Tyranny + Bastard's Wound Expansion Thread

[Butter]

If you wanted to be based you wouldn't even give players the option to roll female characters, and you'd enforce racially homogeneous parties (which could actually be cool from a gameplay perspective, if different races have different strengths and weaknesses that you have to account for while still trying to make a well-rounded party).

 

[Togukawa]

My memories from playing game might be foggy due to the age and alcoholism Comrade but I do remember the first Chapter when you enter sealed by edict valley when you can

And that was more or less the ONLY choice in the game (apart from the prologue). After this choice, you are stuck on a rail, and the virtually the only other choice you can still make is to jump to the anarchy rail.

I still remember that village with the wolf people. The only thing I could do there was initiate hostility myself and slaughter them all, because I was on that rail. Completely shattered my immersion and illusion of having any choice. Terrible design.

That, and the fact that the game just ends without providing any sensible answers to the mysteries it created, killed it for me.
Pity, because unlike pillars of boredom, I actually cared about this setting and story. Wasted opportunity indeed.

 

[Roguey]

And that was more or less the ONLY choice in the game (apart from the prologue). After this choice, you are stuck on a rail, and the virtually the only other choice you can still make is to jump to the anarchy ra

Choosing a faction locks you out of certain choices, but there are still choices to be made throughout the game, that dialogue's not just for show.

 

[Storyfag]

Can you choose to like men in this instant if you are a straight man? I'm certain the answer is no.

Cultural homosex is a thing. Ancient Greece says hello.

 

[Lacrymas]

Can you choose to like men in this instant if you are a straight man? I'm certain the answer is no.

Cultural homosex is a thing. Ancient Greece says hello.

While this is true, we don't actually know (or can know) what that means. Did they force themselves to have gay sex? That's weird. Were they attracted to the people they had sex with? How did this culture arise if they weren't attracted to both men and women? Doing it just because or out of spite is bizarre. It's more likely living in a society in which that is accepted (and even expected to a certain degree) prevents the formation of monosexuality. But this is pure speculation of course, we have no way of knowing.

 

[Togukawa]

Choosing a faction locks you out of certain choices, but there are still choices to be made throughout the game, that dialogue's not just for show.

I think you can count the remaining choices in the main quest on one hand. Unless you choose rebels there for example, all future interactions with rebels end in violence. There's even one particularly hilarious instance where the only dialogue option is "I don't know who you are, but you die now".

Compared to something like Alpha Protocol, Tyranny was just a pathetic showing. The rails are painfully obvious.

 

[Vormulak]

Choosing a faction locks you out of certain choices, but there are still choices to be made throughout the game, that dialogue's not just for show.

I think you can count the remaining choices in the main quest on one hand. Unless you choose rebels there for example, all future interactions with rebels end in violence. There's even one particularly hilarious instance where the only dialogue option is "I don't know who you are, but you die now".

Compared to something like Alpha Protocol, Tyranny was just a pathetic showing. The rails are painfully obvious.

It may be quite linear in terms of what edicts must be done and what happens in what order depending upon the faction you've chosen but there is a great deal of choice within those quests which result in numerous different outcomes. https://tyranny.fandom.com/wiki/Tyranny_endings

 

[Roguey]

Unless you choose rebels there for example, all future interactions with rebels end in violence. There's even one particularly hilarious instance where the only dialogue option is "I don't know who you are, but you die now".

Yes, if you're not with them, you're against them, that's a logical consequence to your decision.

Compared to something like Alpha Protocol, Tyranny was just a pathetic showing. The rails are painfully obvious.

According to Avellone, many of Tyranny's narrative designers/scripters were exhausted by all the reactivity they had to implement and wished they had been making a Bioware-style RPG instead. There are multiple levels of this stuff.

 

[Togukawa]

Yes, if you're not with them, you're against them, that's a logical consequence to your decision.

Yes, it's very black or white. No shades of grey here.

It's basically 4 games in one. 4 significantly different playthroughs in which you experience the same locations in an entirely different way, so in that sense there is a lot of reactivity. But there are almost no role-playing possibilities. You make a few choices in the beginning, and from there on out everything is fixed until act 3.

At least in a bioware rpg you can do some quests the evil way and other quests the good way, instead of picking once in the beginning. There is virtually no reactivity, but at least there is some room for role-playing.

 

[Roguey]

But there are almost no role-playing possibilities. You make a few choices in the beginning, and from there on out everything is fixed until act 3.

At least in a bioware rpg you can do some quests the evil way and other quests the good way, instead of picking once in the beginning. There is virtually no reactivity, but at least there is some room for role-playing.

As Vormulak showed, there are choices to be made throughout.

 

[Fishy]

But there are almost no role-playing possibilities. You make a few choices in the beginning, and from there on out everything is fixed until act 3.

At least in a bioware rpg you can do some quests the evil way and other quests the good way, instead of picking once in the beginning. There is virtually no reactivity, but at least there is some room for role-playing.

As Vormulak showed, there are choices to be made throughout.

Apparently, choices don't count if the consequences are anything less than a completely unique ending.

 

[Vormulak]

Apparently, choices don't count if the consequences are anything less than a completely unique ending.

Whats hilarious is that all of these sidequest choices actually do result in unique endings.

 

[Togukawa]

That's fair, maybe I was too harsh. I guess the game just left a bad taste in my mouth and I remember it being worse than it was.
I do remember often not being able to make the choices I wanted to because I was on the wrong rail, like never being able to side with rebels because I did not side with them in the very first choice, or being forced to kill the beastmen.

