The 'Sidian Tyranny thread

[Fenixp]

It seems most people do enjoy a good TB more than RTwP, but they vote RTwP in polls just because IE games had it. 

I cannot name a single game with RTwP that had a very good combat. Most are just decent at most.

Well because RTwP really is a lot more difficult to implement than TB, and most devs can't really do it right (including Obsidian, sadly). To really make it work, you need visible order queues, you need estimated times of execution to achieve proper sequencing etc. etc. - I think thus far only RTwP combat in UFO: Aftershock worked to my satisfaction.

 

I'll still take RTwP over TB tho as it feels significantly more natural to me.

[Vaeliorin]

As soon as RtWP comes up with a way to actually punish you for your mistakes, as opposed to letting you scatter your party as soon as you see somebody casting an AoE or the like, I'll be okay with RtWP combat.  Until then, give me turn-based, preferably with turns based on some sort of initiative or character speed system.  I go, you go is tolerable, but I much prefer some sort of initiative system.

[Gorth]

I wish more games used the Jagged Alliance 2 / X-Com 3: Apocalypse approach... real time until combat is commenced, then turn based using an initiative system (with the hilarity that follows from bad/luck interrupt rolls)

[Hurlshort]

I love turn-based combat, but games do need to be careful not to drag encounters out and make it too repetitive. At least real-time games move quickly on easy.

[Fenixp]

Why should I care that it's difficult to implement?

I never said you should? You don't have to care about anything I write, really.

 

That is not our (gamers) problem and we shouldn't make excuses for developers.

I quite literally said that majority of developers implement it rather badly?

 

It's like when ppl defended Obsidian not implementing promised features on the basis of Unity being hard to code.

And specifically pointed out Obsidian as a developer who also implemented it rather badly? Besides, coding for unity being hard is kinda bollocks.

 

I don't get it that you would still vote RTwP even thou the only good one you can name was released over 10 years ago.

And then I ended my post by saying that even in spite of this, I still find RTwP more natural than TB, which should tell you just how unnatural TB feels to me. I really enjoy combat in PoE significantly more than in most other RPGs I have ever played.

 

I'm quite baffled on what are we talking about here, really :D

[Gromnir]

we can name more than a couple o' good real-time with pause games we has played in the last ten years, including da:o at one end o' the temporal spectrum and poe at the other.  is as easy to find bad tb as bad rtwp... perhaps easier.  get into some kinda silly tangential debate 'bout what games is good is not something in which we is gonna indulge, but sales seem to suggest people prefer rtwp regardless o' sharp's opinion, y'know given how the biggie budget triple a games has, til recent, been almost exclusive rtwp.

 

again, our preference is tb, but am hardly ignorant o' the fact many people like rtwp. is many excellent rtwp games.  we prefer tb, but as 'tween bad tb and good rtwp, am gonna take good rtwp every time. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tigranes]

would be easier to take tig serious if he wasn't comparing the tactical combat sophistication and depth o' poe and bg... and finding poe wanting.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I did? I'm at an airport and I'm sure I'll turn out to have contradicted myself, but I (currently) don't think poe is less tactically deep/sophisticated than bg. There are clear pro/cons on player end when you play both games, but what poe lacks certainly isn't sophistication in its systems. 

 

 

Anyway, finished the game a while back, and combat just became worse as the game went on, especially since difficulty is even easier than vanilla poe. Why loot, why train, just select all and attack and occasionally press the shiny buttons if it's a 'difficult' battle. The most charitable guess I can make is that combat was low priority from day 1 for the project? Eh.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tigranes

[Darkpriest]

simultanious turns is fairly fun as well, like door kickers or frozen synapse

[Agiel]

we can name more than a couple o' good real-time with pause games we has played in the last ten years, including da:o at one end o' the temporal spectrum and poe at the other.  is as easy to find bad tb as bad rtwp... perhaps easier.  get into some kinda silly tangential debate 'bout what games is good is not something in which we is gonna indulge, but sales seem to suggest people prefer rtwp regardless o' sharp's opinion, y'know given how the biggie budget triple a games has, til recent, been almost exclusive rtwp.

 

again, our preference is tb, but am hardly ignorant o' the fact many people like rtwp. is many excellent rtwp games.  we prefer tb, but as 'tween bad tb and good rtwp, am gonna take good rtwp every time. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I kind of am in the same spot, though it's RTWP switched with TB for me. Curious on your thoughts on WeGo turn-based gameplay that you see in the Combat Mission games. Seems to me it solves a lot of the realism issues some people have with turn-based gameplay (even if it unrealistically compresses the first O and D of the OODA loop immensely, just like RTWP does).

