Obsidian on Tyranny’s expansion & writing believable evil


Most games that put you into the shoes of the bad guys are about reveling in evil, gleefully causing havoc and destruction like a toddler who’s got into the stationary box. Obsidian’s RPG Tyranny [official site] is different.

“I find a lot of fiction that centers around good versus evil tends to be unsatisfying, as evil always exists as a strawman for the ill-prepared underdogs to beat up with the power of naïve violence and good intentions,” says Matt MacLean, narrative designer for Tyranny. “I think video games often try too hard to make sure you don’t relate to your victims, and so villains are made unrelentingly villainous, and allies are made into some combination of saccharine hangers-on or tear-jerker red-shirts waiting to be killed in order to shock you into thinking death means serious storytelling.”

But how did it all work out, and what new cruelties will the upcoming expansion expose us to?

In many ways Tyranny begins after the chaos and fire that most evil-centric games depict has died down, and you’re left to explore the bent and broken husk of the world lingering in its wake. Tyranny’s world is one where everyone has been touched or corrupted by evil, a fantasy dystopia where you play not as one of the downtrodden, but as one of the Overlord’s minions wearing boots of +1 oppression.


The goal of the game, as MacLean describes it, was “to make sure whatever giant society of evil we created made some sense.” Obsidian wanted to show evil not just in its most gurning and maniacal form, but as a factor of everyday life. Indeed, perhaps the most unique aspect of Tyranny’s depiction of evil is how ordinary it often seems.

“Our Overlord needed to have some sort of empire that wasn’t comically sadistic to the point of imploding, so Kyros needed to be equal parts ruthless warlord and stable civilization builder,” MacLean says. “Our regular folk needed to be universally afraid of Kyros and that meant they should be chronically ignorant, as understanding tends to counter fear. Most importantly, the agents of evil that the players meets in the game needed to be a proper mix of revolting and relatable.”

As narrative designer, it was MacLean’s job to build the game’s story, and to flesh out the world and the characters within it. With such a specific focus, you may think it would be difficult to make the realm of the Tiers and its inhabitants seem varied, but MacLean expalins that writing the characters was one of the easier parts of the job. “Like our own world, everyone in Tyranny needed to be the heroes of their own story, because every ‘evil’ person is a good person going about their righteous day doing their righteous thing, happily preying on something to live,” he says. “Evil isn’t a thing most of us set out to do, it’s more the unintended consequences of learned mistakes.”


Of course, Tyranny’s world includes the more extreme personalities who would prosper in such a society. “It’s easy to write empathetic sociopaths, as the really good sociopaths are charismatic, engaging folk,” MacLean says. Where the project became tougher was in writing the ‘good’ people who had managed to survive the war, and how the necessities of that survival had altered them. “The game takes place three years into a war, so you don’t meet the weak, the eager, the depressive, or the overly-courageous – they’re all dead. What’s left is a people who, by necessity, had to grow a sense of humor, humility, and streetwise to live to the present day.”

The biggest challenge stemmed not from creating the characters who populated the world, but from combining the typical mechanics of an RPG, particularly the branching narrative, with the world that Obsidian wanted to build. “It’s hard to make a world that is convincingly ‘locked down’ by the rule of some allegedly awesome super-evil, that provides you with lots of choice and yet never has you instantly executed for treason/heresy/breaking some sort of law,” MacLean says.

Obsidian solved this by establishing the player at the higher-end of of the game’s social hierarchy, although still a few rungs from the very top. This is an unusual choice for an RPG, which tend to throw the player at the bottom of the lowest pit in order to give them something to climb out of, but as MacLean points out: “This let us have a world of corrupt laws, albeit one that the player is immune to and can perhaps leverage for fun, profit, or maybe nobility.”