 

[Vormulak]

That's fair, maybe I was too harsh. I guess the game just left a bad taste in my mouth and I remember it being worse than it was.
I do remember often not being able to make the choices I wanted to because I was on the wrong rail, like never being able to side with rebels because I did not side with them in the very first choice, or being forced to kill the beastmen.

Yeah they don't tell you the gravity of some of the most important decisions in the game, they warn you in the conquest mode that your choices have consequences, what they don't tell you is that your choices completely block off or open up certain things entirely.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Whats hilarious is that all of these sidequest choices actually do result in unique endings.

Slides are not C&C

 

[Vormulak]

Whats hilarious is that all of these sidequest choices actually do result in unique endings.

Slides are not C&C

The game has plenty of in-game repercussions for choices you make as well and end-slides are a consequence, they tell you what the consequences of your choices are within the world, for people invested in the worldbuilding and the narrative the slides are invaluable.

 

[Togukawa]

Yeah they don't tell you the gravity of some of the most important decisions in the game, they warn you in the conquest mode that your choices have consequences, what they don't tell you is that your choices completely block off or open up certain things entirely.

I like that choices have actual consequences, I don't like that they often felt arbitrary and forced.
E.g. you cannot challenge the beastmen Alpha for dominance on the disfavored path, you can only choose the option to kill them all. Warriors, cubs, everyone.
Why?
You can't openly pretend to support Kyros and secretly help out the rebels.
No, you either let the first rebel leader go immediately, no arresting, no interrogation and changing your mind, only saying "oh you are rebel? Off you go then". And then you are forced into public open rebellion.
Or you decide that you don't want to just immediately let the rebel leader get away, and then you are forced to kill every single rebel you meet. Very simplistic black and white storytelling. Waste of potential.

 

[Roguey]

E.g. you cannot challenge the beastmen Alpha for dominance on the disfavored path, you can only choose the option to kill them all. Warriors, cubs, everyone.
Why?

Pay attention to the lore, the beastmen and disfavored are mortal enemies. There can be no negotiation.

You can't openly pretend to support Kyros and secretly help out the rebels.
No, you either let the first rebel leader go immediately, no arresting, no interrogation and changing your mind, only saying "oh you are rebel? Off you go then". And then you are forced into public open rebellion.

You're enemies at war with each other. They have no reason to trust you unless you consistently disobey orders, proving you're on their side. Even then there's a psychopath option where you can choose to attack them when they offer an alliance.

 

[Togukawa]

Pay attention to the lore, the beastmen and disfavored are mortal enemies. There can be no negotiation.

So much for being a fatebinder. You supported the disfavored once, so now their mortal enemies are also your mortal enemies. No more need for any judgements.

You're enemies at war with each other. They have no reason to trust you unless you consistently disobey orders, proving you're on their side. Even then there's a psychopath option where you can choose to attack them when they offer an alliance.

But you cannot. You don't even get the option to prove yourself. Don't let that first rebel go, no questions asked? Irredeemable mortal enemies forever. You do let a single rebel leader go? This changes things entirely!
To me this is a juvenile, simplistic worldview.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Vormulak]

Pay attention to the lore, the beastmen and disfavored are mortal enemies. There can be no negotiation.

So much for being a fatebinder. You supported the disfavored once, so now their mortal enemies are also your mortal enemies. No more need for any judgements.

You're enemies at war with each other. They have no reason to trust you unless you consistently disobey orders, proving you're on their side. Even then there's a psychopath option where you can choose to attack them when they offer an alliance.

But you cannot. You don't even get the option to prove yourself. Don't let that first rebel go, no questions asked? Irredeemable mortal enemies forever. You do let a single rebel leader go? This changes things entirely!
To me this is a juvenile, simplistic worldview.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah the game needed a lot more nuance for certain.

 

[Ol' Willy]

You're enemies at war with each other. They have no reason to trust you unless you consistently disobey orders, proving you're on their side. Even then there's a psychopath option where you can choose to attack them when they offer an alliance.

There's literally hundreds of examples in the world's history that prove otherwise.

And yeah, rebels are in no position to be picky

 

[Testownia]

Lhynn, I know you're in love with me, but no matter how much you stalk me, I won't let you suck my dick. So, to quote Lilura - enjoy the iggy bin.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

This game was seriously let down by its combat.

If they wanted to go RtwP they needed to seriously reduce the amount of active abilities on each character. Part of why Baldur's Gate works so well with it is because you generally have only two active spellcasters whom you have to micromanage during combat abilities for, while the rest of the party is just positioning them to aggro and attack the right targets. In Tyranny, I remember accruing a ludicrous amount of those teamwork skills besides everything else because the relationship tracks just advanced so fast. Could almost never even use them before combat was over. Neat concept, poor execution.

All that and reducing the speed of combat down a notch with longer encounters could've probably gone a long way towards making the moment to moment gameplay better. As it stands I just remember it as the game where I got to go full Gerard Butler on some dude's ass.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

I guess a customizable AI system like the one in Dragon Age: Origins and PoE 2 and Final Fantasy XI (of all things) would've done wonders too.

 

[Lhynn]

Lhynn, I know you're in love with me, but no matter how much you stalk me, I won't let you suck my dick. So, to quote Lilura - enjoy the iggy bin.

Who even are you? I rate posts, not people.
Only reason i ever spoke to you was because of how many wrong opinions you have. Gotta mark the retards down and all that, you know?