Review RPG Codex Review: Tyranny - Kyros Demands Better

[Grunker]

lol. The point is that GURPS hardly obfuscates the odds behind its rolls more than D&D. That's not even remotely correct, the exact opposite is the case

Dude it obfuscates more simply because it is not a percentile roll.

D&D is a percentile roll???

What the hell are you talking about? I thought it was about how it hides percentage increases behind absolute values (1 to d20 roll = 5%) but now you lost me

That was my main point. I went off on a tangent.

Yeah but then you mention gurps and shit where percentages are even more obfuscated.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

D&D is a percentile roll???

In d20 you can easily tell you have 5% chance to get 14, in 3d6 you can't easily tell what the chance is of getting 14, that's his point.

 

[Excidium II]

lol. The point is that GURPS hardly obfuscates the odds behind its rolls more than D&D. That's not even remotely correct, the exact opposite is the case

Dude it obfuscates more simply because it is not a percentile roll.

D&D is a percentile roll???

It's a d20. Knowing the TN it just becomes a matter of multiplying by 5.

 

[Grunker]

lol. The point is that GURPS hardly obfuscates the odds behind its rolls more than D&D. That's not even remotely correct, the exact opposite is the case

Dude it obfuscates more simply because it is not a percentile roll.

D&D is a percentile roll???

It's a d20. Knowing the TN it just becomes a matter of multiplying by 5.

D&D is a percentile roll???

In d20 you can easily tell you have 5% chance to get 14, in 3d6 you can't easily tell what the chance is of getting 14, that's his point.

That's pretty academic considering you barely if ever make straight d20 rolls in D&D while in GURPS almost everything you ever do is straight 3d.

In like 95% of all practical rolls, there is less obfuscation in GURPS.

 

[Excidium II]

Well Blaine started on about the d20 so I assumed we were all talking about the core rolling mechanic.

 

[Grunker]

Fair enough.

 

[Roguey]

Please don' tease and give us some meat.

Problem here is that I can't quote it without it being searchable and it's extremely vague and likely about something else entirely, just ill-timed.

 

[Kev Inkline]

I think runequest/hero quest d100 is superior to d20 what comes to percentile systems

Is that also what PoE features? D100 uniform distribution?

Did I actually give indirectly credit to PoE?

 

[Excidium II]

We just went on a tangent here, d100 for main roll is standard for CRPGs, people mostly hate the % increases on stats. Which I agree it's bad largely for the reasons Grunker mentions but people tend to hate it for retarded reasons.

 

[MrMarbles]

Things get more interesting if you inject a bit of role-play into the role-playing game, set yourself an agenda, and attempt to push against what the waiter presses on you.

This is dangerous advice. Hopes of a proper role-playing experience will only increase the massive butthurt of being railroaded through a linear series of claustrophobic, cloned encounters where your one and only choice, behind plenty of smokescreens, is the dialogue option "Attack." I've tried 1.5 playthroughs, and it absolutely does not get better the second time around.

Terratus has more in common with, say, Steven Erikson’s Malazan Book of the Fallen than Western traditional fantasy. Demigods – Archons, resembling Malazan’s Ascendants in the vein of Anomander Rake, Caladan Brood, or Cotillion – walk the earth."

Well put, I got a huge Malazan vibe. This is part of the reason why the setting work is good, just not the execution. It's like babyvomit with a bowtie.

So, a deep, original, and atmospheric world confidently written and executed.

I'm not sure what "confidently written" is supposed to mean. If it means that a bunch of unoriginal non-rpg-lovers sat down and churned out some vanilla milkshake for the modern retard audience to gulp down and excrete as that stomach-soothing, pleasantly grainy stool, then yes, the writing is confident. If it means that someone actually had the stones to try to translate whatever complicated fantasy they had in their mind into reality, then no, the writing is not confident.

Overall, the system feels incoherent, shallow, and restrictive. The classless system fails to deliver the flexibility you would expect in one, and leaves you just as locked into your chosen role – damager, tank, archer, caster – as you would be in a class-based system.

