Tyranny + Bastard's Wound Expansion Thread

[Mr. Magniloquent]

"Lawful Neutral"

purging the whole region

Well, you're quashing a rebellion, then dealing with two subversive factions. I didn't go out of my way to kill everything. Mercy was granted where applicable, but violence is the natural outcome of those who defy law and justice.

 

[Lacrymas]

but violence is the natural outcome of those who defy law and justice.

Only from a village justice perspective.

Anyway, here's another observation - the writers don't know how to pace and control themselves. There is a particular dialogue that stood out to me. After the talk with the two archons and declaring the edict, I can talk to Asche's second in command. Verse reacts very passionately at her because she made an off the cuff comment about the chorus,trying to justify her actions and insisting she must fight tooth and claw for everything she has. This struck me as unearned and a bit premature. Why are you so fiery monologuing at this random woman we talked to for 3 seconds? It seems to me like such outbursts should be reserved for more proper contexts, maybe in a talk with Barik when things get really heated, or maybe in a talk with you when you have a high fear rating with her. It doesn't help that when you want to speak with someone in your party, you get a humongous list of options that beget even longer lists of follow-up questions. It's exhausting and grinds the pacing to a halt. Asking Barik how he jerks off the moment you talk to him is beyond bad taste too. Maybe these people should get to know each other first.

 

[Storyfag]

but violence is the natural outcome of those who defy law and justice.

Only from a village justice perspective.

Well, the setting IS supposed to be Bronze Age...

 

[Sarathiour]

Only from a village justice perspective.

Anyway, here's another observation - the writers don't know how to pace and control themselves. There is a particular dialogue that stood out to me. After the talk with the two archons and declaring the edict, I can talk to Asche's second in command. Verse reacts very passionately at her because she made an off the cuff comment about the chorus,trying to justify her actions and insisting she must fight tooth and claw for everything she has. This struck me as unearned and a bit premature. Why are you so fiery monologuing at this random woman we talked to for 3 seconds? It seems to me like such outbursts should be reserved for more proper contexts, maybe in a talk with Barik when things get really heated, or maybe in a talk with you when you have a high fear rating with her. It doesn't help that when you want to speak with someone in your party, you get a humongous list of options that beget even longer lists of follow-up questions. It's exhausting and grinds the pacing to a halt. Asking Barik how he jerks off the moment you talk to him is beyond bad taste too. Maybe these people should get to know each other first.

Problem is dialog pacing is non-existent. They are like 2 locked line per character, and that's it. It doesn't help that most of the cast barely react to your decision during act 2, which is supposed to be the meat of the game, and really when you should win/loose loyalty and fear point.

Again that's a shame, because i found the cast quite good, even barik and verse who are both walking stereotypes have some nice idea add to them.

 

[Roguey]

Asking Barik how he jerks off the moment you talk to him is beyond bad taste too. Maybe these people should get to know each other first.

It's not like he doesn't point this out himself.

 

[guestposting]

@Roguey’s positive review remains extremely correct. Obsidian made 80% of a very good old school BioWare game and then ran out of money because Feargus looted the project for POE.

 

[LESS T_T]

Heh, there was this tweet last December.

 

[DalekFlay]

Did it perform in a "worse than Pillars 1 and in line with Pillars 2" way, or in a "worst selling CRPG revival out there" way?

 

[fantadomat]

Did it perform in a "worse than Pillars 1 and in line with Pillars 2" way, or in a "worst selling CRPG revival out there" way?

It performed really badly. Its official forums were dead in a week. Its peak player base as 15k and it died out in a week. Still a decent number of duped people. The game was unfinished garbage,kingmaker have a bigger prologue than it.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

So, I decided to give this a try again since GOG granted me a discount on the gold edition and it's endorsed by some prestigious Codexers. I just did the Conquest mode and the first thing that immediately stands out that could've been handled better is the two factions. As a "genius strategist", Kyros should know that 2 groups can not regulate themselves, you absolutely need a third one so that if one of them becomes too strong (for example, say, an especially gifted agent prefers one of them, like, you know, us) the other 2 can join up in order to even the scales. If the writers wanted to explore the ramifications of imperialism and authoritarianism, they shouldn't have focused on you trying to subjugate the last pitiful remnants of a minor rebellion that have absolutely no chance against the overpowered magics of Kyros, but instead focus on inner squabbles after the regime has won. Outside of that, always having to choose between the chorus and the disfavored (with one exception) felt forced, which is exacerbated by you not having any information before deciding on your next move on the map (like between the library-citadel, Azur, and the fortress). Speaking of the library, the decision to burn it to the ground came completely out of the left field, we were there to steal knowledge, not commit arson. We didn't need to be there at all for the edict to do that. My last observation is Kyros feeling overpowered and that rubs me the wrong way.

