The Age Of Decadence Released, Is Still Very Hard

O, for the RPG that advertises itself as different from the others by being easy, instead of always bragging about being more difficult. The Age of Decadence [official site] is not that RPG. After ten years development, including a couple on Steam Early Access, it has now been fully released. And although it is proud of how hard its combat is, it’s also an RPG that brags about being about choice and consequence.

In theory, the combat difficulty is because the game doesn’t want you to become over-involved with the combat. “The game has to be hard, dying should be easy, and you should have reasons to pick your fights,” says the website. Instead you should be exploring and talking to people, trying to unravel the mystery of what went wrong in this ruined world by picking your way between the three noble Houses who control it. That sounds rather exciting.

Although it’s not just the combat that’s hard. Back in April of last year, our Chris Livingston played it for his Lighthouse Customer column. He had an adventure:

“Imagine walking out of a store and discovering that not only have you been pickpocketed while shopping, but the expensive item you bought is actually a worthless trinket. When you complain to a city guard, he suspects you’re the real thief, and when a friendly citizen offers to help, you soon find yourself in an alley surrounded by armed thugs. You’ve been ripped off, robbed, accused, mislead, and stabbed to death, all in a single afternoon. Welcome to The Age of Decadence!”

This sounds like it’s the kind of thing other people will love and I will like theoretically but never make the time to play.

The Age of Decadence is out on Steam and GOG, among others, for about £21 – though GOG give £3 back in store credit. Here’s the launch trailer:


  1. Don Reba says:

    Sounds like the type of game I could put on my wishlist and not buy when it goes on sale.

    • Xyth says:

      So I’m not the only one then.

      • Draphael says:

        Its the kind of game I am sure it will be rewarding if I had so many hours to expend… oh well I am sure I will buy anyway.

  2. Le blaireau says:

    I played and completed the Trade guild path last night in about 4 hours or so. No combat apart from one fight which I had hired help for, so just kept myself I the corner. As I rushed through I could sense there was so much undiscovered content and lore waiting to be unpicked through various character builds and decision paths. All I can say is Wow! What a game. And it’s really not THAT hard if you use common sense and really think about your build in a realistic way, pick your fights wisely and prepare properly. I thought after Dark Souls people wanted uber difficulties and the whole “git gud” ethos, obviously not when there’s reading involved.

    • arienette says:

      Difficult is by far the least interesting conversation to have about Dark Souls.

      • TillEulenspiegel says:

        Difficulty is absolutely central in Dark Souls. Not the surprise death crap, but presenting challenges which force you to learn and master how the game works.

        Similarly, in an RPG which wants you to enjoy learning and min/maxing the system, it absolutely cannot be easy or forgiving. It would ruin everything.

    • klops says:

      It’s not THAT hard when you have a 100% talker character. But when you try to be good in both talking and fighting and perhaps in something else, then it becomes harder – and takes longer time.

      It’s not really hard when you have a 100% fighter character either (at least some betas ago, they change things all the time so I dunno). Don’t expect to charm or persuade many people on the way, though.

      And to those who do not know about the game: It is supposed to be replayed since the paths and results and game play vary much depending on who do you work for and with what kind of character (master of ancient knowledge, thief, fighter, merchant, etc…).

  3. RegisteredUser says:

    Given that they spent a good many years in adding intricate combat details and released a combat demo as something to showcase, I find it highly idiotic that combat is then turned into a near luck based RNG mess that boils down to whether or not the god(s) of dice rolls frown a bit or a bit more on you that time.

    I get what they’re trying to do, its just that they seem to have made a lot of weird, if not bad, choices regarding where to put their time and then utilize that what they built.

    I would have much preferred ONE possible path to be that you can become a glorious arena gladiator that later stomps around the frontlines of a war or something. How is that not a permissable roleplaying experience? You can still attach tons of intrigue to that as well as a champion of one of the houses and similiar.
    But no, still a combat mess where even 1v1 can most of the time become tedious and game ending.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      > How is that not a permissable roleplaying experience?

