Game News Tyranny Released

[Darth Roxor]

Wasn't. He just listed a bunch of things some of the posters on it had said.

did he also list how three people were vocal about taking it out and nobody was for keeping it except infinitron telling everyone else to fuck off and quoting commissar draco to somehow substantiate the claim in question

 

[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?

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

Got it. I need to go get my typewriter.

 

[Prime Junta]

did he also list how three people were vocal about taking it out and nobody was for keeping it except infinitron telling everyone else to fuck off and quoting commissar draco to somehow substantiate the claim in question

Nope, only the editorial feedback.

It wouldn't have been the first time I've had my stuff spiked BTW. It would've been annoying, but I wouldn't have been as butthurt about it as it wouldn't have been a breach of trust.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Also, your statement that the C&C in it was only "faction reputation grind" is objectively and demonstrably false. Lying or just ignorant?

I would consider most of your posts in this thread to involve both, with a dash of woefully underdeveloped reading comprehension.

What Haba actually said:

Tyranny is a MMO-designer game masquerading as "classic cRPG". Grim Dawn has the same degree of "choices and consequences", yet it is a hack and slash grindfest. It even has the same kind of faction reputation grind. And Grim Dawn ends up being a better game because it doesn't pretend to be anything else than what it is. Tyranny (or the people who worked on it) on the other hand has a clear identity crisis.

If you had played Grim Dawn, which you sound as if you haven't (noticing a trend here), you'd know that depending on your faction alliances you are locked out of certain content, i.e., items, whole maps, writing, lore, higher level enemy spawns, etc.. Haba refers in one sentence to the same degree of C&C, then in another to faction reputation grind, an additional but not comprehensive element of the faction system in GD, which serves as the vehicle for that game's C&C.

Haba is correct that the difference of content in GD, precipitated by the same BIG TELEGRAPHED CHOICES (tm) as can be found in Tyranny, is not meaningful C&C, for the same reasons you ignored when previously articulated in this thread:

M-hm. So you if you play Chorus, I think Edict of Stone is first you have to end. You go to purple mages, they do ritual, you fight there, break staves, get +3 stat item from Cairn, get a slide in the end, it doesn't affect story or gameplay in any way later.
If you play Disfavored, I think it's last of edicts. But game is very kind to level scale all content, so whatever. You fight red chorus guys, save staves, get +3 stat.
If you go rebel, you can kill Disfavored, break staves, get +3 stat. Or don't break. You don't get +3 stat!

Prime Junta, that's *exactly* smoke and mirrors and flavor. It's the *same* location and *same* quest, you just visit it in a different order.


You can always read in wikipedia about it.

Again, just because you're one of the few willing to put forth the effort to write Codex reviews does not mean you are in any way qualified, Prime Junta.

Your contributions bring the reputation of this site down and were it not for your co-conspirator in mediocrity Infinitron, I doubt anyone would let you near the review process at all.

Also, inb4:

Disagree x 1
SausageInYourFace

Citation Needed x 1
Infinitron

Sounds like they took the wrong lesson from Alpha Protocol.

There's a lot of flaws in the gameplay, but the C+C inclines massively around the point that you realise that MCA's doing to 'Big Telegraphed Choices - choose A or B', what he did to the Star Wars 'rules' in KoTOR2, and that their main purpose is to distract from the fuckloads of unmarked choices that have far more impact on the C&C.

 

[vivec]

Why all this hullaballoo over a mediocre game?

 

[Azrael the cat]

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

Come on, VD/Iron Tower. Look in your hearts. You know you want to make this happen

 

[Prime Junta]

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.

 

[J_C]

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.

And this is why your reviews worth a damn. Most edgy codexers review games as follows: "oh some aspect the game is bad, so the game is a complete shit! What are you saying, there are things that the game does good? Doesn't care, it is still shit"

I'm always saying that the Codex lacks nuance, they got so accustomed to rating something as shit or great. There isn't anything between. You did good with your reviews.

[/dicksucking]

 

[Darth Roxor]

If all you do is "shit/not shit" you end up with a Roxorian vomit

 

[Heretic]

I appreciate Bubbles' articles but I still think what he did was quite shitty. Don't abuse your CMS permissions to spite someone else, man.

On the other hand if he wanted to make people give Prime Junta valuable editorial feedback they were lazy or unable to give him in the first place, he succeded. Maybe this should become the editorial process from now on, not soliciting criticism on a hidden forum, but creating a small controversy around the review before publishing it and many will come forward with their ideas.

 

[felipepepe]

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.

I agree with this line of thought, it's something I try to do in the CRPG Book.

Would be very easy to make it the Tome of Ultimate Incline™, calling F3, Oblivion, Skyrim, DA, etc all shit, but then I'm just shouting to the echo chamber - because anyone who likes those games will just go "they are all edgelords" and close the book. The real art is not saying "this is shit, this is not-shit", but to make readers realize that by themselves.

My hopes are that an Elder Scrolls fanboy who reads all the series reviews will start thinking "man, those things in Daggerfall and Morrowind look really cool...". The goal would be for him to get curious and try those games, but even just reading the whole review and realizing that some cool stuff was removed is a step forward.