Another problem that Obsidian needed to solve was – in a society where evil has already won, how do you then give the player something to do? The solution here was to turn the knives inwards, to have the fighting shift into infighting as thoughts began to turn away from final victory, and more toward who would reap the most spoils. But this led to another issue; the need to contextualise the maelstrom of inter-factional politics that the player was about to be thrown into.

The result of this was the Conquest mode, a text adventure that takes place before the game begins proper, which provides an overview of how the war played out, and let’s the player make a few choices that influence how various factions perceive them as the game begins. Interestingly, Conquest mode was one area of Tyranny that proved difficult to build, and one that MacLean worried, “for the length of development”, would go down badly with players.

“An earlier version of the conquest paired attribute and skill gains to the conquest, and a part of me really enjoyed how the past-defines-your-training vibe meshed with the game’s learn-by-doing system. But it was a level of complexity too far. Players would find themselves not wanting to select things because the story was good but the systemic gains weren’t,” he says.


Although MacLean feels Conquest mode was ultimately successful. One issue that the team didn’t fully solve was blending the focus on evil with the epic fantasy story that is generally expected of an isometric RPG. MacLean states the team “wanted the players’ choices to matter”. But this meant creating a huge amount of content that could only be explored fully with multiple play-throughs, and MacLean admits that “not many gamers have the time for that much gaming.”

“While I love making choice-driven games with branching dialogue, ‘Next time, a linear game’ was a frequent mantra uttered when we found ourselves having to make short conversations many thousands of words long just to accommodate prior choice and conditions,” he adds.

Nevertheless, Obsidian has decided to further explore the world of Tyranny with an expansion – colourfully named Bastard’s Wound. For the DLC, Obsidian wanted to create something that would be of interest to Tyranny players both old and new. “The parameters for the DLC’s design were something that players not yet finished with the game could play, so that gave us the opportunity to add something we just never got around to making – an area accessible in Act 2 that you travel to on your own schedule and not based on exactly where the main story is pointing you next,” MacLean says.


The developers are tight-lipped on details of Bastard’s Wound story, although MacLean does say that the expansion is “less about the immediate conflict of the Disfavored versus the Scarlet Chorus and more about the ripples and consequences of the larger war.” But the expansion will add character-specific quests for three members of the player’s party, namely Barik, Lantry and Verse.

This is an aspect that the vanilla game was lacking, that more personal connection between your character and your party. However, these quests will be unrelated to the game’s core reputation system: “if we had placed something like loyalty or fear requirement for one of these quests, and you fire up a save game where you’ve already opted for the other thing and there’s no more conversation/game left to steer your way into the quests, you’d be rightly annoyed.”

Bastard’s Wound will also address some of the more general complaints about the vanilla game, one of which was an overemphasis on combat. “While adding a strictly pacifistic route through things wasn’t quite in keeping with the general vibe of Tyranny, Bastard’s Wound features quests with more optional violence,” In addition, Obsidian wanted to ensure that, when violence does happen in Bastard’s Wound, it’s better contextualised than it sometimes was in Tyranny. “We also wanted to have less situations where someone already hated you from prior events, bridges seemed pre-burned, and combat was inevitable,” he says.


It’s also worth noting that, alongside Bastard’s Wound, Obsidian will be making some tweaks to the vanilla game that will be available to everyone. “We’re doing a free update to the base game that adds and modifies a few things here and there,” MacLean says. This includes new voice-overs to parts of the game that were previously text-only, and the fixing of certain story “bugs” by adding new dialogues and conversations. “In short, we’ve been working on a lot of cool improvements that all players will be getting, not just those who get the DLC.”

Tyranny: Bastard’s Wound launches on September 7th.


  1. Shadow says:

    I found Tyranny disappointing, considering all its self-praise. Sure, you didn’t have binary good-evil choices, but that’s not particularly meritorious when you replace them with with binary team red-team blue choices.