      It is in most other games. I think it’s refreshing that one RPG tries to do things differently.

      If you are a merchant, it makes sense that you won’t stand a chance against an experienced assassin. Even if you are a trained soldier, it makes sense that your chances to beat three other people ganging up on you are rather slim.

      Combat is something to be feared for once, instead of just an easy source of XP and money. I like that.

    • Jockie says:

      I might be misreading what you wrote, but I’m playing as a mercenary and I’m currently classed as an ‘Executioner’ at the arena, as I’ve not quite made champion yet. I’m also a centurion in the Imperial Guard and just fought a ‘300’ style battle against a horde of fantasy mongols. It’s a permissible roleplaying experience and I think the people suggesting they made combat hard so nobody plays that way are completely wrong.

      They’ve made combat hard so the people who want to go that route have a challenging experience, thought it gets notably easier once you’ve progressed from unremarkable peon to someone with a bit of story to them. Also have you ever played a turn-based strategy game that doesn’t have an element of RNG? Every acclaimed TBS game has percent chance or dice involved.

    • klops says:

      Combat in AoD is not luck based RNG.

      Combat may be impossible if your build just isn’t good enough. You can still try forever and ever, but most builds aren’t made to win all fights. Some builds can’t win any.

      Combat might be really hard if you’re not playing with a terminator build. For example diplomat + fighter build usually spreads my XPs too wide and I cannot beat many fights (that still hasn’t stopped me going other routes). Usually special equipment like nets and liquid fire help here, but not too far.

      Or combat can be doable if you have a fighter build: 1 weapon skill + dodge/block + critical strike. Perhaps crafting or alchemy to support that.

    • suibhne says:

      I hate to be that guy, but it’s likely you’re just not good enough – not in terms of skill, but knowledge and experience with the game. AoD is a game where character build and combat tactics are equally crucial, and it takes awhile with the game to learn both of those. Peruse the forums and you’ll see a variety of beta-tester character builds that can beat every fight in the game, even optional nutcrackers…but those builds are based on intimate knowledge of the game systems, combat maneuvers, and items.

      Many RPGs in the ’90s expected you to learn those things in order to be successful. More recently, you can waltz through big-name RPGs on default difficulty with little issue. Graham’s opening comment is absurd, because almost all current RPGs do bill themselves as easy – which is to say, “accessible”. Most games have shifted about two levels of difficulty down.

      It’s totally okay if you don’t want to learn how to play AoD’s combat through lots of trial and error. Maybe it’s not the game for you; the learning curve is more like FTL than Dragon Age, and that’s not necessarily a mainstream experience. But there’s a lot of depth on offer, and the game also provides other, non-combat paths that are equally rewarding. You can get through the whole game without directly beating a single fight, and you might even see more of the game’s lore and central story (depending entirely on the choices you make).

  4. Solidstate89 says:

    I remember first hearing about this game and being very excited about its release.

    8 years ago.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      Time to get excited again! Your excitement glands should have recharged by now.

  5. felipepepe says:

    No mention of the legendary interview RPS did with the devs SEVEN YEARS ago? link to

    • geisler says:

      Someone give this man some brofists.

    • anHorse says:

      The comments section, once the interviewee appears is hilarious

    • Premium User Badge

      Aerothorn says:

      Where is Meat Circus these days, anyway?

      • Lars Westergren says:

        I know, right? Or Pleasing Fungus, Rei, InternetBatman, Alexander Bakke, AngelTear, or that guy/girl with the purple avatar (name on the tip of my toungue Shi something)… Lots of people I miss.

  6. Philopoemen says:

    Time to die a lot again.

  7. MattMk1 says:

    I have to admit to only playing the demo, but off-hand, it was the least enjoyable RPG I can think of.

    The design flaws are virtually endless. As mentioned above, the combat system is entirely pointless – it’s turn and grid-based, but you only ever control one character and it’s all about melee combat, which really limits the tactical options. On top of that, apparently you’re expected to die a lot as a result of bad luck even if you do focus your build entirely on combat, because that’s the designer’s idea of making the game “challenging”.

