Why does Holla Forums hate this game again ? Im on my fifth playthrough and im still finding new shit

Yeah, playing with jack-of-all-trade builds instead of pure combat/speech builds is the unofficial hard mode of AoD, and you are forced to deplete each area of its sidequests for XP. However, it does beg the question when it's most appropriate to talk or fight your way out of certain situations, since you can finish the game by fighting everything or not fighting anyone at all as long as you have the skills.

because it's too hard for me.
I never played similair games exepct for a bit of Divinity - Original Sin. when I tried playing this one I couldn't get the appeal after 2 hours of play so I dropped it. at least I could kill zombies and do magic in Divinity - Original Sin

I bet you savescum too, casul.

it's a legitimate strategy

I think I got to the third town with the cult and lost interest.

my issue with the game is its so focused. if you make a build there's going to be only one way to go through the game with said build. I was expecting a little less punishment for speccing wrong, not having it so that if you even put one point in the wrong stat HOO BOY.

that all said. world is nice, story is nice, varied ending are nice. just not the game for me

It's sexist.

I bet you've never done ironman, casul.

I get builds with variation, but since AoD is meant to be replayed with the different backgrounds and endings to get everything out of the game, I think that focused builds are rather appropriate for this kind of game. If you ended up with a Fallout 3 kind of character building where towards the end you could be good at everything, then there'd be little reason to try out other playstyles on consequent playthroughs when you already played them all on your first run.

I haven't played this game since probably ell over a year before it ended it's eternal early access.

Anything new and exciting in the final release that might catch my attention to get me to play it again?

I dont think thats true for all classes, if you play a loremaster you can go through a lot of choices and paths, even Praetor gave you a lot of room to make choices while still following that storyline

i was hoping it would be like arcanum where if you jew yourself out of a choice there'd be another way to get around it no matter what build you had. But this went the opposite route and made so that you could actually jew yourself from finishing the game throwing out 10+ hours

Is it a game from the 90s? Is it made by or played by SJWs? If no, Holla Forums has never even heard of this game.

You can play as a female

FUCKING SJWs

Have you played AoD? This game is the empitome of savescumming and minmaxing.

I only play games as females if the game has boob physics. If I play a game as a female and the boobs don't move it feels so hollow. I don't know how to express the feeling. Extreme disappointment and emptiness.

Too much metagaming involved. You can't just make a character with a certain focus and get through the game. You have to tediously reload over and over again to distribute your skill points correctly in order to advance down the single path that is open to you in order to reach the ending that is appropriate for the build you selected at the start. It's basically a railroad game with save scumming.

>become god
I think your just shit

have fun convincing yourself it took skill to reload those quicksaves
if this game had an ironman it would be literally impossible if you didn't follow a rigid path with no decisions of your own, because it's just a choose your own adventure book with 90% of the options being dead ends, it's garbage.

For an optimal playthrough, yeah savescumming is pretty much required but just completing the game is pretty easy. You just wont be able to do half the quests, getting to Al Akia isnt hard.

Like for example the quest the guy gives you to retrieve the treasure from his hometown is absolutely absurd in the amount of skillpoints you need for either fighting or talking your way through that but you could always just get the armor and then ignore that quest.

I have never heard of this game, and im too lazy to search it.

Could you tell me of what it is about? How it is? Im curious

I'm very intrigued as of where you got that impression, but it certainly wasn't on Holla Forums.
Does someone have the interview RockPaperScissor did with the game creator ?

Post apocalyptic + Roman Empire mashed together. Gameplay is based around savescumming. Combat is pretty shit. Story and writing are bad by video game standards.

Maybe because you're obsessed with seeing female genitalia at all times because otherwise you feel like a hollow and empty chronically masturbating virgin?

uwot?

There's a lot of ways to make successful hybrid builds but you have to be good at the game to do it. Here are a few tips: Crafting is a very underrated combat skill (your local blacksmith will sell the schematics) especially for dodge builds and usually synergizes well with lore. A high Perception score is good for both combat (especially if you are ranged) and exploration. Another useful tidbit is that 7 Charisma is the magic number to convince most NPCs to teach you things (some NPCs care about things like reputation instead, which still depends on charisma).

archive.is/J4QvY

Some people prefer to have fun and aren't autistic enough to believe they owe the game anything.

Woah, this game is out now? I remember playing the demo a while back, it kicked ass.

I couldn't steamroll the arena so I dropped it.
That last nigger is really bullshit artificial difficulty.

Git gud son.

IIRC that one's just a 10 Axe 10 Crit 10 Crafting 0 Defense build. He's easy as fuck if you're ranged but even as melee there are ways to fuck his shit up.

...

Dude, just read the interview. The AoD creator rips Rock Paper Shotgun a new one.

Gondola doesn't talk, you mongrel idiot.

Because it's a real RPG and is too hard for casuals. Considering most of Holla Forums is casual, of course the game gets hate here.

