The Age Of Decadence Romance

Welcome to!A gaming sub free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 6 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases. Posting Rules. All posts must be 'patient gamer' related (Game being discussed must be at least six months post-release). For current releases visit. No screenshots, GIFs, memes, or joke threads. No price/sale/deal posts allowed.

From the New York Times columnist and bestselling author of Bad Religion, a powerful portrait of how our turbulent age is defined by dark forces seemingly beyond our control Today the Western world seems to be in crisis. Batman arkham city free download. But beneath our social media frenzy and reality television politics, the deeper reality is one of drift, repetition, and dead ends.

Please see and isthereanydeal.com. This includes free games. No 'recommend games for platform xyz'. Please see the.

No 'is game X worth playing' posts. No giveaway posts allowed. Please see or. No self-promotion of any type (linking to your YouTube, Twitch, blog, etc). Please keep backlog related posts to the weekly Backlog Discussion post at the top of the subreddit.

No spoilers, no matter the age of the game. Posts under 125 words in length are subject to removal. Don't post this.For more detail on these rules, please see our rules post. Want to play online in a dead gaming community?Make a multiplayer request as follows:Coop request Borderlands (XBox) new players only.

SpoilersNew, mobile-friendly spoilers can be posted using the following formatting:(#s 'X kills Y')which looks like:FlairPlease use flair to display what games you’re currently playing, not a punch line, username, tag, URL, or signature. Recommended Subreddits.Gaming Links.

Low effort submissions will be removed No sale/deal posts No asking if a game is worth buying No giveaways or self-promotion. A 2020 Review - The Age of Decadence (PC, 2015)Score: 4/10Mediocrity Score: Mediocre at Best.The Age of Decadence is a strangely unbalanced turn-based CRPG.

It rather uniquely takes combat out from being the main focus and pits the player into a scenario where you can take different approaches. Touted for being a game where 'choices matter', the game somehow feels so linear - locking the player into a path chosen early on. Choices in the game will keep you on your toes, that is until you realize the pattern of don't trust anyone, ever. My advice before buying is - play the demo first.​Tags: The few words that come to mind are: mediocre, unbalanced, dialogue-heavy, cheap.​Avg. Time to beat: 21 hoursQuickest Speedrun: 2 minutes, 57 seconds​Quick Take: Play the demo first.

If there is anything you should do before buying, it is to play the demo. This game is both very difficult and very easy.

Rather unique in its approach, within The Age of Decadence you can 100% avoid all combat in the game by taking a more charismatic-stacked approach in your character build. What they don't mention is how incredibly simple the game becomes when you go for this non-combat route. It turns into a dialogue-heavy, point-and-click game where if you make the wrong choice you likely will be thrown into a combat situation where you will surely, and cheaply, die. Go with the combat route, and you are faced with a stacked-against-you RNG-based combat which is difficult to the point of coming off as both brutal and cheap. The one thing both routes have in common is the smoke-and-mirrors masking the cheap game-ending situations it constantly throws your way. In complete fairness reading reviews, watching let's plays, playing the demo, or even the reading developer's own disclaimers - potential players have been warned that 'there is a good chance that you won’t like it, precisely because we took too many liberties with the established design'.

I can't help but feel like this is akin to being told 'Here's the really over-cooked steak you ordered. There is a good chance you won't like it, but since this is all intentional - we've taken an extra heavy-handed approach with its blackened design.' Yet here I am, disappointed that I paid for a really over-cooked steak that has an impressive char-broiled aesthetic.​Pros:. Has an honest demo. Multiple routes may be taken to beat the game. Incredibly funny and useful skill/ability descriptions. I think it's one of the best games, and most original stories and worlds, I've played in the last decade.

I bought it on sale for less than $5 I think. I have just under 70 hours playing on Steam. I have thought about writing the opposite review from the one you've offered here because I'm so impressed with what the developers have done here.Here's why I like it:Every playthrough is different. Radically different. Did you know one of the endings is that you can become a god?

