Age of Decadence Reviews

[Deleted Member 22431]

And what happens when you decide to play a seductive Toreador and then discover that the game becomes an action RPG at some point? A character system can't be separated from the overall design/gameplay, but since the player doesn't know what to expect all attempts to play anything other than an awesome fighter (works like a charm in any RPG) becomes a trial-n-error gamble. Thus a sane experienced player would treat it as such and experiment rather than boldly declare that he'll play an outdoorsy gambler in Fallout and travel the wasteland looking for a high-stake poker game.

The last third of VtM:B is pure combat.

 

[MRY]

Codexers certainly lean hard toward the second category, but I suspect it's a minority view among cRPG players.

I disagree entirely. “cRPG fans” in this sentence does not qualify because they don’t enjoy genuine cRPGs. They enjoy some games that are mislabelled as cRPGs, but have no resemblance to character building. If you reply with an accusation that this is a “No true Scotsman” fallacy, I will insist that 99% of the taxonomy of fallacies is a rationalisation of political bias and superficial nonsense.

I'm curious, if you had an RPG in which character creation consisted of a series of Ultima IV-style choices, but rather than being moral nonsense, they were practical questions about how you'd rather address scenarios, and at the end of that, the game distributed your points, would you consider it a non-cRPG, or merely that people who choose that character creation system don't enjoy true cRPGs, or what?

And what happens when you decide to play a seductive Toreador and then discover that the game becomes an action RPG at some point?

It's been ages since I played the game, but my recollection is that I played as a dialogue-oriented build, and by the time the game shifted to a more action orientation, I had ample additional points since there were only so many that could be plowed into persuasion-type skills, plus player skill could (to a reasonably large degree) make up for lack of character statistics. I remember finding the sewers and gargoyle boss thing a bit frustrating, but certainly not hard enough to make me want to quit the game, or to feel like my character build had been nullified. Finally, I think the general consensus is that the collapse of V:TM:B into a linear combat crawl near the end is one of the game's demerits -- in other words, I think this is fairly viewed as an instance of the game failing in recognizing player choice, not players failing to build a proper build.

A character system can't be separated from the overall design/gameplay, but since the player doesn't know what to expect all attempts to play anything other than an awesome fighter (works like a charm in any RPG) becomes a trial-n-error gamble. Thus a sane experienced player would treat it as such and experiment rather than boldly declare that he'll play an outdoorsy gambler in Fallout and travel the wasteland looking for a high-stake poker game.

Meh. That seems fairly unpersuasive to me. As an initial matter, if you were right, you'd see the same level of complaints being aimed at other cRPGs re: trap builds that you see aimed at AOD, but AOD seems to get quite a bit more of it (suggesting it is much farther along the spectrum than most). Of course you can make a ludicrous build in Fallout, but my experience was that every build I've ever done has felt reasonably easy to play and reasonably well "respected" by the game -- a talking scientist gunman vs. a hammer wielding brute are both pretty easy to design and both reasonable approaches to the game. And there's quite a wide range between "viable and ideal." AOD seems to have a much tighter range in that regard, and for that reason seems not to "respect" player builds that seem viable in the abstract. In other words, AOD seems to demand much more of a player in terms of how the player communicates to the game that he wants to play such-and-such archetype. He can't just assert it, he has to learn AOD's language and translate it, as it were.

Obviously, for some players that's an awesome feature, and AOD was wildly successful with that set. But I not sure that player dislike of the system is necessarily because they are too stupid to translate their preferences through trial-and-error experimentation; it may just be that they aren't particularly interested in that form of gameplay and would rather be able to assert his archetype and then be able to play the game. IMO, if AOD offered 10 archetypes to choose from and autoleveling as they went, it would have found a much wider player base without compromising any of the rich systems that Codexers enjoy.

 

[BING XI LAO]

If only this game wasn't 3d-pig-disgusting like NWN.

 

[Goromorg]

AoD graphics is not spectacular, but has some charm nonetheless.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

I'm curious, if you had an RPG in which character creation consisted of a series of Ultima IV-style choices, but rather than being moral nonsense, they were practical questions about how you'd rather address scenarios, and at the end of that, the game distributed your points, would you consider it a non-cRPG, or merely that people who choose that character creation system don't enjoy true cRPGs, or what?