I'm talking about the champion who uses a shortsword with poision, dodges like no tomorrow, hits every time and also manages to block too.
Not to mention his armor which negates 80% of the damage you do to him, if you manage to land a hit. Artificial difficulty bullshit.
Not even worth cheating against it, I just dropped the fucking game.

And many of the people even in this thread are who I am talking about. You know who you are, you filthy fucking casuals.

Yeah you weren't there around release date, get the fuck out of here.

Damn

I don't think Holla Forums hates it but I don't really like it because too many of the actions are just contextual. Yes, there are a lot of contextual actions to choose from; but once you try to do something outside stats and dialogue options, the game puts a wall to stop you.

Also, you can't exit out the door in any combat encounter if the room exit the screen.

Wait, him? You didn't even get to the arena challengers once you become champion? I honestly think you're just bad. Git gud, son.

So while we're on the topic of RPG's, who likes Underrail?

I liked the concept, but pirated it right at launch and ran into a couple of bugs, the tooltips weren't verbose enough for my retarded ass, etc. I figured i'd give it a few months then try it again

Too hardcore for casuals.

I don't even know what minmaxing is dork lmao. Go back to your DnD forum lmao.

Here's an example of the kind of people I was referring to.

I read that they forgot to include actual story or complex lore, but the mechanics seem solid.

Unless you delete your save after dying, you are still save scumming.
Also, the ability to make bad builds is core in a good RPG.

I like how simple and accessible it is. Everything works how you think it would.

This. A good RPG allows the player to fuck up and make a shitty build that they regret and have to restart the game to fix. Someone with bad foresight and planning should be punished for their mistakes.

AoD goes a bit further than that, to the point where it's a good idea to keep skillpoints around to adapt to whatever skillcheck would block you further down the line.

Bethesda games makes it possible to be king of everything with whatever stats, build, or whatever.

It's not about owing the game anything, it's about adjusting your PC stats to accurately reflect the character for proper roleplay. People who calculate the relative strengths and weaknesses of stats and use that to build the easiest character possible at the expense of proper roleplay are bethesda-sandbox tier and are the people who killed cRPGs.

I m just saying there is a middle ground between "you can do everything" and what AoD does. Haven't followed the game since playing it after release but it went just a bit too far which was refreshing for a while but still.

You can make a Hybrid that can do both speech and combat well but never as good as a 10/9/9 combat axe master and you will have to dump cha so no chosen one.

You can still get the best ending though.

I agree (and not just on those trips).

No these are what killed RPGs.

...

But that's exactly what I'm saying. Minmaxers, by their very nature, undermine roleplay by attempting to deny any weaknesses in their characters and removing any difficulty within the game as quickly as possible. That's great for action sandbox games, but that is not what RPGs are about.

Catering to minmaxer types who are always looking for ezmode at the cost of telling a unique story about their character is the reason true cRPGs have all but died off and mediocre mary-sue godmode simulators have taken their place.

...

I've always liked minmaxing my characters to do 'perfect playthroughs' or eliminate the need to rely on NPCs for things.

If someone has the intelligence to craft their character in a certain way so they can do more things that is good for them.

AOD crushes non minmaxed chars because they will fail skill checks. Even hybrid characters have a harder time than a talking pure or a combat pure. Sure you can roleplay as a 7 all stats mr average but you will miss out on a lot of content and the game will be hard.

Casual elements such as story should always be sacrificed for better gameplay. Minmaxing can be negative toward gameplay, but story has a history of being more cancerous and making an entire phenomenon of story games because shitty writers couldn't bring their shit to hollywood so wanted to ruin video games instead.

Minmaxing is fun to test the limits of the game and to see how truly overpowered you can make a character.

By having things go so smoothly in your playthrough, do you even realize how many contingencies and game-changing divergences you are missing by making it go so easily? Having weaknesses and living with bad consequences exponentially increases replayability because the entire focus and goal of the game can shift. Going along with how you want events to go down is psuedo-linearity.

It doesn't take intelligence to pick the "best" options, they are usually pretty self-evident.

Good, if the game is well designed you can find workarounds and do something differently.

That's the point, you casual. Having differeing amounts of actual weaknesses and strengths the playthrough will be unique and difficult, i.e. memorable and fun.

Do you even know what an RPG is, you dumb bastard? It is the sacrifice of player skill in exchange for the ability to direct a multiple unique characters across a stage, with their success or failures within their story depending soley on their strengths and weaknesses, not yours as a gamer. The story of your character is the most important tenet and defining feature of an RPG.

That completely depends on the genre. Is the game an RPG, the very genre that is based around having a story? Then no, story is not cancerous. Is it any other genre where gameplay and fun are more important? Then yeah, a story doesn't belong.

Because hollywood movies are the epitome and best fprù storytelling ay?

It's almost like you don't like it when other people have differing playstyles!

More like I don't like casual bullshit gutting my favorite genre, which is 99% of Holla Forums.

Minmaxing and savescumming are casual bullshit, and that playstyle killed good RPGs.

