Dungeon Rats: Age Of Decadence Spin-Off Hits Next Fri

When Cobbo and Livers played The Age of Decadence, they both tried to charm, cheat, and lie their way through Iron Tower’s mega-tough isometric RPG. I’m not sure I want to know what that says about them – or us. Anyway, they might have a harder time of that in Dungeon Rats [official site], an upcoming combat-focused party-based RPG set in Age of Decadence’s world. Iron Tower have announced that Dungeon Rats will launch next week, on November 4th, and shared a little trailer showing turn-based action:

Dungeon Rats will plonk players into a prison ruled by gangs, where you’ll need to fight your way out. It’s built upon the foundations of Age of Decadence but does expand and rework bits in its focus on combat. While AoD gave you one single character, DR will let you build a party of up to four if you’d like. Or you can go solo, if you think you’re well ‘ard. Here, Iron Tower lay out the fighty changes since AoD:

  • Party-based – the most frequently requested feature.
  • Flanking and other strategic bonuses. Positioning matters a lot.
  • Manual placement of your characters before a fight.
  • Charisma determines the number and quality of your party members.
  • Skill points are split between the party members: more people means fewer skills points per person and slower level ups.
  • New weapons, armor, and creatures.
  • 3 difficulty levels: Nice Guy, Tough Bastard, Murderous Psychopath

Aye, that’s a big bucket of fight all right.

Dungeon Rats is coming to Steam and GOG on November 4th. The Age of Decadence had been in development for eleven years when it launched in 2015 so it’s impressive that Dungeon Rats is following so soon.

From this site

19 Comments

  1. Richard Cobbett says:

    “they both tried to charm, cheat, and lie their way through Iron Tower’s mega-tough isometric RPG. I’m not sure I want to know what that says about them – or us.”

    Pffft. You want to be a barbarian, play Gauntlet.

  2. mitthrawnuruodo says:

    That looks ordinary… like their last game. Last time they got by using the hardcore gimmick. Looks like they are not even doing that this time around.

  3. Premium User Badge

    FhnuZoag says:

    Skill points are split between the party members: more people means fewer skills points per person and slower level ups.

    Um, doesn’t that mean multi-person parties are screwed over twice?

    • Le blaireau says:

      Its a level less skill point spend system, so the points you earn have to be divided between the party. As a system its actually very robust and in depth. In AoD you had to really think about when to spend points to meet dialogue social checks. I’m actually really looking forward to see how this system works with a party as AoD was one of my favourite games from last year.

    • dewey_master says:

      “Parties” are supposed to work a little differently in this game in that there will be permanent deaths. I don’t just mean the inclusion of an ironman mode. I mean, you will be expected to have a partner or two die in the more difficult fights and have to recruit new members later. So, in a sense, those skill points were wasted. On the other hand, it would have been your player character killed without the help.

      • Premium User Badge

        FhnuZoag says:

        That seems really poorly thought out to me. Losing a party member is just going to compound the difficulty for a player having trouble, causing that player to lose more party members down the line and so on. Meanwhile the way to avoid that would require you reading the mind of the developer and figuring ahead of time how many party members you need to survive a fight.

        • Vince says:

          Losing party members is easy (lost quite a few while playtesting) but you can get new recruits after a fight. Overall, there are 11 possible party members (although you may not be able to recruit them all), but even if you get 7-8, it’s more than enough considering that the maximum party size is 4 (PC+3). Most people would have 2 companions.

    • Vince says:

      Not at all (at least not in my experience). Basically, it’s a trade off: either higher skills or more “boots on the ground”, which makes quite a difference.

  4. Infinitron says:

    The party can be larger than four.

  5. ChairmanYang says:

    Age of Decadence was brilliant, and one of the best newer RPGs, but while I’ll follow Dungeon Rats, I’m skeptical of how much I’ll like it. De-emphasizing AoD’s incredible strengths (writing, dialogue, choice & consequence, world-building) in favour of its weaknesses (character-building, combat) doesn’t seem like a winning approach to me.

    • Vince says:

      link to irontowerstudio.com
      ^ from the FAQ:

      Why this game? Why not another game like AoD?
      Our next full scale RPG is the “colony ship game”, currently in pre-production, which means designing the systems, fleshing out the setting and locations, and defining these locations visually. Basically, we can’t start working on it until we have the “blueprints” to follow.

      This gave us a year (10 months development cycle, 2 months of post release support) to put together a combat game using the AoD engine, systems, and assets. Doing anything else (new engine, different systems, non-combat aspects, etc) would have easily doubled or tripled the development time. Considering that party-based combat was the most requested feature, we built a game around it, giving you something different instead of going for more of the same.

      PS. You can look through the screens from my playthrough here, which will give you a better idea about the game than the trailer:

      link to irontowerstudio.com

  6. Blastaz says:

    Age of decadence was brilliant both in the setting and the way you played through.

  7. FlameHunter says:

    Looks cool, but it will be early acces… then shame… shame…. Shame….

  8. tsff22 says:

    AoD turned me off because of the countless times choosing the wrong dialogue choice would kill you instantly. I’m just not into “hardcore” games.

    Thankfully, this sounds like its more my style.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>