Age of Decadence - Forum Tidbits

Here's a minor tidbit from Vince on The Age of Decadence forums but it reinforces the current status and demonstrates their direction, so I thought it worth a quick post. In answer to a request for new information:

The closer we are, the less we have to report. All features are discussed and implemented. All models and animations are long done. We're tweaking quests and balancing checks, xp, reputation, and rewards, which is pretty much what Oscar said recently.

For example, the second Imperial Guards' quest was a fairly straightforward "take over the gate". The Imperial Guards are a military organization, so their goals are often straightforward, which is logical, of course, but does not make interesting gameplay. So, we had to spend some time on it, looking for fitting way to improve it. Now, we have 3 options:

low INT - straightforward attack
good INT, low CHA - a clever plan which puts your ass on the line, because you have to do the hardest part* yourself
good INT, good CHA - a clever plan with someone else doing the hardest part, you get a promotion because you're the "management material", plus it unlocks a special briefing for the next quest, which completely changes the goals, because you've demonstrated that you can do more than follow orders.

* only 1 player in 10 will make it.

The best part is that players with low-med INT fighters will be completely unaware of the extra levels of complexity and options, which makes gameplay truly stat- and skill-based.

More information.

I can't wait for this game!

I don't know about this game. I was eagerly following it for a while when the combat demo came out. It was a turn-off for me. I thought it was weak and boring, but a lot of people thought it was the best thing since sliced bread - I just didn't see it. I thought Knights of the Chalice had much better combat system. To think of all the time that went into it, and how long we all have been waiting - I just don't get the hype. Although graphics are not that important to me, I still found them to be annoyingly bland. I guess I'll just have to see how the finished product turns out, but I'm not getting a good vibe on this one…

Originally Posted by spiraling69
combat demo came out. It was a turn-off for me. I thought it was weak and boring, but a lot of people thought it was the best thing since sliced bread - I just didn't see it. I thought Knights of the Chalice

Unlike in the case of KotC, combat is supposed to be just a fraction of the overall game experience in AoD, judging by posts on ITSF.
Taking its art presentation into account, I think it has a solid potential at becoming a sorta breakthrough "next-gen" indie cRPG title, pretty much filling the void after Troika´s demise. At least I hope it has .

Originally Posted by spiraling69
To think of all the time that went into it, and how long we all have been waiting - I just don't get the hype.

Yeah that's why I'm not on their forums, posting a lot and getting excited about a game I may strongly dislike. Need to play it, then I'll know and only then would it be worth my time. Said too much already.

I also think the combat demo was boring…… and I don't think the graphics was that good either ( not that it matters so much ).

But did you see the text quests?? wow that's some awesome stuff!!

Damn, I completely forgot about AoD when I chose Mac over PC while upgrading last summer. Hope they release OSX version shortly after Windows one. Which is, I still hope, before Duke Nukem Forever.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Unlike in the case of KotC, combat is supposed to be just a fraction of the overall game experience in AoD, judging by posts on ITSF.
Taking its art presentation into account, I think it has a solid potential at becoming a sorta breakthrough "next-gen" indie cRPG title, pretty much filling the void after Troika´s demise. At least I hope it has .

it was a sad day when Troika went tits-up. As broken as it was, "The Temple of Elemental Evil" was and still is one of my favorite games. I kind of thought of it as a more graphically advanced Baldurs Gate. I hope someday to see another similiar type of D&D game with an isometric view - AoD doesn't come close in my opinion. Anyway, I'm getting off topic here…

Regarding AoD, I'll try to be more "open-minded" until we get a better look at it whenever it gets released.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
and I don't think the graphics was that good either ( not that it matters so much ).

With the latest tweaks to lighting etc., I think it looks really good, at least for an indie title.

I must agree, the graphics suit the themic style of game very nicely, i would have no problems playing with the visual set-up shown.

Originally Posted by DeepO
With the latest tweaks to lighting etc., I think it looks really good, at least for an indie title.

Deepo - I dont know what to say. I think that screen shot is very nice. I also think the screen shots they have up on the website are pretty good as well. However, that damn combat demo was a turn-off. Maybe it was just the demo, I hope it was just the weak demo. If the game looks that sharp, then they might actually have something to talk about.

Why was it a turn-off? Just curious.

As for ToEE being a "graphically advanced Baldurs Gate", I beg to differ. First, BG is a story-driven RPG whereas ToEE is a relatively simple dungeon crawler. Second, I believe that BG's handpainted backgrounds are much better than ToEE's pre-rendered backgrounds, but I suppose it's a matter of taste.

I think it looks pretty good.

A minor thing, it's not that bad but I'd prefer a less script-y font, I know it's supposed to add to the atmosphere but we're used to seeing the same boring common fonts for a reason.

I really should try the combat demo someday.

When I think of games with great TB combat I think of JA2, ToEE, XCOM and KotC…all of which are party based games.

AoD has TB combat with a single controlled character. I found the AoD combat demo to be the best single character TB combat I have ever played and I had a lot of fun with it.

For me though it is unlikely that single character TB will ever come close party based TB.

I agree with this full heartedly.

I really like the looks of it and am hopeful it does well and Vince will make something with lots of magic I'm not into low/no magic worlds so probably won't buy the game, but I'll let the full demo decide for me. What I've seen looks polished and I'm wondering if the game will be released before or after Cleve's game. Vince's game hasn't been THAT long in development….yet.

With the latest tweaks to lighting etc., I think it looks really good, at least for an indie title.

The new screens does look better, I guess it was lighting which was missing in the combat demo. I don't know of any other 3d-turn based indie RPG's which I can compare too. But considering how long ago they began working on it, it is no surprise it is so low poly. The graphics is definitely not something which will stop me from buying the game the day it is released.

Why was it a turn-off? Just curious.

I think the biggest problem with the combat demo was that it didn't have enough information. For example I raised my spear skill and equipped a spear which was held in both hands, and I couldn't attack… and I got no information at all why I couldn't I suppose a probably needed a skill in two-handed weapons or something. If I had a one handed spear I could attack. It was full of these sort of things which made it really tiresome for me.

See Vince, tooltips and in game help screens are your friend.

As to the demo - well its an indie production. If I compare graphics and combat depth to Spiderweb games and Eschalon, AoD comes away favorably.

See Vince, tooltips and in game help screens are your friend.

If he wants retro a manual would have worked too…..

I found the demo very dull as well - nevertheless it would be utterly inappropriate to 'judge' such a game based on combat alone. For the short time I played I wasn't shown any story elements and didn't get a chance to identify with my character, so until I get those things I can't possibly tell whether I'd like the game or not.

I also didn't like the graphics. I'm still waiting to see an indie RPG that would overcome its (expected and understandable) technical limitations by resorting to more sophisticated and imaginative (and, of course, cheap!) art direction and design, instead of the standard 'realistic' look which is guaranteed to make it look inferior.


And BTW:

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
If he wants retro a manual would have worked too…..

I am personally a huge fan of having all info within the game itself. I mean… if you're going to write a manual anyway, why not put it in the game.

I think the best approach I've seen was with Civilization's 'civipedia' which was pretty much more than a full in-game manual. When there are links within the game that would take you to the appropriate section with a simple click, and not just messy popups all over the place, it's extremely convenient. (Civilization did it in the 90s so I guess that's retro enough as well)