Did you know that you can vaporize Maadoran (the entire second act and largest city in the game - it radically changes your game but there's still a lot to do - and there are key benefits to doing so)? Did you know that each playthrough gives you a window into what the other factions (e.g. Merchants, Thieves, Boatmen, Imperials, etc.) are doing at the same time you're doing your thing with the faction you selected? Did you know you can infiltrate the palace in Act I to meet the local noble leader - as virtually every character provided you did certain things in the Act? Are you aware of the lore provided you to by the Loremaster in the starting tavern (one of the very first people you talk to) - and how the game is basically about understanding what really happened and how badly the passage of time has warped the real history of that world?Every Act in every playthrough can be different. You select your original faction in Act 1 but can always go factionless or later betray them. In one game I rose to be the right-hand man of the Thieves guild in Maadoran, a clever but ailing leader.

At the end of the Act, he uses an ancient machine, plus an item you stole during the Act, to cure his disease (presumably cancer). You can betray him while he's helpless in the machine and instead use the machine yourself to boost your stats, and this radically changes Act 3 as your relationship with the guild has flip flopped.The biggest difference in your review is the notion that you've 'beaten the game'.

AoD is really more of 'it's a journey, not a destination game.' The first time I 'finished the game' (I think this is more accurate way to phrase things in AoD's case), as a non-combat grifter who went the merchant route - essentially 'easy mode' - I had just scraped the surface of the lore and missed a ton of content (both from my faction choices, and just missing content from the playthrough in general). As I mentioned, you talk to a Loremaster in the starting tavern in each playthrough (or not, I suppose you could skip him, but he provides some helpful context for the world). Playing the game from multiple perspectives slowly unravels what is really going on in that world. I can spoil this if anyone is curious, but what you learn in the game basically peels back hundreds of years of history, and thrusts you into some key decisions: do you agree that magic/technology are destabilizing and ally yourself with a leader that agrees, and go fulfill his wishes? Or that it should be used to lead mankind into a better future?

Or that mankind would be better of being led by the supernatural - or yourself?Content. This game has a lot of content, especially how you handle different situations and how you wind up spec'ing your character. The real question to ask yourself is: 'Was I satisfied learning what I learned about the game, story, characters, and world?' For me, one playthrough only piqued my interest in the world and lore. While I was happily talking my way into and out of trouble, I had no idea other factions were out robbing, overthrowing regimes, and so on while my events were taking place.

NPCs that hardly feature in one playthrough may be central characters in another, and either them or their presence and decisions impacting later acts. I also missed a bunch of optional content that only revealed itself on other playthroughs, either because I missed it entirely, or made different decisions that opened and closed certain content off. For instance, you can try to be a gladiator if you have some modest combat chops. Well, a couple of successful matches opens up a quest line involving a protection racket that you can take over. And then opens up a quest to go plunder in the wasteland. And then in the process of all of this, if you get hurt and use the healer a few times, it opens up another location at the Monastery, which is inaccessible until you deal with 6 or 7 raiders first. The Monastery opens up a way to boost your stats - but you can also access it a different way and find a surgical kit that dramatically changes the end of the game.

The more stuff you discover, the stronger your character becomes, the more he or she can do, the more he/she learns about the world, and so on. If you become a thief, you have to enter Act 3 a certain way, and get access (and perhaps miss out on) content other characters won't see. If you run the Praetor route, each noble faction treats you totally different (you're now one of them, basically), and a lot of that is content you'll never see as a Grifter/Merchant. If you bring certain gear/abilities into Act 3, your relationship and options radically change with the local noble, who unlike his peers, is more of a cult leader.Let's talk about the combat. It's supposed to be difficult, and is actually fairly deep. You're not supposed to be able to take on more than 1 person lightly, just like in real life.

If you do plan on doing so, it helps to be well prepared: do you have alchemy for poison and bombs and stimulants? Have you looked at the landscape for choke points? Did you come properly equipped with the very best gear you could find/afford?

Have you invested in the right skills (one weapon, one defense skill, crit strike, crafting to make the best gear or sharpen your weapon, etc.)? Are you properly using your weapon's special features and moves (quick hits with bleed, spear range, etc.)? When you dig into it, the developer's combat system is fairly involved, so much so that they went ahead and made another almost-entirely-combat-focused game with the same engine and combat mechanics called Dungeon Rats (yes, I also played it). Do I think mechanics could be explained more clearly? But once you stand tall as the winner of the Maadoran gladiator games, or use every advantage at your disposal - and sometimes a bit of luck - to defeat a pack of bandits for the first time, it's incredibly satisfying.

