algroth

What really annoyed me was that Pallegina didn't even react, when I found out that the VTC is involved in slave trade. But she was really angry when I accidentally slaughtered the Bardattos and even more when I refused to do the main quest with the VTC (which should be kind of understandable under that circumstances, even for her). It's also annoying because the entire crux of her arc in the first game is that of pitting the "right thing to do" against the "interests of the Republics". In this particular case it isn't even in the interests of the *Republics* per se, but those of a single bureaucrat who's engaging in illicit affairs on the side, so why wouldn't she raise concerns at all? Whereas the Pallegina of the first game openly condemned and combatted actions by the Ducs and her superiors, here she just feels sycophantic.

This is amazing.

I think we're kinda talking about two ways of failing though, and that could be my bad. I don't think the blows you receive out of failing something shouldn't be harsh - I think "failure" could constitute any sort. But in tabletop settings, I feel you can be a lot more flexible about how to interpret that failure. Maybe your character dies, and maybe it's a total party wipe even - but that doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the campaign. A single character could meet their demise and the player could reroll a new one to fit into the old party, or maybe a new quest is opened whereby the party have to find a way to ressurect their old party member or, for example, save them from a horrible fate that awaits their soul by travelling into the Astral Plane and yadda yadda. The consequence of being unlucky could be utterly severe, but the way it is implemented in the above examples with the basilisk and so on, that's not really that interesting a way to even *test* your luck. You're randomly pitted against a monster that casts insta-killing abilities and have to roll to see if you get a standard game over or lose a companion or not. Not only is it unfair or frustrating, from any other perspective it's rather, uh... Boring, you know? So, going back to that Matthew Colville example I referred to earlier, that villain he ran who had the ability to raise powerful undead out of allies who fell unconscious, well... That happened to one of the characters in his story. One of the players failed the save, fell unconscious and was raised back up as a vampire, who now attacked the party. But the rest of the party was eventually victorious by killing the villain, and in doing so the vampire turned into a mist and fled the encounter. That was the end of that campaign, but on another campaign in that same workplace, another party became aware of certain things happening around their town, and as they investigated further who did they run into but none other than the vampire companion who'd fled the previous game? Obviously they were well aware of who that vampire had been in another campaign, and that was a neat little twist. Things like this could happen in a tabletop setting given how creative a DM can be with a failure or even a companion's death - but it's rarely the case that this sort of inventiveness translates to videogames, mostly because videogames can only be as flexible as what was programmed and written into them. They can't possibly account for every scenario and divergence possible in every situation and interaction, so usually a failure translates into a loss or a game over or a failed quest or something. I figure that leaving things to luck in a tabletop setting is cool because it could be so much more, regardless of what is being "gambled" in that lucky roll, if you get where I'm going. In a videogame on the other hand, where the only outcome is "you lose", I'm not much interested in running into a "choose the right door or die" situation without knowing the "or die" clause or having some means of deducing which is the right door. Basically I don't find Unexpected Russian Roulette a particularly compelling game.

