him walk away. Then you get an optional quest where you can fight two thugs (and be rewarded for it) with an optional objective to save Vardanis IF you're a natural born killer.

That's how you see it, but that's not how every player sees it. The game doesn't *start* with the trader's death: the players see him arrive and are asked to protect him, they are even offered a chance to prepare themselves by visiting the merchant. They are assigned a job – a mercenary's job –, so it's normal that they see Gracius' death as a failure.

However, I'll repeat it again, because it may have been lost in all my other comments : I have no problem with the merchant's death, I wouldn't change a thing here (except maybe give the option to visit the merchant after the assassin's fight, since it doesn't really makes sense that the mercenary comes to the inn unprepared).

And I wouldn't have a problem with the Vardanis quest if it came at another moment. My problem is that both come right after the other, right from the start, before the players have the time to familiarize themselves with their character, with the game or with its world.

I'm not complaining about the difficulty or about the NPCs behaviour. I actually think it's a quality that the NPCs can lie and double-cross the players. However, it's not the NPCs that decide the order in which the quests are given to the players, and they don't make the learning curve: it's you and your team. And, that's my main grip, you start the game by giving impossible or next to impossible tasks, and, by doing so, you confuse the players because you offer no learning curve. You are asking the players to have prior knowledge or experience of the game before they even start it.

Based on what criteria? Feng doesn't claim that Cassius is a horrible person who deserves to be killed. He makes it clear that he wants him dead because he sees him as a threat (which doesn't make Cassius an actual threat to Feng as he mentions that Antidas thinks that two heads are better than one, i.e. he wants to have two loremasters).

So your decision is a simple one - are you the kind of person who can kill an innocent man just to do Feng a favor?

I'm tempted to talk to Cassius because I'm offered an option to think about it. And if I want to think about it, it's in order to gather information. If you want to make the decision as simple as "would I kill an innocent or not", I believe you should remove the "I'll think about it option" and only give "Yes" or "No" options.

I can tweak the wording so that Feng tells you where to find Cassius AFTER you agree to kill him. That would probably make more sense.

I believe that doing so, and removing the "I'll think about it option" would be good ideas.

If the game lets you continue after you fail to do what *you* think was the goal, does it really matter?

If the game ends the moment Vardanis dies, then it is indeed bad design. Fortunately, the game doesn't and that's the only thing that matters here.

I surely can't tell you what *you* had in mind when you designed the quests. However, I can tell you that by starting the mercenary's path the way you do, you can confuse the players about *your* goals. They can be led to believe that you can lure them into a deathtrap just to teach them a lesson (don't try to be a hero), that you can assign them impossible quests, etc. It certainly made me doubt I could finish some of the subsequent quests, up to a point where I wondered if it was worth it to try other strategies or if I was just wasting my time on them. There is a huge difference between "I can do it, but it's gonna be difficult", and "Can I do it or am I just wasting my time?" I don't have a problem with the first one, it's the second one that bothers me.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier : You are well aware that it requires some adjustments to play AoD, yet, in the mercenary's path, you don't give the players any time or any chance to adjust. With the way it is designed right now, you need to rely on forums to explain your philosophy to your players. You shouldn't need that, it should be explained in your game.

@Couchpotato : Don't give up on the game. My first walkthrough was with a Loremaster, and I had a blast. On that walkthrough, I never felt that the game was unfair or confusing. It was pure fun !

@GothicGothicness : Thank you for taking my post so seriously. Why the hell did I wrote a 1000+ word post, when I could have sum it all up with "Give me a God mode, quest-markers, plus an Instant Killing Sword of Doom".
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
157
Location
Laval, QC, Canada
@Couchpotato : Don't give up on the game. My first walkthrough was with a Loremaster, and I had a blast. On that walkthrough, I never felt that the game was unfair or confusing. It was pure fun !
Don't worry as I never said I wouldn't buy the game.

I might pick it up on a cheap Steam sale when my back log runs on empty next year. I have plenty of new games right now to keep me entertained.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,179
Location
Spudlandia
Don't worry as I never said I wouldn't buy the game.

I might pick it up on a cheap Steam sale when my back log runs on empty next year. I have plenty of new games right now to keep me entertained.

Good to know, because AoD is really a labor of love, and an original game.

You'll never see me trying to convince Vince and co. to change it to my liking or to make me their only target audience. I'm only trying to help.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
157
Location
Laval, QC, Canada
Well, I couldn't disagree more with your points, Gilliatt, but I'll spare you the 3000 word essay on why. I'll just say this - I'm glad games with this philosophy exist.

You may want to look elsewhere for games that will appeal to you. There's a lot of RPGs out there for you to choose from :)
 
Back
Top Bottom