Preview The Age of Decadence Demo Preview

Click here and disable ads!

As the word says, "filler" is what puts you to fill something. (No, really? Thank you, Captain Obvious!) I'd say it's the yeast used in a cake. It makes content expand, inflate, but adds no real flavor to what is there. Whatever you're doing in a game that does not require a significant level of reasoning is filler. Walking from one side of town to another, fighting random enemies that do not require any level of strategy, etc. If what you are doing isn't adding anything, if you take this to the "content" and the end result would be practically the same, it was filler.

Now one thing I find interesting is that, unlike what many here think, I don't think that everything that is beyond the central theme of the game is really filler - and AOD seems to be a game that will finnaly prove it. As the testers say, the game is very "raw". Something that doesn't have a direct relationship with what is happening in the story simply has no place within the game world. Everything must have a reason, all the quests offered make sense within the context of what is presented - which is not a defect in any way (just to be clear), but it ends up showing something very important about the games.

It may seem blasphemous to say this, but sometimes really is that "random" content makes the game whole. Just like a cake without yeast would not be the same thing, an RPG without that any other content beyond the relevant quests would also lose something. For many, the fun part of an RPG is exploring the city, find things, people, objects, weapons, challenges... Anything, even if it don't make much sense and has no direct relationship with the story. Even at the cost of loss of verisimilitude.

The "crime" that 90% of RPGs make is putting too much shit that has no logic within the story, making the experience too broad. In most RPGs where you would take 30-40 hours to complete, perhaps only 12 of these have any significant content. The problem is not the existence of filler "in itself", but the fact that it ends up being responsible for most of your experience with the game. If instead, the developers would merely present a game that has about 20-30% and not 70-80% filler content, the impression would be different.

Eh I don't think another definition of filler contet is needed here, Dicksmocker pretty much nailed it. Uninspired fed-ex quests that have you running from A to B to C and back, unchallenging and/or tedious combat against hordes of generic enemies, everything that artificially inflates gametime without providing an interesting gameplay experience is filler.

Now if a sidequest is not connected to the main story but is well designed and provides the gamer with a fun experience it is not filler.

I really think this discussion took a wrong turn somewhere. Having a very "focused" game where everything relates to the mainstory vs. having a lot of optional "side-content" and exploration potential in your game is seperate design discussion in itself, but it has nothing to do with filler content per se.

You are.

Well now that we have the definition of filler...er defined let's get onto more pressing things like:

What is an RPG?

A game with lots of filler?

You mean there are people who like "fetch X items" quests or "fight respawning enemies" design?

I agree with most the things you wrote but this line just seems wrong.

Something just doesn't feel right, good combat engagement can also be filler. You probably mean that it can't be repetitive i guess?

You can create endless good engaging fights to get from point A to point B but doesn't that mean those fight are still filler?

Just needless extra combat to lengthen the game?

Pre-oder Age of Decadence now and get the exclusive Age of Filler DLC!

OK.

They're not filler if they require you to constantly adjust your tactics and improve your skills. Better?

i want to get box edition so much... but i dunno if i will have enough cash. is it possible to upgrade your purchase? like you buy digital for 25 and some time later pay another 25 and get the box?

Given you'll probably have at least 9 months to save, I don't see a problem...

Yes. First, you try the demo, if you like it and want more, you order the digital edition, if you like it and simply insist on having a proper box, you pay $25 extra and get $25 worth of goodies.

That's not how it goes. First you buy the boxed copy, then you bitch about not having enough goodies and how you should have gone digital instead. Then and only then, bitch about not having played the demo first. Damn those indies ripping you off.

I wouldn't shove exploration into the same category as filler. Take Death Knights of Krynn or (the original) Pool of Radiance as examples. Both of those games had a lot of optional side-quests/locations on the over land map at either fixed locations or had a chance of occurring if you wandered around a certain area (the koa-ta slave ship if I'm remembering the name of those mer-men correctly). Nothing amazing but neat additions to the main storyline.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking on the design decisions in AoD -- as a first title you're better off keeping things focused and streamlined and if you find you can't add such additional exploration elements in a satisfactory manner then you're better off dispensing with it entirely.

Exploration isn't filler, of course. I'm pretty sure it's strong enough to be a main design element. The problem is that it's usually used as a shortcut or filler - put some chests, vases, plants, NPCs in need of x amount of items, generic dungeons - and voila! You have exploration in the game, but no real reason to explore. Sadly, it applies not only to games like Skyrim and Kingdom of Amalur that's supposed to be all about exploring, but to 95% of RPGs.