 

[hell bovine]

If you had played Grim Dawn, which you sound as if you haven't (noticing a trend here), you'd know that depending on your faction alliances you are locked out of certain content, i.e., items, whole maps, writing, lore, higher level enemy spawns, etc.. Haba refers in one sentence to the same degree of C&C, then in another to faction reputation grind, an additional but not comprehensive element of the faction system in GD, which serves as the vehicle for that game's C&C.

Haba is correct that the difference of content in GD, precipitated by the same BIG TELEGRAPHED CHOICES (tm) as can be found in Tyranny, is not meaningful C&C, for the same reasons you ignored when previously articulated in this thread:

M-hm. So you if you play Chorus, I think Edict of Stone is first you have to end. You go to purple mages, they do ritual, you fight there, break staves, get +3 stat item from Cairn, get a slide in the end, it doesn't affect story or gameplay in any way later.
If you play Disfavored, I think it's last of edicts. But game is very kind to level scale all content, so whatever. You fight red chorus guys, save staves, get +3 stat.
If you go rebel, you can kill Disfavored, break staves, get +3 stat. Or don't break. You don't get +3 stat!

Prime Junta, that's *exactly* smoke and mirrors and flavor. It's the *same* location and *same* quest, you just visit it in a different order.


You can always read in wikipedia about it.

It's not as much smoke & mirrors as the game failing to arrive at an ending (which instead got replaced by ending slides). To use shadenaut's example: in the rebel path, you can get locked out of - not the map itself - but the entire " kill Disfavored, break staves, get +3 stat. Or don't break. You don't get +3 stat!" part altogether. On my rebel path everyone was dead on that map. As a result you have access to different mage factions, different edicts (if you don't break the edict of stone, you won't be able to use it), different artifacts - but all of this doesn't matter, because the big showdown with Kyros - where it all could have played a role - never happens. And that's the problem. It really looks like they want to cash in on DLCs/sequels, because the game feels like it's been cut before it actually reaches a conclusion.

 

[MrMarbles]

Why all this hullaballoo over a mediocre game?

Because someone on the internet is wrong.

 

[Lurker King]

I agree with this line of thought, it's something I try to do in the CRPG Book.

Would be very easy to make it the Tome of Ultimate Incline™, calling F3, Oblivion, Skyrim, DA, etc all shit, but then I'm just shouting to the echo chamber - because anyone who likes those games will just go "they are all edgelords" and close the book. The real art is not saying "this is shit, this is not-shit", but to make readers realize that by themselves.

My hopes are that an Elder Scrolls fanboy who reads all the series reviews will start thinking "man, those things in Daggerfall and Morrowind look really cool...". The goal would be for him to get curious and try those games, but even just reading the whole review and realizing that some cool stuff was removed is a step forward.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Felipepepe assumes that popamoles will actually read a fucking book about cRPGs. That is hilarious. All of it.

 

[Tigranes]

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.

Of course, the real consequence is that whenever we get a review and it is CONTRUVERSHUL, it is fucking impossible to talk about the game with anyone for like 2 weeks because people just won't shut the fuck up about all this other shit

I just want to talk about RPG mechanics mang, but after dodging all the crybabies crying about SJWs or whatever it is and Sawyer and how their mommy didn't love them now all the threads are full of DRAMA

 

[Excidium II]

t. obsidian moderator

 

[Tigranes]

former now, so technically ex-cuck

i've been ill this week so picked it up, and one thing for sure is that the combat is retarded garbageshit

 

[Fenix]

but after dodging all the crybabies crying about SJWs or whatever it is and Sawyer and how their mommy didn't love them now all the threads are full of DRAMA

How can you separate this from game when it is part of the game? Became a three monkeys - can not hear can not see anything?
Even the fact that you need to make an effort to dissociates yourself from this is repulsive.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

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.

But some games are indeed shit (though of course that largely depends on person's standards when it comes to video games, Oblivion is considered a genre masterpiece outside Codex for example) and reviewer should reserve the right to call a spade a spade, the review serves its purpose of informing the readers/presenting an opinion regardless. Of course in the same breath a game might be a genuine classic that deserves to be praised, my point is that dismissing reviews that don't float around the middle as vomit is short-sighted (and focusing on style instead of substance).

Not to mention that Roxor doesn't just do hatchet jobs, see his reviews of Risen and AoD for example. It's clear that his reviews are still very much influenced by the quality of the product he's writing about.

 

[duanth123]

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?

 

[Darth Roxor]

Mad truths right there. I salute you men.

 

[Roguey]

As far as over the top gushing goes, nothing's topped heart, soul, and if it sang the blues you'd want to listen.

 

[Lhynn]

Insane burn from duanth123
Prime Junta and his cronies should leave the site, if that means we get no more of cuntas reviews, then we won 2 twice.

 

[Prime Junta]

You may consider this some sort of writer's flourish

Actually, I don't. Well, most of 'em anyway, that 'cult classic' thing especially was just a dumb canned phrase, and while hyperbole helps in my writing process (it stops me from digressing into on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other waffling), it shouldn't have made it to publication. I'll try to do better next time.

 

[hell bovine]

Nah, keep it. It might yet turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (the meltdown on the codex would be worth it)