Opinion: Tyranny?

[Avilan the Grey]

Quick question: Is Tyranny worth the money?

[Keltest]

Its a well put together game, but doesnt really stand out for anything in particular to me. It felt a lot like pillars of eternity, only with an aesthetic style I didn't care for that much.

[GungHo]

There were some good ideas, but it ultimately ended up being kind of bland. There's more to recapturing that "old school" (in quotes because I cut my teeth on things like the gold box games) feeling than just putting everything in an isometric projection. The game also just kind of ends. I realize that might be "DLC padding" or "sequel padding", but it's not even a cliffhanger. It's more a "ok, we're tired, so 'The End'. Go to sleep." type of thing.

[Spore]

I found the sudden shift from the prologue tactical map where you decide which faction's approach is smarter and you deal with large scale decisions to caring about your subordinate's feelings a bit weird. I just felt weirded out. First you are the messenger and right hand of the evil overlord, then you are to serve as a puppet for the two generals UNDER your master.

You don't really know where your character stands in the hierarchy. First you feel like the deciding general, then you are a ambassador or enforcer. Secondly if you have enough skill points for it your first two companions tell you a big chunk of their backstory right away. Deep stuff that could be used against them. The berserker lost her battle sisters in a combat and is sad that they're gone. She then reveals her combat style to you which was her greatest asset as she switches from one sister's to another's so that no one can adapt easily. The other one openly states that he is QUITE unhappy that the magical lightning that fused his plate armor together came from the evil overlord but quickly - and very unconvincingly - reassures us that he knows his punishment was just.

And yeah, the combat is intricate but was in my case (roguish bow user) not as enticing. But I did the same mistake I do with all newer games, I didn't let its story unfold. I quit after about 2 hours and the 2. map. Still bought it full price and would do again, if just to reinitiate a 2D isometric renaissance.

[Avilan the Grey]

I never played the gold box games but I know of them.
My first PC Rpg was the Eye Of The Beholder series and Ultima Underworld.
The first PC game I bought instead of pirate was Baldur's Gate.

...Anyway, it looks really interesting. Some reviews love it, some say Meh.
I am torn. I have three games in mind to buy right now:

Tyranny
Stellaris
The Fall Of The Dungeon Guardians

[Aotrs Commander]

I never played the gold box games but I know of them.
My first PC Rpg was the Eye Of The Beholder series and Ultima Underworld.
The first PC game I bought instead of pirate was Baldur's Gate.

...Anyway, it looks really interesting. Some reviews love it, some say Meh.
I am torn. I have three games in mind to buy right now:

Tyranny
Stellaris
The Fall Of The Dungeon Guardians

I liked Tyranny, but is is relatively short, unless you are the sort of person to replay things roight away. (Mind you, Tides of Numenara was even shorter, largely to the lack of combat.)

Stellaris is... Okay at the moment, but it will need, I think, a fair few more expansions before it is up to CK2/EUIV standards. (But you can at least garentee a fair bit of time for yuor money!) At the moment, it is a slightly-above-average 4X

Not heard of that last one. What's that when it's at home?

[Nadevoc]

It felt kind of unfinished to me. The end felt like it kinda came out of nowhere.

There's also the 'servant to the evil overlord' aesthetic, which I know is a deal breaker for some. Your character is at least somewhat evil; there's not really a way around that. So if you want to be a hero, stay away.

It does have some really cool systems and has some promise. I loved the start, but it felt like it kinda fell apart a bit about midway through. Still very worth it to me, though; I'd definitely put it above Pillars of Eternity, for reference.

I found the sudden shift from the prologue tactical map where you decide which faction's approach is smarter and you deal with large scale decisions to caring about your subordinate's feelings a bit weird. I just felt weirded out. First you are the messenger and right hand of the evil overlord, then you are to serve as a puppet for the two generals UNDER your master.

You don't really know where your character stands in the hierarchy. First you feel like the deciding general, then you are a ambassador or enforcer.

For the record, I didn't have either of these issues. I had zero issues understanding where my character fit into the hierarchy. And the prologue decision tree is just part of character creation - it allows you to set up some of your character history. It's also completely skippable if it's not your thing.

I never played the gold box games but I know of them.
My first PC Rpg was the Eye Of The Beholder series and Ultima Underworld.
The first PC game I bought instead of pirate was Baldur's Gate.

...Anyway, it looks really interesting. Some reviews love it, some say Meh.
I am torn. I have three games in mind to buy right now:

Tyranny
Stellaris
The Fall Of The Dungeon Guardians

Unfamiliar with Fall of the Dungeon Guardians.

Between Tyranny and Stellaris, I'd go with Stellaris. I encourage people to pick up Tyranny to support the style of game and to see some of the really cool design things (For example, in dialogue, most names and the like are highlighted and you can get a quick lore synopsis. So if someone mentions Lord Iggibod and you don't remember who the heck that is, you can get a quick refresher without being pulled out of the story). But Tyranny is short and the ending felt incomplete, whereas Stellaris feels a bit more complete and will likely provide many more hours of entertainment.