    The rest of the game, as has been pointed out very accurately by other people before, is basically just a long “Choose Your Adventure” book, 90% of which consists of “Hah, hah. You picked the wrong skills because we deliberately made the character design incredibly opaque, and now you’re… DEAD!”

    There’s also – and I say this as someone who adores Planescape: Torment – way too much text. Even if it was written as well as PST there’d be too much, but it’s not. It’s not awful, but it tends toward the dry, and the fact that you’re expected to read it over and over because you’ll die and be forced to replay makes it even worse.

    And as an icing on the cake, the devs are completely uninterested in any feedback that doesn’t consist of “this game is awesome”. Which would be fine, I guess, except they don’t stop at ignoring criticism – some guy named Vince actually shows up 90% of the time someone posts anything critical of the game and explains in a really passive-aggressive and condescending way how you’re playing it wrong, or that this game was meant to be very challenging and maybe is just not for people like you.

    • tiltaghe says:

      “some guy named Vince”
      Well, you can follow the link above about the seven years old interview to discover who Vince is.

    • geisler says:

      I’m very pleased that the devs didn’t listen to someone like you. There’s an entire gamut of inclusive RPGs to choose from that are right up your alley. Can’t we hair trigger nutjobs have some rewarding challenging fun too? I mean, what is it you folks say around here? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

    • tiltaghe says:

      Entertaining read, but the way it was conducted feels quite old in my opinion. Some answers too.
      So I learned more about the game and the devs intentions and I have to say it is quite interesting! The trailer does not communicate the game specificities though, it is really average. I’m tired of stats build and endless progression personnally. If I had the time I’ll try the game only for its grounded and brutal approach to choices and world logic.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      > it’s all about melee combat

      Did you mean “that is the only viable option”? Because if you meant that is the only option, that is incorrect. There are bows, crossbows and thrown weapons. Haven’t played it in a while, but I doubt melee is the only viable choice, they took balancing very seriously.

      The “Choose you own adventure” stuff – there was a lot of it in the early demo, but it was toned down later, did you play one of the later versions? The city opens up for “normal” RPG exploration after the prologue. I remember you could die quite often in dialogue options, but like with the combat I’m not sure it is unfair, it is just their design goal is to make a somewhat more realistic world where you are not automatically a badass, and trying to fight or bluff your way out of a dangerous situation IS in fact very dangerous. Perhaps the wisest choice would be to give the people robbing you what they want, without trying to fight.

      > this game was meant to be very challenging and maybe is just not for people like you

      I risk coming off like a sneering elitist here, but that is actually not my intent. Some people enjoy really punishingly hard games, and especially the sense of accomplishment that comes from mastering them. While that type of game mostly has fallen out of fashion, perhaps we can occasionally have one of these too? That said, it is perfectly fine not to enjoy these types of games too of course. I’ve had a couple of games where I get stuck for a long time and just think “Nah, life is too short for this.”

      • MattMk1 says:

        People always feel the need to defend the difficulty of this game by accusing those who don’t like it by simply not being up for a challenge and wanting instant gratification.

        But that’s a strawman – most people who complain about this game have an issue with the fact that the difficulty is *artificial*, and results from information being witheld from the players. (which, I guess, in some ways does make it like a really bad, old-school AD&D game being run by a sadistic DM)

        The devs themselves advise people to keep a store of unspent skill points, so that when they fail a check and die or hit a dead end, they can reload, reallocate points, and try again. That’s called “trial and error”, and does not require any skill.

        • geisler says:

          “most people who complain about this game have an issue with the fact that the difficulty is *artificial*”

          But… it really isn’t. Did you ever bother hitting F1 (like the training suggests)? Almost everything you need to know about the games mechanics can be extrapolated from the information there. It almost sounds like you just have a problem that this game is using intrinsic RPG systems that you have to learn, and no, that i don’t mean the trial & error savescumming you’re talking about. It’s an RPG, a real one, and that comes with having to learn the ruleset.

