Kinda disappointed with Tyranny

[Zhukov]

Tyranny, or as I like to call it, Obsidian Game: The Game is, what else, an old-school RPG.

And it's a bit rubbish. Not total shit, but there's precious little to like.

Firsty, and I'll cheerfully admit this is a petty complaint, your character, who is a arbitrator representing a totalitarian authority, is referred to as.... uuuugh... a "Fatebinder". Because apparently "Arbitrator" or "Arbiter" were too accurate and concise and sensible and didn't sound enough like something from Fifteen Year Old Frankie's First Fantasy.

The game's major narrative hook, the idea that it takes place in a world where the big Good vs Evil, Light vs Dark conflict has already been won by the bad guys, amounts to very little. You end up with the same old be-a-dick vs don't-be-a-dick choices. Sometimes you get to choose between Dick Type A and Dick Type B, because this is Dark Fantasy you see.

The writing is alright I guess. Above average even, if we're judging by the pitiful standards of video games. Probably would have really impressed me if it had come out in 2002. As it is I expect to have forgotten the story within a fortnight of abandoning the game. (Also, they had damn well better explain why a being of godlike power who can alter the world just by giving orders even needs armies and shit.)

The voice acting is inconsistent and not all that good. Only major characters are voiced but only for some of their lines and often not all that well. It makes some characters impossible to take seriously. (Yes, Voices of Narat, I'm looking at you.) Plus you always have the text in front of you and anyone can read faster than an actor can deliver lines, so you'll always be reading ahead. Don't know why they bothered with voiceovers. Either do it properly or don't bother.

The game encourages you to game the dialogue choices by connecting them to faction and character relations, which in turn grant you abilities, so roleplaying tends to go out the window. "Well, this seems like the thing my character would say... ohhh, but if I say this instead then I'll earn Major Wrath with Whatshisface, which should get me that nice passive buff!". Plus the relations meters aren't zero-sum (they work like the paragon/renegade bars in Mass Effect) so it ends up making the most sense to shmooze up to a faction/character for one set of bonuses, then turn around and piss them off to earn the rest.

Combat is a bit of a clusterfuck. Characters move so quickly and the environments are so open that positioning and terrain mean nothing. Winning just boils down to dumping as many cooldowns on your enemies as quickly as possible. Beyond matching your damage types to enemy resistances there isn't much tactical depth to be found.

Friendly AI can be pretty spastic. You can't set up custom AI triggers, so you end up choosing between intensive-hand-holding mode and cooldown-burning-idiot mode.

Lastly, this has got to be the ugliest game I have played in quite some time. It's made in Unity and good fucking God does it show. Looks like something I'd expect to see on Steam Greenlight, lacking either graphical polish or stylistic appeal. Oddly, the interface art is actually really well done. The character portraits are a treat. But the game world is hideous.

All in all, it just makes me wish that Divinity Original Sin had been a bit better. Maybe the next Divinity game will be the one to get it right.

 

[The Madman]

I might not have entirely agreed, but even so I understood well enough right up to...

Lastly, this has got to be the ugliest game I have played in quite some time. It's made in Unity and good fucking God does it show. Looks like something I'd expect to see on Steam Greenlight, lacking either graphical polish or stylistic appeal. Oddly, the interface art is actually really well done. The character portraits are a treat. But the game world is hideous.

...where I disagree entirely. Maybe it's just a love for the isometric perspective, but Tyranny and its fore-bearer Pillars of Eternity I both consider beautiful games.

If I have any complaints to level at the game, keeping in mind I haven't quite finished it yet, I'd say that as interesting as the characters are I never really 'connected' with any of them, if that makes any sense. There are none I really cared about. Maybe it's because they're mostly all evil in their own sort of way, but then so were Edwin and Korgan from Baldur's Gate 2 and they were amazing so it's not just that they're dicks, there's just something about them that's kept me from really investing in their well being as characters beyond mere curiosity to see how their story unraveled.

