Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
- gameplay detached from the narrative, level 1 demigod war-hero with gear worse than stuff you can find on a bunch of scrubs
- not very exciting world
- the only thing it has working in its favor is one dimensional, which is being evil or slightly less evil
- choices and outcomes feel mechanical rather than meaningful
- combat and character development somehow feel even less exciting than in Pillars
I guess the only way to fully enjoy this game is to "love being evil" and nothing beyond that.
Lol, and you're not a demigod; you're nowhere near THOSE guys yet. You have to earn that ♥♥♥♥. You're also not meant to be a warrior, you're just supposed to be capable of filling the role if need be. But it's far from your primary function.
I found the world more interesting than exciting, but still more compelling than the standard fare of demons and giant monsters and literal gods and all-powerful wizards that pervade these things. At most points, they went in a noticeably (if only slightly) different direction, and while it can sometimes have more or less the same effect, that similarity is often just superficial.
Shades of dark is very multidimensional (and much more compelling than shades of light, usually), it allows for reflection on what lines one is and isn't willing to cross. There's a lot more than just 2 options for most things.
Some of the choices do have that problem, and while some of it can be explained by what you are and aren't allowed to do (you don't have absolute authority, just enough authority to interpret laws. In other words, you're basically a judge), and some can be explained by your character just not thinking of an option because they either grew up in a world where knowledge and concepts we have don't exist or were actually raised to reject certain ideas outright, some things should have been accounted for and included, but weren't. However, for the most part, the writers were actually really good at coming up with as many different responses and choices as possible. For that matter, they came up with way more options than they would be expected to come up with in a game where you were only allowed to be the good guy, or where you had the option between good and evil. But some people still complain about the "lack" of choices, and I think it's because people are pissed that they don't have the option to join any good-aligned factions. Some people are so determined to refuse the game's "evil has won" scenario that they actually insist that the rebel faction must be the good side. Like the title of "Good Side" can be assigned by default, or something. Which is stupid. But still, people are like "they should have given us an outright good option", or "we shouldn't be punished for taking the good option", or "you can totally be a good guy in this game, just choose rebels", or ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ like that. And those people really need to ♥♥♥♥ off, they don't have any excuse ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ because they not only don't understand the premise, but actually refuse to understand it. Anyway, the options don't always feel organic, granted, but they usually do, especially if you really consider it. And they all have some kind of effect or consequence (especially the conquest mode ones, which all change the game world in some way), you just don't always notice it, and you even may not realize what those changes are until you've done several play-throughs.
There's plenty of character development for your party members, you just gotta talk to them.
The combat is often brought up as a weak point, but I'm not too averse to it, and even kinda like it in some ways. I only ever play on PotD mode, though, and don't even know what it's like on easy or normal.
Anyway, I play the game in all sorts of different ways, and I enjoy it regardless of how evil or good I'm trying to play at the time. It's most certainly not a game where you have to love being evil to fully enjoy it, and "nothing beyond that". There's plenty beyond that.
Have a great day!
The most enjoyable path through the game still is the path of the rebels. Anarchist path via Bleden Mark comes second - but generally, in Tyranny, the main player character, the Fatebinder, is too much of a helpful guy in my opinion. Game would be more fun, if it had more conquest options, to send armies to capture cities/regions, to take prisoners and execute them, ...
Really? Huh, you're actually the first person I've ever seen who preferred Pillars 1 over Pillars 2.
I agree with that, and i'm also a bit confused by the amount of opinion about the evilishness we are supposed to incarnate. I mean, it's clear that Kyros represent some kind of dictatorial intolerant and tyranical regime.
But when i strolled around, i found that my choices as a Fatebinder were not in the essence good or bad. Actually, so far it felt as i many rpg i've played, a mixture of helping factions and punishing other.
I restarted the game at least 4 times because i was unsettled about the very first part of the game. A part of me was thrilled by the edict system, the conqueror army turning on each other and so on... and another part of me was unsatisfied because it felt no different from let's say Baldur's Gate or Vampire the Mascarade Bloodlines (yes).
I mean, you can make vicious choices and make people suffer. But most of the time, i tend to do "soft" if not "helpfull" orientated choices. Not that i was looking to do nasty things, i just wondered why people were so excited about being evil.
So i resolved my trouble by adopting an independant way of playing. At every moment, whatever the situation, i would chose the option that let me save or preserve the most lives. And THAT felt interesting. Because by setting this line of conduit, i came to do abject and horrible things IN ORDER to save most lives. For instance, i backed the Scarlet Chorus because the Disfavored appeared less flexible with conquered territories. Scarlet Chrous is chaos, but it tends to recruit people (and sacrifice them after yes). So i discovered in many occasion that trying to save people actually lead to more suffering. And i think that is what the game wants to tell. It may be obvious to everyone around, but not to me... So i don't understand the statement "it feels good to be evil". In Fable you can slaughter everyone and there's nothing particular about it. In Fallout (the old ones), you can murder people, and all. In D&D you can be lawful evil if that's your thing. How is that different from deciding to kill that random Sage in the Burning Library in Tyranny ? Why would Tyranny explore more darkness than any other Rpg ? Why would people all acknowledge that this game is about being bad ? I can't see.