If you had a sequence of audio-images with no story would you consider it a film? If you had a urinal, would you consider it a work of art? If you had a game where there is no challenge, would you still consider it a game? If you had a theory that is not accompanied by any argument, would you still consider a theory? The sensible answer for any of these questions is no, but each question is motivated by a film, work of art, game or theory that are widely influential in their respective domains. Does this matter? Not really, because canons are always controversial. The same reasoning applies to Ultima. Playing a cRPG with a ready-made character is like playing a race game in which you don’t need to make a turn because the game does it for you. It’s pointless.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

If only this game wasn't 3d-pig-disgusting like NWN.

 

[BING XI LAO]

It's not the graphics, it's the camera. Game would've been fine as isometric, wrestling with the camera in the initial town made me ragequit.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

It's not the graphics, it's the camera. Game would've been fine as isometric, wrestling with the camera in the initial town made me ragequit.

You cannot satisfy a camerawhore.

 

[Harthwain]

If you had a sequence of audio-images with no story would you consider it a film?

Spoiler

If you had a game where there is no challenge, would you still consider it a game?

Since you yourself call it "a game"... Also, for a game to be a game it needs to have rules, not a challenge. Technically at least.

 

[MRY]

I'm curious, if you had an RPG in which character creation consisted of a series of Ultima IV-style choices, but rather than being moral nonsense, they were practical questions about how you'd rather address scenarios, and at the end of that, the game distributed your points, would you consider it a non-cRPG, or merely that people who choose that character creation system don't enjoy true cRPGs, or what?

If you had a sequence of audio-images with no story would you consider it a film? If you had a urinal, would you consider it a work of art? If you had a game where there is no challenge, would you still consider it a game? If you had a theory that is not accompanied by any argument, would you still consider a theory? The sensible answer for any of these questions is no, but each question is motivated by a film, work of art, game or theory that are widely influential in their respective domains. Does this matter? Not really, because canons are always controversial. The same reasoning applies to Ultima. Playing a cRPG with a ready-made character is like playing a race game in which you don’t need to make a turn because the game does it for you. It’s pointless.

I think you're a smart dude, but this is just question begging. I ask, "Do you consider X an essential element of RPGs?" Your answer by wanting to discuss whether elements A, B, C, or D are essential to various other media. We disagree about those other media. (Obviously, a game without challenge is still a game -- the overwhelming majority of board games I played as a kid contained no challenge, for instance, and it's stupid to claim that, say, Chutes and Ladders isn't a game. Likewise, when I play basketball against my kids, there's no challenge but it's plainly still a game. If not, what is it?) But even if we agreed, you don't offer any reason why number-allocation-character-creation:RPGs :: argument:theory. No can I guess at such a reason.

Taking the position that Ultima VII (#30 on Codex's list!) is not an RPG at all (or is "pointless" as an RPG) seems to me discrediting to your position, not mine.

I'd also point out that, while it has been many years since I played P&P RPGs, the versions of D&D that I played did not have point-allocation character creation. Your stats were randomly assigned to you (via dice rolls) and then the player's job was to pick a class that worked with those stats. In other words, it was in some ways the inversion of what I'm talking about -- the game asserts, "These are your stats!" and then I would say, "I interpret those as a clumsy cleric." It's an approach different from what you say is the sine qua non and what I'm proposing, but since it doesn't have your essential feature, I guess you'd have to say it's not an RPG?

I'd say that playing an RPG without numerical allocation of stats is like playing a racing game without numerical allocation of stats. Some racing games let you design your vehicle in absurd detail; some racing games don't let you design your vehicle at all; some racing games let you pick from a few preset vehicles; some racing games let you choose from a few preset vehicles and then modify some parts. The point of the game is to race. Likewise, the very name "role-playing game" (not "role-crafting game") suggests that the truly essential quality is what the game permits you to do with your character, not the level of control it gives you over defining that character at the outset.

 

[HoboForEternity]

AoD graphics is not spectacular, but has some charm nonetheless.

not graphics, but it have good art direction that made ps2 level models looks good.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

So are you saying the essential quality of an RPG is numerical stat allocation at character creation? That is, Ultima VII isn’t an.