From an older post:

"When we started working on the game, there was a number of "traditional" elements I wanted to eliminate to, um, "streamline" the gameplay:

- mindless running across maps and locations. You know, the typical "fedex" quests or "now run all the way back and tell the questgiver that you finished the quest!" It adds nothing to gameplay and just wastes your time.

- mindless sidequests. You run around and talk to NPCs with silly problems.

"I'm a hunter, can you please kill 10 wolves for me?"
"Um, yeah, sure, I love killing wolves."

"How would you like to listen about my family problems and then talk to my father/brother/wife/son to solve them for me once and for all?"
"Oh boy, would I!"

"My [place] is infested with [rats/spiders/bandits/tax collectors]. Please help me, I don't know what else to do."
"Say no more, my good man. That's why I play RPGs. I live for this shit!"

- mindless looting. "Hey, a barrel! I wonder what's inside. A magic sword?!! Wow! Hey, another barrel..."

So, we've eliminated all 3 and focused instead of developing interwoven questlines with different options and outcomes. The outcome? There is no need to explore the towns, 'cause there isn't much to do outside the faction quests. If you want to walk around looking for spontaneous stuff to do, you're in the wrong game.

In other words, only when we skipped the mindless stuff, did we realize what it was there for. Take Fallout 2, for example. Even though it was inferior to the first game (that's just, like, my opinion, man), it was a well-rounded game with a lot of content. Sure, some quests were silly but when mixed with the good stuff, they didn't seem to bug me that much.

Now, let's do a mental exercise. Take Den - a two-map town with a lot of stuff to do:

1. Collect money from Fred.
2. Get book from Derek.
3. Lara wants to know what is guarded in the church.
4. Get permission from Metzger for gang war.
5. Find weakness in Tyler's gang guarding the church.
6. Help Lara attack Tyler's gang.
7. Deliver a meal to Smitty for Mom.
8. Free Vic from his debt.
9. Sabotage Becky's still.
10. Get car part for Smitty.
11. Return Anna's locket.
12. Talk to Stacy and ask her to tell you the story about her cat.

I hope we agree that "quests" #1, 2, 4 (the name implies more than the quest delivers; it's a straight "go to NPC A, tell him something, report back" type stuff), 7, 9, 11, and especially 12 are kinda shit. Quests 3, 5, and 6 are basically one quest. So, overall, we have "helping Lara to put Tyler out of business, permanently" (sadly, without the option to side with Tyler) and "freeing Vic in different ways". Without the fluff, without running between NPCs on different maps, you could do Den in about 5-7 min. Exploring, looking for stuff (no matter how silly) to do, running back and forth is 3/4 of Den's "menu for tonight's entertainment".

Well, look at World of Warcraft. (Or any "singleplayer MMORPG" out there.) I would say there is a lot of people who *love* that. But I think that was a rhetorical question.

If a combat is "good" and "engaging", how can it be needless anyway? After all, if a combat doesn't "require you to constantly adjust your tactics and improve your skills", then surely it isn't good or engaging, I think. There are a lot of games that is just built in the fighting itself, like rougelikes. So just because some games have a story besides that, you can dismiss the combat as part of the game itself, it suddenly turns in a "means" to reach the next story point? I dunno, I think the combat have a point in itself, if it's good combat, of course.

Brian Fargo is one step ahead of you:

I dont know whats the big deal. There is good filler and bad filler. Thats it, basically.
Good one adds to different components of the game, story, background, general history, setting specifics, skills, or provides additional information on important NPCs and such. Whatever.
Bad doesnt.

So, should I be excited for this game or what? I think it could damn well be a great one in the making, and I like the idea of different backgrounds really having an effect other than stats, etc. on how the game starts up.

Would have been cool to see the sneaking mechanic in action. VD, what would it have been, you take a turn sneaking, the guards attempt a check, then you take a turn again?

Yes. It's like TB combat, but for sneaking. The guards patrol and will move to investigate if they see (line of sight) or hear (low sneaking skill) something. Different guards have different stats, skills, and AI, so you don't do the same thing all the time (much like in the combat system). What I like the most is that you can't react instantly, like you do in RT systems. During their turns, you're a sitting duck, so you need to plan it accordingly. You can attack people while in sneak mode; if you fail to insta-kill them, the system switches to TB combat.

That would actually have been fucking cool as hell, but I can certainly see where it would have been a bitch to actually put it in there in-game.

However, should this game be a success I look forward to seeing it in your next game.

I don't. They've been (supposedly) working on AoD for years and they are probably still years from the release.

So VD, the big question is: will you stay with TORC or go to another engine after all is said and done for the next big thing?

Because no publisher (which means no developer) is interested in anything turn-based.