    You’re forced to deal not with comically sadistic villains, but rather comically inept ones, considering their station and strictly theoretical prowess. They’re clearly children who shouldn’t be leading armies, and the fact they’re put together in the same military campaign either casts doubt on Kyros’ wisdom or suggests the godly ruler doesn’t give a damn at that point and is just in it for the lulz.

    Story aside, I found the gameplay unengaging, and the need to adhere to a cumbersome D&D-clone RPG system inexplicable. I’m not one for nostalgia-driven revivals of obsolete, rightfully dead systems.

    • Hoot says:

      Tyranny wasn’t the greatest RPG I’ve ever played. Wasn’t even close to being in the Top 5 RPG’s I’ve ever played. But I did play it and I did finish it. This means that for the most part it was an enjoyable game in it’s own right, as I don’t usually commit to finishing games that are not.

      I think it would have been a better choice to just leave it as a standalone game and build on that with a full sequel, rather than trying to flesh it out with what appears to be pretty weak DLC.

      I’m in the middle of replaying Pillars of Eternity (only my 2nd full playthrough, but there are a lot more good games around now than in the days of my 7 or 8 full runs of Baldur’s Gate 2) and the difference in the quality between the two is astounding. Tyranny for me was strictly single playthrough affair. Enjoyed my time with it, got my money’s worth and that’s it.

      • ChrisT1981 says:

        I assume you are talking writing quality? That’s funny enough because for me it is the other way around. While I liked the mini IF Story mechanic in Pillars, the writing at least in the prologue is so uninspired and stereotypical I couldn’t make it past that first town with the hanged People on the “town square”.

        Yet again a RPG made me the unlikely hero in your typical mysterious plot (at least from what I had played). On the flipside Tyranny came along with a refreshing concept. You start already an important and powerful personality of the world. And the world to me was so much more interesting right from the start. In the conquest mode I couldn’t get enough reading every tooltip in the texts to fully dive into the Tiers. The first companion you meet, Verse, also to me seemed a lot more interesting than any of the guys in my Pillars party at the time I just stopped playing Pillars (which, I repeat, was VERY early on but at that time there were i think 3 guys with me already and a fourth was recruited in front of a tavern, stupid elf mage).

        As far as game Systems go: I do agree with the OP that adopting P’n’P Systems for video games is quite anachronistic, especially complex ones like D&D. But in my view Tyranny did it way less obnoxious than Pillars. Especially the magic system in Tyranny is way better in that mages are actually useful. I always found the Magic System in D&D based games to be stupid for Computer games.

        At the end of the day though I have really grown to prefer things done like ME 2 did it. Empower the actual abilities over time, but leave me alone with stat management. I want to focus on the story. Which by the way is alos a trend visible in the P’n’P RPG world. A lot of the newer Systems out there try to bog down the on the stat management and table lookups as far as possible to allow the GM and Players to Focus on the Story.

        • napoleonic says:

          I have put in so much effort to make my way through the swamp-like drudgery of Pillars of Eternity over the course of several months, but I’m only at the end of Act II and I don’t know that I can bear to put myself through any more of it.

          • Werthead says:

            Yeah, Pillars of Eternity is really not that great. It’s okay, but it’s wearing the self-imposed wreath of “BG Successor!” every second you play it and it’s simply not in that league of quality. I mean, BG Remastered has a better UI, better levelling and better combat, which makes PoE itself pretty redundant.

            Tyranny, on the other hand, just relaxed and did its own thing and did it more concisely, with greater focus and better combat, and was all the better for it (despite that rushed ending).

      • aravistarkheena says:

        Funny, I thought Tyranny was far superior to Pillars, which struck me as a bit of a snooze fest. My least favorite of the recent flood of outstanding retro CRPGs.

    • aravistarkheena says:

      I couldn’t disagree more. This was one of the most original, compelling, deep games I’ve played in a very long time. It joins the ranks of excellent retro-style CRPG’s, alongside Divinity Original Sin, Wasteland 2, and Shadowrun Returns. That this genre holds no interest for you is fine, but don’t confuse it with the game being poor. It is outstanding.

