3:15 When faced with a moral choice like this one it's interesting to pick and I agree its rarely I meet a game that doesn't reward you for a 'good' because of its consequences(tradeoff) it makes it as if the game had a soul like this one 9:32, I also love the system of loyalty and fear for your team as well as this 31:24 moment from the game this is such a great video(script) and a game and i enjoyed it thank you for your hardwork alex.
Very good video. I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to get this game, and your breakdown and interpretation was both funny and informative! I’m definitely going to get it now.
I love the game, I never enjoyed playing murder-hobos or simply a**holes in games. But the nuanced options this game gave me, were very satisfying. They allowed me to role-play as some who sees Kyros as the lesser of two evils and tries to minimize collateral going forward to a better future. I think as far as writing goes, this is probably Obisdians best work overall. It's very devastating they never picked up any of the elements and refine them in any of their other games.
Glad to see someone else feel similar about approaching an evil character too! Fingers crossed that they try this setting again, would love to see if they decided to make new factions or a new location..
Dang dude, this was super fascinating. I feel similarly about the way morality is portrayed in games, in that I feel like it's usually boring because it's too simple. But this game felt like a really deep and intricate take on that, and even though it's not my type of game, I actually found myself loving the factions and lore as you explained them. Great vid, phenomenal work!
Thanks Noah! Yeah the factions are really interesting. In the sense that on the outside there monstrous forces but getting a closer look, you can understand the logic behind their actions, it's crazy!
Alright my dude, you have a lovely voice and nuanced takes on games. You do that thing I love where you gush about a game/thing you love, and even if I don't come away playing it, I do come away understanding why people could/do love it. Gonna subscribe and see what else you put out :D
I'm sure these longer videos are more time consuming to record and edit but they're so gooooooood i could listenn to you talk about this game for 4 hours and bring up every slightly interesting detail that means nothing to the plot
Ey! Bg1 murder hobos! I love how you applied the laws of power to the game. On a related note, the companion lotalty/fear system reminds me a lot of The Prince by Machiaveli.
The setting has a lot to do. In Tyranny's setting it is very hard to be good. It is between punishing and not possible. And that makes sense. In settings for a lot of other CRPGs it makes sense that being evil is not a rewarding experience since nobody wants/likes an agent of chaos and destruction. Though thievery, maybe due to technical limitations, is way too easy and not punished nearly enough, as well as murder being way too common and accepted (probably due to the roots of RPGs being in wargames and hence very combat focused). The only limitation usually to being a serial killer is that killing NPCs in towns will cause guards to attack you and maybe screw your chances to buy things or get quests.
It's insane how much you can affect the game in the conquest mode without even noticing. On my second playthrough I was shocked that the Bronze Brotherhood were actually a competent group of warriors, since on my Disfavored playthrough I had fucked them over massively during Lethian's Crossing Conquest, leading to them basically just being a gang of pathetically weak and underequipped homeless raider thugs. Only Obsidian would gamble on a game design in which 90% of players will miss out on seeing large chunks of the world and factions due to choices made in the prologue
I loved the setting and characters of this game, but I couldn't get on with the combat and dropped it after only a few hours of play. I'd constantly have issues with choosing a target for an ability whilst moving, then having the character stop in place when I wanted them to complete their movement and then do the attack, or do the attack whilst moving. Worst thing was giving them a command slightly too early and having it not register at all. It's just so stiff and unresponsive and I hated it because I never felt like it was my fault, it was the system refusing to work in a way that accounted for in the moment decisions. I don't understand how this is better than just doing everything turn based on a grid because it doesn't seem to have any advantages, only downsides. If it played like an RTS or a MOBA I'd get it, but the way that the game implements real time, party based combat just created a bunch of problems that shouldn't be there. I get that it's not an action game, but it would have really helped if it had the ability to issue more than a single command at a time without it either not registering or cancelling the current action prematurely. If I'm not going to be able to treat it like an action game, then I don't understand why I shouldn't be able to program at least four actions to be executed in sequence. The game isn't designed to be played with forced stopping every time a new action can be taken, even though you can technically set it up that way, because the action isn't conveniently instanced into rounds, so you'll need to give orders to one character, then a second later your other character will be in position and the game will pause, or an enemy will do something that means you have to manually pause and revise your commands. I really feel like RTWP should be playable in real time as an action/RTS hybrid game with minimal amount of pausing. Pausing should be there for emergencies and setting up a sequence of commands for complex plays requiring multiple characters to take actions in order to pull them off. I shouldn't have to set the game to pause every time I can input a command because when I'm left to my own devices I issue the command too early and I only realise after I've finished up with the next character and see that the character I told to use an ability is standing completely still on the battlefield because I either clicked too early or interrupted their movement and ended up standing in the wrong place. I don't understand why people are so fond of this type of combat because even the most passionate fans of the old Infinity engine games that this game is harkening back to seem to be largely disinterested in doing anything other than buffing the whole party before the encounter and spamming the same high level spells every time they run into enemies. Why even have combat at all if your main goal is to find a single solution to everything and keep repeating it until you can go back to what amounts to a really impressive visual novel. Part of why I loved Disco Elysium so much was that it completely gave up the pretence of having a vestigial combat system and replaced them almost entirely with difficult conversations that could sap your resources and give you a game over if you didn't manage to navigate them in a way that maintains your character's self confidence. I get that you can't always do that, but the combat in Tyranny was just about the worst system I've ever encountered. I've come across more broken games, but bad execution of a good idea isn't as frustrating conceptually as a game implementing a terrible system because it was used in games whose best aspects were in spite of the unengaging combat.