[Avilan the Grey]

Fotdg is a classic first person grid dungeon game, like eye of the beholder back in the day.

Anyway thanks for the advice!

[Sian]

There's also the 'servant to the evil overlord' aesthetic, which I know is a deal breaker for some. Your character is at least somewhat evil; there's not really a way around that. So if you want to be a hero, stay away.

Eh ... In my opinion that's the games strong point ... being allowed to play a evil person without being forced down the path of an trollish murder-hobo (although you could argue that Scarlet Chorus leans that way, but still, that's a free choice by the player), and without being arm-twisted into actually completing the Greater Good Quest where the evil choices are obviously afterthoughts

[Aotrs Commander]

Eh ... In my opinion that's the games strong point ... being allowed to play a evil person without being forced down the path of an trollish murder-hobo (although you could argue that Scarlet Chorus leans that way, but still, that's a free choice by the player), and without being arm-twisted into actually completing the Greater Good Quest where the evil choices are obviously afterthoughts

I think Tyranny's other big problem was that it didn't even go far enough with the servant of the evil overlord thing, since

Spoiler

Show

It did not allow you to wrap it all up nicely and hand it to Kyros and say "all done, chief. Where next?"

[thorgrim29]

It's pretty fun. There are some very cool ideas in there, a fair bit of interesting worldbuilding, a few good party members, and decent if paint-by-the-numbers combat (though the combo attacks are nice). It's pretty short though, even if that is sort of by design because there are 3 or 4 main paths that have completely different missions. It does feel a bit unfinished though, seems there should be at least 1 more act to the game.

If you're going by hours of gameplay Stellaris has much more to offer, but there is basically no narrative to Stellaris so IMO it's much more fun to play with friends.

I think Tyranny's other big problem was that it didn't even go far enough with the servant of the evil overlord thing, since

Spoiler

Show

It did not allow you to wrap it all up nicely and hand it to Kyros and say "all done, chief. Where next?"

Spoiler

Show

Yeah that was odd, but it's implied that by the end of the game you're growing strong enough to be a threat to Kyros so they wouldn't let you just continue serving.

I should do another playthrough where I do the scarlet chorus questline and be much more of a bastard. In my playthrough I did the Disfavoured and ended up killing Tunon, Bledhen Mark and Nerat and Graven Ashe bent the knee to me. So by the end of it Kyros doesn't have archons left.

[The Glyphstone]

I liked it...but somewhere about halfway through I stopped playing and never picked it up again. I think having the ending previously mentioned spoiled to be didn't help, but overall something was just lacking in the execution to keep me involved and interested.

[Anteros]

I think it's a good game. The companions are all forgettable, but it has an interesting story and an interesting setting. There are a few flaws here and there, but I thought the game was good despite them. Especially if you like CRPGs.

That said, it's half of a game, and abruptly ends at the point where you'd expect the final act to begin. Supposedly there is more content coming in the future, but since the game didn't sell well there's no way to know if it will ever come out.

I got it on sale and don't regret it. I would not pay full price for it, but 20 or 30 and it's probably a good investment.

[Rodin]

I think it's a good game. The companions are all forgettable, but it has an interesting story and an interesting setting. There are a few flaws here and there, but I thought the game was good despite them. Especially if you like CRPGs.

That said, it's half of a game, and abruptly ends at the point where you'd expect the final act to begin. Supposedly there is more content coming in the future, but since the game didn't sell well there's no way to know if it will ever come out.

I got it on sale and don't regret it. I would not pay full price for it, but 20 or 30 and it's probably a good investment.

All of this.

The thing I found weirdest in the setting was that there wasn't a way to play the "reasonable servant of the Dark Lord". Because of how evil the Empire is, nobody trusts that their lands will be administered fairly. And because of the prologue, nobody trusts you either. You wind up murdering a lot of people after you ask nicely for them to put down arms in return for concessions.

Other than that, the plot itself was quite enjoyable.

[Anteros]

You can play as a reasonable or good person...it's just much harder to get those options. If you have a history of being a jerk, or did bad things in the past they won't even show up.

[Rodin]

You can play as a reasonable or good person...it's just much harder to get those options. If you have a history of being a jerk, or did bad things in the past they won't even show up.

You can be good, but you can't support Kyros while doing so. At least, not that I found. My first character attempt was Lawful Good/not a traitor, and there really wasn't a way to do that. Going full rebellion works, but that wasn't the type of character I was going for.

[Anteros]

I'm gonna move this to spoilers since someone is thinking of buying the game.

Spoiler

Show

You can't support Kyros no matter what you do sadly. It's a bit of a missed opportunity considering how open-ended the rest of the game was.

Avilan, I do really like the game though. I actually thought about making a thread for it a while back, but didn't think there would be much interest. There's a lot of very interesting features. I would describe it as a very good game that is unfinished. If that appeals to you then get it.