Moreover, many situations change as a result of being a manslayer - I've found one of the key ways to get out of a pinch or use that hidden dialogue option is by having a reputation as a killer - people tend not to F-with people with that reputation.Speaking of people, this is a tough world. People want to use you for their own ends, either leveraging your skills, or just as their next meal ticket.

But you can do the exact same thing: lie, use, steal, betray. The game actually tracks how many times you broke your word/promise and can have a pretty big impact on the ending. But - interestingly - you can still do plenty of heroic or heinous things while 'keeping your word'.So, yea, in my view, speed runs and whatnot are irrelevant. This isn't a game about who can finish it fastest.

It's a game that scratched an itch - I'd call it a brave game in many ways. Challenging, realistic combat. Completely original world, where every character can build their 'Lore' skill to unravel it's truth and mysteries, and perhaps unlock enormous power in the process.

Complex faction system where lots of stuff is happening in parallel at each step of the game, which winds up creating an incredibly rich world of options. It's probably has the most complex faction mechanics I've seen in any game.AoD is meant to be hard. You're tossed in an incredibly unforgiving world divided by lots of factions who want to lord over this devastated land and pick it clean. Nobles, raiders, and the factions I referenced earlier. And if you unleash them, forces beyond human comprehension, that were sealed intentionally by people (usually) a whole lot smarter than anyone currently alive.

Mechanically, it's different from typical games where you can see most of the content and do most things in a single playthrough - you'll never have enough skill points for that, and even if you did, your factions and decisions will lend themselves to certain content. I can see that frustrating modern players who want to 'see it all and do it all as quickly as possible.' However, there's also opportunity.

To pick a side and rise to power. To solve ancient riddles and wield the power for yourself (for instance, in virtually every playthrough you can find and empower ancient armor that makes you nigh unstoppable.at least to mortals). To understand what really happened hundreds of years ago, and use that knowledge to defeat ancient threats to mankind. Or serve them as their human avatar. Or use them and their power for your own ends.

Ooooh - a response I can sink my teeth into! Right off the bat, thanks for such a detailed response. I like it!(My responses will be in bold throughout. PART 1/2)I think it's one of the best games, and most original stories and worlds, I've played in the last decade. I bought it on sale for less than $5 I think. I have just under 70 hours playing on Steam. I have thought about writing the opposite review from the one you've offered here because I'm so impressed with what the developers have done here.If you're willing, I'm always curious to see what the opposite of any of my reviews would read or say.

Although your response might be broaching a review as is!Here's why I like it:Every playthrough is different. Radically different. Did you know one of the endings is that you can become a god? Did you know that you can vaporize Maadoran (the entire second act and largest city in the game - it radically changes your game but there's still a lot to do - and there are key benefits to doing so)? Did you know that each playthrough gives you a window into what the other factions (e.g. Merchants, Thieves, Boatmen, Imperials, etc.) are doing at the same time you're doing your thing with the faction you selected? Did you know you can infiltrate the palace in Act I to meet the local noble leader - as virtually every character provided you did certain things in the Act?

Are you aware of the lore provided you to by the Loremaster in the starting tavern (one of the very first people you talk to) - and how the game is basically about understanding what really happened and how badly the passage of time has warped the real history of that world?Yes, I am aware of all this being true - or at least I'm aware of most of it. Later in your response, you mention how AoD is 'more about the journey and not the destination', yet all of your points here push that upon multiple playthroughs you can get different endings or results/dialogues. It would require a player to have enjoyed the story and world lore enough PLUS the actual gameplay itself to want to go through it all again.

Sure, this has value - no doubt. Especially for people who had a great experience their first playthrough. This all has to do with the end of the game, and not the means it takes to get there. My argument against this is that AoD brushes off gameplay experience and heavily relies on the story and various paths available to learn more about the world. Except, I didn't find their world particularly interesting.

Certainly not enough to go through another whole playthrough just to see the differences. To expound on a statement I made in my review: This is like the waiter saying, 'Oh, if you liked the burnt steak we also have burnt chicken or pork. You could finish off your dinner with stale pie or melted flan.' (I know this is an extreme example, but I think it makes a point.) If I didn't find the first experience with the game, why would I want more variation in the world that the developers have envisioned?