The other possibility would be that Kyros is not actually a good strategist but relies entirely on overwhelming force and those edicts, which allows one of the armies to become too powerful and turn against her/him. That would've been a more standard story, but there's nothing wrong with standard stories told well.

The game is heavily based on "The Black Company" series, which portrays the Lady, an immortal, ever-young, almost all-powerful sorceress, to be more than capable of major, basic fuck-ups, especially once her arrogance gets going.

 

[Abu Antar]

Did it perform in a "worse than Pillars 1 and in line with Pillars 2" way, or in a "worst selling CRPG revival out there" way?

I think it was pretty evident, very quickly that they were not happy with sales. When SteamSpy was still fairly reliable, sales showed up as not very impressive at all. Probably worse than Deadfire.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

"Lawful Neutral"

purging the whole region

There is no contradiction here...

Especially once you remember that possibly the most realistcally evil characters in all RPGs, the "Practical Incarnation" from Planescape: Torment was, in fact, Lawful Neutral.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Especially once you remember that possibly the most realistcally evil characters in all RPGs, the "Practical Incarnation" from Planescape: Torment was, in fact, Lawful Neutral.

By now, you should have realized lawful is the worst alignment, be it lawful good, neutral or evil.
Mostly, lawful characters are fanatics following an order/god/whatever no matter what.

Chaotic Evil : psychopath, serial killer responsible for a dozen murders.
Lawful neutral/evil : dictator, responsible for hundreds of thousands deaths.
Lawful good : could be the opposite of both, responsible for as many deaths, except death of the enemies of his faith / king / kingdom instead.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

i cant see myself replaying tyranny. My anarchist playthrough was just perfect, up to the point i dont really care about other paths.
Its like with aod playthrough where you betray everyone. On each step of your journey. Like my non combat thief that also ascended. Everything executed perfectly. Wanted to do few other things in different breakthroughs but since it couldnt match beauty of what I did previously I lost heart

You speak like true Salarian.

 

[Lacrymas]

I completed the first "zone", I guess, and got the tower at Vendrian's Well activated. This time I was prepared and managed to one-shot the fight with Eb and the general. I'm not particularly sure how the game was balanced. Is it assumed I'm going to give magic to everyone? I remember that fight taking me like 10 reloads last time. Everyone having healing spells is a huge crutch. I'm not sure what I can really say about the combat. It's there, I guess. The cooldowns and the character system make it impossible to be anything more than that. Speaking of the character building, this isn't how you create a classless system imo. The trees are waaaay too specialized, they must be a bit more "generalized" in order to be useful to more character concepts. I wanted to create a dual-wielder with buffing potential, but since magic can be used by everyone the magic tree is kinda useless. You choose what you want to concentrate on and follow that, so what's the difference between that and a class system?

Anyway, on to what we are really here about - the curiosity spectacle that is the writing. It's not good. The setting is good, but the characters and the politics are awful. Let's ignore the fact everyone speaks like no-one has every spoken, the bigger problem is how the plot is shockingly forced. The conflict between the Disfavored and the Chorus is artificial and unearned. They insult each other a bit and prank around like children, the two archons go "no, you" at each other and bam all-out civil war. The civil war is good, what is bad is the connective tissue to it, it needed more time to stew. I wanted more politics between the two groups, like in the actual court and the effects of each other's goals and actions on the other group. I'm also even more convinced a third group was needed in order to make the bickering have more substance, complexity, and intrigue. As it stands now, these two groups don't really have a reason to fight each other, it's all due to juvenile name-calling. I don't know, the writing just falls flat for me in every possible way. If someone who likes it can explain to me why they like it, I'd be interested in reading that.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Lacrymas]

Lore is a skill and as such can be trained/increased by everyone with use. I'm more talking about the trees and how their overspecialization leads to a nonsensical classless system.

 

[Roguey]

They insult each other a bit and prank around like children, the two archons go "no, you" at each other and bam all-out civil war.

Only one person gets the glory, so they gotta fight over it.

I see you missed out on getting the dialogue exchange where Ashe finds out Voices of Nerat consumed his son.

 

[Lacrymas]

The all-out civil war happens after the fighting. The bickering before that was understandable, but it evolving into a civil war is premature. Let's put the situation in the context of "evilness". What does this show us? That evil is petty? So deep it struck oil. I'm also still not very convinced what we are doing is evil, especially in the way I'm doing it and in the context of the setting. Maybe in some kind of metaphysical, pseudo-Christian essentialistic sense, or post-colonial philosophy, it might be, but the game doesn't show me that. And yeah, I didn't get that dialogue, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[guestposting]

They insult each other a bit and prank around like children, the two archons go "no, you" at each other and bam all-out civil war.