I know, but that’s my point. This is a philosophical discussion about the essential nature of a sophisticated social artifact. It’s bound to generate controversy and disagreement due to its own nature. I don’t think that all cRPG developers out there have a clear view of their own genre, which probably explains why so many cRPGs are so bad. I don’t think that appealing to names will settle anything. Ultima VII isn’t a cRPG according to this criterion, but Realms of Arkania is, Wizardry is, Baldur’s Gate is, Fallout is, Underrail is, etc. Any way you look at it, character creation and stat governed gameplay are essential to cRPGs.

I think you're a smart dude, but this is just question begging. I ask, "Do you consider X an essential element of RPGs?" Your answer by wanting to discuss whether elements A, B, C, or D are essential to various other media. We disagree about those other media.

The point I was trying to make is that you one can plausibly argue that works in different mediums don’t satisfy the criteria to be classified as such even if they are recognised by the canon in their respective domains. There is no reason to assume that this occurs in other mediums and that cRPGs should be an exception. To assume that cRPGs should be an exception to the norm and that references to canon are automatic counterexamples is question-begging.

(Obviously, a game without challenge is still a game -- the overwhelming majority of board games I played as a kid contained no challenge, for instance, and it's stupid to claim that, say, Chutes and Ladders isn't a game. Likewise, when I play basketball against my kids, there's no challenge but it's plainly still a game. If not, what is it?)

There is nothing obvious about it. I can use a chair as a weapon. That doesn’t change the nature of the chair into something else. Besides, there is significant literature about the nature of games that you need to read before you can make a compelling argument about the topic. I would advise you to start with Bernard Suits “What Is a Game?”, which is a classic paper about the topic published in 1967(!) His position is that a game is an attempt to surpass unnecessary challenges. I agree with him. It makes perfect sense, but the discussion advanced so much along the years that they probably offered a different essentialist definition at this point.

But even if we agreed, you don't offer any reason why number-allocation-character-creation:RPGs :: argument:theory. No can I guess at such a reason.

Why Ultima would offer you builds to choose if builds were completely irrelevant for cRPGs? Is there any reason to assume that character building should be optional in cRPGs given their predominance in the P&P roots?

Taking the position that Ultima VII (#30 on Codex's list!) is not an RPG at all (or is "pointless" as an RPG) seems to me discrediting to your position, not mine.

Alpha Protocol is placed 29 on the top 70 cRPGs. It must be good then, because the list says so. Duchamp’s urinol is widely acclaimed as an original work of art. It must be then, because the critics say so. Andy Warhol’s empire has no actors and plot, but the critics say it’s a film, so it must be so. This type of reasoning may sound compelling to a person that gives too much importance to pedigree or an appearance of consensus. It makes no difference to me.

I'd also point out that, while it has been many years since I played P&P RPGs, the versions of D&D that I played did not have point-allocation character creation. Your stats were randomly assigned to you (via dice rolls) and then the player's job was to pick a class that worked with those stats. In other words, it was in some ways the inversion of what I'm talking about -- the game asserts, "These are your stats!" and then I would say, "I interpret those as a clumsy cleric." It's an approach different from what you say is the sine qua non and what I'm proposing, but since it doesn't have your essential feature, I guess you'd have to say it's not an RPG?

The Greeks did metaphysics and physics all on one, so the contemporary definition of physics must include metaphysics then. Most modern scientists would consider astrology and alchemy sciences, so contemporary scientists should think the same. The first airplane was made out of a kite, so the essence of airplanes is being made out of kites. You can’t describe the essential nature of something by pointing to examples like that. It’s much more complicated than that. I understand why you feel so entitled to dismiss character building was it was something optional. You can find whatever that is labeled as a cRPG and it doesn’t have it to prove your claim. But it is more complicated than that.

I'd say that playing an RPG without numerical allocation of stats is like playing a racing game without numerical allocation of stats. Some racing games let you design your vehicle in absurd detail; some racing games don't let you design your vehicle at all; some racing games let you pick from a few preset vehicles; some racing games let you choose from a few preset vehicles and then modify some parts. The point of the game is to race. Likewise, the very name "role-playing game" (not "role-crafting game") suggests that the truly essential quality is what the game permits you to do with your character, not the level of control it gives you over defining that character at the outset.

That’s also an important element of a cRPG, but if cRPGs can be whatever the hell some developer did, or whatever the hell the Codex list says so, then you can’t make this claim because I can present plenty of linear “cRPGs” that are widely acclaimed to prove my point. The essence of a genre is no laughing matter. It will orient what guidelines developers will use, and which features they will emphasize. It can make or break a game.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

If you had a sequence of audio-images with no story would you consider it a film?