The developers have chosen a more polarizing approach and execution by design. They took risks and admit it pretty forwardly, which is why I think playing the demo is so important for prospective customers. This game is not for everyone, and unfortunately, I fall into this camp. I just did not find it to be a compelling enough story to want to explore more of it.Every Act in every playthrough can be different. You select your original faction in Act 1 but can always go factionless or later betray them.

In one game I rose to be the right-hand man of the Thieves guild in Maadoran, a clever but ailing leader. At the end of the Act, he uses an ancient machine, plus an item you stole during the Act, to cure his disease (presumably cancer). You can betray him while he's helpless in the machine and instead use the machine yourself to boost your stats, and this radically changes Act 3 as your relationship with the guild has flip flopped.The biggest difference in your review is the notion that you've 'beaten the game'. AoD is really more of 'it's a journey, not a destination game.' The first time I 'finished the game' (I think this is more accurate way to phrase things in AoD's case), as a non-combat grifter who went the merchant route - essentially 'easy mode' - I had just scraped the surface of the lore and missed a ton of content (both from my faction choices, and just missing content from the playthrough in general).

As I mentioned, you talk to a Loremaster in the starting tavern in each playthrough (or not, I suppose you could skip him, but he provides some helpful context for the world). Playing the game from multiple perspectives slowly unravels what is really going on in that world. I can spoil this if anyone is curious, but what you learn in the game basically peels back hundreds of years of history, and thrusts you into some key decisions: do you agree that magic/technology are destabilizing and ally yourself with a leader that agrees, and go fulfill his wishes? Or that it should be used to lead mankind into a better future? Or that mankind would be better of being led by the supernatural - or yourself?Sure, with this kind of game stating that I 'beat the game' is in fact a bit of a misnomer. To clarify, I beat the game in the sense that it seemed pretty clear that I got to what felt like 'the end' of my chosen path and that it had concluded with one of their outros. If we include all of the different endings that can be achieved by different character builds or variations in choices throughout the game - sure that does add a lot more content to have viewed, read, or experienced, but that more closely would be defined as a 'completionist's ending'.

It's akin to trying to obtain all achievements in a game to make sure you've seen every shred of the game. I'm all for replay value but that's what you're describing. Another playthrough of the game. Again, I feel like this is only valid if a player enjoyed their experience with their first playthrough enough to try again.

The game should not rely so heavily on players wanting to do multiple passes. It's not a roguelike platformer where the player by-genre is expected to see how far into the story they get before dying and then, all the way back to start. AoD clearly has narratives to follow to their completion as well as save games.Content. This game has a lot of content, especially how you handle different situations and how you wind up spec'ing your character. The real question to ask yourself is: 'Was I satisfied learning what I learned about the game, story, characters, and world?' For me, one playthrough only piqued my interest in the world and lore. While I was happily talking my way into and out of trouble, I had no idea other factions were out robbing, overthrowing regimes, and so on while my events were taking place.

NPCs that hardly feature in one playthrough may be central characters in another, and either them or their presence and decisions impacting later acts. I also missed a bunch of optional content that only revealed itself on other playthroughs, either because I missed it entirely, or made different decisions that opened and closed certain content off. For instance, you can try to be a gladiator if you have some modest combat chops. Well, a couple of successful matches opens up a quest line involving a protection racket that you can take over. And then opens up a quest to go plunder in the wasteland.

And then in the process of all of this, if you get hurt and use the healer a few times, it opens up another location at the Monastery, which is inaccessible until you deal with 6 or 7 raiders first. The Monastery opens up a way to boost your stats - but you can also access it a different way and find a surgical kit that dramatically changes the end of the game. The more stuff you discover, the stronger your character becomes, the more he or she can do, the more he/she learns about the world, and so on. If you become a thief, you have to enter Act 3 a certain way, and get access (and perhaps miss out on) content other characters won't see.

If you run the Praetor route, each noble faction treats you totally different (you're now one of them, basically), and a lot of that is content you'll never see as a Grifter/Merchant. If you bring certain gear/abilities into Act 3, your relationship and options radically change with the local noble, who unlike his peers, is more of a cult leader.No argument about it having a lot of content. It truly does. But you've highlighted a point I had just made - 'The real question to ask yourself is: 'Was I satisfied learning what I learned about the game, story, characters, and world?' For me, one playthrough only piqued my interest in the world and lore.' I was not satisfied, and it did not pique my interest enough to compel me to playthrough it entirely again.