    • Zekiel says:

      I largely agree (with the OP), and it is interesting that others have such opposite opinions. I really loved the ideal of Tyranny but I liked the idea more than the reality (and this is from someone who basically adored Pillars of Eternity). In the end the combat was just too grindy for me. If Tyranny had half or even a third of the combat then it would be a much, much better game.

  2. wombat191 says:

    I will definitely be picking this up. Tyranny is a great game with a lot of replayability

  3. satan says:

    To me the start of Tyranny (after going through all the introductions/character creation) kinda felt like opening a novel to one of the very last pages.

    I just got the feeling like I was coming in very much after the fact, and the world I was being presented with didn’t sound like it would be fun or interesting to explore. Everyone has been conquered, everything is dead, everybody left works for an unstoppable godlike person with ridiculous powers who now rules the world, and something about your army faction having some friction with some other army faction… it just felt like more of an ending than a beginning to me.

    • Werthead says:

      Which is exactly the point.

      It reminded me of Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn series, which opens with the same basic premise (what if the Dark Lord won?), but Tyranny did the concept justice whilst Sanderson’s books (although enjoyable) simply had the Noble Rebels arising to defeat the Dark Lord (with a couple of curveballs thrown in for good measure).

      It also had a dash of Jacqueline Carey’s Sundering series (which has the “bad guys” as the protagonists) in that it mashed up the moral complexity of the world and put the reader/player in some very difficult situations where every decision was a bad one, something I think some gamers are incredibly offended by and some really enjoy exploring.

      • falcon2001 says:

        If you’re basing that opinion on the first book, I highly suggest you finish the other two. (of the initial trilogy) If you actually read the whole trilogy and find that to be the case, well, I can only espouse confusion, because ‘hero rises up to beat the big bad evil lord’ is very much different than how it turns out.

        Notable though: you are correct that it doesn’t do what Tyranny did though, which was the one thing that lead me here…but I just can’t stand PCRPG games anymore – the only thing that kept me going through most of the older ones was the writing, and simply put we’re at a point where I can find better writing without a terrible gameplay system, so I got PoE and skipped Tyranny and never got past Act II in PoE

        • Werthead says:

          That’s exactly how the trilogy started, and more or less how it turned out (although it was more the threat of Ruin that was the primary threat at the end, after the Lord Ruler’s demise, and neutralised in a different manner).

  4. Fade2Gray says:

    I was really hoping they’d use the first story dlc to extend the game past the current ending. As it stands, the game feels like the first two acts of a complete story.

  5. Kazic says:

    I’m a big fan of obsidian, and the infinity engine style games in general. However I felt kinda letdown by the length, and the ending of Tyranny. I understand they designed it with a lot replayability in mind, but it left me with such a bad taste I’ve yet to return to it. Which is a shame because I like all the mechanical changes they made to it over the pillars of eternity gameplay

    • Someoldguy says:

      I can’t help but think that they shot themselves in the foot with the “so much replayability” side of things, when one omnipresent side of that was the bloodthirsty lunatics of the Scarlet Chorus. I rather wonder if the interviewer and interviewee were discussing the game I played or a different one in a parallel universe.

      …Obsidian wanted to show evil not just in its most gurning and maniacal form… perhaps the most unique aspect of Tyranny’s depiction of evil is how ordinary it often seems…
      Our Overlord needed to have some sort of empire that wasn’t comically sadistic to the point of imploding…the agents of evil that the players meets in the game needed to be a proper mix of revolting and relatable…

      To me, absolutely none of that applied to the Scarlet Chorus. I can’t see myself ever revisiting Tyranny and thinking “ok, this time it feels right to side with them.” That’s content they poured serious man hours into producing that is forever invisible to me, that could have gone into a far better ending instead. I’d love to know the metrics on how many people have explored that side. Am I really unusual in finding one team far more abhorrent than the other?

