Game News Age of Decadence Released on Steam Early Access

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller Elhoim Do you guys feel amused by the butthurt? Is it more like disappointment? Or do you feel you could have done more to inform the uneducated masses about what the game is all about?

I'm easily amused. And yes, of course, we made some (many) mistakes and could have done more to inform people, which is what we're doing now (the upcoming tutorial, more info on the character screen, etc).

At the same time, there is only so much you can do to inform people. If someone wants to be a hero, to succeed all the time no matter what, if someone thinks that in well designed RPGs you never die and dying is always the developers' fault, there is nothing you can do to educate them.

As someone said on the Steam forums:

"I believe there are two "types" of fun. The first is the purposeless and carefree fun, which is the kind of fun you have when chatting with friends, watching an action movie or anything that doesn't require a large investment of intellectual energy or intensive training to perform. It's great fun, no doubt, eveyone like that.

But there is another kind of fun that is a little different. It's that feeling of accomplishing something extremely complicated satisfactorily: win a round of any board game against an incredibly talented opponent, make a jump or other perfectly coordinated acrobatic movement in a precise manner, or even solve an extremely difficult mathematical question.

Many people wouldn't even consider these things "fun". But undoubtedly, they are. It's a different kind of fun: it's something engaging, challenging, intriguing. The process is often painful in a sense, it takes effort and you will certainly make mistakes and fail several times during it. But the feeling of victory and pleasure of performing the act is far deeper than what happens in any other type of event.

The truth is that electronic games, about two decades ago, had several examples of the second kind of fun but it was replaced almost completely by the first. What isn't necessarily "wrong", of course, especially because it is a fact that the most simple-minded fun has a much wider scope of acceptance. Virtually every human being is able to easily identify with it, in its different manifestations.

But for people who are still seeking for the second type... It is gratifying to realize that there are still, yes, people who realize that the fun can go far beyond that. That there is a profound relationship between the difficulty of a task and the pleasure of getting to perform it.

So, yeah, thanks Vince! You really did a good job here."

I fully agree with that. Either people dig this kind of fun, in which case all they don't need much, or they don't, in which case you can't do much to make them like it.

Because one thing i have noticed about AoD's public discussion, be it here or elsewhere is your constant need to keep educating/arguing with people about the game concepts and mechanics. Must get tiring after all these years.

It is important to explain the game's concepts and mechanics to people who are reading forums. So, when I explain something to someone, I'm not aiming to convince him, but those who are reading. So, when someone says "I didn't have enough INT, so quest blocked, wtf!" or "this game sucks, only shields work, dodge is useless", unless someone steps in and explains, people who are reading might think that it's actually the case. At least we make them doubt, which is important.

 

[Haba]

The one thing I'd wish to see with an approach like this is the introduction of multiple victory/failure states. I.e. partial success, partial failure, success, failure. Possibly even critical success and critical failure. After those would be in, I'd force players to spend their SP's as soon as they gain them to disable gaming the system. That's my biggest gripe with AoD design.

Binary skill checks can be allowed in a game like King of Dragon Pass, where failure doesn't stop the gameplay (and often has interesting consequences). Naturally doing something similar in a single character cRPG isn't easy.

 

[tuluse]

Crap, only just realized that AoD has a pretty damn steep skill progression curve, so 2 alchemy and 2 crafting might actually be cheaper than 3 crafting. I'll have to think of something even more brilliant.

3 crafting would be 15 points, 2 in 2 skills is 10.

4 crafting would be 30 points, 3 crafting and 3 alchemy would be 30 points. That would let you pass 4 checks in both stats though, while 3 and 2 would be 20 points.

5 crafting would be 50 points, 4 and 3 would would be 45 points, 4 and 4 would be 60 points, while 6 crafting would be 75.

I think ((2nd skill - 1) / 2) rounded down would solve this.

This still doesn't work because it never makes sense to go above a 7 in any skill. At that point, you can get the other 3 points by investing 7 in a second skill. This is slightly cheaper than going for 10 in one skill (210 points vs 225), and it means you essentially have 10 in two skills. In fact I think any sort of synergy system will cause this problem.

 

[tuluse]

The one thing I'd wish to see with an approach like this is the introduction of multiple victory/failure states. I.e. partial success, partial failure, success, failure. Possibly even critical success and critical failure. After those would be in, I'd force players to spend their SP's as soon as they gain them to disable gaming the system. That's my biggest gripe with AoD design.

Binary skill checks can be allowed in a game like King of Dragon Pass, where failure doesn't stop the gameplay (and often has interesting consequences). Naturally doing something similar in a single character cRPG isn't easy.

They do this to some extent. For instance a failure will often drop you into combat you can try to win, or in the thief final mission in Teron there are 4 steal checks in a row with increasing difficulty and you can choose to stop early. The problem is that the combats are often un-winable for a non-combat focused character. The other problem with those thief checks is that there is no way to tell what the skill needed is. So you blindly try all the checks until you fail then re-load and stop on the last one you're successful with. I think it would almost be better to do one check and based on your skill just tell the player you succeed on x of the 4 crates, do you want to fight for the last ones?

