Dhruin
SasqWatch
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.
More information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.does anyone know something about it??
Nope.does the devs have any story behind them any other game?
It's turn-based - RPG Vault is about to post a combat article + video. It's been in development for 3+ years.it's turn based right?? how long in the making?? etc etc?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?