      I can’t find any enthusiasm for this DLC, which saddens me because the decision to make a new game that actually furthers the Fatebinder story is likely to depend in part on how successfully it sells.

      • malkav11 says:

        There are bloodthirsty lunatics in the Chorus, but the Chorus as a group actually have a very explicit and defined moral philosophy which is articulated in an understandable and supportable way, and in some respects they’re distinctly better than the Disfavored. For example, the Chorus will accept, train and support anyone and let anyone advance through their ranks, as long as they prove themselves, whereas the Disfavored are very xenophobic and committed to their little insular culture. And let’s not forget that the Chorus are the Empire’s spies and very good at it.

        • Someoldguy says:

          Really? A group that “recruits anyone” by having them perform brutal acts culminating with butchering someone, preferably a relative, has a supportable moral philosophy?

          The Disfavoured are unpleasant, I’ll grant you that, but you don’t have to go back even as far as WW II to find military structures that recruit only from one region.

          • malkav11 says:

            As I recall, that whole process is completely voluntary and intended to condition the person into complete loyalty. It’s not like they’re good guys, but they’re not just a bunch of random psychopaths.

            And the Disfavored literally don’t consider anyone outside their group to be human or worthwhile. It’s not just a matter of who they recruit.

          • LaurDelacroix says:

            While they may seem cartoonish villains – The Scarlet Chorus – as I and others have pointed out – are not the random psychopaths they seem to be. At first glace they seem chaotic evil/The Joker but in reality they are much closer to the leaders of notorious militias.

            They use this twisted sense of populism (anyone can join if they make it) but do so throuh a ritual that if you think about it makes you complicit in the destruction of the Chorus. Literally, you can only join if you kill your past self (and it’s identity). As we see this leads to angst and regret – which in turn helps turn these people into one of two thins a) suicidal cannon fodder or b) sociopathic warriors who thrive in this setting.

            The choices in Tyranny are not like “good evil” and “bad evil” they’re actually which method do you think is most effective. The Dishonored are more orderly sure – but as you see in the game (if you investigate) their xenophobia and need of an Enemy causes them to actually fund the efforts of the rebels (Unbroken) so that they can continue to have purpose. Their xenophobia and otherness also allows outside people to maintain their sense of opposition to the rule of the Dishonored while the Chorus instead absorbs but twists people to their will so that they cannot rebel. They can only serve or die.

    • Werthead says:

      I didn’t see any problem with the length at all. Steam tells me that I completed Tyranny in 18 hours, which feels about right. Too many RPGs stick around way past their best simply because some gamers seem to demand 40 hours minimum, even if the premise or the design of the game doesn’t support that without resorting to flab and filler (hi, Pillars of Eternity/Dragon Age 1 & 3/Witcher 1).

      Whilst I appreciate the open-world RPGs and the very few big linear ones that do demand and justify that kind of length (BG2, Witcher 3, New Vegas etc), many of my favourite RPGs roll in solidly at the 20-30 hour mark: Planescape: Torment, Final Fantasy 7, Anachronox, Tyranny, each of the Mass Effects, Alpha Protocol, a few others. Time is at a premium and if an RPG is going to demand much more than 20 hours from me, it’d better be awesomely designed from start to finish.

      • Zekiel says:

        It’s weird – I objected to the length for the opposite reason – it was too damn long! I spent about 50 hours on the game, and I didn’t do all the sidequests available. And it was too long – I was expecting it to be something more like 30 hours and Act 2 just kept going on and on and on. That’s why I haven’t replayed it – I’d love to see another path but I just can’t bring myself to wade through all that combat again.

        • Werthead says:

          Really? I don’t understand how you could stretch the game out to that length. There’s really not that amount of side-content to fill the game out with.

          Maybe if you replayed it and pursued different quests for the two factions and used a different combination of characters, but for a first run-through? Interesting.

  6. sairas says:

    Is this a paid ad published as an editorial?