          • MattMk1 says:

            I’ve played pen and paper RPGs for decades now. I’m very familiar with the concept of system mastery. I don’t feel that Age of Decadence delivers a comparable experience.

        • suibhne says:

          As I posted in another comment, AoD’s learning curve is much more FTL than Dragon Age. You intend “trial and error” to be a criticism, but it’s perfectly acceptable game deisgn because it’s really “trial, error, and improvement” – not just “beat your head against the wall until the RNG rolls high”. Failure, in games as in life, is a source of information and insight, and AoD actually does a splendid job of rewarding smarter play. But if you want a game where you can succeed on the first or second try, before you know how the game systems work, this is absolutely not the game for you.

          Honestly, I think it’s perfectly valid to want to succeed on the first or second try. I love that feeling of “flow” in some games, where you can just barely succeed by staying at the outer edge of your competence. AoD does not provide that. Rather, it rewards more patient, analytical play. You have to decide whether that’s your cuppa, but the game’s difficulty is absolutely not “artificial”.

          • MattMk1 says:

            And an FTL-like learning curve is perfectly fine… for FTL. Or for a procedurally-generated RPG that you play for 30 minutes at a time.

            It’s – IMO – a fairly terrible design choice for a story-based RPG with walls of text-based exposition.

            I dislike AoD not because it’s difficult, but because I think they difficulty / reward ratio is way off, and because I think its approach to combat delivers an experience that is, ultimately, as artificial and shallow as that of games which just “let you win”.

            I’ve played a lot of pen and paper RPGs, and AoD reminds me of someone trying to run a game like GURPS or 3E Shadowrun, where a single blow can be lethal, and thinking they’re not doing a good job as a GM if every combat doesn’t result in at least one character getting stabbed or shot. In a PnP game, that results in everyone being dead or crippled in short order. In a CRPG, it results in long, painful and tedious grinds and – for me, anyway – the realization that you’re only moving forward because you’re allowed to save and try again.

          • suibhne says:

            Well, in general, I would’ve expected to agree with your points if I’d read them before playing the game. I’m definitely sympathetic, in general. But two points in response:

            1. Combat really isn’t that hard, aside from the initial learning curve. Teron can be tough because you’re learning the ropes and you haven’t built up and kitted your character; the difficulty curve flattens out after Teron, and it remains that way for the back 2/3rds of the game. And the truly difficult fights after Teron are 100% avoidable, just as in many mainstream RPGs.

            The challenge in AoD isn’t that fighting is hard, because it’s mostly pretty straightforward for characters oriented entirely toward fighting. The real challenge is that most people gravitate toward hybrid characters that can specialize in fighting and robbery and speech, etc. – a pretty reasonable expectation for most mainstream RPGs, but a recipe for (probable) failure in AoD. Hybrid characters in AoD are difficult to build; straight-up fighters are not, as long as you observe the rule to choose either Block or Dodge (rather than both).

            2. There are plenty of non-combat paths through the game, and they open up different areas, narrative possibilities, and endings than you can achieve through most combat paths. They’re not even that “hard”, at least in the sense in which combat is “hard”.

          • MattMk1 says:

            OK, let’s assume that combat is NOT as hard as it initially seems if you fully specialize in it, and forego being good at anything else. And that making someone entirely focused on talking your way through things without every getting physical is also relatively straightforward.

            Why is that a good thing? Characters that can do one thing well but are so awful at everything else you needn’t even bother, are IMO just as boring – if not more – as ones that can do everything well. The best RPG games (whether table top or computer) reward hybrid characters, rather than punish them.

          • klops says:

            @MattMk1 – I’ve finished the game with one build – praetor. A hybrid build. I did fine.

            The game didn’t punish me for playing a hybrid character. I could not do everything, as I could not do everything with any other build available.

            My character was very good at talking, he was an expert in lore and very good in crafting. He was also only ok fighter. This was the direction from the beginning of the game. Many skills to spend ponts in to, right? This means that I had 3 non-combat skills my character was very good with.