Agree. With cooldowns, percentage increments and shameless streamlining anything else would have been an impressive feat.

Tyranny has the makings of a cult classic.

 

[Excidium II]

Infinitron really is full of opinions on tranny.

 

[Q]

Well put, I got a huge Malazan vibe. This is part of the reason why the setting work is good, just not the execution. It's like babyvomit with a bowtie.

+1 to Malazan vibe, or maybe it's because I'm reading it at the moment. Of course it's really weak execution. And dialogs are shit.

 

[Israfael]

Obsidian really suffers from the NIH syndrome - why do something new (that turned out to be overbalanced shit) if there's already a system that kinda works and people mostly know it? At least combat would not be so bland as it is in PoE/Tranny. Also, the loot system is exactly like in MMO in Tranny - you get vendor trash items first, then greens, then blues and then purples and golds. Even the legendary items are there, it feels like Diablo 3 all over. And everything is essentially the same - you can just pick random green item with bonuses you like, upgrade it three times and then use it till the end (that's what i did with Verse, 70-80 hits on both hands at a very stable rate).

 

[Spectacle]

lol. The point is that GURPS hardly obfuscates the odds behind its rolls more than D&D. That's not even remotely correct, the exact opposite is the case

Dude it obfuscates more simply because it is not a percentile roll.

We have a "bad spelling" rating, but where is "bad mathematics"?

 

[an Administrator]

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

uuugh. For me exploration is deadly boring, moral choices too, dialogue also and combat more than those three put together.

but if to explore, choose, talk and fight better you have to solve a puzzle, like in fallout or deus ex, everything rocks.

how.

If, in a game, when you have to choose a side and kill the other, you have to "wait until night to talk to a kid", or "plant a recorder under a boss's desk", or "find a cog that fixes the power generator", it gives you the third and smarter choice, it gives you the edge that was skilfully hidden in the environment, and it requires careful examination of it, that game is just better and more intelligent.

Someone please message me when there's a game that does what i think is the inmost essence of a 90's videogame.
Sorry for the interruption, continue discussing about incomprehensible ruleset skill mathemadicks.

 

[set]

I will agree that I do not care for the obligatory fighting sequences. In Act 1, almost every combat encounter is unavoidable. Please educate me if I am mistaken, but the "sneak" mechanic can only be used to avoid literally two fights in all of Act 1. In Act 1, every major combat encounter puts your party in the line of fire, disregards any initial positioning you may have had for your party (let's put this party member way far up front or behind), and allows the enemy to usually get the first attack off before you. Case in point, every rebel leader encounter you make, the Act 1 final boss, the encounter with the Disfavored hidden behind that rock, the encounter with the supposed potential Chorus recruits, the battle at the bridge, and the battle at the village. Etc. etc.

Like, you can't avoid combat in Act 1, fullstop. Every solution to every encounter is combat - well, except in the case of the rebel leaders which you can and must literally do the following unless I missed a dialogue option somewhere: "Hey, you! Get running! I'm letting you go!" which is literally the dumbest thing ever.

It's just dumb. What's the point of these dialogue choices. It doesn't change anything. Yes, you can side among the rebels, chorus, or disfavoured - but that is the only meaningful choice. Everything else is basically scripted, "Here, fight these guys now."

And then... it makes even less sense when Verse or Barik are in the party. "I'm letting you go now, rebels". Barik only reacts when you go to meet the rebels at their little rendezvous point. I had low fear and like 0 loyalty for Barik all of Act 1 and he still doesn't openly turn hostile on me. Makes no sense. Verse's "transformation" or lackthereof as a supporter of just murdering whomever you chose makes some sense (she has no morals whatsoever) but it still doesn't make any sense as she complains you're going to get her fired over treason but follows you anyway without any apparent "loyalty check" that I noticed.