I did go back and replay partially just to better understand the impact of different character builds and skill focuses but this did not help better my opinion on the game. I applaud the developers in providing such a high quantity of material and paths one could take from the start, but I think they failed in the quality of that content/material. Thanks for your comments, OP. I'll try to keep it brief right now, so will respond with 3 points that I think summarizes what I hear you're saying:1 'The story, characters, world, etc. Didn't work for me, so it wasn't worth exploring the rest of the content.' I think that's entirely individual preference and says more about you (or anyone) than the game. For me, I hadn't played another game like this, set in a crumbling empire, kind of 'Games of Throne'-ish where 95% of the threat is other people and factions and 5% is supernatural.

Standard apocalyptic worlds like the original Fallout games are Wastelands, where nukes/zombies/diseases have wiped things out, and we've seen this settings dozens of times since those games 20 years ago. Here's a decaying world, from a probably-supernatural event, set in a quasi-Middle Eastern/Mediterranian world, where Roman-like legionnaires, roving Mongol-like nomadic tribes, and cities adorned with minarets all coexist.

But it's been humbled by intense conflict and dallying with the supernatural, so dominated by raiders where 'more men = more power' - which is coincidentally why a fair amount of conflict is 1 vs many. Weapons are low-tech, but every weapon type has at least 5 or 6 variants with its own stats and name and utility.

NPCs have their own personalities and wants, even within the same factions; sometimes pleasing one NPC in a faction earns a mouthful from the leader in another city. I haven't seen a world like this before in this kind of game. To compare, a game like Pillars of Eternity is pretty standard fantasy stuff, heavily leaning on the namebrand origins of it's D&D inspiration, where most conflict comes from typical race stuff (humans hate elves! Grrr!) with a bit of terrorism tossed in from an ancient grudge.And to boot, we get what I found to be an interesting history (or riddle) at the beginning of the game.

At first it made no sense me, or I took it to be truth, but later realized it's a riddle and most Lore related discoveries build on or deconstruct the truth. I found this approach incredibly compelling for a couple reasons.

First, it adds a layer of mystery about the world - what really took place? Can these fantastical stories be true in this low-tech, dog-eat-dog world? Second, it gives you some clues about what to look for: signs of the Magi, the beings they summoned, evidence of the invader race, and so on. I guess in literature this is like an unreliable narrator, and most RPGs don't incorporate this approach. You're instead provided history that's largely uncontested (humans settled here, there was a war here, this and that happened, ala PoE).In summary, I found it a new and different experience from the standard fare, and that's why I came back for more. And that's to say nothing about the deep faction system which I discussed in the original post.2 The game was unfair and made me reload and that's lousy mechanics/design.This also seems like personal preference. I didn't find the experience unfair, as I felt most of the time I was given options to deal with situations: talk, fight, come back later with more skills, solve with money, etc.

Usually your character can do one or more of these things to move things forward. For combat, I'd liken it more to Dark Souls, both in an unforgiving 'git gud' way, but also the level of challenge and feeling from finally killing those 7 bandits. I have a friend (a game designer who has worked for the biggest AAA developers) and he hates Dark Souls for a variety of design decisions. Most people accept Dark Souls for what it is and that it's going to appeal to some people and not others, so I think it is with this game as well - and most games. That it's 'polarizing' doesn't change my experience with it, or really even say much about the game.As far as the choices leading to bad outcomes, I don't know what the alternative is here. Make it easier? Make for fewer branching choices?

Those design decisions have their own consequences. Re: choices, one thing that impressed me about the game is the dizzying amount of flags its setting, watching, and using for decisions and choices later (if you did X, or X x 10, then you get a dialogue option for Y or Z). By contrast, PoE doesn't really give you a ton of major decisions to make that can radically alter the outcome. There's a couple of key decisions you make that impact the ending and companions, but plot-wise you still march through a playthrough with roughly the same experience. That's not a knock against PoE, just that AoD felt like a fresher and different experience, and that's what appealed to me. I felt like I had a lot of control over my destiny, and that decisions I made now carried weight and could impact things much further along - even if I had to be careful for being raider-food for my choices.3 My last point is more about reviewing style and language and will probably be the most controversial thing, so hopefully doesn't come off as an attack - more like an impression.