Pillars also kinda had this problem and I'm worried that it could become an Obsidian trend, in spite of past characters of theirs I've really liked such as Kreia or Kaelyn.

Also the combats kinda meh. Better than Pillars but still not exactly great, and that's coming from someone who really likes isometric tactical combat whether it be turn based or real-time with pause. Temple of Elemental Evil I love for the combat alone as an example.

Otherwise I'm really liking Tyranny so far. It's not my favourite by any means, but it's a solid rpg with a neat premise and some cool ideas. Hopefully if the inevitable Pillars of Eternity 2 keeps what the first game did well while also adding the improvements Tyranny has made to the formula, we might have a new 'classic' on our hands. I feel like the potential is there they just haven't hit it quite yet.

 

[shrekfan246]

The game encourages you to game the dialogue choices by connecting them to faction and character relations, which in turn grant you abilities, so roleplaying tends to go out the window. "Well, this seems like the thing my character would say... ohhh, but if I say this instead then I'll earn Major Wrath with Whatshisface, which should get me that nice passive buff!". Plus the relations meters aren't zero-sum (they work like the paragon/renegade bars in Mass Effect) so it ends up making the most sense to shmooze up to a faction/character for one set of bonuses, then turn around and piss them off to earn the rest.

Now, I get the desire to get the most out of your character while you're playing a game, but... this hardly seems like a unique problem. I haven't played Tyranny yet, but quite a few RPGs of the past... oh god, decade... tend to have a hard line drawn between "min-max your character, or actually go for roleplaying".

Er, of course, "other games do it" is no reason to discount it happening again, but it's kind of a tough road to walk. At some point, there has to be some onus on the player to have the willpower to actually stick with their roleplaying, because the developer can't account for everyone who's going to be playing the game. I suppose the way I see it, as long as you get roughly equivalent rewards regardless of the path you choose, then there isn't much more for the developer to do.

Tangentially related, in an ideal world I'd like to see more games that have actual branching storylines which can lead to entirely different second/third acts (including unique locations/characters) depending on your actions, so that not only does roleplaying feel a bit more rewarded, but replaying to see how things change would also be better rewarded as well.

 

[Tayh]

I generally like the game, but one huge minus for me, is that you absolutely have to choose between one of two factions to support in order to advance the game.
You can't go the Lawful Evil route and be a direct servant of Kyros'(Or Tunon's) word and law, you have to choose between one of two fanatical directions. Missed potential right there, I think.

 

[The Madman]

Tangentially related, in an ideal world I'd like to see more games that have actual branching storylines which can lead to entirely different second/third acts (including unique locations/characters) depending on your actions, so that not only does roleplaying feel a bit more rewarded, but replaying to see how things change would also be better rewarded as well.

Witcher 2 does that, but it's also the only major rpg I can think of which does. I also recall people complaining that they couldn't actually finish everything in one playthrough and that the game forced them to replay the game multiple times to try and see everything.

Different strokes fer different folks I guess.

 

[shrekfan246]

I also recall people complaining that they couldn't actually finish everything in one playthrough and that the game forced them to replay the game multiple times to try and see everything.

Yeah, and that's part of my point. A lot of people tend to not care about the "roleplaying" part of roleplaying games so much, so it seems like focusing on the "min-maxing" part becomes more of a priority. But then that also gets criticized because it bumps too closely up against the fourth wall, making players always remember that they're in a game because they need to be mindful of which faction has what rewards... I'm not sure there's really a happy middle-ground to take when you're trying to allow players to engage in multiple different moral pathways, and have factions that correspond to specific ones. I mean, short of just not having them reward the player in any way at all, but then that tends to make the entire interaction feel a bit pointless to players, because they're not getting anything tangible out of it.

 

[Zhukov]

...where I disagree entirely. Maybe it's just a love for the isometric perspective, but Tyranny and its fore-bearer Pillars of Eternity I both consider beautiful games.

Oh, I have nothing against the perspective. It's perfectly functional and appropriate.

