Tyranny Discussion Thread

Yeah it was my bad, fixed it in the presvious post


Its stuff like the pics below that really make a lot of the writing in the game rather cringy.

Some places in ancient time is known for their matriachty heritage its not modern invention. Like Mali empire, native american some minang tribe in sumatra. So i dont find it to be immersion breaking tbh. While i do, though agree with the ridiculously amount of female soldier in this game. yes, its ahistorical, not many army field both gender on their rank except some nomadic culture and anyone that utilize more ranged (such archer) on their army.
 
Yeah, the SJW stuff is... annoying... so many fucking strong women characters. Heck, in the beginning you find TWO strong women who are leaders of their respective unit.
 
always compare to historical fact, while female commanding an army is rare it does happen in the past. But then their ratio always smaller than competent male commander. Over time, once large scale battle and tight formation become phenomenon; female role in battlefield decreasing.

So i think for a bronze - iron age inspired setting, it still make sense to me.

My only complain is how armor in disfavoured represented. Why wearing large cumbersome iron armor when fabric or hard leather based is just more effective?
 
To me, a female character leading a force in the Scarlet Chorus makes sense. Females have always had the better chance of taking command in nomadic and warlike tribes, yet a female commander with the traditionalist Disfavoured?
 
To me, a female character leading a force in the Scarlet Chorus makes sense. Females have always had the better chance of taking command in nomadic and warlike tribes, yet a female commander with the traditionalist Disfavoured?
Look, it depend on the ratio of man vs female. The disfavoured recruitment were already strict so i think they would happily accept anyone from their kin. To my understanding, disfavoured only despise outsider, degenerate thugs or anyone without discipline mind and body. So female leading their army is not something against their tradition or such. Its different like when the world in real life has entered historical era, after iron age where society role were much defined and clear.

If you fear Obsidian becoming 'SJW', play new vegas again. Its more convincing than CDPR witcher 3 direction of writing
 
To me, a female character leading a force in the Scarlet Chorus makes sense. Females have always had the better chance of taking command in nomadic and warlike tribes, yet a female commander with the traditionalist Disfavoured?

They do make a point of saying they take their fighters from pure northern stock, so it's highly probable that they aren't too picky on that front so long as you're a decent fighter and come from the right family. Plus, Kyros's empire seems to enforce gender equality, so it's not like this is not justified in-universe.

I mean, it's not Witcher-tier realism of the military being only dudes everywhere, but I don't think it detracts from the setting. Sure, stuff like that didn't happen in reality, but neither pieces of parchment that can destroy an entire region or a singular Empire spanning a continent virtually unchallenged. Plus the Archons themselves are the most powerful people in Kyros's dominion, and seem to all be dudes, and the head honcho's gender is unknown. So far at least.

I dunno. If a handful of female commanders in a fantasy army and some vulgar language used by women is our definition of ''SJW pandering'', I feel like we're really stretching things here.
 
I mean, it's not Witcher-tier realism of the military being only dudes everywhere, but I don't think it detracts from the setting. Sure, stuff like that didn't happen in reality, but neither pieces of parchment that can destroy an entire region or a singular Empire spanning a continent virtually unchallenged. Plus the Archons themselves are the most powerful people in Kyros's dominion, and seem to all be dudes, and the head honcho's gender is unknown. So far at least.
i have problem with the potrayal of Ves, very inapporiate in medieval setting where melee combatant is just harsh, brutal and make a lot use of physical ability. So i still think that witcher still not 'realistic' enough, but better than say skyrim or Bioware dragon age.

On the other hand, we got tyranny with bronze age setting. very different if you compare it to medieval age

Edit:


Is it at Least better then pillars of enternity?

Yep, It seem all of my complain (except the ending thing) in pillars are adressed and fixed in tyranny so far. It miles better
 
They make a big deal about how men cant own land in the southern land, and how land always passes between females.
A large number of characters are female and its constantly shoved in your face how strong they are.
There is more then one blatantly lesbian couple.
Kills-In-Shadow's profile description reads like bad furry fan fiction.
Verse's whole backstory reads like some Mary Sue character sheet
One woman even threatens to shove a staff up a guys ass until he prolapses.

Its a lot of little stuff, and it doesn't ruin the game or anything, but it all adds up over time, and reeks of pandering. Especially given the kind of time period the game is set in.