 

[AbounI]

and now here comes the enhanced trailer

 

[Elhoim]

and now here comes the enhanced trailer

Thanks felipepepe for the enhancements

 

[Tigranes]

Vault Dweller Elhoim Do you guys feel amused by the butthurt? Is it more like disappointment? Or do you feel you could have done more to inform the uneducated masses about what the game is all about?

I'm easily amused. And yes, of course, we made some (many) mistakes and could have done more to inform people, which is what we're doing now (the upcoming tutorial, more info on the character screen, etc).

At the same time, there is only so much you can do to inform people. If someone wants to be a hero, to succeed all the time no matter what, if someone thinks that in well designed RPGs you never die and dying is always the developers' fault, there is nothing you can do to educate them.

Vince, I'm really glad to hear you say this, because in the past - no matter what you might have felt in your head - you often sounded like you were purposefully refusing to care about informing people because it is a game for the few. This isn't a comment on how stuck up you are or not, because who cares about that? But I still think there is a lot more that can be done to introduce gamers to AOD - both at the level of promotional material (Steam game descriptions, interviews, etc.) and in-game tutorials / help.

I think the important point is that point A (informing gamers is important) is separate from point B (some gamers will never get AOD). I don't think I would ever want you to cater to B, for example. But I think Early Access was the time when you really needed to ramp up on A to ensure gamers who want to get AOD, or could be trained to get AOD, do so. Well, there's still time, up to and including the full release.

The tutorial and character screen info will help. I just want to make one specific suggestion, which is: what I notice you guys do in much of this communication is talk about it at a pretty high level. i.e. this is the kind of RPG we want to make, you cannot win at everything, etc., etc. The way in which different gamers will interpret those relatively abstract statements is very different. i.e. I can easily imagine people thinking "yeah sure, AOD won't let me succeed at everything, but I want to be a really good cool thief and nothing else and the stupid game isn't even letting me do that." Banal as it is I think there's some value in really saying out loud and clear look, in our game, "Walk away" or "Run away" doesn't mean "lose experience and quests and/or reload" option. In our game, if you fail to kill someone or run away or screw up, there is often an entirely new questline that comes out of that - an experience you can't have if you succeed in everything and kill everyone. So on and so forth.

But hey, you're the marketing VP, I know. Just putting it out there based on reactions to R1 and Early Access I've seen the last couple of years.

Now to try the Merchant...

 

[Vault Dweller]

But hey, you're the marketing VP, I know.

I know how to sell advertising to businesses and manage sales reps. I have no fucking ideas how to sell a hardcore RPG to people who have never played one, so your advice is well received, as always.

 

[hiver]

Thats why i was talking about the need to make a very low level, very simple, everyday language - AoD for absolute beginners - short, small guide - that would have links to full game manual, for those that want technical details.
Easy way to take care of a whole segment of such potential players.
Tutorial is good - but combat only.

 

[Tigranes]

But hey, you're the marketing VP, I know.

I know how to sell advertising to businesses and manage sales reps. I have no fucking ideas how to sell a hardcore RPG to people who have never played one, so your advice is well received, as always.

Thanks. I guess to me it's most similar to explaining things to students. I'm absolutely convinced that many will give up in frustration, or take it out on the forums, before they've had the opportunity to realise that fail-states lead to new questlines, that you can get skill points for, say, running out of Miltiades' ambush, that one more dodge or one more swords can turn a very difficult fight into a winnable one, etc. The little 'play-throughs' you used to do; as the audience expands (Slightly) in these latter stages, they might be an avenue to show such things off. 15 deaths to the same mob is easier to stomach if you know the delightful things coming afterwards.

 

[AbounI]

Vince, few words about "pressinitforward" please
Are you one of those who are behind the concept, or simply another campaign to get more coverage?
http://www.pressinitforward.com/

What is about Dead State too?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Styg (Underrail) emailed me about it and offered to join. I passed the info to Brian but haven't heard back (he's probably too busy).

 

[AbounI]

Styg (Underrail) emailed me about it and offered to join. I passed the info to Brian but haven't heard back (he's probably too busy).

Thanks, I was thinking you are one of those who are behind this new collaborating concept while seeking for more coverage.Hope it will bring more customers for you and the others studios.I guess that there must be some kind of test before being "pressforwarded", like GOG?

 

[Humanity has risen!]

The one thing I'd wish to see with an approach like this is the introduction of multiple victory/failure states. I.e. partial success, partial failure, success, failure. Possibly even critical success and critical failure. After those would be in, I'd force players to spend their SP's as soon as they gain them to disable gaming the system. That's my biggest gripe with AoD design.

Binary skill checks can be allowed in a game like King of Dragon Pass, where failure doesn't stop the gameplay (and often has interesting consequences). Naturally doing something similar in a single character cRPG isn't easy.