As a fa/TG/uy I have to admit Min-Maxers tend to RUIN games. Whether you're with a new group who's never played and they're experiences ups and downs, or you're with vet's who know how to break the game (Its never hard to do now a day's,) the Minmaxer is always a cunt who doesn't give two shits about ANYTHING other than leveling/getting stronger/ finding new ways to break there character.

When you make a game revolving around catering to these guys you're denying a lot of other people. I liked having weaknesses and things in fallout NV. I might be specialized in Cowboy weapons and shit with lasers, so when I run outta ammo I gotta work around that. But in this? You can buy everything no downside who cares GO GO GO.

Did you know that it is within the realm of possibility to make multiple characters, several of which are true roleplaying characters and one is a minmax character just to see what you can do with set limitations.
Savescumming is inexcusable cancer though.

Did you know there is literally ZERO reason to make a second character for ANY reason in Fallout 4 because the leveling system gives you everything no matter what? There is absolutely NO reason outside of who you side with in the final battle.

well yeah, I get that some people may do that. what I am reffering to is people whose primary mode of play for every game is to minmax it first and only once then drop it for the next pile of AAA garbage, leaving people who want well designed RPGs out in the cold.

You're using extremes in both cases, it's important to find middle ground.

I think is correct in making multiple characters for multiple events. You want to roleplay seriously? Make a character that sucks with knives but snipes like crazy. You want to play GODMODE for whatever reason? MinMax to your hearts content on another character.

Fallout 4 is a prime example of an extreme because you literally need one character to do fucking everything.

To each their own I guess

Then don't play Fallout 4. It's a bad game anyway and not even an RPG.

Ah, that makes more sense. You might want to say "minmaxers" instead of "minmaxing" then because the latter implies that the mere act of doing it ever is sinful, whereas the former is obviously a disgrace and a stain upon RPGs.

That is the stupidest thing I have read all year. Shitty RPG's sacrifice player skill and gameplay in favor of story. Take bethesda or bioware "RPGs" for example. You are without a doubt the most casual shitstain to ever infect video games with your presence, and your mindset is that which has killed good video games.

To the normalfags who infiltrated video games with story, yes.

What?

Here's a fun fact about computer rpgs.
It's you and your computer. And the computer doesn't give a shit.

What fucking extremes am I using? You can, on your first run, witness and do nearly EVERY single thing save a few side quests that you have to repeat infinitely. You can get EVERY perk and max EVERY one of them.

Someone is eventually going to find the optimal build. It is better to let them rather than stop them.

Rewarding good builds and punishing bad builds are two sides of the same coin.

Fallout 4 is Cancer because how meaningless is the stats.

Yeah, I know

That's what I was saying user, Fallout 4 is an extreme in the good/bad RPG scale, obviously being on the far Bad end.

By middle ground I meant something that's not say, Fallout 4 or (insert perfect RPG here)

It's not my fault the devs couldn't implement a better save method in an RPG. I'm abusing a critical flaw in a game. If it wasn't there I wouldn't be mad but if a game gives you a giant "fuck you" rocket launcher with infinite ammo then I'm going to use the fucking rocket launcher even though it breaks the game.

Saying "Oh I have the opportunity to save but I'm not" is like saying you're going to intentionally cripple your playthrough just because you refuse to acknowledge a key mechanic in your game.

If you want to fix it have a save point system or make the game save every time you sleep or something, and then not allow you to load it back. If you somehow fuck up in your playthrough then you have to deal with it. Better yet just have multiple difficulty settings or save system options that allow you to do this.

What do you think savescumming means?

These are the kinds of people who brought of boredom of eternity.

No they don't.

Those are more about player skill (shooting stuff regardless of your stats) with shitty gameplay and story.

Right back at you friendo. I'm suprised that you can realize Beth and Bioware games are so bad, while being 180 degrees incorrect on what actually makes them bad. They fail as RPGs and games because they deny you the ability to tell a unique character story (worthless/easy to get stats) while simultaneously putting the onus on the player's skill to succeed.

It's about personal enjoyment in creating the narrative, not beating high scores. If you like storyless games with no statistical involvement with character, why are you playing RPGs? There are plenty of platformers and puzzle games to sctach your competetive itch.

You too. Why are you playing games in the RPG genre if you completely fail to understand and/or appreciate what their purpose is?

If it's personal then fuck off from the way other people are playing.
Doesn't seem like I'm the one who fails to understand what rpgs are. You probably like bladder's gate 2, lmao.

Something that you shouldn't do because people essentially call you a casual for it. At least that's what I get from them.

Yes but what does the act of savescumming entail?

you type like a fag but you've got good taste, mayne

This. Most anti-save scumming faggots draw the line in death.

If you aren't afraid of death, then why would you use your one of a kind healing item?

If you aren't afraid of death, then why wouldn't you just kill yourself when killed someone in stealth game?

False

Took me this long before realizing you were baiting.