I'm talking about how everything is drab and the characters are all jagged and almost pixelated.

Compare this [http://media.gamerevolution.com/images/games/mac/tyranny/tyranny_014.jpg] to this [http://s01.riotpixels.net/data/4b/84/4b84a865-bd31-4bc9-b307-1e3cf50c70ad.jpg/screenshot.divinity-original-sin.2560x1440.2014-08-09.163.jpg].

One image has colour and contrast, light and shadow, with characters that look like they belong in the environment. The other has flat lighting, 10 shades of brown and characters that look like differently rendered to the world around them.

 

[The Madman]

I'm talking about how everything is drab and the characters are all jagged and almost pixelated.

Can I take the cop-out answer and say that I think both look good in their own unique way? I mean as dumb as it might sound, drab and jagged is sorta what the devs were going for art-style wise in Tyranny, all sharp edges and muddy villages where you stomp down your authoritarian boot and make their lives even more miserable. Divinity is bright and colorful because it's also silly and purposely ridiculous. In terms of jaggies and whatnot I honestly haven't really payed much attention to that stuff.

I also think the various effects, such as spell effects, are better in Tyranny. Some of the combo abilities pack a nice visual punch, so that's a thing.

In the interest of trying to make myself seem more impartial, I will say the initial load times are a bit ridiculous in Tyranny, especially when games like Witcher 3 load faster and play seamlessly. But it's not so much an annoyance as to have hampered my enjoyment of the game so far.

Yeah, and that's part of my point. A lot of people tend to not care about the "roleplaying" part of roleplaying games so much, so it seems like focusing on the "min-maxing" part becomes more of a priority. But then that also gets criticized because it bumps too closely up against the fourth wall, making players always remember that they're in a game because they need to be mindful of which faction has what rewards... I'm not sure there's really a happy middle-ground to take when you're trying to allow players to engage in multiple different moral pathways, and have factions that correspond to specific ones. I mean, short of just not having them reward the player in any way at all, but then that tends to make the entire interaction feel a bit pointless to players, because they're not getting anything tangible out of it.

Oh I agree with you entirely, it's just not everyone that does on this subject. Honestly I'd vastly prefer if rpg did away with the whole concept of 'reputation bar' and whatnot as I find it discourages honest roleplaying, but I also seem to be in the minority if the trend in rpg is anything to go by.

For what it's worth Tyranny does alright in this regard. Every faction and most major characters have their own unique relationship stats with their own penalty and rewards, some tangible some only in a story-sense, which at least beats when games just have one good/evil bar that everyone magically is in tune with ala Karma or the Force or whatever.

 

[Zhukov]

... drab and jagged is sorta what the devs were going for art-style wise in Tyranny, all sharp edges and muddy villages where you stomp down your authoritarian boot and make their lives even more miserable. Divinity is bright and colorful because it's also silly and purposely ridiculous. In terms of jaggies and whatnot I honestly haven't really payed much attention to that stuff.

I'm not just talking about colour palette. Hence why I mentioned contrast and lighting as well.

A good artist can do fine work with a drab colour scheme. Take Darkest Dungeon for example. The tone and art style for that game is super grim, almost to the point of absurdity. The colour palette is drab as fuck. And yet whoever did the artwork still made it visually appealing (image [http://assets1.ignimgs.com/thumbs/userUploaded/2016/1/22/darkestdungeon31280-1453488805258_large.jpg], image [http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/items/262060/7135f31c68094405e6a2f5e4a22af851197fe9c3.jpg], image [http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/88bbf7e6cd299e56a1fd12ffdb098a43.jpg]), chiefly with the use of heavy contrast.

Tyranny makes no such effort. Everything is flat and bland. The eye slides right off. Although I will say, once again, that whoever did the character portraits knew [https://pdxknightrider.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tyranny_dev_diary_07__verse_portrait.png] their [https://pdxknightrider.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tyranny_dev_diary_06__barik_portrait.png?w=730] shit [http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/tyranny_dev_diary_10__eb_portrait.png]. (Note the presence of our good friend contrast in those pictures.) Not so much the rest of the game. Perhaps there were technical limitation, I don't know, but the result is the same.