    • Michael Anson says:

      RPS doesn’t do that, so you can leave with that schtick.

    • gwop_the_derailer says:

      How much do you think a tiny company like Obsidian making niche RPGs can afford to pay publications for positive articles? And do you think it’s enough for these publications to risk their reputation?

      • Premium User Badge

        Aerothorn says:

        Sairas is actually asking a reasonable question – Paradox seems to be launching a marketing assault and various publications in the Gamer network seem to have simultaneously declared it “Obsidian Week” and are doing a bunch of Obsidian articles at the exact same time the pages are plastered with Obsidian marketing.

        I am the last person to believe in any “RPS corruption conspiracy,” and I in no way believe the coverage is paid directly, but it certainly *looks* bad and would raise reasonable questions.

        • ChrisT1981 says:

          Hehe by that measure we had PUBG week for more than 6 months now.

        • sairas says:

          Neither do I subscribe to any RPS corruption conspiracy and I greatly appreciate this website, which is why I wanted to ask – or perhaps rather point out that this article seemed a bit off to me. A point that Aerothorn thankfully managed to neatly clarify.

        • Michael Fogg says:

          Obsidian is doing a marketing move for this upcoming expansion, so they probably invited a bunch of journos for Q&A and hands-on sessions. As a result you get a lot of articles. Doesn’t seem that suspicious.

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            Yeah, it takes a special kind of paranoia to mistake concerted promotion for a journalistic conspiracy.

          • imperialus says:

            I suspect that quite a bit of it also relates to the fact that it was just Gamescom. Pdox is one of the bigger European publishers so it makes sense that they take the opportunity to bring a bunch of their devs out to do some PR.

        • skyst says:

          It’s like they write articles about games that are currently popular, have an upcoming release or otherwise interest the writers.

          How deep does this rabbit hole go, man!?

          • sairas says:

            Not sure if you need to be down the rabbit hole for wanting promotion being called what it is. I found the composition of the article weird, with no background for the setting. Is this an interview, an abbreviation of a really long presser, a report from a sit down with a number of other writers? There are quotes here and there, but the whole text reads like pr copy to me. Which is fine, as long as I know what I’m reading. With the shortest of preamble there would’ve been no need to call me paranoid.

    • Premium User Badge

      Graham Smith says:

      If it was sponsored content, we’d legally have to say so. It’s not sponsored content.

      RPS doesn’t do sponsored content. Gamer Network doesn’t do any sponsored articles – we’re just about the only games media company that doesn’t, at this point.

      Like a lot of companies, Obsidian wanted to do a press trip to promote their upcoming game. We get invites to these events all the time and go to the one’s that are interesting to us (and we hope our readers). Most of these press trips are pretty tightly controlled: you get a short time to play a game (or at worst, simply watch a presentation), and one or more interviews with developers who can only speak about the talking points laid out for them by the marketing plan.

      In this instance, Obsidian were willing to talk about not just their new game, but their previous games. That makes it more interesting in my eyes. The whole studio was available to interview. We came up with three feature ideas we thought would be interesting and then arranged appropriate interviews to support those features. (We actually didn’t go on any trip in this instance – we did the interviews over Skype.) This is the first. The other two will run next week and aren’t about Tyranny.

      Like most press events (or ‘events’, since we did it remotely), Obsidian asked a bunch of press along. In this case, they invited the other Gamer Network sites (US Gamer, EG, EG Video, etc.). This used to happen a lot when I was at PC Gamer, where there would be an event for all the Future mags (PCG, OXM, OPM, etc.).

      Editors of the sites then choose how to ‘package’ these features together in a way that grabs attention. Turning it into an event (‘Obsidian week!’ or whatever) helps do that. Cross-promotion between network sites helps do that. We’re not really turning it into an event here though: it’s just three interesting features, we hope.