            In the first city I talked mostly and fought in some occasions. In the second city/chapter again I both perusaded and fought people. I almost became an Arena champion but my combat skills / patience wasn’t good enough for that. I also slew a big gang of mercenaries with other mercenaries and forced a local gang to my command because of my kill cout was so dreadful. I couldn’t beat perhaps the hardest fight there was so I paid 1000 imperials to pass them (lots).

            In the last city/chapter I could only beat bums and weak zealots and I could not butcher my way through strong enemies like mechanical guardbeasts. I could, however, affect them in other ways.


  8. xalcupa says:

    Bought the game in 2014 and played some just to get the feel of it. Had a similar experience as Chris adventure, and loved it. Overall, it really felt different than other similar type games. Looking forward to trying it now in complete version.

  9. Elhoim says:

    Combat is tough but fair. Basically, if you make a combat character and know what you are doing, using aimed attacks, nets, etc, you can win most of the fights without a single reload.

    If you are expecting enemies to fall before your awesome hero without putting up a fight, well, this is not the game for you.

    We have a free demo available, so give it a go before deciding your purchase.

    • MattMk1 says:

      “…and explains in a really passive-aggressive and condescending way how you’re playing it wrong, or that this game was meant to be very challenging and maybe is just not for people like you.” — Me, half an hour ago.

      • geisler says:

        What dark world we live in where we aren’t all a special snowflake. Why do you make this game so hard Oscar, WHY? What about my needs? God you guys are condescending assholes because i can’t play this game.

        • MattMk1 says:

          Did I forget to mention the creepy, cultish following?

          I’m sorry that you’re so emotionally invested in a really bad game, forcing you to lash out at strangers who make fact-based criticisms of it.

          • geisler says:

            Well don’t get all argumentative and factual on me now. Cultish, that IS a tough one. I give up.

          • klops says:

            For starters, I like the game a lot which can be seen from my earlier comments. Perhaps I’m a creep and a cultist in your view then. True, AoD has problems which I’m not blind about. Especially the difficulty with skill point dividing is worth mentioning – I needed couple of restarts to get the gameplay going.

            But your posts sound like writing from a “negative fanboy”. Or from “an opposite cultist”, if we use your wording. The facts just don’t match and calling people creeps and cultists for opposing them is weird. Let’s say them again:

            1. Why turn based combat system is pointless when you control one character? The combat is not all about melee combat – there are spears and webs and bombs and acid to hurl and bows and crossbows to shoot with. A throwing based fighter differs from a hammer concentreted fighter, for example.

            2. The rest of the game is not basically a “choose your own adventure”. There are few parts that have that, like in Space Rangers 2 quests, for example. The points are few and with the Praetor I finished the game with I didn’t got a single “cyoa” scene – unfortunately, since I like them. Otherwise the gameplay is like with old Fallouts – not like Warlock of Firetop Mountain.

            3. The devs don’t seem uninterested in any feedback that doesn’t consist of praises in the forums. Perhaps that might be true with Steam comments?

            Text amount and content is a matter of opinion. Surprisingly I like that aspect too. Perhaps the most in this game.

      • suibhne says:

        How was anything Elhoim wrote “passive-aggressive” or “condescending”?

        AoD isn’t a game for everyone. That doesn’t mean you’re an idiot if you don’t enjoy it; you might simply have different tastes. There’s a ton of diversity across the RPG “genre”, and it’s absurd that nobody is allowed to state, without accusations of condescension, that a specific indie game with a deliberately hardcore design philosophy might not be to your liking.

        • Premium User Badge

          john_silence says:

          Let’s be fair here. “If you are expecting enemies to fall before your awesome hero without putting up a fight, well, this is not the game for you.” If you can’t detect a tinge of passive-aggressivity here, it’s because you’re blind to it, not because it’s not there.
          I am buying the game tonight because it matches many of my interests and I like how it’s introduced – that launch post explaining what the game is about displays wonderful clarity, focus, and a freshness of vision all the more admirable for having been sustained for an entire decade. But as regards the high difficulty, it does sound like there’s an added benefit to this cogent design choice: it enables smug exclusivity from the devs and the community, the subtle macho posturing of nerddom that I think Graham is alluding to in his opening sentence.