And don't get me started on the story. I like siding with the rebel leaders, but there is literally, literally - unless there's something I missed in Conquest mode - literally, no character motivation for your character to side with them. Oh sure, Tunon and others seem to be perfectly capable of giving you reasons of why they think you did it, but you have no "arc" which makes sense. Do the rebels seem like nice guys at any point in Act 1? No. Do the rebels have any cause you can get behind? Um, no. They literally say they are just trying to die fighting back. Do the rebels present a moral high ground? Not really, considering you can't even engage in dialogue with them until you've given them several acts of pointless mercy. Pointless, unjustified mercy. It literally makes no sense for your character as a member of Tunon's court to court them. As much as I like siding with the less logical choice (well, Chorus and Disfavored don't really seem worth siding with either) in most games, it makes so little sense here it's jarring and difficult to roleplay in any capacity.

Why woudd you want to "free the Tiers" as some dialogue options suggest. That's retardo. You're basically an inquisitor for an evil empire. You have no motivation to do this, where would you even get the idea from. Why would you think it's remotely possible. How could you think this is a good idea for anyone involved.

It would make sense if your character had some backstory that was elaborated more on in the onset of the game, like, if you pick the Hunter background, you can have a Dragon Age Origins style of opening, where you meet your wife and kids in your hunter-gatherer hut in the middle of the woods when the big bad Kyros kills them all and enslaves you to his/her will. But like, we don't see a scene like this, so we honestly have very little to go on. You can just make up stuff about your character if you want, but it doesn't change the fact your character is complicit in conquering the Tiers for the first three years. Why the change of heart? There's no reason for it.

 

[Killzig]

Could be a suicide cult.

 

[Azarkon]

I will agree that I do not care for the obligatory fighting sequences. In Act 1, almost every combat encounter is unavoidable. Please educate me if I am mistaken, but the "sneak" mechanic can only be used to avoid literally two fights in all of Act 1. In Act 1, every major combat encounter puts your party in the line of fire, disregards any initial positioning you may have had for your party (let's put this party member way far up front or behind), and allows the enemy to usually get the first attack off before you. Case in point, every rebel leader encounter you make, the Act 1 final boss, the encounter with the Disfavored hidden behind that rock, the encounter with the supposed potential Chorus recruits, the battle at the bridge, and the battle at the village. Etc. etc.

Like, you can't avoid combat in Act 1, fullstop. Every solution to every encounter is combat - well, except in the case of the rebel leaders which you can and must literally do the following unless I missed a dialogue option somewhere: "Hey, you! Get running! I'm letting you go!" which is literally the dumbest thing ever.

It's just dumb. What's the point of these dialogue choices. It doesn't change anything. Yes, you can side among the rebels, chorus, or disfavoured - but that is the only meaningful choice. Everything else is basically scripted, "Here, fight these guys now."

And then... it makes even less sense when Verse or Barik are in the party. "I'm letting you go now, rebels". Barik only reacts when you go to meet the rebels at their little rendezvous point. I had low fear and like 0 loyalty for Barik all of Act 1 and he still doesn't openly turn hostile on me. Makes no sense. Verse's "transformation" or lackthereof as a supporter of just murdering whomever you chose makes some sense (she has no morals whatsoever) but it still doesn't make any sense as she complains you're going to get her fired over treason but follows you anyway without any apparent "loyalty check" that I noticed.

And don't get me started on the story. I like siding with the rebel leaders, but there is literally, literally - unless there's something I missed in Conquest mode - literally, no character motivation for your character to side with them. Oh sure, Tunon and others seem to be perfectly capable of giving you reasons of why they think you did it, but you have no "arc" which makes sense. Do the rebels seem like nice guys at any point in Act 1? No. Do the rebels have any cause you can get behind? Um, no. They literally say they are just trying to die fighting back. Do the rebels present a moral high ground? Not really, considering you can't even engage in dialogue with them until you've given them several acts of pointless mercy. Pointless, unjustified mercy. It literally makes no sense for your character as a member of Tunon's court to court them. As much as I like siding with the less logical choice (well, Chorus and Disfavored don't really seem worth siding with either) in most games, it makes so little sense here it's jarring and difficult to roleplay in any capacity.