9/11

I don't recall anyone hating it, just one thread upon on its release where everyone circlejerked about how hardcore it was and then dropped it without a word.

Please, crawl back into whatever hole you came from. You don't belong here.

What I just said? I'm speaking towards a common reaction to save-scumming not the act of actually doing it.

It wasn't just one thread, and they were pretty fun.

I would, if the way they were playing didn't create a decline in product quality because the industry caters to them instead of players like me. It's a one way street - minmaxers can minmax in a well designed RPG; I can't roleplay in a minmax catered action-"RPG".

You actually don't, as evidenced by your stance and responses.

And yes, even though they are low skill, low difficulty, low quality, and low energy, beth and bioware games have more to do with player input than with statistics and calculations. It doesn't matter wat perks or skills or whatever you have, a level 1 character can attack and successfully hit just the same as a level 30 character, with perks merely acting as time convenience. Whereas in a true RPG, if your character isn't able to do something, you're fucking screwed. Player skill has absolutely zip to do with it, you're simply screwed.

This shitty meme about rpgs being about story or your character's story must die.

D&D itself is a system for rpgs so there's as much story in it as you put in yourself.
First big rpg series on pcs had basic story that was pretty much about "here's your dude or dudes, now go around doing quests, exploring and killing shit, like Wizardy, Ultima and Might & Magic.
Then some retards made up some shit about rpgs being about story, which is ironic since storyfags by and large wouldn't be able to tell difference between good and bad story even if their life depended on it.

you can admit that you don't know what that term actually means, you know. it won't cost you anything aside from pride

You got your anti-min-maxing Pillars of Eternity by "fun should be outlawed" Sawyer, tell me how that went.

I feel that this is the same problem with grinding.

Level Scaling is partly made to discourage grinding and it's a lot worse.

It's saving every 12 seconds or whenever you make a decision you didn't like. What the fuck else would it mean?

I'm presuming it either means something else to you or you're just really interested in semantics.

Mah nigga. That casual 68475a probably never even played them.

Oh, about that;

The reason people like you ruined RPGs is because you can't take failures along with your successes. Instead of fucking up or getting stuck and saying "Well, that didn't work out, better luck next time/ guess I need to find an alternate way of doing this!" you go the lazy route and either reverse the consequence by reloading or by making an invulnable jack-of-all-trades minmaxed character that will never fail anything. When enough people do this, developers like Bethesda throw up their hands and say "what's the point of multiple choices and consequences, people are just going to force the ideal consequence, might as well strip it out" and therefore they stop developing meaningful interaction or, well, anything that fucking matters. Fallout 4 is the horrible pinnacle of this mode of thought.

It's amazing that you can type two consecutive, contradictory sentences and not realize it.

Idk, never played it. It's on my list after I finish Underrail, though your sentiment gives me hope.

Can you even name some rpgs that are min-maxer friendly but were bad for the rpg genre?

Then play a rouge-like. Also, any system where stats matter is going to encourage min-maxing.

There's nothing contradictory about those sentences, moron. D&D is a system, whatever story you put in it comes from outside.

You can put walls of text into notepad, that doesn't make notepad story based.

...

...

But that system is designed to facilitate a story. PC went here, did this, went there, did that, the end. In a good RPG. how you went there or did that is inseperable from the rules and numbers of the system, with the player's skill having zero say over the success or failure of chosen action. The fun in this type of RPG therefore isn't generated from skill or the inevitable reaching of linear goals, it's from the (player-generated, external) story that is explicitly generated and dictated by the framework of rules in the game.

Uh huh.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Horrors
Where's the epic story, bruv? Where is it?
Could it be it's just "there b dungeon, go defeat the big bad and don't die"?
Oh, and how's the
list coming along?

You generate it yourself through the gameplay. The story element of RPGs is external, which is what I've been trying to say this entire time.

To put it so simply makes such a desciption indiscernable from any modern cawadoody shit FPS. What makes RPGs different is an underlying character system that makes each approach to that goal different and unique depending on stats.

list coming along?

Every single consequence-free action-rpg abomination from the last decade should be a good start.

People can be that retarded. Now, I'm crashing this thread with more Betheshit.

The very minimalist story is usually called Flavor.
magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/bursting-flavor-2003-02-24

Let me help you with that list:
Borderlands 1,2,3
The aforementioned Fallout 4
Dragon Age 2
Mass effect 2,3…

Man, I guess it means fps games are all about story, after all, you generate story in those too.
To put it simply, it's all about fucking gameplay and story is just an excuse.
Is this news to you?
First time I've heard about min-maxers hating consequences in their rpgs since CONSEQUENCES is all min-maxing is about, you know, getting the best of the consequences.
I guess you never seen anyone min-max at Fallout or Arcanum despite those games having many consequences, huh? Poor thing.
Or maybe you meant some other rpgs? Care to actually NAME them or are you too much of a wuss?

The RPG genre are for casuals who can't into games that require any kind of actual skill yet still want to feel "hardcore".