I've tried to share my experience with the game and essentially say 'These things worked for me, and if these things appeal to you, give it a shot.' A lot of your language is couched in judgment: cheap, unfair, bad form, honest, polarizing, shallow, etc. I get that you need a way to communicate your experience with the game. But it's one thing to say 'I was frustrated by how often I felt the game was railroading me into what I felt like were bad outcomes' or 'Combat felt unforgiving for a new player' versus 'that's bad design'. One is a window into your experience, the other a value judgment about the game that you're making for everyone else. Maybe there is objectively bad design, like UI/UX issues or making saving at certain points impossible and forcing characters to repeat content, but I don't think that's what we're discussing here.Similar comments in your original review: 'RNG in combat is grossly stacked against the player, and always in favor of the NPC combatants.' The game is pretty transparent about every combat roll.

What it sounds like is you might have prioritized non-combat skills over combat in your playthrough and then found the odds stacked against you, or perhaps didn't use everything a combat-oriented character might use (things I touched on like choke points, alchemy, crafting, weapon advantages, etc.). The system takes awhile to learn. There are plenty of players who finished the game using different weapons and builds who would disagree with your comment, and it certainly wasn't my experience. We are really talking about hard vs 'unfair', and there was never any evidence that the game was being unfair. If anything - unfortunately a bit of a spoiler - alchemy by itself is overpowered and can kill anything in the game, including groups.I found most of your CONS (and I suppose, some of the PROS) highly subjective as a result of this. 'Lacking equipment felt shallow.' I'm not sure what kind of an inventory system would have worked for you, with multiple armors and weapon variants that all suit different characters and playstyles, including 5 different materials and up to 4 crafting upgrades per each armor/weapon.

Unlike most games, there's no combat healing, and a delicate balance between armor vs action points vs durability (can your armor break) vs crit strike vulnerability, and the gear I think reflects this novel, 'realistic', system. In the end my main takeaway from your review is that very little about the game worked for you - the story, the mechanics, combat, the difficulty, etc.

not that it was a bad game. I'll have to circle back and provide a better response, but in short - a lot of what you say is true. My reviews are my opinion + my preferences. Probably some other things I'm missing, but I have no problem expressing my feelings and biases as they are absolutely relevant as influences that help form my perspective and opinion. I always hope I'm clear in the review-form of communication in that its subjective and often speculative. If I think the game is bad, that doesn't make it objectively so.

Now if Metacritic and Steam both have mass combined reviews of a 4/10 maaaaybe it's pretty bad - but all is in the eye of the beholder. In AoD's case, I'm the outlier. I'll voice my complaints and praises, but the likely scenario is my position will only ring true and resonate with certain folks.Anyway, I'll swing back later and post a more detailed response. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying you're wrong as much as I'm saying I feel you're wrong. Just because I feel so doesn't make it true. PART 2/2)Let's talk about the combat.

It's supposed to be difficult, and is actually fairly deep. You're not supposed to be able to take on more than 1 person lightly, just like in real life. If you do plan on doing so, it helps to be well prepared: do you have alchemy for poison and bombs and stimulants? Have you looked at the landscape for choke points?

Did you come properly equipped with the very best gear you could find/afford? Have you invested in the right skills (one weapon, one defense skill, crit strike, crafting to make the best gear or sharpen your weapon, etc.)? Are you properly using your weapon's special features and moves (quick hits with bleed, spear range, etc.)? When you dig into it, the developer's combat system is fairly involved, so much so that they went ahead and made another almost-entirely-combat-focused game with the same engine and combat mechanics called Dungeon Rats (yes, I also played it). Do I think mechanics could be explained more clearly?

But once you stand tall as the winner of the Maadoran gladiator games, or use every advantage at your disposal - and sometimes a bit of luck - to defeat a pack of bandits for the first time, it's incredibly satisfying. Moreover, many situations change as a result of being a manslayer - I've found one of the key ways to get out of a pinch or use that hidden dialogue option is by having a reputation as a killer - people tend not to F-with people with that reputation.I won't delve too deep into the combat as I don't want to further beat a dead horse - but I did not enjoy the combat experience. That aside, I understand their intent and reasoning for making the combat so challenging. Realistically, a person would not be able to go full 'gladiator' at 3 hours into the game and take on 4 guys at once and destroy them with the skill of Bruce Lee. TOTALLY get that. But the game very frequently drops the player into situations where you are outnumbered or would obviously be unprepared for combat, to the extent that the player will certainly lose forcing another reload.

