Game News Tyranny Released

[Haba]

Problem is, it's a rather subjective issue. One man's "meaningful choices and impressive reactivity" are another man's "It all feels the same to me". All I can say is that so far, the majority opinion seems to be that Tyranny's reactivity is decent. Even a good number of people who don't think the game is good overall seem to think so.

More than a "good number" of people thing Oblivion is the greatest RPG ever made. Current year standards.

Tyranny is front-loaded with it's reactivity, it is built to give the early impression of your choices having major effect on the gameplay. Ironically you make the most impactful choices during the first minutes of the game. They are a literal coin toss to the player at that point.

Once you leave act 1, the game becomes a linear rail-road from one forced combat encounter to another.

That is of course what mainstream reviewers haven't seen, since they only invested a few hours to the game. That is what most players have not seen, since only ~15% [1] have actually completed the game!

So in conclusion, Tyranny is a rushed out hack-job designed to generate positive first impressions and reviews. It gives the player the illusion that his choices have an impact, leaving his imagination free to run wild about the consequences he'll never see materialize, but which is O.K. since he probably won't complete the game anyway. Everybody wins, current year game design standards.

Welcome to current year RPG Codex, scaled to the majority opinion.


* 1 - http://steamcommunity.com/stats/362960/achievements

 

[Infinitron]

15% is actually a pretty good number, especially at this stage. Obsidian must be pleased with that. (Of course, they'd be even more pleased if the game had more owners.)

 

[Haba]

I don't know about that, the game is quite short after all. And that number includes all the people who've done multiple playthroughs.

But then again, I guess they only want enough hours to block the refund option.

 

[duanth123]

I would support the developer that included a "Refund Blocked" achievement, if only for the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Roguey]

That is of course what mainstream reviewers haven't seen, since they only invested a few hours to the game. That is what most players have not seen, since only ~15% [1] have actually completed the game!

Act 3 is allegedly only two hours long, one only needs to see act 2 to verify the reactivity. Over half have completed act 1, then it drops by about half.

 

[HoboForEternity]

C&C in tyranny is decent. i mean sure, you visit 100% the same location and roughly the same location, it is no AoD, but it is more than most.

picking disvavored or chorus locked you helluva lot of conversation and exposition from other archons, as well as backstabbing the archons. some decision you made in conquest determine your max favor/wrath with some companions and factions.

 

[Roguey]

Yeah I don't understand the "you visit the same locations" criticism considering that In 99% of RPGs ever made, you're always visiting the same locations every time you play.

 

[Trashos]

Obsidian needs a fucking kick in the ass after putting out such a mediocre product, not a review that hedges its criticism by praising non-existent virtues, which, were they to even exist simply for the sake of argument, would still pale in comparison to a game developed by a former Codexian with no prior development experience.

For some weird reason, the build of this sentence reminds me of Shakespeare.

 

[Darth Roxor]

plz dont be mean to codex darlings :^)

 

[Prime Junta]

You know what's a little annoying?

This thread has actually had a few pieces of what would be useful editorial feedback. I would kind of like to do another pass on the review based on it. There are a couple areas I would like to adjust -- for example, expand a bit on some aspects of the gameplay, tone down some of the most obviously triggering statements, cut out a few bits that aren't relevant -- but at this point it's kind of too late.

This is why I would really like the editorial process to work like editorial processes usually do: with the editors going over the text before publication and providing feedback, then there's a bit of back and forth, and the end result is a better text than I could've produced on my own, and one the editors are prepared to stand behind.

As it is, I got a couple of comments from Crooked Bee and Infinitron to my first draft, but nothing on the final draft I submitted. I think it's an especial shame the insiders who were butthurt about stuff in it never told me about it. Even the process for editing the Pillars review went better, leaking aside. In particular as the stuff they were butthurt about isn't anything that I considered central to it.

But oh well, games are srs business.

 

[MicoSelva]

My Codex RRS feed told me there is a Tyranny review (by Prime Junta ) on the site, but the link says 'article not found'. What happened? Was it deleted because of some drama or just posted prematurely and needs more work?

EDIT: good timing with my post, I see.

 

[Darth Roxor]

there was never any review, comrade, please be into moving on

and please stop asking questions if you know whats good for you

 

[Prime Junta]

My Codex RRS feed told me there is a Tyranny review (by Prime Junta ) on the site, but the link says 'article not found'. What happened? Was it deleted because of some drama or just posted prematurely and needs more work?

EDIT: good timing with my post, I see.

There's a summary of the drama elsewhere in this thread. In short, Bubbles was butthurt that I had a short nod to Age of Decadence in it despite only having played it a couple of hours, and instead of telling me his opinion in the private discussion about it, he posted the review prematurely with a clickbait title. The rest is history.