Oh I believe it. He's the kind of retard who probably thinks Knights of the Chalice is a bad game because it has no story for its godly gameplay and mechanics implementation.

What game requires skill then user?

Twitch shooters? Watered down twitch shooters? RTS? Mobas (lol not really)?

Only Biowarefags or closet Biowarefags hate this game.

kek

Real RTSs like Forged Alliance, yes. Not RTT's like starclick though.

He asked for popular RPG's that are upholding that fucking trend. I gave them to him.

You know being on ladder is a terrible feeling for these games you just want to play and have fun but you always have to try hard and do well it makes anxiety.

With turnbased RPGs you craft your character and there can still be complex stratagems you need to use to win hard battles it is much more relaxed and the accomplishment is about the same.

Fallout 4 doesn't encourage min-maxing because the stats don't fucking matter. And what is min-maxing in a game with no level cap?

It's about getting all the exp bonuses so you can level up faster.

Thinking video game RPGs are anything but a misnomer is cancer. Associating video games with role playing is like associating video games with movies. There's some overlap but christ you can't be serious. The 'legacy' of RPGs is a false meme. Essentially what hardcore RPG fans want is a visual novel with a bunch of extremely poor rpg systems for muh role playing. Instead of just admitting they only want a CYOA book they have to posture like they're hardcore when they're anything but.

Yeah I really like having 75 points in speech then selecting [Let me win] button. So hardcore. Also the combat in these games is so bad it's mind boggling. Compare any of them to something like SMT and then you start wondering if these guys are actually mentally deficient.

What's the point?

I've always felt RPG stands for Roll Playing Game. It fits the best ones of the genre better, being about their mechanics and underlying ruleset system.

Fucking what? Is this what Bethesdrones actually believe?
Did he at least go on to explain why he thinks that or are we just meant to accept his opinions as fact?

Agreed, but C&C is something I enjoy too.

I also want to say 'hardcore' RPG fans are half the reason why turn based combat is so unevolved/bad. Because these cancerous fucks actually say it's not about gameplay or challenge it's about story we have to suffer through their ignorance. The only good turn based combat games are dungeon crawlers and strategy RPGs. Two genres for what should be the direct counter part to action video games.

I want to prove my point by emphasizing this fact. There is only ONE competitive turn based video game (that isn't just a card game) and that is Pokemon. That is fucking pathetic.

No, because those games have a completely internal story with zero choices or consequences. In order to beat a level, you must do Task X, with no say on how you do it besides superficial things like approach and weapon choice. There is no character defining statistics to be found, let alone influence how you do it.

Then we must simply part ways. Gameplay (in RPGs) is what you value above all else, player generated story (within RPGs) is what I value. There's no argument I can make that will change your favorite color, but you must realize that if you and most people prefer red, even in a genre most suitable to green, developers will go after red and screw over the people who gravitated to it because it originally served green.

Prioritizing "best" consequences, in all cases and at all times, is tantamount to eliminating them. If only one set of superior consequences is aimed for and played through, there is no point in having other less desirable ones. Where is the line drawn between an FPS that has decided the story for you, and minmaxing to get one specific ideal result in the story, every time?

Are you saying min-maxers are fine with getting kicked out of Vault City? Caught stealing in the NCR making them permanently hostile? Accidentally killing a Brotherhood paladin, making power armor forever inaccessible in the playthrough or at least extremely difficult and more convoluted to achieve? Those are all less than ideal consequences and would never be tolerated by the said min-maxer, who just wants to beat the game in the most linear and easy fashion possible.

Is this in reference to other cRPGs I've played or to your previous question about psuedo-RPGs stripping C&C from the genre?

Stats not mattering is a direct result of minmaxing. Are you going to have flavor perks that describe your character and enable new actions? Hell no. Are you going to have perks that deal with increasing damage and success, and nothing else? Load it on up.

Why can't you gameplay faggots stick to your twitch arena shooters?

As if my point couldn't be described any better. Just look at all the Bethdrones in the posts above complaining that turn based is "boring" and doesn't have enough action. Pic related.

Pretty much this. The story fags have kept cRPG's back for decades. I don't know what's more sad, the fact that they exist and are ruining the games, or that they believe they are the real audience and that they are making things better.

You are the decline.

Because I love video games and want them to be better. I want turn based games to escape your casual bullshit. You are the one holding games back. You are the casual. The only reason you are scratching tooth and nail about this is because you have no friends to pay D&D with you. Stop playing pretend with a computer and go read a visual novel you insufferable faggot. Your desires are the antithesis of what video games are.

Hey you're right. Visual novels DO have a lot of C&C and no gameplay, just like what the tumors want. It's perfect, how come they've never heard of visual novels? They will be happy, and we (people who actually like video games) will be happy.

Story is never an excuse to have shit gameplay.

...

The Japanese are genetically predisposed to be misogynistic.

I heard it abuses you for picking particular classes or whatever, so I said fuck it. I only want real RPGs. Was I a rused?