I don't like this. Sure, my decisions led me to get bum-rushed by 3 guys with daggers but the experience of being baffled at how to succeed only to eventually determine you must reload (often several points back) then it cheapens the experience. It's bad form.Speaking of people, this is a tough world. People want to use you for their own ends, either leveraging your skills, or just as their next meal ticket.

But you can do the exact same thing: lie, use, steal, betray. The game actually tracks how many times you broke your word/promise and can have a pretty big impact on the ending. But - interestingly - you can still do plenty of heroic or heinous things while 'keeping your word'.So, yea, in my view, speed runs and whatnot are irrelevant. This isn't a game about who can finish it fastest. It's a game that scratched an itch - I'd call it a brave game in many ways. Mage knight board game review. Challenging, realistic combat.

Completely original world, where every character can build their 'Lore' skill to unravel it's truth and mysteries, and perhaps unlock enormous power in the process. Complex faction system where lots of stuff is happening in parallel at each step of the game, which winds up creating an incredibly rich world of options. It's probably has the most complex faction mechanics I've seen in any game.No doubt it is a game that takes risks and the developers are brave for doing that. They could have played it safer, but they have found an audience that will happily digest their game and hope for more. That's always a good result, even if it does polarize another group of players into not enjoying the game. They've provided ample cautions and provided a demo (why is this such a rarity these days?). I do applaud them for what they've released, even if I don't like it and would not recommend it.AoD is meant to be hard.

You're tossed in an incredibly unforgiving world divided by lots of factions who want to lord over this devastated land and pick it clean. Nobles, raiders, and the factions I referenced earlier. And if you unleash them, forces beyond human comprehension, that were sealed intentionally by people (usually) a whole lot smarter than anyone currently alive. Mechanically, it's different from typical games where you can see most of the content and do most things in a single playthrough - you'll never have enough skill points for that, and even if you did, your factions and decisions will lend themselves to certain content.

I can see that frustrating modern players who want to 'see it all and do it all as quickly as possible.' However, there's also opportunity. To pick a side and rise to power. To solve ancient riddles and wield the power for yourself (for instance, in virtually every playthrough you can find and empower ancient armor that makes you nigh unstoppable.at least to mortals). To understand what really happened hundreds of years ago, and use that knowledge to defeat ancient threats to mankind. Or serve them as their human avatar.

Or use them and their power for your own ends.I really appreciate you so thoroughly expressing your opinion and experience in playing the game. You make some really good arguments, and I believe a lot of the players would agree with you. I also think a lot of them would agree with me.

To me, it's a great example of a love-it-or-hate-it kind of game. I hope my counterpoints make sense, even if you disagree.Thanks for reading, and feel free to respond back with more points or even a full counter review! I would look forward to reading and further discussing it.=).

That's a good way of describing it and is exactly what I did on many challenges: Reload. Mash some experience points into whatever shaped slot is required. Progress forward.The first few combat encounters threw me off.

I was confused. How could I not defend myself in one of the earliest fights? It was because the bar to pass for certain rolls (strength in this case) was much higher. More then what I had reasonably assumed. You cannot pass such attempts without having the stats to back it.

If you accidentally find yourself in battle, better have a savepoint. If you do not, you won't be proceeding with your current build.I get having some hard, set numbers backing certain requirements as a form of safekeeping. But the key would be to keep it to only what is necessary.

They went the other route and were much more heavy-handed in their approach. I recognise you and your review from HubPages! Small world, huh?

XDAnyway, I loved the game but it has massive flaws that I hope will be fixed in the developers' upcoming sci-fi game. While I loved the setting, the characters and the way the player handles things, it's bothersome to spend the points where you want to only find you've hit a wall because your combat skills aren't enough if you're a pacifist, or your non-combat skills are apparently the 'wrong' ones.

If I'm to play it again (which I surely will because I do so love talking about it), I'll not spend any points on skills until I see them, reload the save, invest them and carry on. After that, a combat run as an Assassin which has so far been my most successful attempt.All of that said, your criticisms of the game are very easily understood.