Only one person gets the glory, so they gotta fight over it.

I see you missed out on getting the dialogue exchange where Ashe finds out Voices of Nerat consumed his son.

They have personal beef, but the civil war is not personal at all. Everybody knows Kyros is gonna give the whole region to only one army and after the Tiers there’s literally nowhere left to conquer. The war isn’t something that happens organically by accident, it’s state policy.

 

[Delterius]

And yeah, I didn't get that dialogue, but it doesn't change anything.

damn i wonder why one general hates the guy who hate his son it changes literally nothing

 

[Lacrymas]

Due to what guestposting said, their beef might be personal but the civil war is not.

 

[FreeKaner]

The all-out civil war happens after the fighting. The bickering before that was understandable, but it evolving into a civil war is premature. Let's put the situation in the context of "evilness". What does this show us? That evil is petty? So deep it struck oil. I'm also still not very convinced what we are doing is evil, especially in the way I'm doing it and in the context of the setting. Maybe in some kind of metaphysical, pseudo-Christian essentialistic sense, or post-colonial philosophy, it might be, but the game doesn't show me that. And yeah, I didn't get that dialogue, but it doesn't change anything.

It's a mismarketed game, and if you abandon that false marketing premise it is easier to enjoy. Obsidian would general do better to abandon this type of pseudo-philosophy and assuming a role of self-appointed moral arbiter.

What is tyranny as a definition in the philosophical sense? Who cares? Certainly some middle-class Americans' half-baked and half-learned ideas are not going to explain it. What is Tyranny the game? You are essentially a deputy of an absolute monarch with authority to proclaim absolute law of the monarch's edicts making you in essence an absolute deputy who is bound by the monarch, who is a bit trigger happy on collective punishment (by no means unusual in bronze age or all the way up to medieval and early modern period). Now this is an interesting place to be and an interesting premise for a RPG. Very few games actually put you in position of structural power though they definitely give you many titles, they certainly even more rarely make you have to obey the same laws as everyone else and not only due to your position on side of law but because of self-interest. In most games you are an outlaw, where laws are just obstacles and you are gunning for some other objective outside of structural power.

I do wish games, especially Obsidian, would shed this necessity they feel towards putting a moral in their story and explaining it to you. I also do wish more RPGs actually put you at position of power, especially where you are beholden to the structure of power, rather than being some outlaw murderhobos. There are so many interesting conundrums and many interesting pathways to navigate without having to be lectured on nature of evil. Perhaps because of lack of perspective and perhaps due to lack of resources Tyranny does very little lecturing and you aren't in an unjustifiable empire.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yes, I do get what they are trying to do and I like the fact they aren't finger waggling, but the writing and pacing are just very poor and don't exploit what the setting sets up. It wants to be dark, but all it can muster is unpleasant edge. For their idea of a civil war to have been successful, the first zone/act/narrative impetus should've been twice as long and should've showed how the two armies (preferably 3) are sabotaging each other and *that* was the reason for Kyros to whip out the edicts. As it stands now, Kyros is just impatient and wants results NOW, as in literally a week. The two armies are "slow" due to the very understandable resistance of the local population. Not to mention that the edict doesn't actually change anything. We see the two archons bickering the moment we enter the tent and they continue the same bickering after the edict is declared. What kind of writing is this? I feel like the people who tolerate/like Tyranny are enamored with the idea/potential of it rather than the actual reality of it. It might get better later, though, I'm still not fed up with it, so we'll see.

 

[FreeKaner]

Yes, I do get what they are trying to do and I like the fact they aren't finger waggling, but the writing and pacing are just very poor and don't exploit what the setting sets up. It wants to be dark, but all it can muster is unpleasant edge. For their idea of a civil war to have been successful, the first zone/act/narrative impetus should've been twice as long and should've showed how the two armies (preferably 3) are sabotaging each other and *that* was the reason for Kyros to whip out the edicts. As it stands now, Kyros is just impatient and wants results NOW, as in literally a week. The two armies are "slow" due to the very understandable resistance of the local population. Not to mention that the edict doesn't actually change anything. We see the two archons bickering the moment we enter the tent and they continue the same bickering after the edict is declared. What kind of writing is this? I feel like the people who tolerate/like Tyranny are enamored with the idea/potential of it rather than the actual reality of it. It might get better later, though, I'm still not fed up with it, so we'll see.

It depends whether you accept the notion that Kyros is indeed perfectly rational and pragmatic being. There are aplenty of examples of monarchs demanding unreasonable outcomes, and demanding it now.

Game itself is extremely undercook and ends abruptly. If it had the pace it had in act 1 for a somewhat longer game it would be much better. However I think we learned that Tyranny funds (which were partly received from Paradox) were actually sacked to deliver Deadfire instead.