And god bless them for it. Japan will never fall to the SJWs.

VisibleConfusion.Tiff

Stats not mattering is a direct result of discouraging min-maxing. Just like how level-scaling is a direct result of discouraging grinding.
Are we even using the same definitions of words?

no u

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate gameplay for gameplay's sake. But it doesn't belong in every single possible form of video games - RPGs have always been a different breed of games. While every other genre is goal-oriented, achieved by player skill, with maybe a peripheral story tacked on as motivation, RPGs at their core are simply not about that. Instead of taking a ruleset as a challenge for the player to use to reach a goal, it takes a ruleset in order for the player to complete (or not complete) objectives in a unique manner. RNG, primary and derived statistics, core elements of the genre, are all things that are completely out of the player's hands when implemented in the game world. RPGs were never about skill, only about navigating unique builds through the game world, using your own strategy and thinking in order to attempt success. Gameplay and story are simultaneous results of this.

Because there is no gameplay. Input of player skill has no bearing on gameplay, which is what your side in this argument just does not seem to understand.

Fully agreed. Even if Fallout 4 was the best story ever told it would still be a shit game.

All classes are viable, as long as you stick to one direction. You don't have to do all the quests to proceed with ease, your skills play a large part in combat, but so do your tactics.

I hope you like dying a lot.

...

Dont appropiate my memes ok ?!

No. If a developer realizes that out of 10 stats, 2 are chosen by all else above the majority, then they start wondering why they are wasting time with the other 8, which are less than ideal but not at all worthless in the context of roleplaying. Bam, presto, they get rid of the choice while tacking on superficial and worthless stats in order to make it still look like a choice. It saves them time and effort of creating detailed C&C.

I really think we are at an impasse when it comes to how we view the situation. You do something you think is right while I see a problem, and vice versa. I see it as narrow selection of stats neccesarily leads to their impact reduced or eventual elimination due to efficiency - you don't. I have no idea why you don't see this, and you probably wonder the same of my views.

I never heard anyone complain how much they had to reload saves in Gothic either.
You need to learn when it's appropriate to deal with certain situations instead of blindly throwing yourself into the fray in hopes of treasure and power, and sometimes miss out on events and solutions entirely, which might be a foreign concept to those who are used to getting everything they want in an RPG during their first playthrough. Like VtMB, this game is meant to be replayed to get everything out of it, except there's no forced combat section for non-combat characters.

Yet has more meaningful choices than a Telltale game.

No, but he did said that he might literally get angry if you don't.

This. Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me.

Here's the way I see it.

I am against:

Yet I'm a casual that is destroying the industry according to the people I've been arguing with in this thread, I suppose soley over the last point. We're on the same side anons, but our differences in what defines an RPG is irreconcilable I guess. I had fun arguing, peace out.

So you are saying that people breaking Bethesda's broken game are at fault for Bethesda making a shitty game instead of rebalancing?

So it's our fault for not playing the game the way they intended?

It is like Phil Fish blaming people at Twitter for Fez2 being cancelled.

I got a lot from a single playthrough of VtMB. AoD is just hard. It's about the hardest RPG I've played. You play as a worthless hobo and the game treats you like one.

Non-combat is overhyped, winning combat always gives you rewards, and there's always someone trying to kill you.

Non-combat is practically easy mode as long as you stick to it. It's not like you really need any weapon or armor rewards playing as a Merchant or something when you are playing AoD like a VN.

When heard about non-combat builds, I was hoping for being able to outsmart the enemy with kiting or traps. Not avoiding bandits that would never stop attack even if they can't reach you or doors that can't be opened or closed in combat.
see

Dunno if trap builds can even be considered 'non-combat', Underrail executed stealth and trap builds much better than most RPGs.
Basically combat involves fighting your way out of shit, and non-combat involves talking your way out of shit. There's no real inbetween, because I'm not sure how diplomacy and combat are supposed to go hand in hand.

I know I already opted out of this conversation, but this is my final word

It's your fault for refusing to play an RPG like an RPG, and instead choosing to play it like any other context-less skill/goal-oriented genre. They will neccesarily reduce RPG elements in future iterations and increase player based ones.

Yeah, that's the thing isn't it? Spread your points and you're too shit to take down later stuff. And there's always the temptation of throwing a few points in for quick xp boost since open world mean there's lots more free xp down the road (there isn't).

Combat is always a 1v5 detroit deatharena in AoD.

metagaming :^)

Were Int, Wis and Cha your dump stats?

I don't think you should be able to talk your way out of every situation.

Traps isn't the same thing as shooting someone. Besides, trap builds are also for detecting traps.

I would divided skills to Combat, Diplomacy, Science, Survival, and Crafting with some overlap.

Traps would be part of Survival.

Magic is shit in Skyrim and Skyrim isn't a game known for diverse play-styles or role-playing options.

Not even mentionning that even in Oblivion PCs could craft ANY spells given that they had the money and mana for it. Skyrim is a massive step down on all points in the sake of "muh streamlining".