I can see where you're coming from with this. And Disco Elysium is such a cool game, awesome to see another fan for it too! Thanks for taking your time to articulate your thoughts!
Would recommend testing Pathfinder WOTR if you like diverse characters and character options. ESPECIALLY since you kind of almost are guaranteed to have at least one "Evil Character" in your party...
I play as "good" a character as I can. Good is not nice. Good is the straight path through all obstacles choosing the actions the result in the will of Kyros being fulfilled as swiftly and with as little destruction as possible. After all it's no use to the Overlord if it's burned to the ground.
wow, you bent the knee before Kyros after gaining the allegiance of Tunon and Ashe... I guess I don't have it in me to submit to a removed power that defies comprehension... Kyros didn't care for being reasonable, he/she was a despot like Jahweh in the Old Testament. I felt compelled, when the presented itself, to make a stand and leave his/her shadow, where I never felt comfortable.
I enjoyed Tyranny as well, but I'd say that it could only be considered evil by our modern standards. The setting reminded me of Ancient Rome and back then something like razing a city and slaughtering its population including children was par for the course. In this context Kyros's rule of law could almost be considered "good".
Ask those people being killed and seeing the homes they've known their whole lives razed whether what's happening to them is evil and I'm pretty sure they'll universally say yes. History as people lived it is not just the stuff people like to draw epic paintings of. There are often decades or centuries between these so prevalent razings that are considered evil from a "modern" perspective. Common people of the past laughed, loved, and lived their lives, not wanting to be surrounded by horror and war incurred by the same elites who didn't care about their lives as those of Tyranny.
@@8Nifon8 Nobody in human history has ever been okay with having their city razed and their life destroyed, barring very exceptional circumstance like somehow being convinced the outcome will be a benefit to them. Moral relativism is only consistent as a means of analyzing history if you value the perspectives of victors and not the victims of history. In that sense, a relativistic style of analysis becomes shallow and self-contradictory. The reason why modernity seemed to suddenly start caring about all this is simple. The majority of people became literate and could actually write down their accounts and how they felt when such things happened to them, not just largely the wealthy elites who could afford the education to both order and write down the razing of a city or a conquest in a way that fit their self-interest. The facets of morality may change. What does or does not work as justification may change, but the peasant was not passively accepting of monarchy under all circumstances, otherwise they wouldn't have had to come up with ideas like Divine Right or the Mandate of Heaven to justify both why they're there during the good times and why they fail during the bad times.
@@8Nifon8Then that means that conventional morality is just as valid as relativism. However the fact remains you will be hard pressed to be considered a good person when you raze cities even for back then, which is why such actions need to be contextualised.
Nice going!
honestly it's hard to believe this channel is still as underrated as it is
You do me quite the kindness, glad you enjoyed it!
3:15 When faced with a moral choice like this one it's interesting to pick and I agree its rarely I meet a game that doesn't reward you for a 'good' because of its consequences(tradeoff) it makes it as if the game had a soul like this one 9:32, I also love the system of loyalty and fear for your team as well as this 31:24 moment from the game this is such a great video(script) and a game and i enjoyed it thank you for your hardwork alex.
That means a lot, thank you very much!
Very good video. I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to get this game, and your breakdown and interpretation was both funny and informative! I’m definitely going to get it now.
Thanks for watching! Glad you got some enjoyment out of it!
I love the game, I never enjoyed playing murder-hobos or simply a**holes in games. But the nuanced options this game gave me, were very satisfying. They allowed me to role-play as some who sees Kyros as the lesser of two evils and tries to minimize collateral going forward to a better future.
I think as far as writing goes, this is probably Obisdians best work overall. It's very devastating they never picked up any of the elements and refine them in any of their other games.
Glad to see someone else feel similar about approaching an evil character too! Fingers crossed that they try this setting again, would love to see if they decided to make new factions or a new location..
Im just glad more people are covering this game. It is seriously underrated.
Dang dude, this was super fascinating. I feel similarly about the way morality is portrayed in games, in that I feel like it's usually boring because it's too simple. But this game felt like a really deep and intricate take on that, and even though it's not my type of game, I actually found myself loving the factions and lore as you explained them.
Great vid, phenomenal work!
Thanks Noah! Yeah the factions are really interesting. In the sense that on the outside there monstrous forces but getting a closer look, you can understand the logic behind their actions, it's crazy!
Great video man. First time I've seen one of yours and I was very surprised you didn't have a couple hundred thousand subs. Really enjoyed the video!
Thanks for the sweet comment, glad you enjoyed it, it means a great deal!
Alright my dude, you have a lovely voice and nuanced takes on games. You do that thing I love where you gush about a game/thing you love, and even if I don't come away playing it, I do come away understanding why people could/do love it. Gonna subscribe and see what else you put out :D
This is a really nice comment, thank you for taking the time to share it. Hope you enjoy the future stuff!
I dont finish most rpgs i buy these days, not even the ones i liked. This i finished, multiple times. Really needed a part 2
I'm sure these longer videos are more time consuming to record and edit but they're so gooooooood i could listenn to you talk about this game for 4 hours and bring up every slightly interesting detail that means nothing to the plot
Thank you Ash. Thats very sweet to hear, I'm glad I could make videos you can enjoy!
Ey! Bg1 murder hobos! I love how you applied the laws of power to the game. On a related note, the companion lotalty/fear system reminds me a lot of The Prince by Machiaveli.
Dude shoutout to Darty McFly, that guy's pretty based. Thanks man! I'm fairly sure The Prince had to have been referenced when making this game.
One of my favorite games right here. I may do another play through since I've watched this. I miss Siren. XD She is a lovable little shit.
The setting has a lot to do. In Tyranny's setting it is very hard to be good. It is between punishing and not possible. And that makes sense. In settings for a lot of other CRPGs it makes sense that being evil is not a rewarding experience since nobody wants/likes an agent of chaos and destruction. Though thievery, maybe due to technical limitations, is way too easy and not punished nearly enough, as well as murder being way too common and accepted (probably due to the roots of RPGs being in wargames and hence very combat focused). The only limitation usually to being a serial killer is that killing NPCs in towns will cause guards to attack you and maybe screw your chances to buy things or get quests.
It's insane how much you can affect the game in the conquest mode without even noticing. On my second playthrough I was shocked that the Bronze Brotherhood were actually a competent group of warriors, since on my Disfavored playthrough I had fucked them over massively during Lethian's Crossing Conquest, leading to them basically just being a gang of pathetically weak and underequipped homeless raider thugs. Only Obsidian would gamble on a game design in which 90% of players will miss out on seeing large chunks of the world and factions due to choices made in the prologue
I Love the Fable music playing in the background. Muhehehe
Thanks for watching Lance! That games music is just too good not to use.
youre making great vids dude keep it up
Glad you enjoy it Steven!
I loved the setting and characters of this game, but I couldn't get on with the combat and dropped it after only a few hours of play.
I'd constantly have issues with choosing a target for an ability whilst moving, then having the character stop in place when I wanted them to complete their movement and then do the attack, or do the attack whilst moving. Worst thing was giving them a command slightly too early and having it not register at all.
It's just so stiff and unresponsive and I hated it because I never felt like it was my fault, it was the system refusing to work in a way that accounted for in the moment decisions.
I don't understand how this is better than just doing everything turn based on a grid because it doesn't seem to have any advantages, only downsides.
If it played like an RTS or a MOBA I'd get it, but the way that the game implements real time, party based combat just created a bunch of problems that shouldn't be there.
I get that it's not an action game, but it would have really helped if it had the ability to issue more than a single command at a time without it either not registering or cancelling the current action prematurely.
If I'm not going to be able to treat it like an action game, then I don't understand why I shouldn't be able to program at least four actions to be executed in sequence.
The game isn't designed to be played with forced stopping every time a new action can be taken, even though you can technically set it up that way, because the action isn't conveniently instanced into rounds, so you'll need to give orders to one character, then a second later your other character will be in position and the game will pause, or an enemy will do something that means you have to manually pause and revise your commands.
I really feel like RTWP should be playable in real time as an action/RTS hybrid game with minimal amount of pausing. Pausing should be there for emergencies and setting up a sequence of commands for complex plays requiring multiple characters to take actions in order to pull them off.
I shouldn't have to set the game to pause every time I can input a command because when I'm left to my own devices I issue the command too early and I only realise after I've finished up with the next character and see that the character I told to use an ability is standing completely still on the battlefield because I either clicked too early or interrupted their movement and ended up standing in the wrong place.
I don't understand why people are so fond of this type of combat because even the most passionate fans of the old Infinity engine games that this game is harkening back to seem to be largely disinterested in doing anything other than buffing the whole party before the encounter and spamming the same high level spells every time they run into enemies. Why even have combat at all if your main goal is to find a single solution to everything and keep repeating it until you can go back to what amounts to a really impressive visual novel.
Part of why I loved Disco Elysium so much was that it completely gave up the pretence of having a vestigial combat system and replaced them almost entirely with difficult conversations that could sap your resources and give you a game over if you didn't manage to navigate them in a way that maintains your character's self confidence. I get that you can't always do that, but the combat in Tyranny was just about the worst system I've ever encountered. I've come across more broken games, but bad execution of a good idea isn't as frustrating conceptually as a game implementing a terrible system because it was used in games whose best aspects were in spite of the unengaging combat.
I can see where you're coming from with this.
And Disco Elysium is such a cool game, awesome to see another fan for it too!
Thanks for taking your time to articulate your thoughts!
Would recommend testing Pathfinder WOTR if you like diverse characters and character options.
ESPECIALLY since you kind of almost are guaranteed to have at least one "Evil Character" in your party...
Aw sick! I'll have to put that on list to try out, thanks for the recommendation!
@@Pollymacho Thanks for considering it. My personal favourite is Regil.
I play as "good" a character as I can.
Good is not nice. Good is the straight path through all obstacles choosing the actions the result in the will of Kyros being fulfilled as swiftly and with as little destruction as possible. After all it's no use to the Overlord if it's burned to the ground.
I really enjoy this comment, thank you for posting it!
wow, you bent the knee before Kyros after gaining the allegiance of Tunon and Ashe... I guess I don't have it in me to submit to a removed power that defies comprehension... Kyros didn't care for being reasonable, he/she was a despot like Jahweh in the Old Testament. I felt compelled, when the presented itself, to make a stand and leave his/her shadow, where I never felt comfortable.
To the ants in mt back yard I’m kyros love tyranny
I enjoyed Tyranny as well, but I'd say that it could only be considered evil by our modern standards. The setting reminded me of Ancient Rome and back then something like razing a city and slaughtering its population including children was par for the course. In this context Kyros's rule of law could almost be considered "good".
This is a really interesting perspective comparing it to the Roman Empire. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing it!
Ask those people being killed and seeing the homes they've known their whole lives razed whether what's happening to them is evil and I'm pretty sure they'll universally say yes. History as people lived it is not just the stuff people like to draw epic paintings of. There are often decades or centuries between these so prevalent razings that are considered evil from a "modern" perspective. Common people of the past laughed, loved, and lived their lives, not wanting to be surrounded by horror and war incurred by the same elites who didn't care about their lives as those of Tyranny.
@leowilliamson1573 Things like morality, good and evil are relative, dynamic and change with societies.
@@8Nifon8 Nobody in human history has ever been okay with having their city razed and their life destroyed, barring very exceptional circumstance like somehow being convinced the outcome will be a benefit to them. Moral relativism is only consistent as a means of analyzing history if you value the perspectives of victors and not the victims of history. In that sense, a relativistic style of analysis becomes shallow and self-contradictory. The reason why modernity seemed to suddenly start caring about all this is simple. The majority of people became literate and could actually write down their accounts and how they felt when such things happened to them, not just largely the wealthy elites who could afford the education to both order and write down the razing of a city or a conquest in a way that fit their self-interest. The facets of morality may change. What does or does not work as justification may change, but the peasant was not passively accepting of monarchy under all circumstances, otherwise they wouldn't have had to come up with ideas like Divine Right or the Mandate of Heaven to justify both why they're there during the good times and why they fail during the bad times.
@@8Nifon8Then that means that conventional morality is just as valid as relativism. However the fact remains you will be hard pressed to be considered a good person when you raze cities even for back then, which is why such actions need to be contextualised.
America 2024-2028 Simulator