      The adverts, whatever adverts there are, are completely separate, in that they are not financially linked to the editorial. It’s extremely common for companies to buy adverts on a site around the time they know editorial is going live (and they know because they arranged an event, set an embargo, etc). But I find out what adverts are appearing on Gamer Network sites at the same time as you do: when they appear on the site. I haven’t seen any Obsidian ads on RPS this past week but did see them on EG. I think we’ve mainly had Destiny 2 ads.

      Hopefully this explains a little more about how something like this is put together. In short: we’re running these articles because we want to, and for no other reason.

      • LennyLeonardo says:

        That’s exactly what you would say if you WERE a robot.

        • LennyLeonardo says:

          Actually this is a really excellent response, of the sort you wouldn’t get pretty much anywhere else. RPS is best.

      • malkav11 says:

        It was definitely interesting to me, for the record.

      • sairas says:

        Thank you for taking the time to respond, greatly appreciated and it does indeed explain more about the context.

      • Herring says:

        Please tell me Article 2 is someone from RPS conducting “Operation Turbo Panther” where you threaten to kill everyone at the company with a Mountain Bike frame unless they create Alpha Protocol 2.

  7. Vilos Cohaagen says:

    Not to be funny, but the reason I didn’t buy Tyranny is that there is enough tyranny in my life these days. So this DLC definitely won’t convert me.

  8. gruia says:

    after a lifetime of RPGs, this is probably the best one. my priority is philosophy and human behavior, and this by far dominates all other projects with its quality . impressed and hopeful

  9. Allegos says:

    Tyranny’s setting is fascinating, but I’m very tired of games that assume I have the reflexes or the interest to play RTS games. I miss turn-based combat in my RPG’s.

    • malkav11 says:

      Fortunately some people (e.g. Larian, inXile, Spiderweb, Harebrained Schemes) are making new turn-based RPGs. But I do agree that it’s much better than real-time-with-pause.

      • ChrisT1981 says:

        Oh I highly recommend Shadowrun Dragonfall Director’s Cut. It is by far the best of the three Shadowrun games from HBS.

        Also have a look at Underrail I quite liked that one too.

        Both are Sci-Fi games though.

    • Werthead says:

      I think that turn-based combat or RTWP are both reasonable options as long as the game is designed for it. Pillars of Eternity’s combat is pretty ropey and the feedback it gives you can be enormous, so it would have been better to have been turn-based to give you more time to take on board the feedback. Torment: Tides of Numenera’s pace is actually badly hurt by the combat being turn-based, as it’s not really necessary.

      Tyranny’s combat is PoE’s but streamlined and much-improved, so it doesn’t need to be turn-based. It would just make the game longer to no real gain, and the pause-to-issue-orders works quite well.

      • malkav11 says:

        I don’t think the problem with Torment’s combat is that it’s turn-based. I think the problem is that it’s not very interesting or well designed, and the game is so focused on the narrative side of things that it comes as an unwelcome interruption.

        And while Tyranny’s combat is more manageable than Pillars’ due to a smaller party, smaller encounters, and more limited options, I don’t agree that it wouldn’t gain by being turn-based or that pausing to issue orders works well. It’s just less detrimental than it is in Pillars.

  10. mactier says:

    I believe just about all evil though. I think the “good intentions” mostly come afterwards, or completely unrelated to it in advance in terms of one’s grandiosity (and everyone’s evil exploitability). Sounds like evil stuff? Well… Yes.

    “Evil” is mostly really, really bad taste (also simply enjoying the evil part of it) and absolutely rotten, irrational logic. With lots and lots of egomania. (Psychologically, not philosophically speaking.)

  11. Benratha says:

    So that box really isn’t going anywhere?

  12. vahnn says:

    Never finished this. So many damn excellent games come out on pc these days that it’s difficult to finish them! I seldom finish singleplayer games anyway, but this is one I think about regularly. If that dlc turns out to be any good, I’ll pick it up and start over. Or start over without it.