This, this is exactly what I meant.

Vince keep saying that this is "rewarding gameplay, you just have to use your head", but I and many others say that it veers dangerously close to min-maxing gameplay, trial and error, and rote memorization, with no room for experimentation lest you die and must reload. This doesn't feels like an RPG; it feels like memorizing which numbers I must dial to call my credit card company, and get the right voicemail options in sequence to get the system to tell me my monthly balance.

 

[Bubbles]

it veers dangerously close to min-maxing gameplay, trial and error, and rote memorization

Don't most difficult games encourage those playstyles anyway? Only the limited room for experimentation seems like an AoD-specific problem, and even that only applies to the non-combat solutions.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

you just have to use your head

Ah, yes. This is likely where your problem is coming from.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The one thing I'd wish to see with an approach like this is the introduction of multiple victory/failure states. I.e. partial success, partial failure, success, failure. Possibly even critical success and critical failure.

What about deferred success?

 

[Haba]

What about deferred success?

Vince should actually experiment with that. Maybe the new awesome mode wouldn't simply let people fail at all.

 

[kazgar]

Maybe the awesome mode could just get rid of the "game over you died" screens and just whisk the player back to the last save point or start of the game.

See, no failure ma!

 

[Kem0sabe]

It's funny who difficulty in rpg's, especialy combat wise, is more easily "digested" on consoles jrpg's than on crpg's. Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Dragons Dogma, all three of those revel in the fact that the player will die horribly unless he knows what he is doing, even then survival is not guaranteed.

Those games created cult following due to a lot of factors but one of those was the challenge. CRPG's these days have, for the most part, ridiculously easy combat encounters and mechanics, so much so that the audience is so focused on this Dragon Age difficulty curve that when AoD comes along and shakes things up, they can't adjust and more importantly, are not willing to.

 

[Jaedar]

So I tried the new demo. I like the skills going from 1-10, made the whole thing feel more reasonable.

I have a question about the AI though. Is it coded to always target the player first? Because it seems to have a thing for attacking my dude even when he's the least dangerous guy in range.

 

[Johannes]

Those games created cult following due to a lot of factors but one of those was the challenge. CRPG's these days have, for the most part, ridiculously easy combat encounters and mechanics, so much so that the audience is so focused on this Dragon Age difficulty curve that when AoD comes along and shakes things up, they can't adjust and more importantly, are not willing to.

Not willing to because most of the time, the difficulty in AoD is not very interesting. Difficult combat is something exciting in those mentioned games, or in Gold Box games, or in modded Baldur's Gate. But the combat system in AoD is very limited, skill does make a difference but the system is so toned down that learning it is not terribly exciting for most people. And the challenge out of combat, is mostly trial and error of where to put your skillpoints at any given time. Not something terribly exciting or cerebral. When you go into non-combat encounters for the first time, they are still fresh and interesting, using your head matters - but as the difficulty forces you to go through the same sequences so many times, unless you got the character creation right on the first try, it turns the potentially interesting CYOA sequences to be more about min-maxing your character point use than actually making smart decisions.

If the game was easier the strong points of the game would still all be there. But the retarded reload rumba in a game like this, does not sit well for most people.

Difficult games are great, but only when the systems in place that bring that difficulty are actually interesting to overcome.

 

[t]

Oh, you really don't have to. But if you'd have a moment -- thanks for the offer. Savegame sent.

Killed him with a power attack after 8 reloads (got lucky, really - hit him with a power attack, scored a critical on the counter-attack, then finished him off). Your armor's good, but it's weak against criticals and the champion is giving them out like candy. So, low HP vs frequent criticals - short life expectancy.

In general, I'd say that you tried to fight him too early. Another level of dodge would have made some difference. I'd suggest to finish your current quests, then try again. Another reason is the lack of things to buy to prepare for the fight, which is our fault (will be fixed soon).

Cool! Thanks for the tips. Regardless, will be trying out completely different build soon.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Not willing to because most of the time, the difficulty in AoD is not very interesting. Difficult combat is something exciting in those mentioned games, or in Gold Box games, or in modded Baldur's Gate. But the combat system in AoD is very limited, skill does make a difference but the system is so toned down that learning it is not terribly exciting for most people.

Don't think AoD's combat system is limited at all: have never seen another crpg where every weapon type works in a mechanically distinct way, and where you have such a variety of continuously viable attack types. I think it's mainly hampered in practice by the fact that unused AP's are worthless, meaning that, especially with high AP cost weapons, it's more a question of "fitting" than choosing which attack type is the best in that situation (two handed hammers with 10 AP means fast attacking continuously unless you want 1 attack instead of 2). Besides that, you don't get enough info on your enemies besides observing their actions through reloading constantly to make informed decisions based on their skills; having a perception based description of an enemy would be nice.

 

[hiver]

Please no fantastic telepathy in my AoD, thanx.