While not SJW pandering, theres also a lot of really odd writing choices and uses of modern anachronisms in an otherwise medieval setting. People say stuff like "Captain fuckwit here" and ".... the legal term is fuck you I'm the law!"
So... ancient civilizations like Egipt, Celtics, Norse, Sparta and Lahu are SJWs? Who could have guessed...
 
To fight well in the Disfavoured you need strength, especially with the heavy armour they wear. Women on average have less body strength then men. Yet a female is a commander of a unit (I'm fine with the Scarlet Chorus, they're really well explained)...
 
I don't mind the strong female commanders. It's consistent with the lore and environment created.
The Disfavored commander clearly says that while she is the best fighter (due to technique), she would pick two men to be "the corner of her phalanx" (because those are the most difficult and dangerous positions, which need the most physically strong and skilled fighters).
(Edit: as for the weight of her armor, well, it's clearly magical?)

While Obsidian touted this as "mature" and "evil", it seems they tried to sidestep some subjects like rape. It's mentioned that the Scarlet Chorus is raping it's way through the countryside, but it appears that even in this "mature game" your character can't do the same. In some cases you're able to torture, but rape is left out as an option for you. I'm doing a lawful neutral playthrough now, but if I do an evil one (as promised by Obsidian), you'd at least expect rape to be an option here & there. You're able to conscript or wholesale slaughter entire villages, but implying you can use rape seems to be a no no so far. There's little more evil than raping your way through your enemies, I'd say.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it comes up later though.
Now that I think about it, prostitution seems weirdly absent as well. Though even one Disfavored does imply slaves are used for more than the usual "services".

The thing that most annoyed me so far, was a run in with a bunch of mercenaries. Their leader loudmouthed me, and I attacked him. Queue a cutscene where he runs away from me, past 2 of his guards and out of the map.
Euhm, I was standing in front of him, do you think I'd let him run off when I pick the [ATTACK] option in the conversation? If you're going to Deus Ex Machina my ass, at least cause a spell or something that knocks me prone.
The guards were absolute push overs.

The second most annoying thing is that in a lot of conversation options, you seem to lack the "loyalty to Kyros" option. You are Tunon's Fatebinder here to implement Kyros' law. Yet, when people go off the reservation you cannot tell them they are risking being branded as traitors and risk execution? Seems like they spent way more time trying to put in options to have people bribe you for certain rulings, but didn't really think about imposing Kyros' law at the highest echelons?

Is it at Least better then pillars of enternity?
Yes, but the combat still sucks badly and the squad AI makes really weird choices if you keep it enabled.
"Oh, I'm almost dead & surrounded? I better cast a sigil buff on a full health squad mate that's 10 meters further down."

Picking the right weapons is also a pain, since way too frequently the game tells you the weapon you're using is ineffective. If you're fighting some jerk with a bronze breast plate and exposed limbs and head, I doubt any dagger could be ineffective if you have half a brain. ;)
 
The second most annoying thing is that in a lot of conversation options, you seem to lack the "loyalty to Kyros" option. You are Tunon's Fatebinder here to implement Kyros' law. Yet, when people go off the reservation you cannot tell them they are risking being branded as traitors and risk execution? Seems like they spent way more time trying to put in options to have people bribe you for certain rulings, but didn't really think about imposing Kyros' law at the highest echelons?
Its rare..there is some choice in the conquest that reflect this like the very fist city you conquer. Its not absent, its just not seem abundant since afterall its 'neutral' kind of option.


Picking the right weapons is also a pain, since way too frequently the game tells you the weapon you're using is ineffective. If you're fighting some jerk with a bronze breast plate and exposed limbs and head, I doubt any dagger could be ineffective if you have half a brain.
Dagger is very short, and i haven't read any record of martial art detailing the uses of dagger in normal engangement. It might doable in theory that any fighter would seek "weak part" of armor, but stuff like half swording is very difficult to implement. you need to take acount that even armored soldier is still quite agile to take defense stance and anticipate your dagger charge
 