          • suibhne says:

            No, “passive-aggressive” is me leaving this here:
            link to

          • Premium User Badge

            john_silence says:

            “The indirect expression of hostility”. That’s the operative part, both in the DSM and in the vernacular interpretation of passive aggressivity. By that definition your reply may indeed be construed as passive-aggressive, as is Elhoim’s phrasing if you roll a successful Perception check.
            If you restrict passive aggressivity into the usual attitudes referenced by the article you linked to prove me wrong (procrastination, stubbornness…), I’ll grant you that Elhoim wasn’t but then nor were you ;)

      • Dangersaurus says:

        Butthurt detected! “Some Vince guy,” probably quote-warred you to this state on a prestigious gaming magazine’s forums. Plus the “I didn’t spend all those years playing Dungeons And Dragons and not learn a little something about…” thing is priceless.

      • anHorse says:

        Dude you’re the one being a passive aggressive little shit in every single comment thread on this article

        • MattMk1 says:

          I love how you guys just can’t help yourselves.

          I think AoD is a lousy game and its devs and fans are horrible at reacting to criticism. I’ll keep saying it, and you’ll keep jumping.

          • anHorse says:

            I haven’t even purchased the game yet, I was reading the comments to get some more impressions but instead I have to suffer through your inane crusade to whine like a baby no matter how reasonable the counter-argument

          • hungrycookpot says:

            I’ve never played the game, so I don’t care what you say about it. But you totally are being a shitbag. “NO GUISE, THIS GAME IS CRAP WHY WON’T ANYONE BELIEVE ME!??!”

  10. TormDK says:

    Vince is my personal hero, and I’ve been holding off the preview builds to avoid being spoiled too much.

    So this is very good news, now I know what I’ll be doing tonight, and it likely involves alot of cursing at the screen because I am used to being an awesome hero that is there to save the world!

    So I am in for a hard landing :D It will be glorious.

    • csbear says:

      I’ve been waiting for the full release, so pretty excited for this. Just read the old interview with Vince… He is passionate about AoD and his vision of what an RPG should be. It’s people like him which made me migrate to PC gaming from the consoles. It also got me to start reading RPS.

  11. Marblecake says:

    That actually sounds intriguing. A game where tedious combat isn’t forced on you! This also entirely eliminates the need for a party! Hooray for a roleplaying game that actually lets you play a role instead of multiple personalities!

    • fco says:

      my thoughts too. now, I just need to know how good is the writing

      • suibhne says:

        Check out the demo. I like Vince’s writing a lot, and I’m a writer who typically hates game writing. Some of the “flavor” text is a little over-the-top, in the same way as some older RPGs, but the dialogue and lore is fantastic. Just my $0.02.

  12. Soulstrider says:

    I am undecided about purchasing this game, the concept and setting seems interesting but I also heard people say it’s has a lot of trial and error deaths due to skill checks and arbitrary choices, which funnily enough reminds me of “Long Live the Queen”.

    Will probably wait a while for more impressions or a potential sale, does anyone know how long it is?

  13. denizsi says:

    The thing about “arbitrary deaths” is that you unless your character *actually* *is* equipped to deal with any given situation (in the context of your skills vs. the event), you just simply don’t get involved with anything going on, you don’t even give a it glance and simply walk by real fast.

    What most people do is to go into the game with the expectation that they can deal with, or at the very least, back out of any situation, for good or worse with little to no consequences. Well, this is not that kind of game. You just remember that everyone is out to screw you and use your head.

    For instance, unless you actually can cut and chop and slaughter your way out of an ambush, you simply don’t follow a stranger you just met into a back alley, no matter how sweet he talks. Now, that is a stupid thing to do, no?