Narrative tone does not excuse poor visual design.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

You know what really pissed me off about Tyranny? The fact that so many paths in the branching narrative are reliant on incredibly specific courses of action (to get the Rebellion branch you need to do a specific set of prologue choices, followed by three other specific actions in Act 1, miss any of them and you are locked out of it). On top of that, all but one of the branches lock you out of 1/3rd of the content in Act 2 , which amounts to about 1/5th of the total game size. This means that if you want to see all the locations in one game you need to choose one particular branch of the game, but the game never tells you this.

Essentially, if you want to get the most out of Tyranny, you need to be prepared to go through 2 or 3 playthroughs and constantly switch up your playstyle... And consult online forums because you might miss a bunch of content just by picking the wrong choice in a conversation. Tyranny makes me think that Bethesda's "never block anything off"-approach has a lot of merit.

 

[Jandau]

Yeah, I was a bit bummed by Tyranny as well...

The setting is interesting, there's some good writing in there, a few neat little things spring to mind as well (like the "links" for lore terms in dialogue, reminding you what's what in the dense story sections), but the flaws. God, the flaws.

First of all, it's ugly. Seriously, it just looks slapped together. The interface is a mess, the models are bad. A few decent backgrounds, but that's all. And that's after they put out Pillars, which was a damn pretty game to look at. I don't get it...

But the mechanics and design... Where to start?

The biggest issue would be that the game is set up to be shorter, more focused experience that you'd replay to go through the various story branches. But the game systems are set up for a much larger game. The Elder Scrolls-style leveling for instance, works well in a longer, more open game. In a shorter experience it turns into an exercise in powergaming and frustration. Also, the whole system of multiple strongholds, building up your power, etc. All this would work better in a bigger game. But in Tyranny it just feels at odds with the game itself and serves mainly to highlight how stunted the game is.

All in all, this feels like a side project that someone wanted to make bigger, but didn't get the funds and/or the backing, and the whole thing was forcefully scaled back, and not elegantly at that. And I have my conspiracy theory about that...

Paradox.

While Paradox puts out some good games, they are also notorious for initial releases that are badly lacking in features and feel quite stripped down. They do support their games for years with patches and DLC expansions, but at that point the costs start to mount up. Just look at Stellaris - the initial release was a shell of a game. By now it's gotten better, and will eventually be amazing. But that'll take time. I'm guessing that Paradox may have had a hand in Tyranny's development, urging for a smaller, stripped down release that could be expanded with DLC later on. Mark my words, in two-three years, Tyranny will be a completely different game. Bigger, more elaborate, etc. But it'll cost...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Paradox.

While Paradox puts out some good games, they are also notorious for initial releases that are badly lacking in features and feel quite stripped down. They do support their games for years with patches and DLC expansions, but at that point the costs start to mount up. Just look at Stellaris - the initial release was a shell of a game. By now it's gotten better, and will eventually be amazing. But that'll take time. I'm guessing that Paradox may have had a hand in Tyranny's development, urging for a smaller, stripped down release that could be expanded with DLC later on. Mark my words, in two-three years, Tyranny will be a completely different game. Bigger, more elaborate, etc. But it'll cost...

Considering the stunted nature of Act 3 and the cliffhangiest of cliffhanger endings that comes at the end, I am almost certain that we can expect to see at least one larger expansion pack that will continue the main story. The ending as it is now is actually the end of act 3 in a traditional 5 act narrative (we are past the point of no return and the escalation is over, but the showdown is not even in the game).

 

[meiam]

Combat is a bit of a clusterfuck. Characters move so quickly and the environments are so open that positioning and terrain mean nothing. Winning just boils down to dumping as many cooldowns on your enemies as quickly as possible. Beyond matching your damage types to enemy resistances there isn't much tactical depth to be found.