Last edited:
Now that I think about it, prostitution seems weirdly absent as well. Though even one Disfavored does imply slaves are used for more than the usual "services".
There is a little brothel in Lezian, although the work conditions look pretty great coming from Wasteland 2 :P
Its rare..there is some choice in the conquest that reflect this like the very fist city you conquer. Its not absent, its just not seem abundant since afterall its 'neutral' kind of option.
Well Tunon options are consequentially Kyros', right? I have yet to meet him so i'll see
The thing that most annoyed me so far, was a run in with a bunch of mercenaries. Their leader loudmouthed me, and I attacked him. Queue a cutscene where he runs away from me, past 2 of his guards and out of the map.
Euhm, I was standing in front of him, do you think I'd let him run off when I pick the [ATTACK] option in the conversation? If you're going to Deus Ex Machina my ass, at least cause a spell or something that knocks me prone.
The guards were absolute push overs.
Oh, and that "First Axe" lady leaves after aggroing them right? Didn't see her in the mercenaries after that.
Dagger is very short, and i haven't read any record of martial art detailing the uses of dagger in normal engangement. It might doable in theory that any fighter would seek "weak part" of armor, but stuff like half swording is very difficult to implement. you need to take acount that even armored soldier is still quite agile to take defense stance and anticipate your dagger charge
*Keeps chugging spears around*
 
Dagger is very short, and i haven't read any record of martial art detailing the uses of dagger in normal engangement. It might doable in theory that any fighter would seek "weak part" of armor, but stuff like half swording is very difficult to implement. you need to take acount that even armored soldier is still quite agile to take defense stance and anticipate your dagger charge
The point was that the armor & damage systems are pretty meh. They have pretty frequently been the bane of Obsidian games even.
A lot of it is overly complicated and hard to anticipate. Optimizations in weapon choices are far from obvious. I obviously get that the game is build to require sundering armor etc, but it's quite annoying to have an expert dual wielder suddenly doing no damage at all because some dude wears bronze armor.

I also think the special abilities when working together are way too effective and that it's quite retarded to require "rest" between usage. It's old DnD mindset that doesn't carry over well to the game imo.

Well Tunon options are consequentially Kyros', right? I have yet to meet him so i'll see
Tunon's choices are supposedly Kyros', yes. But in a lot of pivotal moments, you don't seem to be able to make judgement that way. Ultimately bending to a faction or other.

Oh, and that "First Axe" lady leaves after aggroing them right? Didn't see her in the mercenaries after that.
She probably went for a swim. ;)
 
I've only played it for a couple minutes now, and I have to say, it doesn't do very well to grasp my attention, when compared to Pillars.

With Pillars of Eternity, the beggining of the story constantly had me wondering what was going to happen next. The attack on the caravan felt very natural, and I liked how you had a choice to drop your weapons and spare the guy, or keep hold of your weapons when speaking to the Glanathan leader, then when I went in to the temple, and what happened to Cascia. It all felt so confusing, and exciting, and I couldn't wait to go and find out why all this had happened.

By contrast, in Tyranny, the whole intro sequence kinda felt forced. From when the path closes behind you, to when you meet the Disfavored Soldier whose complaining about the Scarlet Chorus, to the Oathbreaker runner.

It kinda felt like they were just introducing aspects of the world which were obvious from the introduction, and shoehorning in a little bit of combat.


I also have to say, the Conquest sequence was somewhat disappointing. I disliked how every single choice in that sequence boiled down to "Do you agree with the Scarlet Chorus or the Disfavored here?", like they could have had lots more difficult decisions, instead of trying to establish who your going to side with right from the beginning. Similarly, being given a choice between two of the choices you could have a say in felt forced. Like why should I either make a decision on how to feed troops or how to deal with prisoners?, there is no valid reason I can't do both.

Also, the decisions such as "Where did Archon Tunan send you?" or "Where did Kyros attack first?" felt incredibly shoehorned. Why is it up to the fatebinder where they are sent on duty to?
 
Well everyone have their opinion, and their own taste. I personally find it very enjoyable. Not many games treat you as badass authoritative figure, right at the start of game.

Pillars, i felt those game have already filled with enough cliched trope and minimalist amount of choice that you could forsee even without replaying the game. Not to mention the amount of 'lore' that just seem mindlessly thrown to you in every character dialogue. I also think tyranny reputation is just better than pillars, its not positive vs negative; as you could gain the favour and wrath at same time
 
Last edited:
Back
Top