My point was if "Skyrim was catering to min-maxer (like 68475a said), then Magic wouldn't so fucking useless.

This is my idea for a Fallout rip-off.
Please no bully.

opps.

I have to be the biggest fucking slowpoke, I just realized that CIA man is that sniveling fuck from game of thrones

archive.is/yI3OF#selection-1429.0-1433.433

68475a is a retard.

I like that, I particularly hate RPGs that you're John Everyman and can do everything in one pass.

Reading through all your posts and arguments, I can't really disagree.

RPGs should allow you to fuck up and make mistakes, they should allow bad builds. But on the otherhand, they should allow a person to min max. Certain skills should work better with some than with others. Some people enjoy that, afterall, so why not include both?

Powergamers killed his dog.

I like you. You're clever.

Please say they were trolling, I'm at max cap infuriation already.

This is a game series that make people forget the meaning of the number 3.

...

...

...

Then you faggots like RazorFist that thinks Bethesda made Fallout.

That's the choice and consequence argument which I think goes like this:

So you should have enough challenge, enough choices and small missions so you don't feel butthurt when you can't get to some content, and enough branching quest ends so you don't feel railroaded like bethshit.

Modern game design seeks to homogenize with only superficial differences differentiating different IPs.

That is because they are two sides to the same coin. Without a bad build, there is no good build and vice-versa.

Holy shit I'm nauseous

Fuck, that fourth pic. At least the salt party keeps me from going nuclear.

Fifth, I can't count anymore I'm so fired up.

You can use magic and enchanting to cast unlimited spells that stagger and damage, killing hordes of over-leveled enemies without a single one able to complete a half second attack against you. Far from useless, minmax application of magic completely breaks the game and is only different from the killall console command by the time it takes to do.

Weren't we suppose to talk about AoD before this autist started complaining that people don't play by his poorly defined rules?
Does anyone else have this problem because I feel like I am the only one.

When those weaknesses mean nothing but hitting complete stops that are unavoidable and getting the game in a position where it's almost impossible to actually advance, I'd argue that's bad design. It's functionally the equivalent of those plot railroads you see in VNs or choose your own adventure books.

I haven't tried to play the game as a non-combat class, but is encountering the thugs a requirement or just some exploration you were doing?

If it's not a requirement of your main quest I'd just avoid it. A big part of the game is avoiding combat even if you ARE a combat class, just because any combat can be dangerous, more so for non-combat classes.

Mind you, I haven't played the game much. I keep trying to start it but get distracted by other shit.

...

The combat curve is like this:
Can't do shit to no one, needs to exploit the fuck of everything
Suddenly nothing can stop you

In AoD once combat begins it's just kill or be killed. I agree it could be better, but for the most part you have a lot of options to avoid combat before it begins, so people aren't as bothered by that. The thug encounter you could have just walked away from. The game tells you what's up ahead and you have to choose to walk closer to them to land into that shit.

This is when you start rolling hybrids instead of minmaxed total fighting machines. Now you have to bust out all kinds of tricks to make the combat work.

Minmaxed builds are just AoD's easy mode.

Last I checked, Holla Forums liked this game. But it's another classic example of "Holla Forums highly overrates a game because they somehow got it in their head that it's hard so that makes it good."

The ending pissed me off to no end. Literally just throws a few lines of text at you right when the game feels like it's finally starting to get really good, and that's the ending. Apparently they did something about that, but I'm not going to play through that snoozefest again just to see what is probably only a few more lines of text.

Also I thought it was pretty cute how they describe the world as 'destroyed by humans, not an ancient evil', and then it turns out it was entirely the fault of the ancient evil/alien.

So like Fallout 1 and 2? That is exactly what I hated the most about the first 2 Fallout games and why I think they're garbage.

I honestly hated the combat in FO1 and FO2 because took so fucking long (that is before I changed the settings). I found creative ways around combat mostly in Fallout 2 and got pissed off when some of them don't work. Mostly exploiting VATS for stealth.

I used the dried meat to lure the Gecko somewhere else. Too bad Sunny starts kicking them with his crippled legs.

I locked all but one exit and made sure to kill them burst shots. I wish I could start a fire forcing Frog Morton to go into the elevator shaft and fight the Wanamingoes.

I was planting bombs into the eggs but the eggs caught me.

I tried the same thing with the eggs but I realized that was easier to fill his desk with bombs than to reverse pickpocket him.

There's like a dozen different endings. You found the shittiest, lowest effort ending.

I agree with you on the ancient evil shit. Technically it's the humans' fault for summoning the lot of them to use as weapons and mooch their powers but still.

Then again they weren't wrong. You can become a god in one ending by doing it properly.

Oh I just raise the combat animation speed something stupidly high to deal with that. You can literally make combat 4 times as fast with the gameplay options. If that's not good enough you can go to My Documents > My Games > Age of Decadence > prefs.cs and set the "$pref::Video::combatAnimationSpeed" value even higher.