Yeah, I agree and that's also another thing I completely missed out on - leaving such cases to "luck". "Luck" is a terrible variable to determine the outcome of a fight, because it's nowhere as rewarding as the player's choices, mechanics or intuition being the factor to victory, and because it feels way more frustrating and unfair when it determines a loss. An insta-death on a dice roll is often pretty terrible... But I think it can be made to work provided the way in which it's approached. Recently I saw a Matthew Colville video where he spoke about gorgons in a tabletop setting, and how to manage their petrifying gaze, and I loved his approach: basically instead of petrification being the outcome of a single dice roll, he'd first roll the dice and if the player failed, they'd become slowed; next turn they'd have to roll again and if they failed again, they'd become paralyzed; a third fail would then determine if the player was turned to stone or not. This is cool not because it basically gives the player three chances to succeed and be free of the effects, but because it gives the party a way to act upon what happens and respond adequately - say by a priest casting some restoration or protection spell or something, or even boosting their chances of success through a Luck or Bless spell or whatever. At least it gives the players a chance to respond and play against that. Another interesting example he gave in another video: one of his classic "villains" would usually have this ability to turn people into undead if they fell unconscious or something. This was a one-save-only situation, if you failed the save you were pretty much gone. But he made sure to showcase this ability *before* any of the players were to be targeted by it, thus warning them of one of the character's most powerful, and possibly "unfair", moves. Hence, it all becomes par with expectation and it allows you to prepare as well (say, through a Death Ward or whatever). So, it's been a while since I last played Baldur's Gate but I cannot recall if there ever was anything that signalled the presence of basilisks in Mutamin's Garden prior to you running into them. The player could have been informed in several ways - have them witness an NPC adventurer losing a battle against one of the basilisks as soon as you accessed the area for example, to show you what the basilisks can do and so on. Have someone suggest ways to prepare, perhaps? Though that could just spell out the solution to the encounter. Regardless, *some* indication would make their presence seem less arbitrary and 'unfair'. With the spider-swarms in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I'm at least thankful that before my first encounter with them the game explained how swarms worked (another issue I have with the game is how vaguely or poorly it explains its systems), so at the very least I knew what they were when I faced them. While correct in many ways, I am corroded after years of luckfesting at D&D tables, armed with dice, emotional flares and endless amounts of snacks and beverages: I really like luck because I hate it. I still find that many computer games determining the outcome by plenty of luck - Hearthstone, Diablo 3 or the Baldur Gate series - are the slot machines of my rollercoaster mental state that I seem to crave. Games where everything is balanced, smooth and solely skill-based - like Chess, Go and Advance Wars - will soon bore me to tears. I think luck in a tabletop setting is alright, myself, because sometimes a critical miss can result in something completely unexpected and hilarious, depending on how creative your DM is. But in a videogame context, where losing often equates only to failing (or at least we're conditioned to interpret it so), it's more a disappointing sort of frustration than a fun one. Or so I find it anyways. I kind of like that about Tides of Numenera, I feel. I like that right from the get-go they inform you that failing a check isn't always bad, and if I'm not mistaken you can only really get the best ending if you fail a very specific check early on (one dealing with a ghost lady and her attempt to strange you). Planescape: Torment also had some cases like these, such as when you let yourself be killed by a group of githyanki to then learn about their plans and so on. I wouldn't mind more games approaching successes and losses in this fashion.

Yeah, Daredevil quality wise was great, but it was cancelled at least ostensibly due to not being successful enough- ie being too expensive for the subscribers/ views it got. You also have to take the whole lot of Marvel shows into account rather than just one title. As for the Titans trailer being too movie MCU, I didn't get that at all- it was meant to showcase an ensemble and be sort of grimdark, but I don't really associate ensemble (solely) or grimdark with MCU. If anything it was like a Legends of Tomorrow trailer if that were a grimdark show with no fun allowed. I thought it was cancelled because of the Disney/Netflix debacle, not due to viewership or lack thereof. Far as I've seen it's the only superhero show in the last ten or fifteen years that's broken through the comic book series niche into a wider audience appeal. Regarding the trailer in question, I was talking about the Doom Patrol one, not Titans.

Yeah, I agree and that's also another thing I completely missed out on - leaving such cases to "luck". "Luck" is a terrible variable to determine the outcome of a fight, because it's nowhere as rewarding as the player's choices, mechanics or intuition being the factor to victory, and because it feels way more frustrating and unfair when it determines a loss. An insta-death on a dice roll is often pretty terrible... But I think it can be made to work provided the way in which it's approached. Recently I saw a Matthew Colville video where he spoke about gorgons in a tabletop setting, and how to manage their petrifying gaze, and I loved his approach: basically instead of petrification being the outcome of a single dice roll, he'd first roll the dice and if the player failed, they'd become slowed; next turn they'd have to roll again and if they failed again, they'd become paralyzed; a third fail would then determine if the player was turned to stone or not. This is cool not because it basically gives the player three chances to succeed and be free of the effects, but because it gives the party a way to act upon what happens and respond adequately - say by a priest casting some restoration or protection spell or something, or even boosting their chances of success through a Luck or Bless spell or whatever. At least it gives the players a chance to respond and play against that. Another interesting example he gave in another video: one of his classic "villains" would usually have this ability to turn people into undead if they fell unconscious or something. This was a one-save-only situation, if you failed the save you were pretty much gone. But he made sure to showcase this ability *before* any of the players were to be targeted by it, thus warning them of one of the character's most powerful, and possibly "unfair", moves. Hence, it all becomes par with expectation and it allows you to prepare as well (say, through a Death Ward or whatever). So, it's been a while since I last played Baldur's Gate but I cannot recall if there ever was anything that signalled the presence of basilisks in Mutamin's Garden prior to you running into them. The player could have been informed in several ways - have them witness an NPC adventurer losing a battle against one of the basilisks as soon as you accessed the area for example, to show you what the basilisks can do and so on. Have someone suggest ways to prepare, perhaps? Though that could just spell out the solution to the encounter. Regardless, *some* indication would make their presence seem less arbitrary and 'unfair'. With the spider-swarms in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I'm at least thankful that before my first encounter with them the game explained how swarms worked (another issue I have with the game is how vaguely or poorly it explains its systems), so at the very least I knew what they were when I faced them.