So i felt that the game is overhyped about its "evilish" background. To me, it is an RPG like many others (compared to those i've played). Combat is by far not my favourite part of it. But so far so good... i kinda like the game.
Yeah, that's actually pretty much on the nose. There's other themes and storytelling goals too, of course. The devs commented in one of the books that comes with the super-deluxe-ultimate-commander-blahblahblah-whatever editions of the game that part of their desire was to show how the society worked through the eyes of the NPCs, and how life continues even in those conditions. They also wanted to pay a great deal of homage to the Black Company novels by Glen Cook. But you're absolutely right about that being one of the key aspects of what the game is trying to show.
See, the game hyping itself (and the players hyping the game) about being exclusively from an evil perspective is really a way to trick you into rebelling against that idea and still trying to be good and benevolent, thereby seeing how the systems of society that are created by those in power can be structured in order to stop people from ever really being "good". The more you try to be kind and benevolent and otherwise good within the system (and you and everyone else are so entrenched in these systems that they, and you, never really have the idea or even the option to try to work outside of it), the more that people get hurt and killed by it, and the more corrupted and compromising those people trying to be good become. And of course, there's also rewards for being evil, sometimes, as long as you don't push it and do too many outright criminal things (the guys who set up the status quo want you to only do THEIR brand of evil stuff, after all). Mostly, however, you're meant to see how the road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially (if you'll allow me to overextend a metaphor) when the devil is the head of infrastructure.
But the scariest thing is, it's not just the characters; many of the players who have posted in these forums have demonstrated that they've allowed their actual, IRL values to become warped by these, I dunno, I guess you'd call them loaded choices. Like loaded questions ("have you stopped beating your dog lately?", for example. Doesn't matter if the person being questioned beat their dog, or ever even owned one) that are set up so you can't answer favorably, but they're in the form of choices you have to make rather than questions you have to answer, is the best way I can think to put it. Anyway, these people still insist that it is possible to play an outright good guy, or that there is a good side, because apparently the less or least evil option must, by default, be good. And these people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that ♥♥♥♥! Fortunately it's in the safe context of a work of fiction, but then what are they like when it's a real life decision? Are they just as horrible and judgmentally impaired as they are here? They don't even realize what this game has revealed about them, or what they've revealed about themselves. And all that is setting aside the crapload of prejudiced ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ who endlessly whine and cry about their weird interpretations many female characters in the game. Ugh, I hope I never have to meet some of the people who have shown up in these forums.
Lol, but I already expressed a lot of what I said here in my previous overlong post.
Well if you put it that way, i admit it sounds catchy. The game challenging you to go the high road when there is actually none, until you are forced to acknowledge it. Why not ?
But then again, why would it "feels good to be evil" like a bunch of people say. First of all, when did evil felt good ? Yeah sometime games will sell you that. But for real... when i start a renegade run on Mass Effect, in under 5 minute, i switch back to paragon because it seems normal.
I compared my experience with Tyranny with other games, some that are closely similar (Baldur's) and other which are extremely different (Fable). In Fable, you can kill random people without almost any consequence. But the game is much more action oriented. My only point here was to compare the feeling. Killing villagers in Fable does NOT feels good. It can be remotely fun... because of game design... but i cannot see how one could say that it's an enjoyable part of the game. And of course videogames are also about bad feelings. Making you feel guilty, sad, angry, frustrated and all.
In Fallout, you can join factions, some are evil as you described, other are ranging from your american-like democracy with its flaws and glories (Shady sands) to a more xenophobic hightech society (Vaultcity). None of them are perfect. Some of them are clearly twisted.
So i think you're right. This game is about witnessing life going on in a bad situation. Just like in "This War of Mine" (great game by the way).
Tyranny may be weighted toward evil in that regard indeed. But i think what puzzled me is the fact that you don't make "good" or "bad" choices. You make the most of any situation and you (or more probably other npc) suffer the consequences. It's well done in this game. But it's far from unique.
I've read the Black Company at least six times and other great books from Glen Cook. The Dragon Never Sleeps for instance sets up the same kind of ambiance, with a dictatorial powerful regime being challenged. It is a great subject to read about.
So people can learn from these kind of fictions. And i think one of the main "lessons" taugh by Tyranny is about the non-manichean order of things. Not earth shattering but still a way to show that hell indeed is paved with good intentions.