Age of Decadence - Video Preview @ IndieRPGs

Craig Stern of IndieRPGs posted a new video preview of Age of Decadence.

loading…

So: The Age of Decadence! This highly anticipated indie wRPG has been in development for approximately one zillion (ten) years. With release finally looming, Vince Weller of Iron Tower Studio was good enough to provide me with a beta copy of The Age of Decadence to check out, and so I went ahead and made a video out of it for you to see.

More information.

It looks to be a very text-driven game with a nice amount of depth. I'm concerned though about the lack of response options in some cases.

The game is kind of insane the way I see it, soooooo many options… I wounder if there'll ever be anything like it again!

Originally Posted by rjshae
It looks to be a very text-driven game with a nice amount of depth. I'm concerned though about the lack of response options in some cases.

You can't have meaningful options at every text node and I was never fond of saying the same thing in 3 different ways.

I see they still didn't get rid of instant teleportations in quests. I hate these alot and they could easily make these optional.

Otherwise im really looking to play this again at full release

They've removed many of these, but believe some of them to be critical to the story as far as I understand.

Originally Posted by VDweller
You can't have meaningful options at every text node and I was never fond of saying the same thing in 3 different ways.

That's not what I'm saying; not even close. Too many of the conversations were linear in nature, so you never had meaningful choices. There were also conversations with multiple query options, but if you select one, then you get an answer and the only response you get is the next query in the list (with no way to exit the conversation). It makes the original choice meaningless.

when I played the demo there were choices & consequences and also the class you pick determines a lot of how you go through the game.

My experience with the game (demo).
1st try: I make a mercenary, pick weapons skills I like and game starts. Game tells me I am protecting some merchant. Assassin shows up and asks you to let him do his job and he will not hurt you. I say frack you, my job it so protect him and I will not fail my first task. Assassin proceeds to completely demolish my character. I uninstall the game after reading the game is full of such stuff.

2nd try:
Later friend praises the game for a week to me (he didn't play with mercenary) and I install it again. I make another mercenary and give him more defensive skills as well as lighter armor as last time I was too slow to do anything.
I fight the assassin again and win on my 3rd try (all 3 were close and nothing like the first time I fought him). I get teleported to next area along with merchant I was protection without any resting, healing or anything (I was almost dead from the assassin fight). 3 bandits attack us, murder the merchant and murder me without me getting a chance to get even one of them. I uninstall the game and don't care to ever play it again

BTW, I finished Xcom on Classic/Ironman and finished Open Xcom on 2nd hardest difficulty/Ironman. I also love Blackguards and finished it. But AoD is just unfair and stupid towards players. It felt like playing D&D with terrible DM that enjoyed torturing players. I left their campaign at end of first session and I did same with this game.

Yea; I liked the idea of the game but hated the combat in the demo - not so much clunky but the brutality even on easy mode. I really found it 'unfair' hard as oppose to 'skill' hard. Certainly that aspect of the game was not fun the rest looks interesting but I think I'll wait for reviews on the final product before deciding. I just don't like playing games that are brutally unfun.

Originally Posted by Archangel
My experience with the game (demo).
1st try: I make a mercenary, pick weapons skills I like and game starts. Game tells me I am protecting some merchant. Assassin shows up and asks you to let him do his job and he will not hurt you. I say frack you, my job it so protect him and I will not fail my first task. Assassin proceeds to completely demolish my character. I uninstall the game after reading the game is full of such stuff.

He is an assassin (i.e. a man who kills for a living), you're a bouncer.

2nd try:
Later friend praises the game for a week to me (he didn't play with mercenary) and I install it again. I make another mercenary and give him more defensive skills as well as lighter armor as last time I was too slow to do anything.
I fight the assassin again and win on my 3rd try (all 3 were close and nothing like the first time I fought him). I get teleported to next area along with merchant I was protection without any resting, healing or anything (I was almost dead from the assassin fight). 3 bandits attack us, murder the merchant and murder me without me getting a chance to get even one of them. I uninstall the game and don't care to ever play it again

Correction:

1) You're offered to protect a merchant on some shady deal. You aren't forced to accept it. If fighting a single assassin was difficult at full health, you should think twice about accepting another protection job on the same night.

2) The thugs (two, not three) don't attack right away. They give you a chance to walk away. You decided to stay and fight when you're low on health, then blamed the game for the choices you made.

BTW, I finished Xcom on Classic/Ironman and finished Open Xcom on 2nd hardest difficulty/Ironman. I also love Blackguards and finished it.

Different games.

But AoD is just unfair and stupid towards players.

If you try to play it as a mighty hero, you better be as good as a mighty hero, otherwise you'll die.

Very good points VD, it is great to have at least one game that is much more realistic in regards to combat compared to ridicules fighting is good because you win and get loot and it is almost never a challenge… the only reason to take peaceful / talking route is because maybe there is a difference reward, not because the combat would present any danger.

Originally Posted by you
Yea; I liked the idea of the game but hated the combat in the demo - not so much clunky but the brutality even on easy mode.

There is no easy mode. If you refer to the Awesome mode, which has been discontinued, it gave you a character with slightly better skills and better starting weapon (i.e. it gave you an edge, nothing more).

I really found it 'unfair' hard as oppose to 'skill' hard.

You need to understand the character system before you can become a mighty hero. For example, I can kill the above mentioned assassin and the two thugs 10 out of 10. The only real challenge there is protecting the merchant, but it's an optional objective.

In a typical RPG you're expected to fight through all or most obstacles. Thus every character, no matter how gimped or unsuitable for combat, is expected to be able to kill whoever stands in his/her way.

Usually, it's accomplished by making games easy overall or by making early enemies laughingly retarded. Like the infamous assassins in Baldur's Gate.

Our approach is different. There are fights that only a 'pure fighter' can handle. If you aren't, seek another way or stay away because you'll be torn apart.

The 'enemies' aren't scaled to your level. You start the game as a nobody, barely skilled. The other NPCs aren't and they won't give you any breaks. So if you're told that there is a group of raiders nearby or a military detachment, these aren't some weaklings waiting to be killed to make you feel better. These are seasoned fighters and unless you're good enough to take on 5-6 guys at a time, don't even bother.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Very good points VD, it is great to have at least one game that is much more realistic in regards to combat compared to ridicules fighting is good because you win and get loot and it is almost never a challenge… the only reason to take peaceful / talking route is because maybe there is a difference reward, not because the combat would present any danger.

Precisely.

Usually when bandits stop you and demand a payment to let you pass, you know that you aren't in any danger. These bandits are there to be killed and looted, but hey, if you feel like role-playing you can use a diplomacy line (and then kill and loot them - waste not!).

We wanted to make a different game, but I understand that it's not for everyone.

Originally Posted by VDweller
He is an assassin (i.e. a man who kills for a living), you're a bouncer.

Assassins were historically not very good at direct fights. They used poisons and cowardly ways. In D&D they are usually rogues that kind of suck at 1v1. A trained warrior should be able to dispatch one if you want to go by realism. If he was a super high level experienced one this should have been a "cinematic" where he just kills the merchant. By letting a starting warrior character being able to fight a losing fight is design that creates a sense of unfairness with players.

Correction:

1) You're offered to protect a merchant on some shady deal. You aren't forced to accept it. If fighting a single assassin was difficult at full health, you should think twice about accepting another protection job on the same night.

2) The thugs (two, not three) don't attack right away. They give you a chance to walk away. You decided to stay and fight when you're low on health, then blamed the game for the choices you made.

1. Maybe it is different now, but in demo I don't remember any shady deals. I roleplayed a honorable bodyguard and continued with my duty. Saying I could have turned it down just means you punish anything but how you want people to play. That is also not a good design and is in PnP called railroading and it considered a really bad practice.

2. I don't remember the exact details but I am sure that walking away meant again I should leave my charge to die. That would be failing my duty and basically murdering the guy. Again, a show of "my way or highway" design. Punishing players for choosing simple things is not a good design. If the choice was, well there is a Dragon in the cave , do you want to go fight it and dying terrible every time if you do, that is not bad design. That is a stupid player choice. If the character is not a trained warrior and he decides to fight vs bandits in a bad situation that is also stupid player. But punishing players for creating a fighting character that chooses to fight?! That is just bad design.

Different games.

Well Xcom is about very difficulty combat that takes system mastery to become good at. Similar to my experience in AoD (the assassin fight). But it does not drop you into another unfair combat just after that.

If you try to play it as a mighty hero, you better be as good as a mighty hero, otherwise you'll die.

That is why games normally offer martial classes when creating characters so that players can use martial skills to accomplish great deeds. Since there was not class called Hero, the next best one was Mercenary.

Let me try to explain how it felt playing a warrior class in AoD in a more simple way.
It was like playing a glutton that got kicked in the face each time he tried to eat another ice cream.
Like playing a Fireman that got knocked out each time there was a fire to fight.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Assassins were historically not very good at direct fights. They used poisons and cowardly ways. In D&D they are usually rogues that kind of suck at 1v1. A trained warrior should be able to dispatch one if you want to go by realism.

You don't start the game as a trained warrior by default.

If he was a super high level experienced one this should have been a "cinematic" where he just kills the merchant. By letting a starting warrior character being able to fight a losing fight is design that creates a sense of unfairness with players.

He does kill the merchant. Then he tells you that he was paid to kill one and has no desire to kill you, giving you two options: attack or lower your weapon. You decided to attack.

This isn't a losing fight or a trick fight. The assassin is easy to kill if you're a good fighter. If you aren't, lower your weapon.

1. Maybe it is different now, but in demo I don't remember any shady deals. I roleplayed a honorable bodyguard and continued with my duty.

You remember wrong.

After the trader dies, the innkeeper offers you to make 'easy money' - his friend will sell the dead trader's belongings to the thieves guild and you'll watch his back. You can say no.

Saying I could have turned it down just means you punish anything but how you want people to play. That is also not a good design and is in PnP called railroading and it considered a really bad practice.

You keep missing the point.

What you can do is determined by your character not your eagerness to be a hero. I'm not railroading you. If you're a hard man, take the deal and kill some thugs. If you aren't, say no.

I've lost count how many times I killed the thugs, so it's anything but impossible.

2. I don't remember the exact details but I am sure that walking away meant again I should leave my charge to die. That would be failing my duty and basically murdering the guy. Again, a show of "my way or highway" design.

See above.

You can't be a hero just because you want to play one. Your character has to be a good fighter. I assume your character wasn't. The end.

But punishing players for creating a fighting character that chooses to fight?! That is just bad design.

And what exactly does creating a fighting character mean? Stats/skills/gear/tactics? You probably don't remember now but if you decide to try again:

STR 8-9, DEX 8-9, CON 7-8, PER 7-8, INT 4, CHA 4

It's not the best build, but it will get you started. Once you understand the system better, you'd be able to play more balanced characters. Overall, STR - bonus damage, DEX - action points, which will be limited by your armor, CON - bonus to Block and HP, PER - bonus THC (to hit chance - very important).

I'd recommend to put all your combat points in a weapon skill and either Dodge or Block, your non-combat skills in Crafting or Alchemy.

When you're more comfortable and know what you're doing, you can spread your points thinner, but for now stick with a couple of skills. Don't neglect defense - you're usually outnumbered, so being able to avoid attacks (dodge) or reduce damage (block + good armor) is very important. At the same time, being able to hit the target is equally important.

You have 3 basic attack - fast, normal, power. Fast attacks do less damage but are harder to dodge/block (i.e. you have a higher THC). Power attacks are the opposite - more damage but less THC. Plus special and aimed attacks.

You get all attacks right away (instead of unlocking them as you level up), which doesn't mean that you can use them efficiently right away. Aimed attacks, for example, require high PER and high weapon skills (a weapon with a THC bonus won't hurt either).

I'd suggest to start with 4 points in a weapon skill and 3 in dodge or block. Raise the defense skill to 4 the first chance you get, then the weapon skill to 5, etc. Don't deal with the raiders or the mine until you have at least 5 points in both skills otherwise you won't stand a chance.

Start as a mercenary, join the Imperial Guards, do the first quest, then do all the side quests you can find, then deal with the raiders and the mine (if you feel like it), then do the second quest because you won't be able to explore the town beyond that point (as your faction is about to attack it trying to take over).

Well Xcom is about very difficulty combat that takes system mastery to become good at. Similar to my experience in AoD (the assassin fight). But it does not drop you into another unfair combat just after that.

You weren't dropped into another fight. You agreed to go there and then you decided to be a hero.

As for XCOM, it's a game where you have a squad of combat characters. You can't screw it up by sending your scientists and engineers into combat. The enemies are introduced gradually, letting you slowly develop your characters. It's not a bad design, obviously. It's a different design.

That is why games normally offer martial classes when creating characters so that players can use martial skills to accomplish great deeds. Since there was not class called Hero, the next best one was Mercenary.

Well, mercenaries are rarely known for being heroes, and if you've read the intro text, you probably noticed that your merc is working as a bouncer in a local tavern when the game starts.

I give you the point of mechant already being dead and going with innkeeper then. I forgot that. But now that you reminded me, my mercenary was working for the inkeeper and was in charge of all guests. So a guy got murdered under my watch and you expect a martial class to not use martial skills against the murderer?
And later Innkeeper (boss) tells me to help him (ok it might have been dishonorable what he wanted to do but if we are going realism route that was normal in that time) and I am supposed to reject him?
And then thugs attack us and again I am supposed to run away like a coward?

You might not see it, but all of these are trap options were normal players will alway choose the option that the game will punish them with. That is bad design. If you let players choose a starting class and change story based on that you don't punish players for choosing normal options. If the mercenary with no social skills tries to meddle in social affairs then you punish him, same for a merchant that tries to fight.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Let me try to explain how it felt playing a warrior class in AoD in a more simple way.

AoD doesn't have classes, which do a great job of guiding you and increasing your power in carefully measured increments at level ups.

The backgrounds (merc, assassin, loremaster, etc) are just that - backgrounds. They define your place in the world and the starting quest. You can make any character you want, which automatically means that you can make mistakes.

Here are some videos made by one of the fans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3pUGwzCWW4
^ smart soldier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddaQTNqOFGA
^ tough trader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOhnrzuN8ds
^ annotated combat guide

Well your starting skills and starting story very much decide what kind of character you are and what kind of character you want to play. I chose Mercenary background because I wanted to fight stuff. I didn't expect to die multiple times in first two fights. If I wanted that I would take a non-martial background.