u can win every fight in that series by pre-buffing and auto-attacking everything to death. in BG1 u just give everyone bows. in BG2, u get keldorn to cast dispel magic occasionally. like, i cant dispute there are builds that can solo the game with minimal input. there are peeps here that spend all their time trying to develop such, but i think its fair to say most of these strats arent immediately obvious to us normal saps. Im unsure why u highlight the examples u do. The ciphers in sss can be dealt with using normal anti-caster strats + aegis of loyalty + intellect resistance. Theyre too squishy to be that hard a fight, nowhere near as annoying as splintered reef imo - those fampyrs take more of a beating. (Praise kyros for chill fog) u can interrupt anyone casting disintegration, and if one lands u can use barring deaths door/withdraw if ur regens not up to scratch. as for the soul mirror match, u alpha strike the back line, leave ur tank til last, debuff their defences and whittle them down. ai dont use the aggressive cheese strats available to a player or else something like bridge ablaze would be like pulling own fingernails out. Like i also find it odd that u could prep enough to stat check everyone to death yet not figure out u could blast every ship to smithereens with double bronzers. like if u crush the ship fights u can proper clean up early game and take advantage of some powerful gear. i dunno man, too much of what ur saying just dont jibe with my experience of game. I didnt feel ready to touch potd until id cleared the game veteran-upscaled and knew the craic. like if ud said 'game too easy, herald kill everything with zero input on highest difficulty' that would have at least backed up what people have been saying elsewhere on this forum but eh... Ah, should have made myself clear. BG1/2 are both easy once you get to know them... but don't tell me you never got a) one-shot critted by gibberling/hobgoblin/random encounter bandit archers spawn in BG1 b) instakilled by Rayic Gethras' Finger of Death in BG2 c) imprisonmented by Kangaxx d) level-drained to death e) petrified by Beholders f) had brain eaten by Mindflayers g) died in Cloakwood spider webs h) blasted to chunks by Thaxy dragon's level drain breath j) paralyzed by Ghasts k) ghasted by Aec'Laetec .... ..... ..... This never, ever happens in Deadfire. Not even remotely close. It's easy even if you don't know squat about it other than stacking Deflection is apperantly equal to God mode, which kind of sums up my knowledge of the game. I didn't have much trouble with Reef, maybe because I went there rather late (only 1 white skull). I don't know any anti caster strats for ciphers, or anything else for that matter (super-bosses aside, and w/o these forum I doubt I'd ever do Spider battle). I only used brute force on everything - which proves my point - the game is so easy that there's just no need to. The whole "strategy" if you wanna call it that was that my PC with Casita Legacy + ugly green shield gets in combat first. From there on, its just counting frames and seeing icy arrows turning enemies into mush... BG on hardest difficulty settings means you take double damage if you take any. Since virtually all damage can be negated in BG2, provided you know the game, difficulty can be irrelevant. I don't want to go into "which game is better" here (both BG1 and BG2 suffer from being extremely cheesable, serious class disbalance, silly OP equipment etc. but that's not the point. Given that I've modded BG2 I'm well aware of it's quirks.) Saying Deadfire is harder than either BG1 or BG2 (provided you never played either BG or Deadfire) is not something I can agree on, quite the opposite. PoEI I didn't like much for some reason, can't comment on difficulty. I don't play BG w/o mods such as SCS, and I only play No-Reloads. Honestly, if it weren't for mods, BG2 would be long dead by now. It's a great game, but it's life wasn't prolonged by it's quality; but by modders' ingenuity. P.S. On topic of dragons- BG2 - meet Thaxy first time - whole party dead in less than 20 seconds, dragon uninjured. Difficulty level - normal (easier than "core") Deadfire - meet the Watershaper dragon - 60% of party dead, 40% half health, dragon dead in cca 30 secons. Difficulty - PotD. Non-upscaled. I haven't played Deadfire since it got its balancing passes and have yet to try my hand at the mega-bosses or the DLCs for that matter, so I don't know how the experience is feeling right now, but I would say it felt rather easy the first time through, no disagreements there. Both the first Pillars and Baldur's Gate II proved much harder in their respective first playthroughs than Deadfire ever was, but that brings an issue because in my personal experience it is not an apples-to-apples comparison either. When I first played Baldur's Gate II back in 2001 or so I was completely new to RPGs, be they in videogame or tabletop form, let alone D&D for that matter - so I wasn't just ignorant of the monster manual, I was ignorant of the systems and the options I had before me altogether. Come Pillars, I was a much more seasoned RPG player so I had some general groundwork as to how to approach new foes and counter their specific traits and abilities - but its own "monster manual" was largely new to me and so I still found my two initial playthroughs very