Even as a fan I have to say you're spot on. If you were to look at 'polarising' in the dictionary like you say, you'd find a picture of The Age of Decadence.Good review. Keep up the good work! Good to see you here.It's disappointing for me as I really do want to enjoy playing it more. I grew up playing this style of RPG and has long been a favorite. Even with Fallout, there is quite a bit of reloading trial-and-error - but for me, it wasn't loading far back because my skills prevented me from doing something.

I knew I could eventually come back for a retry once higher level and more skilled in whichever area was relevant. AoD often requires such content to be missed until your next playthrough with a different build. It won't be possible to be a strong jack-of-all-trades or to stack your stats across the board. It keeps things more realistic, but it punishes the player a bit in order to do so.Anyway, it's definitely not a bad game! Just particular in a few ways that don't agree with me, and that's okay. Can't love them all!Thanks for reading and commenting!

See ya around.

'A riveting account of the pre-First World War years. The Age of Decadence is an enormously impressive and enjoyable read.' Dominic Sandbrook, Sunday Times'A magnificent account of a less than magnificent epoch.' Jonathan Meades, Literary ReviewThe folk-memory of Britain in the years before the Great War is of a powerful, contented, orderly and thriving country. She commanded a vast empire. She bestrode international commerce. Her citizens were living longer, profiting from civil liberties their grandparents only dreamt of, and enjoying an expanding range of comforts and pastimes.

The mood of pride and self-confidence is familiar from Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance marches, newsreels of George V's coronation and the London's great Edwardian palaces.Yet things were very different below the surface. In The Age of Decadence Simon Heffer exposes the contradictions of late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. He explains how, despite the nation's massive power, a mismanaged war against the Boers in South Africa created profound doubts about her imperial destiny. He shows how attempts to secure vital social reforms prompted the twentieth century's gravest constitutional crisis and coincided with the worst industrial unrest in British history.

He describes how politicians who conceded the vote to millions more men disregarded women so utterly that female suffragists' public protest bordered on terrorism. He depicts a ruling class that fell prey to degeneracy and scandal. He analyses a national psyche that embraced the motor-car, the sensationalist press and the science fiction of H. Wells, but also the Arts and Crafts of William Morris and the nostalgia of A.

And he concludes with the crisis that in the summer of 1914 threatened the existence of the United Kingdom - a looming civil war in Ireland.He lights up the era through vivid pen-portraits of the great men and women of the day - including Gladstone, Parnell, Asquith and Churchill, but also Mrs Pankhurst, Beatrice Webb, Baden-Powell, Wilde and Shaw - creating a richly detailed panorama of a great power that, through both accident and arrogance, was forced to face potentially fatal challenges.' A devastating critique of prewar Britain. Disturbingly relevant to the world in which we live.' Gerard DeGroot, The Times'You won't put it down. A really riveting read.' Rana Mitter, BBC Radio 3 Free Thinking. Mr Heffer combines a scholar's command of the primary literature with a journalist's eye for detail.

He writes with admirable sensitivity about both music and literature: a better account of Elgar or Arnold Bennett would be hard to find. He does a brilliant job of exposing the rot beneath the glittering surface of late Victorian and Edwardian Britain.

He writes with such exuberance - indeed with such Edwardian swagger - that he leaves the reader looking forward to his next volume. The Economist.

The Age of Decadence is an impressively well-constructed book. Heffer weaves his wonderfully diverse strands of inquiry into a devastating critique of prewar Britain. Heffer's criticism of unbridled traditionalism is devastating and convincing. It's also disturbingly relevant to the world in which we live. The Times.

Magisterial. Sam Leith. Spectator.

Heffer has given us a magnificent account of a less than magnificent epoch. Vital and energetic. Jonathan Meades. Literary Review. A riveting account of the pre-First World War years. A gloriously rich history. Balanced and judicious.

The Age of Decadence is an enormously impressive and enjoyable read. Dominic Sandbrook. Sunday Times. Simon Heffer was born in 1960. He read English at Cambridge and took a PhD in modern history at that university. His previous books include: Moral Desperado: A Life of Thomas Carlyle, Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell, Power and Place: The Political Consequences of King Edward VII, Nor Shall My Sword: The Reinvention of England, Vaughan Williams, Strictly English, A Short History of Power, Simply English and High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain. In a thirty-year career in Fleet Street, he has held senior editorial positions on The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and is now a columnist for The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.