Edited December 26, 2016 by Agiel

[majestic]

I wish more games used the Jagged Alliance 2 / X-Com 3: Apocalypse approach... real time until combat is commenced, then turn based using an initiative system (with the hilarity that follows from bad/luck interrupt rolls)

 

But... but... X-Com: Apocalypse had a real time combat option, and it was significantly easier to win the game with it. Not to mention a truckload faster. Enemy amounts near the end really got ludicrous.

[Gorth]

 

I wish more games used the Jagged Alliance 2 / X-Com 3: Apocalypse approach... real time until combat is commenced, then turn based using an initiative system (with the hilarity that follows from bad/luck interrupt rolls)

 

But... but... X-Com: Apocalypse had a real time combat option, and it was significantly easier to win the game with it. Not to mention a truckload faster. Enemy amounts near the end really got ludicrous.

 

Probably. I tried it for half an encounter and decided that rts mechanics does truly suck in tactical combat. Never touched it again

[Vaeliorin]

Apocalypse is actually my favorite of the original X-Coms, but always played turn-based.  I honestly think it would be neat if Firaxis took some inspiration from it for XCOM 3 (assuming there will be an XCOM 3, of course.)

[Oner]

Analysis of evil in Tyranny:

[Harry Easter]

That was suprisingly good, although I disagree with on the part with the rebells. It was hard enough, to keep the groups together and don't give in being a tyrant and that's what it made powerful within the context of the game.

[algroth]

Analysis of evil in Tyranny:

I believe I'm approaching the end of my playthrough so I'll definitely be watching this soon.

[algroth]

Superb video! Thanks for sharing, and I do agree with its observations.

[Keyrock]

Holy ****, that's a long video, I'll have to watch it at a later date.

 

Anyway, for my playthrough, during character creation, I set a vision for my character, what her motivations were, her moral compass, how she tended to operate given a set of circumstances, and I attempted to best follow that path to the letter. To Obsidian's credit, I was, for the most part, allowed to play exactly the cold-hearted, manipulative, sly-tongued character I envisioned. Basically, my character was not psychotic, she didn't revel in killing people or making them suffer, in fact, she'd generally make 1 attempt at reaching a peaceful resolution, mainly because that could gain her favor and/or allies that could be used later. If, however, her mercy was refused or betrayed at later date she would bring swift and merciless retribution. There would be no second chances, accept my peace and fall in line, my character had no qualms about wiping out an entire population if an example needed to be made.

 

A really good decision I made early on was turning the difficulty down to story mode, which made combat so trivial it removed all temptation to make choices based on gaming the reputation systems to gain certain abilities. I was able to fully roleplay and got really into my character. I don't know if this makes me a bad person, but I very much enjoyed the power fantasy of wielding power over people, including exacting horrible vengeance. I'd like to think I can separate fiction from reality while still getting immersed, so I don't think it makes me evil to thoroughly enjoy being ruthless in a fictional world while being invested in it.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Keyrock

[Heijoushin]

Interesting video. To be honest though, I didn't find Tyranny to be nearly as deep as the narrator makes it out to be. I think it was because the Chorus and the Disfavored's squabbling seemed so childish and unnecessary in the beginning part of the game (and their two leaders equally childish and painful) that it was hard to get around to thinking about their cultures seriously.

 

Heh, sort of makes me want to do another playthrough some day, to see if there's something more there.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Heijoushin

[Keyrock]

I found Graven Ashe to be insufferable, but I liked Voices of Nerat, he was like a more crimially insane version of Q from Star Trek: TNG. Ol' Voices was my boy... until we had it out toward the end of the game and I ended him. It was inevitable, though, I knew he'd outlive his usefulness eventually and I'd have to kill him in my bid to take Kyros' spot atop the totempole.

[Katarack21]

 Graven Ashe is a bigoted jerk who needs to be taken down, but the Voices of Nerat is a straight-up sick, twisted ****. In any other game a character like him would be the big antagonist that everybody is horrified about. It's only the background of Kyro's Conquest that makes him seem small. He's a monster of the first order, and I did the world a favor when I ended his green spark.

[Harry Easter]

Interesting video. To be honest though, I didn't find Tyranny to be nearly as deep as the narrator makes it out to be. I think it was because the Chorus and the Disfavored's squabbling seemed so childish and unnecessary in the beginning part of the game (and their two leaders equally childish and painful) that it was hard to get around to thinking about their cultures seriously.

 

Heh, sort of makes me want to do another playthrough some day, to see if there's something more there.

 

Well, that's the point I think and that's why 

 

 

 

 

Kyros tries to kill them off. They were good as an conquering army, but with peace at hand, they became unreliable groups of bloodthirsty idiots. That's why you can chose the rebells: everybody else is an idiot, except you.

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Rosbjerg
helped with spoiler tag

[Rosbjerg]

Closed due to length, new thread here.