challenging, and far more than I did any of the D&D games at that time ("at that time" being, understandably, fifteen years and several playthroughs on each game later, where every kink and every interaction - at least from a combat/mechanics perspective - was deeply familiar to me). To respond to your list, throughout the first Pillars I could easily recall being hammered and lazered to death by the Eyeless, insta-wiped by a single breath from the Adra Dragon, chain-stunned forever by spirits and lagufaeth, petrified by adragans and hammered down by their lurkers (or getting rooted by these too, on lone fights), getting rolled over by a snowballing Triumph of the Crusaders, getting my ass handed back to me by a certain drunken orlan, or by most monks if I failed to initially burst them down, or shadows in the temple of Eothas teleporting and instakilling Aloth in the backline, and so on. By my third playthrough I had a much clearer comprehension about how to build my characters and what to expect out of each encounter and so, yes, the game also proved easier even as I raised the difficulty. Come Deadfire, most of the setting, the mechanics, the creatures, the builds and so on were pretty familiar by now, and so when a spirit could have chained-cc'd me here, this time I knew exactly what to do and what to expect. It was undertuned for certain, but I also believe the core audience wasn't as green facing it as they might have been when first experiencing the Infinity Engine games back in the late 90s, or even the first Pillars and its own approach to each creature and combat and so on. Having said this I don't believe it's just a question of familiarity that is the issue right here, for as much tweaking as Deadfire could do to its encounters and so on, the most challenging encounters in Deadfire still related to relatively familiar or straight-forward creatures, be they throwbacks to the first game or relatively straight-forward "new enemies" with varying degrees of damage and tankiness by way of Rathun, eotens, constructs, Engwithan titans, nagas and so on. The new roster of creatures and encounters are okay though a tad overly familiar given their obvious D&D counterparts and not so unique all things considered... Which makes me wonder why the devs didn't invest further in the lore and setting they'd already built in the first game and introduce more eldritch and unique creatures like, for example, the polpovir, or even the barbed ravagers and winding serpents which to the best of my awareness were only referenced in Cignath Mór (the underwater ruins). Maybe they're part of one of the DLCs which I've yet to play, but it seems to me that they had the opportunity to introduce some strange and far-out challenges that were also deeply fitting for a maritime adventure, and simply didn't. Maybe because they couldn't lock down a set of compelling mechanics or a suitable look for them? Regardless, to reiterate my first point, the more you're familiar with the genre, the less chances you'll have to really be surprised, or baffled. Right now I'm playing through Pathfinder: Kingmaker and that game seems to follow a design philosophy closer to the Baldur's Gate series than Pillars does, inasmuch as it's overflowing with cheesy, meta-gamey encounters and follows a general approach to systems that makes it seem like they want to adapt the TT ruleset as literally and foolhardily as possible onto a videogame medium, regardless of whether it's a good decision that would actually work as intended in this context or not; and even in this case I feel like I know just what to do and what I need once I've seen the creatures I'm up against. Giant slugs hitting my lvl 5 party for 60HP of acid damage a pop is only an issue when you don't have a scroll of communal protection against acid on you, but once you're armed with that bit of info, and the awareness that you'll be up against those particular creatures, it's all too easy to make sure you buy one from the nearest vendor before trying the fight out. The only issue is that since you're very often on a timer, between kingdom management and timed quests and whatnot, backtracking becomes twice the frustration, so you Better Know What You're Up Against!!! Maybe the reason why Baldur's Gate II didn't bother again with a wild area full of basilisks is because as a challenge it simply wasn't that compelling: the difficulty merely hinged on you having the right potions or metagaming foresight to buy the potions before heading that way; and yet, again, this might have taken way longer or seemed more challenging back when you didn't know you even *could* do such a thing. But we're not so innocent now, and so figuring your way across these instances doesn't feel particularly rewarding, whilst being randomly set up against such encounters with no hint or foreshadow feels annoying, and hardly aids either a newbie in thinking intuitively or a veteran in preemptively preparing for what they may be up against, and so on. Owlcat Studios, relative to Obsidian, are a brand new studio so maybe all of the above is something the latter have also taken into consideration in their decades of experience and why they may shy away from such things nowadays. But it is also a supposition from someone who mostly just plays games and doesn't design them, so I could be talking out of my arse too.