It isn't that. I just wanted to be able to do unorthodox solutions instead of coming back when my character gets stronger.

There's nets, bolas, liquid fire, acid flasks, and bombs (esp. if you're an alchemist). Liquid fire in particular is a great weapon for boxing in enemies or keeping them away from you. People can't cross burning tiles.

You can also inflict varying ailments depending on your choice of weapon, use of aimed strikes, and critical rating. Additionally both dodge and block give you abilities to maneuver around enemies.

If you want to have fun with every weapon, I would recommend making a 10 perception fighter that focuses on Crafting and Alchemy with smaller investments in weapon skills. Between Crafting and 10 perception, you can get extremely good THC bonuses which lower the pressure to have a high weapon skill. You will still need a good defensive skill, of course.

On the other hand, with weapons you can smith them so hard they do damage in the millions. With magic, the damage doesn't scale so eventually you end up eating a lot of time staggering an enemy while you slowly chip away at his health. With a basic stealth dagger build, you can kill all enemies literally instantly and with a bow kill all non-dragon and non-boss enemies instantly.

That's not what roleplaying is, you're just autistic. Gameplay and narrative are separated in basically all games for a reason.

It was mostly how smug the game's combat tutorial was.

Like I said earlier, I hate how contextual is everything in the game.

I went with Happy Merchant just to see what would happens despite passing the skill check. When I went into his home, I failed the Agility check and was forced to fight. I went to the door but I can't open it. The game doesn't say that the door was locked or have a thug block the door. The door just could not be interacted.

Even outside battles, you can only interact with doors if they are closed or they are leaning towards you. So the simple action of closing a door from the outside is impossible unless a VN sequence pops up.

In FO:NV, one of the simple things that I wanted to do was use a Stimpak on an NPC. I couldn't do that. I found a mod that allows for that but you need special Stimpaks and special Doctor's Bags. In FO1 and FO2, you can easily do that. To be fair, FO:NV has a mod that allows you to tie up people with rope which you couldn't do in FO1 or FO2 so the older games weren't perfect either.

I wanted a simple mod that removes the rads in Nuka-Cola simply because Nuka-Cola wasn't irradiated in the previous titles and it was just a faggy joke about how Nuka sounds like nuke and how everyone's favorite softdrink is radioactive.

I was hoping a modern classic RPG would have the best of both worlds but AoD was what I was looking for.

...

Heresy!

You seem to be forgetting that a RPG is fundamentally a game. And in a game, there are naturally players who try to excel at the gameplay.

Also, in AoD, minmaxing comes with real weaknesses. You just make the trade-off to lose out on all the content and decisions you could have pursued with different skills/attributes so that you can excel in the content you focused on. Hybrids are actually the most rewarding path in AoD but you have to play them well to succeed in that. The reason people promote minmaxing isn't because minmaxing is the best way to play the game but because they're the kind of easymode that helps you learn the game.

Yeah, I agree that environment interaction in AoD leaves a lot to be desired. AoD leans too heavily on text adventures to provide all the options for my comfort even with the large number of options they provide. The most environment interaction we have in AoD is simple click interaction and that always bothered me.

In combat it's mainly Liquid Fire flasks that let you do interesting things with the environment since it blocks movement.

At that point, I decided that I rather play FO2 with the restoration patch.

Fallout Tactics felt a step in the right direction in terms of combat but lack a lot of RPG elements.

I feel that having two separate combat modes in FO:T and FO:VB was misguided and they should have made an amalgamation of both.

I was playing Lore Master. Combat was basically a non-option.

Gondola doesn't talk you dick fuck off to reddit.

Gondola is a shit forced meme.

...

Gondola is a shit meme and deserves to be butchered.

damn man

The cliffhanger ending. Literally wtf after I spent 20 hours in the last area.

no

I think not.

Jesus christ, deep caverns is a pain. Deal with the tchortlings, deal with the faceless, deal with the robots, deal with the fungus (really annoyed me that to find what you need, you have to do something idiotic and stupid), find this, find that, etc.

At least the old biocorp chat logs were kind of interesting to read.
That old man jumping out of the locker gave me a jump

...

Meh writing in a genre that relies on it. I'll download it again if someone tells me it gets better, otherwise meh.

Optimization is a spectrum, and playing any kind of game with gameplay will make you optimize your actions to some level. The only alternative would be to flail around like a retard and win through sheer luck. Blaming minmaxers makes little sense, the burden is on the developers to create a system in which it's not possible to break the game.

Combat is trash. Also RNG.

Spurdo will always be funnier and better overall.

RPGs don't rely on their stories, RPGs rely on character building and combat mechanics with depth, story is just side fluff.

Well, AoD definitely has character building and combat mechanics, but I agree with the user that if you don't like the writing AoD is not for you because the writing is a massive part of the game here.

I giggled.

Are you for real user?

The most important aspect of CRPGs is character progression.

Modern game design coined the term Ludonarrative dissonance.