 

[Fenix]

I want to say that when you ban ability to draw negative comparisons and descending metaphors to some games because "you didn't play this game" you ban criticism in general.
There is no way I would play Twicher 3 e.g. or another mainstream shit, because I see no benefits of this mindless action, last time I have taken the bait "you can't say anything about the game you didn't play it" is was Fallout 3, and you know what? - it was exactly same shit I suspected, with exploding cars and MUSHROOM CLOUDS lol, with vimpires and other kinds of bullshit.
I see no point to play shit games, because O can get all information about it from gaming forems and topics and threads there, where people share their gameplay experience, e.g. I know that such mechanic as exploration is none-existent in Twicher 3, because there is no point to try to find chest with weapon because you can buy even better sword from smith after 5-10 minutes you got sword from chest after hard battle.

 

[Delterius]

you ban criticism in general.

No you don't.

 

[commie]

I want to say that when you ban ability to draw negative comparisons and descending metaphors to some games because "you didn't play this game" you ban criticism in general.
There is no way I would play Twicher 3 e.g. or another mainstream shit, because I see no benefits of this mindless action, last time I have taken the bait "you can't say anything about the game you didn't play it" is was Fallout 3, and you know what? - it was exactly same shit I suspected, with exploding cars and MUSHROOM CLOUDS lol, with vimpires and other kinds of bullshit.
I see no point to play shit games, because O can get all information about it from gaming forems and topics and threads there, where people share their gameplay experience, e.g. I know that such mechanic as exploration is none-existent in Twicher 3, because there is no point to try to find chest with weapon because you can buy even better sword from smith after 5-10 minutes you got sword from chest after hard battle.

You didn't play anything: your opinion is invalid.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Azarkon]

You know what's a little annoying?

This thread has actually had a few pieces of what would be useful editorial feedback. I would kind of like to do another pass on the review based on it. There are a couple areas I would like to adjust -- for example, expand a bit on some aspects of the gameplay, tone down some of the most obviously triggering statements, cut out a few bits that aren't relevant -- but at this point it's kind of too late.

This is why I would really like the editorial process to work like editorial processes usually do: with the editors going over the text before publication and providing feedback, then there's a bit of back and forth, and the end result is a better text than I could've produced on my own, and one the editors are prepared to stand behind.

As it is, I got a couple of comments from Crooked Bee and Infinitron to my first draft, but nothing on the final draft I submitted. I think it's an especial shame the insiders who were butthurt about stuff in it never told me about it. Even the process for editing the Pillars review went better, leaking aside. In particular as the stuff they were butthurt about isn't anything that I considered central to it.

But oh well, games are srs business.

I'll guess that's most likely because they actually cared enough about Pillars of Eternity to talk about the details. It is certainly the case that Codex as a whole followed Pillars of Eternity to a much larger degree than Tyranny.

 

[Fenix]

You didn't play anything: your opinion is invalid.

Opinions of those who play shitty games are invalid obviously.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'll guess that's most likely because they actually cared enough about Pillars of Eternity to talk about the details. It is certainly the case that Codex as a whole followed Pillars of Eternity to a much larger degree than Tyranny.

Nah, they did talk about the details. Bubbles only leaked the review because the discussion on the closed content forum didn't go entirely his way. I do not have access to this forum and was blissfully ignorant of the whole thing until this happened. During the Pillars review process, Infinitron provided me with a summary of the discussion from that forum and I revised the article based on that.

(This is how things usually work BTW. I have occasionally written for more conventional publications, and this kind of back and forth is completely normal -- and almost always results in a better article. One of the reasons I've reacted so poorly to this Codexian drama is that I have assumed that this is how things work here as well; these leaks have felt like a breach of trust, which has stung badly.)

 

[Darth Roxor]

Bubbles only leaked the review because the discussion on the closed content forum didn't go entirely his way.

Infinitron provided me with a summary of the discussion

ah must be another of those rough consensuses i've heard so much about

 

[Infinitron]

I really thought Bubbles was pulling my leg because he had direct access to you in that conversation. Maybe he forgot he was in it?

 

[Prime Junta]

ah must be another of those rough consensuses i've heard so much about

Wasn't. He just listed a bunch of things some of the posters on it had said. Delterius in particular made very good points regarding the conclusion, which I ended up rewriting.

 

[Mustawd]

Why does Delt get to be on the secret forum, and I don't? How many shekels do I need to pay for that privilege?

 

[Infinitron]

Why does Delt get to be on the secret forum, and I don't? How many shekels do I need to pay for that privilege?

We generally let people in after they've written two or three reviews for us.