Out of the two 1.0 Codex darling releases of 2015 Underrail will always be my favourite (poor as I am at it). But between the two it is the Age of Decadence that I would set up as the game of the year. Simply because it's proper CRPG with the plot variability of an interactive novel. One has to be mad to make such a game. One doesn't have to be mad in order to make Colony Ship . I took my time poking around it, levelling, progressing, fighting, sneaking, plotting... Then I just sort of… Shuffled it off like this new coat that you can’t really wear with any degree of self-consciousness because it’s just so... Okayish. Original setting? Sure, another modern sci-fi/scrap-Western/post-apocalypse. Just in space (we don't see space). Massive choice variability? Sure, who do I put in charge of this insignificant tiny shitstain of a village there's no reason for me to give two damns about? An uninteresting group of unpleasant armed men #1? Or, perhaps... An uninteresting group of unpleasant armed men #2? Dilemmas, dilemmas... I really have to wonder whether this fixation on factionalism when it comes to 'choices' in RPGs is even valuable. Is it actually a choice? Or a selection - as if from a menu? And how much of it stems from half-dogmatic adherence to the bon-ton traditions of the genre? Writing? Sure, Vince writes well, in an ascetic lean style. But it feels like he writes slight variations of the same person over and over. The characters are grounded, but there's a basic sort of emptiness to the absolute majority of them. They lack tacky features (which is good in this realistic setting), but they also lack texture. They're just different flavors of tired, pissed, pragmatic and fanatical. Perhaps, it would even work if we interacted with any given character for longer than just a couple encounters. Look, I don't want emotional rides, i just want the game to be about... Something. Literally anything. Perhaps, it's not entirely fair on my part, as the game really dwells on the topic of revolution and the desolation of a post-revolutionary world. It is hard-coded in the game's texture and its omnipresence is perhaps the only thing apart from combat I like about the game unconditionally. Combat? Sure, can't deny that one. Each victory you’ve got to pay for in blood, sweat, reloads and synapse mileage. Body part targeting is more important than ever with the shift to mostly-ranged arsenal from mostly-melee in AoD . My only doubt concerns energy shields, I feel like they heavily drop the value of defensive character attributes (and from what I’ve seen, solo builds tend to ignore the latter, relying on shield mostly – but don’t quote me on that). Role-playing system? Sure, no questions there. Well done – every level-up feels massively impactful. A rather unorthodox amalgamation of skill-based progression and level-oriented progression. Unorthodox not it its structure per se, but in how it connects with the game's rather limited world. There is always a finite number of opportunities to improve a given skill - noticeably finite, mind you, not finite that might as well be infinite. Therefore doing so becomes a kind of routing exercise. Personally, I don't much care for it – smells a bit of AoD metagaming, but gives the game an interesting dynamic nonetheless, you really dig your fingers into every point of interest, trying to milk it for passable skill checks. Hard skill checks don’t suit this system well, in my opinion though. Regardless, the aforementioned metagaming problem itself has been remedied. I think you can play Colony Ship fairly safe without prior knowledge of events. I pulled off a beautiful stealth stunt instead of a major battle without having to tailor my skills to pass it. Wouldn’t be possible in AoD Aesthetics? Sure, it's mostly ruins and scraptowns - but not of the interesting kind, there's no true reveling in decay here, which detracts heavily from the experience. Not Fallout , not Disco . Game world? I sure hated what was effectively an adventure game-like structure of AoD world, and this one is no different. Locations are not places, they are a set of interactive points of interest. It is very dry, and didn’t change one bit. In the spaces between the interactions it feels like you’re suspended in a vacuum. Applies both to dungeons and town areas. I mean, most RPGs have a degree of that problem, but here it’s way worse. So much so that, like in AoD , you can fast travel between any shops and point of interest, so unnecessary the intermediate space is. I just don’t know. AoD had a spark of divine madness which is altogether gone from this one. It plain feels like a very well-made, very solid product made by very competent people. And apart from that competence itself I honestly fail to see how that’s much different from the RPG mainstream. I wouldn't mind living in a world where various Vinces, tired and disillusioned but stoic good soldiers of the CRPG genre are heroes of the mainstream. But I don't want to live in the world where they are heroes of the countermainstream. If soild is good enough, then I'll stick with the raw and the weak until the real schizo prophets show up. Because there is plenty of divine madness to go around. Pierre Begue and his combat puzzle sadism of Knights of the Chalice 2 . Mark Lemmert and his feats of Apple II retro software engineering for Nox Archaist . Styg swapping the tried and tested t/b for a roguelike-like simultaneous turn-based for his second installment of Underrail . Whalenought , forever ambitious, forever buggy, forever failing, forever trying again. Clevus Procrastinatus the Neanderthal and his rockstar demeanor. I don’t play indie games for a good experience, I’m doing so for a unique one. Why the positive review then? 1. It’s a good game. Big surprise. - The combat is very taxing in a way that appeals to me greatly, forcing you to eek out a victory - tooth and nail, consistently draining your consumables (which is an achievement I don't think I've seen much of anywhere else in a dedicated RPG). Every fight a puzzle. - The economy is therefore functional (another RPG feat - which even AoD generally failed at) - nothing is cheap and everything is needed. - The character development is deep and varied, all choices are meaningful. - The world is solid. - The writing successfully maintains a particular kind of dry sombre tone of exhausted uncaring desperation. - Searching new areas is mechanically (if not aesthetically) exciting. 2. Because while playing, I was immersed. It felt like an ongoing journey. It had meaning, little of it though there may have been. That's exactly what I've been telling people - when you're in it, you’re in it, it works. The hollowness of it all washed over me post-factum. 3. Out of respect for the old Vince. The one who would walk into the young RPS and tell them they're trying to attract morons. The one who would write a balanced review of Fallout 3 which would piss off both the normies and his fellow elitists. 4. I may not want to live in the world where Vince is a hero of the countermainstream, but better Vince than Mr. Wish-You-Luck-In-Game-Development-Unless-You're-Making-RPGs-And-Are-Therefore-My-Competitor-Anyway-Bye-I'm-Off-To-Work-On-My-Yearly-Remake-Of-A-Remake-Of-My-90s-Shareware-Game Jeff Vogel. 5. I want Iron Tower to evolve, not die off - even if in weird and cheap ways. I'm really curious about what they can do if they create a system where combat is supposed to be the main means of world interaction - which is exactly what they're doing with Heralds of the Third Apocalypse . Age of Decadence worked because it didn’t. Colony Ship doesn’t work because it does.