Why woudd you want to "free the Tiers" as some dialogue options suggest. That's retardo. You're basically an inquisitor for an evil empire. You have no motivation to do this, where would you even get the idea from. Why would you think it's remotely possible. How could you think this is a good idea for anyone involved.

It would make sense if your character had some backstory that was elaborated more on in the onset of the game, like, if you pick the Hunter background, you can have a Dragon Age Origins style of opening, where you meet your wife and kids in your hunter-gatherer hut in the middle of the woods when the big bad Kyros kills them all and enslaves you to his/her will. But like, we don't see a scene like this, so we honestly have very little to go on. You can just make up stuff about your character if you want, but it doesn't change the fact your character is complicit in conquering the Tiers for the first three years. Why the change of heart? There's no reason for it.

Not only do you have no reason to join the rebels, but you have no reason to go up against Kyros, which is the end state of every path. The game basically forces you into that position through a plot device - that is, it's either you or Kyros, because he/she's coming after you no matter what. For most characters born in this setting, it makes more sense to serve Kyros, and to try to climb up the power ladder, than it is to fight Kyros, yet that is what you end up doing.

 

[aratuk]

Good review! I hope they patch Tyranny at least as heavily as PoE has been patched. Yes, definitely an inverted difficulty curve. The first act, on Path of the Damned, was pretty fun, but I'm now most of the way (I think) through Act II and I'm wondering how it would even be possible for it to be much easier.

The story is fairly compelling and it's well-paced, so far. If they seriously tighten up the mechanics, it'd be solid enough that I'd buy expansions.

 

[duanth123]

Rate this post butthurt if you too want to be exempted from the rough consensus! Infinitron has secretly (even to himself!) promised me he will update the review to reflect that you disagree with Prime Junta's useful purpose of a review - if you rate the following post butthurt.

The only problem being that some of us on this site, Prime Junta apparently self-excluded, actually play RPGs, Infinitron, have played them for years, long before these hand-wringing advertisements you and PJ pass off as reviews, and can therefore grasp an RPGs quality in the same manner that anyone with a passing interest in any hobby can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I've been thinking about what you've been saying, duanth123.

Thing is, I think there's more to a review than just "separating the wheat from the chaff." If all you want to do is dump things in two piles, "shit" and "not shit," that's pretty easy. All you have to do is draw a line in the sand somewhere.

My take is that the state of the cRPG industry in general is fairly dismal. Even the best games, past and present, have signficant quantities of shit in them. Conversely, there are lots of games there which aren't all that much fun, ultimately, but do something right.

What I want to do when I write reviews is reflect this. If a game does something right -- relative to the state of the market, not relative to some Platonic ideal or a hazy memory of some game you played as a kid -- I want to describe and encourage that. If it does something wrong, I want to describe and discourage that.

I also want to inform: give enough information about the game, my own experiences, and my own preferences that whoever is reading will have something they can use to make up their own mind.

In re Tyranny, I stand by my claim that it does worldbuilding and story branching much better than the general state of the market (and by my claim that it does gameplay worse, much worse compared to its nearest sibling, Pillars of Eternity). If all you do is "shit/not shit" you end up with a Roxorian vomit (or Decadoan ) that'll get you brofists from people who already agree with you but do precious little else. I don't see what useful purpose that would serve.

Your problem, Prime Junta (and as it just so happens your fuckboy partner Infinitron's complex as well, only with newsposts!) is that you think a review should serve a useful purpose.

Which, barring some ulterior motive (in your case, an unconscious one, as at this point I am convinced you cannot recognize your own nonsense, Platonic ideal, wtf) would be an entirely redundant statement, seeing as the dictionary definition of review:

a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital,or the like; critique; evaluation.

wholly incorporates its intended function and purpose.