[Kish]

You can be good, but you can't support Kyros while doing so. At least, not that I found. My first character attempt was Lawful Good/not a traitor, and there really wasn't a way to do that.

I'm afraid my reaction to this is "well, of course not." If you're the enforcer for a horrible tyrant, you are a horrible tyrant. "I was only following orders" is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good. The best you could hope for while trying to both be good and support Kyros is a character who doesn't understand what they're doing at all.

Darth Vader mostly killed Imperial soldiers, yet everyone in the Star Wars universe sees him as a monster just because he stood there while Tarkin blew up Alderaan. It's like being able to Force Choke Tarkin and say "belay that order" created a moral obligation to do so, or something.

[Rodin]

I'm afraid my reaction to this is "well, of course not." If you're the enforcer for a horrible tyrant, you are a horrible tyrant. "I was only following orders" is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good. The best you could hope for while trying to both be good and support Kyros is a character who doesn't understand what they're doing at all.

Darth Vader mostly killed Imperial soldiers, yet everyone in the Star Wars universe sees him as a monster just because he stood there while Tarkin blew up Alderaan. It's like being able to Force Choke Tarkin and say "belay that order" created a moral obligation to do so, or something.

I disagree totally. A person can see the corrupt system and decide that the best way to change things is from within - particularly in the face of overwhelming power like we see in Tyranny. Work to try and save lives that would be lost fighting a hopeless war, reign in the excesses of the regime. Yes, it's more morally grey than shouting your defiance to the evil overlord even as he drops a volcano on your head - but it may also save more lives in the long run.

Tyranny wasn't set up to be played that way and that's fine. It still felt like a missed opportunity for a very interesting plot.

[factotum]

Darth Vader mostly killed Imperial soldiers, yet everyone in the Star Wars universe sees him as a monster just because he stood there while Tarkin blew up Alderaan.

Oh, Anakin Skywalker did *much* worse things than kill a few Imperial soldiers if you go back to the prequels, and just because he wasn't in the black suit at the time doesn't change that. Slaughtering children is plenty enough for people to regard him as a monster whatever he did later on.

(It's one of my bugbears with the prequels, actually--IMHO what he did there is so monstrous that the ending of RotJ is in no way enough to redeem him, especially since it's entirely his fault that Palpatine was able to become Emperor in the first place).

[Kish]

In the what? I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

(And even if there were more than three movies made by George Lucas, since apparently in the three movies that exist the only people who know that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker are the surviving Jedi, it's not relevant to why everyone treats him as a monster.)

Rodin, you seem to be moving goalposts. You had said you thought you should be able to play Lawful Good and loyal, and complained that there was no option for Lawful Good/not a traitor. Now you're equating being actually loyal with anything but "shouting your defiance even as [they] drop[s] a volcano on your head"--which isn't even an option. Playing along with Kyros until you can overthrow them is exactly what a good PC does. If choosing to actively keep a monster in power rather than working against them at all is what passes for grey in your household I'd suggest you switch detergents.

[Cikomyr]

How about the Lawful Neutral approach? "I want the system to remains, but i will do my best within it".

[Sian]

but yeah ... Tyranny is much stronger exercise in world building (short of the aforementioned inability to stay loyal to Kyros, even if it led to a bad ending where you got promoted to the most boring post in the universe (or assassinated in some way) since you suddenly became a creditable threat given your ability to manipulate Edicts, just as Kyros is famed/feared for being the only one to control), while its fairly middle of the road in terms of gameplay and party NPCs ... not bad by any means, just so average that it's somewhat forgettable.

I believe that the core narrative idea would have been much stronger as a novel trilogy, since then you the things that didn't/couldn't happen but should have been able to, is much more glaringly obvious.

[The Glyphstone]

How about the Lawful Neutral approach? "I want the system to remains, but i will do my best within it".

That was how I tried to play it. My loyalty was to Tuonon more than Kyros, an agent of impartial Law regardless of its harshness or generosity.

[Avilan the Grey]

Fun thing: I have not read many reviews, but none of them talk about an ending problem.

As a sidenote: Has anyone here played Fall Of The Dungeon Guardians?

[Avilan the Grey]

Since I have now settled on Stellaris instead... I consider this thread closed. Thanks for all your help.

[Sian]

Note that Stellaris is 40% off on Paradox's own store atm

[Anteros]

Since I have now settled on Stellaris instead... I consider this thread closed. Thanks for all your help.

I haven't played it. Come back and let us know what you think.

[Avilan the Grey]

Note that Stellaris is 40% off on Paradox's own store atm

Yep. That's why.
Funny how it's NOT on sale on Steam though. Hadn't known about it withouthe Paradox newsletter in my mail.

[Divayth Fyr]

Did you already pick it up? Right now you can get Stellaris for 12$ as part of Humble Monthly.