  14. ElderGnome says:

    I actually made an account here after years of lurking just to comment on this game… Full disclosure: I didn’t know or care who “Vince” was, never knew about the years long development, etc. I just read descriptions that sounded appealing to me, a 36 year old long-time fan of turn-based RPGs. I also like games with lots of text and dialogue. I loved the idea of being able to play a non-combat character if I wished. (For people complaining about combat, you can beat the game without a single fight – should you choose. I’ll admit the combat system, even for a turn-based system, isn’t my favorite. I save that for Temple of Elemental Evil in terms of pure turn-based goodness.)

    So – I loved it. I think the developers are kidding themselves a little bit about the games “massive replayability” – it’s replayable, sure, with a lot of different choices to make… but one playthrough was enough for me. 20 hours in the game and I was ready to use the console commands to simple create an UberCharacter for my next playthrough just so I can see different actions, different dialogue paths, etc.

    On the other hand, that one playthrough of 20 hours was an *extremely* enjoyable period of time, the game really *isn’t* for everyone, I would have to say – for example, if you don’t like reading a lot, don’t buy this game – but if you’re an old school, turn based roleplayer you’ll probably consider this a hidden gem. I considered it well worth the cost. I look forward to “cheating” now with console commands to just mess around with the game world without having to follow the developer’s ‘vision’ of me playing it seven times. ;)

    • Premium User Badge

      john_silence says:

      You sound a lot like me, and I suspect quite a few RPS readers that may be on the fence about this – good on you for bothering to create an account!

      • ElderGnome says:

        I love this site and have for years. It’s time to start contributing and possibly even contribute cash to the cause. I use this place, RPGWatch and (when feeling frisky) RPGCodex to judge games.

        They deserve my loyalty. ;)

    • MattMk1 says:

      You know, funny thing is, that’s actually pretty close to how I’d describe myself as a gamer.

      The description of this game, when I originally became aware of it, ticked almost all the right boxes. But when I tried it, I didn’t like it… then I went to the forums to see what it was that I was missing, if anything, and by the time I was done with *that* experience, I was feeling really hostile towards the game and its makers…

      So it goes. Guess I hold grudges.

      • Premium User Badge

        john_silence says:

        To me that’s very understandable if you felt you were faced with an enforced consensus. I’m trying to steer clear so I don’t spoil this game for myself, but the pull of the Codex is strong.
        It’s attractive and repulsive at the same time oh God I’m a pervert

      • ElderGnome says:

        Number 1 rule of enjoying games –

        Give any game a good 5-10 hours for going to forums. People don’t go to forums to talk about how much they love the game, they go to complain to the developers.

        I don’t know, I spent something like $27 USD on it and got 30 hours of enjoyment. That ratio is… good for me. I drop $30 on lunch. Which is 1 hour of enjoyment. Or $50 on a group of people going to the movies… which is 2 hours.

        Gaming is still my best entertainment bet. I just shake my head at people constantly wanting one type of game but always waiting for a sale, never supporting the devs, etc. If you like an art form, which gaming is, you need to support it or it will disappear.

  15. v21v21v21 says:

    Graphics reminds me of a really bad Neverwinter Nights. The first one.

    Please tell me this trailer is a joke. Because I especially enjoyed the part they explain the wonderful features of this game, like “visit new places” or “meet different people” etc

    • neotribe says:

      Hah! Nope. The first NWN was
      link to

    • ffordesoon says:

      The graphics are pretty homely, it’s true. But this was a ten-year production by a very small team using the best low-cost engine available at the time development commenced. Which was years before the first indie boom, and nearly a decade before crowdfunding proved a viable model for niche titles.

      So, y’know, cut the devs a little slack here.

  16. stevev45 says:

    This game looks like a less stream lined version of “long live the queen.”

    link to

    You pick your stats, you win or lose the stat checks, you start over.

  17. teije says:

    I’ve been looking forward to this since I played the demo 2 years ago – fantastic that its finally been released. Glad there’s room for all kinds of RPGs in the market these days.