Spoiler

.

First airplaine?

Is this an airplaine?

Probably not. It has nothing to do with the original model besides the ability to fly.

 

[Old One]

I think you're a smart dude, but...

Ouch!

 

[MRY]

I’m serious! I can tell when I’m outmatched intellectually. But sometimes horse sense is enough to be right, and megasmarts can lead you astray.

 

[Harthwain]

If you had a sequence of audio-images with no story would you consider it a film?

Spoiler

.

First airplaine?

Spoiler

Is this an airplaine?

Spoiler

Probably not. It has nothing to do with the original model besides the ability to fly.

Actually... Both are airplanes. Both fit the definition of an airplane ("a powered heavier-than-air aircraft with fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift"). And both perform the most important function of an airplane: its ability to fly.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Actually... Both are airplanes. Both fit the definition of an airplane ("a powered heavier-than-air aircraft with fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift"). And both perform the most important function of an airplane: its ability to fly.

This example must be understood in the context of the argumentation. The point is that one could be led to assume that the essence of the thing must lie in one of the examples, instead of considering its development in history. This applies to science, philosophy, and cRPGs. You can interpret the history of its practitioners as an attempt to understand its own practice, and due to progress and other developments, their view about the practice will change with time. You can either pick a pure combat game to "prove" that cRPGs are pure combat or a C&C storyfag game to prove that cRPGs are all about choices. Both examples will be equally arbitrary and the nature of the thing will probably be something more abstract and weird to pinpoint that will probably disqualify most cRPGs. In this sense, the nature of cRPGs is less important* than the main properties that we would associate with cRPGs, namely, character building, reactivity, etc. Thus, if a linear game has top-notch character building and combat, it is excellent in one of the main features of the genre even if it fails to qualify as a cRPG. Those pseudo-cRPGs can be better than very reactive cRPGs with superficial combat and poor writing.

*Which doesn't mean that cRPGs should be an open genre where everything goes. This would be detrimental to game development and players, IMO.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

I’m serious! I can tell when I’m outmatched intellectually. But sometimes horse sense is enough to be right, and megasmarts can lead you astray.

Oh please!

 

[Harthwain]

In this sense, the nature of cRPGs is less important* than the main properties that we would associate with cRPGs, namely, character building, reactivity, etc.

No. It's the other way around - simply having "main features" isn't enough for something to be an RPG. Because "the main properties" are merely means to an end, not an end in itself. And that end is player's interactibility with the world. The nature of RPGs is crucial here as it allows to understand the purpose of having features such as character building, reactivity, etc. You're looking at cRPGs (all of which are far from perfect), instead of looking at their direct inspiration: PnP RPGs, where this should be obvious.

 

[FranticDistortion]

Body Count is an amazing stat check that all other RPGs with combat should have.

 

[Thunar]

Body Count is an amazing stat check that all other RPGs with combat should have.

A lot of things in AoD are genius tier and should be followed religiously.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

dislike of the system is necessarily because they are too stupid to translate their preferences through trial-and-error experimentation; it may just be that they aren't particularly interested in that form of gameplay and would rather be able to assert his archetype and then be able to play the game.

Can we stop perpetuating this bullshit? The AoD's gameplay isn't goddamn "trial and error". Yes, you will probably re-roll after a couple hours in, a hallowed cRPG tradition; Getting familiar with the style/mechanics of a game and restarting is not "trial and error". Metagaming is a choice that lies with the player, not the goddamn game.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

I can relate to that. I've drowned a couple hundred hours in games that were shit and that I couldn't recommend to anyone. They were just the brand of shit that keeps you playing, like junk food – you know it's trash, you don't even really like the taste, but you still eat it.

Is Age of Decadence junk food?

 

[MRY]

Vince called it trial and error, not me.

 

[thesecret1]

I can relate to that. I've drowned a couple hundred hours in games that were shit and that I couldn't recommend to anyone. They were just the brand of shit that keeps you playing, like junk food – you know it's trash, you don't even really like the taste, but you still eat it.

Is Age of Decadence junk food?

In my opinion, it's one of the top 10 RPGs of all time, so no. But I understand that some people may have a different opinion.