NO ONE, and I stress this, NO ONE writes like this with the sole intention of providing just a "review":

That Tyranny accomplishes this with only a few situations that don’t quite make sense or give you the freedom of choice you would expect is a remarkable achievement, and one that all but guarantees the game a lasting appeal with a cult following.

o, a deep, original, and atmospheric world confidently written and executed, story branching to make a grown man weep, original concepts explored in depth and integrated to the game mechanics and story, beautiful visuals and music…

Tyranny has the makings of a cult classic. The depth and originality of the setting, the integration of the most unique features of the setting into the gameplay, the presentation, and the dizzying variety of adventures to choose give it replayability and lasting appeal that few games can manage.

The best RPG of this decade? Nine more years will tell, but for now, yes.

You may consider this some sort of writer's flourish, but they're no less fucking baffling lies and gushing, whorish hyperbole on the level of that idiot who considered DA2 the best RPG of the decade. Oh wait, that last quote was from his review. Did you notice?

I'm fine that in your sheltered mind, where The Witcher 2 is your go-to contemporary reference for C&C, you believe Tyranny does it well.

I'm fine that you consider original what in your own review you provide several plagiarized sources for. Mazalan and Black Company are great!

I'm fine that, to you, world-building doesn't require verisimilitude. That's what gives you and Infinitron the strength to haunt every thread about this fucking review and laugh at the pedants who realized you don't understand the difference between certain major historical periods.

I can accept that your useful purpose is to help Obsidian stay in business whilst gently coaxing them like the sweetly retarded young children they have, wave by wave, elevated from intern status to develop their games, they are.

But what I don't want, and the reason I find your reviews the ass cancer of this site, secretly killing us, yet only registering as mere butt-hurt in the eyes of the by-now truly disaffected, is to have YOUR consumer whore bullshit even slightly appear to be representative of what I or others think. Which we both know it very well will, the hypersecond Infini slavishly updates our Steam curator page and the second past this review was embarrassingly strewn across the front page of our esteemed website.

Myself laughably recalling the Vault Dweller review of Oblivion that was willing to call bullshit. Willing to real talk a developer that had lost its way. And not even the one responsible for games like MOTB or KOTOR2.
...

SO LET IT BE KNOW

DUANTH123 HAS BROKEN FROM THE ROUGH CONSENSUS

DUANTH123 DISAGREES WITH PRIME JUNTA'S REVIEW AND WOULD RATE IT 1/10 (with the 1 to serve the useful purpose of innervating Obsidian to climb higher! #useful purpose)

Infinitron, would you please update Prime Junta's useful purpose to indicate that I disagree with it?

 

[Prime Junta]

But what I don't want, and the reason I find your reviews the ass cancer of this site, secretly killing us, yet only registering as mere butt-hurt in the eyes of the by-now truly disaffected, is to have YOUR consumer whore bullshit even slightly appear to be representative of what I or others think.

So your beef isn't with the review, but with Infinitron's editorial about it. 'k

 

[Latro]

Prime Junta is a joke, who are (((they))) trying to fool?

 

[duanth123]

But what I don't want, and the reason I find your reviews the ass cancer of this site, secretly killing us, yet only registering as mere butt-hurt in the eyes of the by-now truly disaffected, is to have YOUR consumer whore bullshit even slightly appear to be representative of what I or others think.

So your beef isn't with the review, but with Infinitron's editorial about it. 'k

Yes, I realized after reading a mass of your replies that you genuinely believe these things you write.

I can't fault you for possessing an honestly held opinion, no matter how mundane or ill-informed or bafflingly dumb I consider it.

 

[Prime Junta]

Not only do you have no reason to join the rebels, but you have no reason to go up against Kyros, which is the end state of every path. The game basically forces you into that position through a plot device - that is, it's either you or Kyros, because he/she's coming after you no matter what. For most characters born in this setting, it makes more sense to serve Kyros, and to try to climb up the power ladder, than it is to fight Kyros, yet that is what you end up doing.

Kyros does have a reason to go against you though. At the end of the game you're powerful enough to constitute a legit threat. No self-respecting overlord would allow that.