In movies, sure. On TV, nah. The 'universe' part of MCU has been great for the movies but pretty close to actively terrible for TV since TV is seen so much as a secondary medium. DC's approach of letting the shows do their own thing and link as much or as little as they like is far better for TV. The only really bad thing about DC's approach to TV is being arbitrary about who and what can be used due to whatever movies they're planning as if people couldn't tell TV Deathstroke or Deadshot plus multiple others apart from the movie versions. Movie wise DC is a mess, that they have two Joker movies with different actors in production at the same time just about sums things up there perfectly. But in terms of successful adult orientated TV shows Marvel is miles behind, albeit in part due to the, heh, meta issue of the Disney vs Netflix stoush. I feel the above trailer's trying too hard to be like the MCU *films*, with some Deadpool thrown in for good measure, moreso than the MCU series - but even you've pointed out the obvious parallelisms to Daredevil in some of the DC series' latest outings. In terms of who's behind, I'm right now seeing Daredevil as the superhero series to beat and nothing I've seen from DC comes close to that, or even some of the other better Defenders offerings like Luke Cage or The Punisher.

I like the VTC the most of all the factions (would be the pirates or Huana if it weren't for the outcome and ultimate plan of the former, and the isolationist stance of the latter). I hated the way they made me blow up a powderhouse though, but I found a curious workaround when I went to the Rauataians first and they forced me into a battle. From there, the VTC assumed their one big competition was done and dusted, and it was all ready to go without getting my hands (too) dirty.

I recall the Plucked Fruit quest bugged me too... As for the second example I recall being able to do so - and what's more, being able to deliver the note to the ranga if I 'healed' the pillar instead and being also able to pickpocket it from him to show to other people and so on. Most games would assume such an item to be worthless once it's been 'delivered', not here. And again, between who you choose to deliver the letter to, what you choose to do with the pillar and so on, and your eventual discussion later with the factions about your actions there, that quest has more possible outcomes, effects and approaches than most games out there praised for their depth of choices would usually offer.