That's what eventually got me to turn off pillar of eternity, combined with the awful companion AI and combat just didn't feel satisfying at all. If it was slowed down quite a bit and you ally actually did what you told them it would be nice, but I remember feeling like the combat might as well be replaced by just a big smoke with comic sound effect and you'd get the same experience. Was hoping tyranny would alleviate the problem going from 6 to 4 part member, but seems like not.

The reputation problem is surprising, obsidian made alpha protocol which just nailed reputation by having reputation being tied to both NPCs and organization and all being independent but linked to each others. So if you made a good impression on a character maybe they'd tell there friend about you and you'd start on a good footing. Plus this can work well with the good vs evil scenario. To me killing a bunch of people for no reason isn't really evil in so much as it's just dumb, a real evil choice is promise those people your going to save them (get good reputation with there faction) then promise the people who want them killed that you'll do it (get good reputation with them too) then kill them all in a way that make it seems to the first faction that you're not at fault (accident, or one of the person was a spy) but make it clear to the second faction it was you to begin with, but then kill anyone in the second faction who know you did so they don't rat you out to the first faction but only after you've extracted anything of value out of them.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I haven't played this yet but this...

Tyranny, or as I like to call it, Obsidian Game: The Game is, what else, an old-school RPG.
The voice acting is inconsistent and not all that good. Only major characters are voiced but only for some of their lines and often not all that well. It makes some characters impossible to take seriously. (Yes, Voices of Narat, I'm looking at you.) Plus you always have the text in front of you and anyone can read faster than an actor can deliver lines, so you'll always be reading ahead. Don't know why they bothered with voiceovers. Either do it properly or don't bother.

... was one of my big issues with Pillars. The game is precisely nine thousands times more enjoyable if you turn the voices off. They just do not work with the huge, prose-filled text boxes of these games and the acting itself sounds straight out of a shit, low budget, 90s fantasy show.

Honestly, Tyranny hasn't had me very excited anyway, but I was kinda hoping it would be good. Everything I've heard about it just sounds like pound-shop-paperback dark fantasy though.

Honestly, all I want out of this new wave of classic-style CRPGs is a virtually plotless dungeon crawl with Original Sin's combat mechanics.

 

[Rabish Bini]

Disappointed to hear that.

Although while I was looking forward to Tyranny, the new Torment game is the one I'm hanging out for. Hoping to hear better things.

 

[Erttheking]

Hm. Well I have been waiting for this game for awhile. It sucks to hear that it has some flaws, but plenty of other people are enjoying it...I'll look into it.

Thanks for informing me of potential problems I might have with this game.

 

[Dornedas]

I generally like the game, but one huge minus for me, is that you absolutely have to choose between one of two factions to support in order to advance the game.
You can't go the Lawful Evil route and be a direct servant of Kyros'(Or Tunon's) word and law, you have to choose between one of two fanatical directions. Missed potential right there, I think.

But you only have to do that for Act 1, afterwards you can just tell them to stick a pinecone up their butts.
And it arguably makes sense to do that.
I mean you can't be expected to be able to storm a fortress by yourself.
Well considering how much the armies help you, you still would be able to do it by yourself. But you shouldn't be.
In fact:

Spoiler: End of Act 1 spoiler

At least if you decide to side with Graven Arsch. The only use of his army is to block Voices of Ner'zhul army

But my biggest problem in the game is one of decisions. For all that media outlets say about decision making in the game, they forget to tell you that 80% of those decisions are made in Act 1.
Afterwards you get railroaded through most dialogues via a path that was determined by those Act 1 decisions.

And you learn some of the magic elements way to late to have them be of any use.

 

[Yarden]

I generally like the game, but one huge minus for me, is that you absolutely have to choose between one of two factions to support in order to advance the game.
You can't go the Lawful Evil route and be a direct servant of Kyros'(Or Tunon's) word and law, you have to choose between one of two fanatical directions. Missed potential right there, I think.

Just FYI - you are wrong, there is a "rebel" path, where you don't side with either of the factions.