I cant agree with this, but u may have highlighted something ill get to at the end. Km waffles hella much and includes words and arcs that do nowt to further any particular theme, just take up time. paragraphs are frequently way too long. Could have slashed word count by good 20% i suspect. Outside of cutscenes, deadfire mainly hews to the bullet-point-esque structure used by baldurs gate 2, which km aint adopted yet. While poe's now jettisoned the overly exhaustive dialogue trees that marred durance and gm, those dialogue trees have migrated to km. valeries one of the worst offenders for this. u can ask about her whole backstory then her sidequest just replays the whole thing without adding a great deal. might as well have just had the sidequest and made her cagier in the beginning. i think the issue u may be describing with deadfire aint one of concision but *density*. It does cram hella information into small spaces, which is compounded by - as u say - unfamiliar terms and metaphysical/political preoccupations that km aint burdened with. Km easier to read bcs it conveys simple information at length. Deadfire much fussier and offers fewer opportunities for less invested folk to catch up. you take ur eye of the ball, u can have little clue about what flavour of soul shenanigans is going on. This does mean that poe's approach risks narrowing its audience where km casts a wider net. whether its worth obs doing such is kind of up to them. i guess theory is u offer specialised experience to committed, trope-savvy crowd, rather than more digestible experience to wider, but more fickle crowd. Sort of like difference between, say, Al Stewart and Coldplay. To me the biggest offender regarding Kingmaker's verbosity relative to Pillars' is that in Kingmaker much of the lore, discussions, backstories and so on are rarely more than dressing, whereas I've found a lot to dig into thematically in the story and setting and specific character arcs and conflicts in Pillars. In a way I feel that Pillars' verbosity, with Durance and GM for example, is far more justified given their immediate relationship with the kind of ideas and imagery being conveyed than anything I've so far seen in my Kingmaker playthrough. However, given my preference for rather verbose writers this isn't usually as big an issue with me as it may be with others (heck, I've been streaming all these games in full and reading every bit of dialogue and description out loud), so even in Kingmaker I can't say I've really been bothered by this beyond a more general disinterest in the game thus far. I reckon Kingmaker's writing has worse problems than its verbosity, myself. I mentioned the lack of interesting themes or ideas, for one... The episodic structure so far has been rather problematic too. The writing is all manners of inconsistent, showing several moments where syntax just takes a nosedive (I recall a few sections during the Troll Troubles quest where even the descriptions sounded like they were being written down in troll-speech) or where completely neutral, standard responses are worded in the strangest ways (replying to Regongar's desires of bloody, gruesome revenge with a chirpy "Thank you for your answers!" when a "Let's talk about something else." would have served the same point whilst being far more appropriate to the tone of the conversation for example), and so on... But probably the single worst aspect so far has been the approach to the character choices and the interpretation of alignment which is just all over the shop. I absolutely loathe how every choice seems to respond to the most newbie and numbskulled interpretations of each stance, from "playing evil" equating being a sadistic murderhobo, "lawful good" being synonymous to acting like a trigger-happy zealot ("you must die because your race is evil", gee, I wonder what what reminds me of...), "neutral" being equivalent to "entirely apathetic", and so on. In my playthrough I'm trying to act as a mediator and a good ruler and so on but most of the time the "mediator" option, i.e. a stance of true neutrality, is offered only alongside the immediate assumption that you just don't care (want to find the truth behind a conflict between two tribes without pre-eminently taking either's side? Just choose "I don't care about your squables, I only care about X"). It's not like I'm opting out of taking sides because I'm genuinely interested in resolving this conflict peacefully... Christ, I couldn't offer shelter to the trolls in the Narlmarshes in my kingdom because somehow that's a *chaotic-only* action, *how* is it chaotic to wish to introduce civilization to an uneducated, barbaric species exactly?! What I loved about Pillars and Deadfire's approach to choice is that the choices you made could be given several justifications and that several options actually felt like good and interesting posibilities, and when they weren't it was easy to understand why a compromise had to be made; Kingmaker's feeling like the exact opposite to this, where most choices don't feel satisfying and very often the one path you'd like to opt into is inaccessible because it's either not been scripted in or is locked behind some completely arbitrary requisite like alignment. Seriously, this game is dumb as a bag of rocks half of the time, and it shocks me that the people I often see criticizing the writing of Deadfire would hold this as a counter-example of all things. (Rant over.)

Meanwhile I've seen very few games if any that have given me as much options and C&C as Deadfire so, what gives?

What kill me are the commission prices on the art description. I seriously can't tell if the artist is taking the piss or if they genuinely think that highly of their work.

Man, DC is so desperate to be MCU at this point.

I liked Eiza González in Baby Driver. Not sure I've seen her in anything else, but I'm not planning to get anywhere near From Dusk Till Dawn or any Robert Rodriguez for that matter.

And one more

Bugs-wise, I never experienced any major bugs in Deadfire, or major enough that they irremediably broke my game. Not so with Tyranny, where I had to cut my last playthrough of it short following a strange situation where my party and passive roster would gets scrambled up in the weirdest of ways and lead to me being unable to recruit or dismiss characters at all, as well as generating numerous copies of the companions in the process. In terms of the game I think the premise is great, the world is fantastic, and the first act is pretty damn solid throughout... But the game does wane a bit moving onto acts 2 and 3, which feel a tad rushed and bare-bones. Still enjoyable and hitting some nice story beats and satisfying encounters - what there is there is good but it could have been great had there been more to flesh the world and conflict out. I get the feeling there was a plan at some point to add more content to them via DLCs, which never occured due to the game not performing as expected. I also enjoy most of the approach to choice and consequence in the game, and its take on evil and so on. This is a great video on that aspect as treated in Tyranny (with spoilers of course):

And the actual scene. Rather funny.

Reminds me of this video I made of a trip to the countryside we did a couple of years ago: