Tyranny deserves a sequel

 It needs one!

We all have those special little snippets of fandom we share only with ourselves, those unique pacts of loyalty we create towards properties that we believe are underserved or 'under-rated'; which is why 'fan sequel' requests are such a popular topic amongst entertainment fandoms. Whether we're talking a proper Dragon's Age Origins 2, or a Fallout New Vegas 2, or a Bloodbourne 2 or a Sonic Adventure 3; people love to throw down their hands about why their favourite games need to be continued so that the moment they felt when they first fell in love with that game can be magically resummoned. I like to think I'm more discerning with my fandom. Or at least, I try to enforce a more sensible and realistic grasp about what exactly a sequel is, what is can be and whether or not it's even really required. I love Metal Gear Solid 3, it's my favourite game ever, but do I need a sequel desperately? No... and yet Peace Walker came out anyway...

Which is probably why I've been so utterly back and forth about the topic of Tyranny and whether that game should have gotten a sequel. Just to be clear, the reality of the situation was that the game didn't financially perform to the standard necessary to warrant a sequel; so we never will see a continuation, but in the realms of our imagination anything is possible. Tyranny is, for me, perhaps the greatest of this modern wave of CRPG games, and in that I absolutely include Obsidian's other, much more popular CRPG: Pillars of Eternity. I love Pillars too, I think those games are great; but Tyranny did something I've never seen an RPG successfully pull off in a manner that doesn't strip out the soul of the genre, and in doing so helped patch one of the most enduring sore spots that the common player has with big RPG games. They trimmed the fat.

True role playing games are almost defined by their complexity and almost garish size and length. They will flood you with systems and numbers and lore and names and keep you juggling it all up until the hundreds of hours. It's just how they are. Now I'm not one of those games journalists who tips over a table and throws a strop when they can't fit their review into a neat time table because the game is too long for them; I actually love the sense of scale and the breadth of memories that a well designed and lengthy RPG can create. I also have no issue with a game that you start playing in January and chip away at for the next 12 months; I think some of the magic of gaming is having that extended adventure that can whisk you away to another world even for just a few hours a week, not everything needs to be rush-completed within a week so you can stay ontop of the trends. (Hell, I've still not finished Pathfinder Kingmaker and it's sequel is onto it's second season pass. By the time I'm done with that, the Owlcat Games have already dropped their Warhammer follow-up CRPG.) But having said all of that; what Tyranny does with the formula is like a breath of fresh air.

Many accusations were slung at Tyranny claiming it was dumbed down and simplified, when in reality all it did was give you an RPG experience, just as rich as Pillars, but without the overcooked and vast depth of systems required to birth a table-top game. You were given the class skills you needed to keep combat fun, provided with just enough gear complexity to not grow overwhelming, provided with just enough party members to not turn large scale conflicts in a messy chaos of screen effects. And the narrative was trickled down to it's most salient and important moments, so there was less time spent wandering the country side helping farmers rescue their plundered cattle and more time playing the factions of the land against each other in your bid to seize power, whether for your master or yourself. A decent playthrough of Tyranny can clock into about twenty to fifty respectable hours, tiny next to your typical RPG, but every one of those hours are crammed with the best moments of RPGs, where you're making the important choices and fighting the memorable battles and meeting the diverse NPCs. That playtime neatly condensed everything I could have wanted out of a stupidly long RPG; which makes Tyranny a master of concision in my book. 

But does it deserve a sequel? One of the huge factors I have to take into account whenever I consider a follow-up is how the first game leaves on something of a perfect open-ended note. The player is left on the precipice of action either rising to become the greatest of the Tyrant's generals or the biggest threat the Tyrant has ever faced, with everything the game needed to say about it's themes and premise having been neatly achieved. All the companions get their post-narrative text and the world almost feels satisfied. Whilst the air buzzes for what could happen next, in a way it's not even important. Hell, one of the big reoccurring tricks of Tyranny is that not only do we never see the titular Tyrant Kyros we serve under, but Obsidian even hides their gender or any identifiable and humanising information on them whatsoever. The mystery creates this monolithic god-like image which seems just unassailable. (Justified whole-heatedly by the plot.) Any follow up would have to shatter that anonymity; which in itself could be an incredible thematic evolution if handled correctly, but even in the best-case scenario it would inevitably end up devaluing some of the special elements that went into the first game, just by revealing anything about Kyros at all.

On the otherhand, Obsidian managed to tease one of the most interesting sounding fantasy worlds I've ever glimpsed at by sheer merit of making the invading armies you fight alongside a melting pot of cultures. You get to live alongside and experience the far vast edges of Kyros' empire merely by serving in the presence of their armies and what you learn about their way of life sounds so rich. I was also dazzled by the cultures of the people you subjugate in the prologue and the stories of the other nations between all of these points. I yearn to see more of this world, to interact with these people and influence the world just that bit more! And even more than that, I'm struck with curiosity to finally explore the depths of the game's biggest secret; the origin to the strange power that inhabits the land. I understand the metaphorical connotations between how the 'Archons' work in Tyranny, but there's some sort of 'elder magic mystery' buzzing inside of the mythos that makes my toes curl up in excitement to think about. There seems to be endless directions a follow-up could go and I want Obsidian to explore all of them! Maybe simultaneously!

The promise of a sequel seems honestly limitless; they could go one of a million directions with it. The obvious follow-up would be a direct continuation of the ending of the first game, but I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't jump another five or so years down the line into another tactically significant region of land only this time in a very different sort of role. Still the conquer but perhaps competitively inclined against another equal conqueror? Or we could take the story underground to the mystery of the people who came before, the race that would contain the secrets of Kyros. Or maybe we'll be thrown into the shoes of someone else entirely caught in the middle of a world torn between two rising super powers... although I fail to identify the thematically evil/selfish-inclined spin on the traditional set-up inherent there. There is so much that the Tyranny franchise has to give if only people would give it that chance!

But all this is moot dreaming as this point. The Obsidian teams have moved on to a balance of smaller projects and a Pillar's themed future, leaving this game to gather dust alongside their other masterpieces; which is just the fate of being an incredible Obsidian game I guess. Pillars will probably never get itself a follow-up after Avowed, if Outer Worlds 2 manages to nail the issues with the first game down and be the masterpiece that original wasn't, it will suddenly become the last of it's franchise. It really is a very English sensibility to reach you pinnacle and abruptly stop yourself on the spot, but it's one I begrudgingly respect, and at this point, expect. Perhaps it's better to dream of the perfect follow-up instead of being disappointed by a sub-par attempt. Perfection is unique, afterall.

Tyranny Review

If Eb tells me about her thoughts regarding "Nipples on men" one more time...

Wait no, hold on. I'm not reviewing the concept of 'tyranny', that seems... well I was going to say 'redundant', but given the etymology of the word and it's ancient Grecian heritage perhaps there does lie some merit in a detailed dive into the intricacies of- no. Nope. This is a gaming blog, thus I will talk about the game. And that's final. (Yeah, me.) Rather I'm referring to the 2016 isometric RPG created by Obsidian and published by Paradox Interactive. Something of a one-off for the team considering that their other series' appear to be the Fallout-inspirer 'Wasteland' and the Fantasy-series 'Pillars of Eternity'. (And the space-age machinations of 'The Outer Worlds') I've pretty much been a huge fan of Obsidian's work ever since Fallout New Vegas came along and redefined what a great Fallout game should be, so I sort of knew I was going to like this game going in, but did I fall for it as hard as some of their other properties? Let's find out.

So Tyranny launched as a successor, but not sequel, to 2015's Pillars of Eternity and was met with modest, but ultimately disappointing, sales. Figures weren't hit and the chances of a direct sequel to this story are pretty much non-existent, but what could have been the reason for this apparent failure? Well, just as with any story, there are innumerable sides and angles to look at the game from, including some who argue the entire isometric genre is just past it's prime. (Although I'd say the success of POE, D:OS2 and BG3 would certainly call that into question.) All I can say for certain is that it wasn't down to the reception because this game seems to have swept up the review circuit. Though there was one theory on the game which I actually resonate with, and it's because it relates to an feeling I developed on the game back when I first started looking into it. (Which was about 5 hours into actually playing the thing.) And, handily enough for the structure of this blog, it actually relates to the way the game was marketed.

"Evil has already won" is something you'll see plastered to a lot of their material, and it really is the prevailing point that is slammed in the face of everyone with a passing interest in the game. Taking place in the world of Terratus, Tyranny tells the story of the last territories, known as The Tiers, to be conquered by the ruling dictator, Kyros. (In which the entirety of the game is set.) But rather than take the side of the resistance holding off against global domination (the marketing loves to emphasise this point with sadistic glee) you are on the side of the invading party, working directly for Kyros. (Or rather, working for a direct underling of Kyros.) In this way you are essentially 'playing the badguy', to be reductively blunt, and whilst that makes an interesting point which should certainly be flaunted, the manner in which marketing handled it is questionable. I touched upon this in my other blog, but all the official material in the game seemed to revel in all the ways that Tyranny differed from your proto-typical RPG set-up, despite the fact that fantasy games have been walking away from that 'traditional' set-up for the better part of the last 15 years, so there's no great accolade to me made out of avoiding it.

Yes, taking the side of the ostensible 'villains' is an incredibly bold direction which inherently forces players to confront the specifics of what they assume to be 'evil' and the extents to which they are willing to bend to or against it. But for some reason we saw less of that in the marketing and more emphasis on what the game was not. Now I can't say for certain whether or not that proved determinantal to the interest of the game to a general audience, but I do know it inherently put me off. If I hadn't already put 5 hours into the game and was already invested in it, I might not have been interested in diving in, all because I wasn't shown the many reasons why I should. And having now completed an entire playthrough from start to finish, I can say rather definitively; this is a game that I'm glad I didn't miss out on. So I'm going to throw a little shade at marketing. (Nothing they can't handle I'm sure.)

From the very start it's clear that Tyranny is the sort of game that's going to require some investment from the player, which is shown in the way that the game hits you with several walls of text if you decide to manually write your protagonist's history. The first few years of the campaign in The Tiers is summed up before you're even given control of the character, and the decisions you're asked to make here will have effects on the entire story going forward. So you'll know if this is the game for you right away based on whether you're repelled by this very concept or impressed at the amount of worldbuilding that you've been subjected to off the bat. (I was somewhere in-between; it was a long intro sequence) What I find fascinating about this whole intro was the way that I was expected to make rather nuanced rulings on situations that I had next to no context on. I didn't know who the Scarlet Chorus and the Disfavoured were! It was only after the fact that I realised a lot of things I had done were really rather cruel, and that works incredibly well to the theme of the narrative. (So, oddly, I think that was well done on their part.)

Interestingly, the character is given a position of some consequence right from the start of the game, as they serve the war effort as a Fatebinder. Fatebinders are the agents of the Archon Tunon, who's job it is to govern the laws of Kyros' empire and keep order, so you can imagine that your job of imposing law on this, to-be-conquered, region is of the utmost import. It's this framing device which allows the player to rub shoulders with the main players in the region off the bat and delve into political intrigue, which I think the entirety of Tyranny handles exceedingly well. 'Actions have consequences' is a bit of a played out sentiment, but in Tyranny it really felt like every time I made a choice, spoke out of turn or simply leaned a particular direction there would be significant political ramifications; all of which sold the story of living in this world of perpetual turmoil very well.

As for the meat of the story, I was pretty much hooked the whole way through. Tyranny does this wonderful job of showing the darkest elements of this brutal world in a sardonic light that doesn't completely obscure the harshness but doesn't make you uncomfortable playing it all either. And considering you're navigating an world rife with pillaging, enslavement and regular massacring, that's quite the neat balance to strike. I also commended the way that, true to the concept, there are no wholly good or wholly evil sides to the war, either by the two invading armies or several factions of locales who defend The Tiers. Everyone is nuanced with things that make them good and evil in their own ways. Although that being said, I think we can agree that if we were to come down to the wire; the Scarlet Chorus are probably the closet to being fully evil. Their leader literally eats people's souls, for goodness sake!

Speaking of, I found the many important characters and personalities of Tyranny wonderfully unique both in design and personality to the point where I loved interacting with them. Chief among all characters, however, I have to commend the various Archons of Kyros. 'Archons' are beings of immense magical potential who all hold weighty positions in society, and thus in Kyros' regime. They are all these larger than life beings who are linked to a particular attribute which represents their purpose, such as the Archon of Secrets and the Archon of War. Ingame this is realised in this scintillating mix of ostensibly singular entities who inspire awe, like the ultimate objectivity of Tunon Archon of Justice, offset by the slightest hints of complexity that manages to not undermine what they represent but colour them in beautifully. I found myself particularly enamoured with the Archon of Secrets, The Voices of Nerat, and the way that it always seemed to have this warring personality where you didn't know if it wanted to help you or stick a knife in your back. (Extra points for the way that it's Staff, which appeared to have an agenda of it's own, would communicate with you only through optional text boxes, to infer some form of clandestine telepathy. Very clever.)

Kyros his or herself is probably the most interesting figure of note in Tyranny, however, due to the way that you never get the chance to meet this eponymous Overlord and yet their presence is everywhere. Kyros has entered this position of reputational godhood to the point where people argue over the very nature of her being,  (or indeed, their gender) which makes for a very unique vantage point for the player to learn about him. Literally one of the first things you discover about Kyros is the way in which one of your duties, as Fatebinder, is to occasionally declare one of her 'Edicts'. Essentially magical contracts in which the very words that he has written down will cause a great calamity upon the world, such as a neverending rain of storms or a complete annihilation of all Antelope in the world. (Yeah, canonically Kyros made Antelope extinct with the Edict of Dust. I don't know why.) But even as undeniable dictator of this world, the distance you forever maintain to her allows the player to really speculate on who he is and build this image through second hand accounts, creating this 'villain' really unlike anything I've seen in a story before; one of complete rumour and legend. It's almost preferable then, that this story will never get a sequel, because not meeting Kyros is perhaps one of the most powerful bits of intrigue in this story.

Companions, too, are of significant import to the world of Tyranny, but it's here where I think a little bit of the limited range of the game starts to show itself. In character, pretty much every single one of the companions is unique and memorable, with none of them ending up as the archetypal cut-and-paste characters that you find at least one of in every Bioware game. And even those that are close to being similar riffs on other companion characters, are at least built with enough nuance and/or context to differentiate themselves. I particularly liked Barik and Verse, who's stories and personalities so clashed with one another and yet in a manner which suited them together perfectly. I was also a fan of Sirin and her interestingly tragic backstory, as well as they way in which she's the only character in the game who openly acknowledges (and has fun with) the fact that no one, save for possibly her, knows Kyros' gender. Unfortunately, it's clear that there's some shortcomings to this side of the game, not least in that only three of these characters have companion quests and those ones were added in DLC. The rest don't really have arcs to their character beyond the evolution of the way they feel about the main character, and that leads to endings wherein it doesn't feel like any of them really went off and became anything unique due to their journeys. Pretty much everyone you meet, save for Verse, Barik and Landry, leave the party exactly as they would have if they'd never seen you in their lives.

In terms of gameplay, Tyranny plays as a full action isometric party-based RPG that runs exactly as you would imagine it to. It's pretty much click on the enemy and go to town, with the strategy coming from who you target with which party members and the abilities you utilise. Some of the more eccentricities come in the abilities themselves and the sheer number of them, by the end of the game you'll have so many abilities at your disposal that you'll be picking through submenus in pause mode just to make sense of everything. This comes from the way that you earn abilities from levelling, as well as through building relationships (both negatively and positively) and even special 2-way moves from getting closer to, or scaring the heck out of, companions. Now, narratively this makes absolute sense for reasons I hesitate to touch on for fear of getting a little to deep into spoilers, but in practise it does get a bit much. I had powers I never even used because I couldn't find them through all the menus they were hid in. Then add on top of that the way that special 'artefact' weapons and armour grant abilities when equipped (which is a brilliant idea for making each tool feel unique, by the way) and there's absolutely no way of keeping on top of things. The endgame comparison certainly made me feel unparalleled by the end, but I wonder if perhaps this could have been toned down a bit, in favour of less, but more powerful stand-out abilities.

A spellcrafting system is also available in the game, although I find that due to a requirement in the 'Lore' skill that grew exponentially when I started to really get into the system, most spells I made, even by the endgame, were basically straightforward. I'm not sure if this was intentional and I was just trying to get a bit over the top with the systems, or if perhaps they intended this system to really come into play for newgame plus, but as a result I didn't find myself relying on selfcrafted spells really at all. Also, I'm still unsure as to how greatly items affected gameplay, outside of your standard healing vials. Bonuses to armour class could also be achieved through gear and leadership skills, and more often than not I just ended up forgetting my pack full of items in the big fights anyway. Although I won't put the full blame of that on Tyranny because I believe the fault was both my own and partially the genre. (RPG's have never really figured out how to make every consumable item matter)

Tyranny is a game that boldly steps in many directions that RPGs haven't even thought to go in before, and where I feared this 'trailblazing' approach might result in a half-hearted execution through sheer merit of "Well we got here, which is good enough", Obsidian proved me wrong with a startlingly strong realisation of the concept. I adored every which way that the story was told and was swallowed by the immersion totally. My only gripes from a narrative standpoint is that there wasn't enough in certain regards, (such as with companions) and that I thought we'd learn a little bit more about Kyros by the end of the game than we ultimately did. (By the credits all we really had were suppositions and a 'maybe' confirmation on the source of his/her most impressive power) But whilst I might understand if this was made with a sequel in mind, I never really felt as though Tyranny was. Even as the story left itself open, I feel as though that was because the point of the game has been realised, and the proceeding events would have stretched beyond the pathos and thus become a tad redundant. (At least that was the impression I came away with.)

In terms of gameplay I found my time with the game fun and rarely too challenging to the point where I felt as though I had no options going forward. Now whilst that may sound perfect for some, I'll admit that personally I get a thrill out of hitting that brick wall and forcing a way through it, and since Tyranny gave me no moments like that I never felt completely satisfied with my time. (Dark Souls has ruined me, I guess) By Act 3 I was pretty much invincible (thanks to my thirty-odd abilities) and though that was a somewhat fun state to be in, it was also a little jarring. I hadn't really gone out of my way to be this overpowered and yet I never died once in the finale Act, I hardly even broke a sweat. And I was playing on the second to hardest difficulty! Maybe my playthrough was just a fluke and I accidentally perfectly min-maxed. Or, more likely, the game was just a tad too easy near the end and could have used a few more new tricks to throw at the player.

That being said, I wasn't devoid of my moments of mouth-agape wonder, because that was earnt from the strength of the story alone. Truly, I loved my time playing Tyranny and will absolutely be willing to play the game and delve into it's weighty choice-consequence systems again. Some part of me is saddened that we'll never see a sequel as the world of Terratus seems brimming with stories to tell, but another part tells me that this sleight tease was perfect and we're better off left wanting more. I would absolutely recommend this game to isometric RPG fans everywhere and I hope other developers look upon titles of this quality to inform how they make their own RPGs in the future. (Including Obsidian themselves. But I needn't worry there, those guys always know how to improve upon themselves.) Were this a Visual Novel I might be given a perfect rank, but with some sleight misbalances to the gameplay I'm forced to deduct a little. But even then, with an A Grade rating, I'm hardly dissatisfied with my play experience. Pick up Tyranny for yourselves and experience a RPG tale quite unlike any of the ones we're used to.

I Recommend: Tyranny

Binding fates and taking names!

So I consider myself an eclectic gamer who really does pay attention to the game of the day no matter what their genre or my chances of actually ever playing them. I know when the newest FIFA comes out and about such a game's pros and cons even though I've haven't owned a FIFA since '05, the same could be said for Forza games and even Just Dance. (Have to keep up to date on Ubisoft's super seminal franchise, afterall) As such, when it comes to a genre that I'm super invested in, RPGs, and a studio I love making them, Obsidian, I expect to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of them up in here. That should be a given, I shouldn't even have to look it up; freakin' osmosis should just kick in. Therefore when Epic Games decided to give out some Obsidian games in their free program I scoffed in the knowledge that I was likely already well versed and experienced with all the titles that could possibl- what the heck is 'Tyranny'? Why have I never heard of this? It came out a year after Pillars? How could I not have heard of this? What the heckin' heck?

So yeah, apparently Obsidian managed to sneak an entire RPG around me about four years back and I'm only hearing about this now. (How sneaky of them) And to be clear, Obsidian is the sort of company whom I very much expect to hear about whenever they make moves. Ever since 'Fallout: New Vegas' dropped and I realised that these guys beat Bethesda at their own game, I made it my mission to note everything that comes out of their offices, because there's a good chance I'll like it. I never got the chance to give 'Alpha Protocol' a try, which saddens me because despite the heavy jank which people claim the game shows I literally adore the premise. Stealth-based spy-themed RPG with choices and an odd sense of humour? Did Obsidian read my dream journal for that one? But that loss made me all the more dedicated to snapping up every one of their games whenever I got the chance, lest I be left short again, so I have no idea how 'Tyranny' slipped me by. (Well it's in my hands now.)

But what about the game itself, what has Obsidian thrown together and how does this differ from the isometric formula which Obsidian themselves helped revive back in 2015? Well actually this time the very premise pretty much sums up the USP, because Obsidian went for an off-the-cuff premise with this game and I have to admit I was dubious at first. (Okay, that's not true. First I played it for 2 hours and then I looked up what it was roughly about. Then I was dubious.) Essentially 'Tyranny' takes place in your everyday fantasy world without the crazy races but not without magic. Plus, there's an all-powerful agent of evil who seeks control over the entire world, par the course for any game out there. But things diverge from the norm, because instead of telling the story of a simple farmer's rise to becoming the 'hero of us all', 'Tyranny' starts at the end of that story. After the Tyrant has already seized control of the entire world and won, all that's left is the subjugation of some bumpkins out by the coast who are such a non-threat that they're busying fighting themselves by the time you arrive. Oh did I mention; you're also very much on the side of the Tyrant and consolidating their rule. (Talk about flipping the script!)

Now the reason this had me worried, even after playing the intro and quite liking what I was seeing, was because of the way it was marketed on the Steam page. "Tyranny turns the archetypal RPG story on its head!" the description reads "The player is not a random villager!", 'this isn't your grandma's RPG!' Yeah I made up that last one but you get the sort of vibe this is going for, right? 'Everything you expect out of a game from this genre? Yeah, this game completely changes all of that so buckle up for a envelope pusher!'. It's the kind of marketing that lays itself into what the story isn't over what is, and it gave me the impression that the game would mirror that sort of direction. The result of such situations would typically be a promising premise that get wasted when it could have been something really special. Luckily, my fears were so far off base that it's almost embarrassing, 'Tyranny' doesn't miss an ounce of it's potential.

Set in a world where the villain has won, Tyranny knows exactly what sort of world it's trying to build as it establishes a struggle between lawful tyrannical order and unrestrained chaotic freedom in a manner that's almost reminiscent of Shin Megami Tensei. The world building towards this is fantastic, and though it demands a lot of the player, in terms of reading heavy and detailed passages, it proves itself rich and deep enough to earn that commitment. Terratus is a plane that is shaped very much by the cult of personality which the regime forms around the all-powerful and mysterious Kyros, and as soon as you are positioned as a agent of this regime it'll become clear that traditional concepts of good and evil aren't really going to apply here. By most traditional standards you very much are the 'bad guy', but in this narrative that are no more side left apart from Kyros', and that fact alone paints this laudably natural coat of grey over each dilemma in the game and each system feeds that amorality beautifully.

Just like in New Vegas, the players will find a lot of their actions will be driven by the desire to build or sully relationships with close party members, factions and even just the various societies around 'The Tiers' (The region under siege). And just like in New Vegas, this allows for unique shades of personality and opinion to enter into decision making in a manner that doesn't quite happen with mortality-shader RPGs. And within this dictatorship relationships can shift and devolve over the matter of a few dialogue choices, thus players are always hyper aware of their interactions and the way it shapes those around them, to a degree that honestly shocks me in that I never really knew I wanted it this deep. But as if to wrap it all up in a beautifully neat bow, the very reputation system and it's quirks even get naturally tied into the overarching narrative in a manner so clever that I had to clap my hands together when I heard it. Or read it, I guess. (It's amazing how masters of their craft can blow you away even when you think you've seen everything.)

If there's another general feature of Tyranny which I cannot in good faith go without mentioning, it would have to be the the choices and consequences. Now, if you know me you'll know that I hate games wherein 'choices have consequences' is waved as a chief selling point, as it's almost always a prelude to disappointment as it merely draws attention to all the ways in which such a system doesn't live up to it's promise. Literally everytime it's a letdown, from 'Cyberpunk' to 'Life is Strange'; it's never as deep as they say. Tyranny, however, plays with this is a very subtle way wherein actions have consequences that may not be obvious all the time, and may not try to be flowers of opportunity either. Sometimes a choice you made in the prologue scrawl (Which is an extensive and important section) will shut down a potential interaction you could have otherwise had, or ingratiate you to someone you've just met, thus opening up more freedoms to interaction. It's hard to describe but I find it be a very honest approach to the concept where I have found myself frustrated upon coming against a wall, but its a wall I've built myself and thus I'm only immersed deeper by that frustration. (Does that make sense?)

I'm being very vague about my time with Tyranny and the parts of it that I loved and that's because I'm both still chipping away at the game and this isn't a review; it's a recommendation. Sometimes when a big shiny new hotness comes along and promises the world, what you really need instead is a robust and reliable clunker with a few tricks up it's sleeve and fine motor. (If you can even decipher that horrendously mixed metaphor) Tyranny won't blow you away with it's graphical fidelity (it does look pretty, but more artistically) nor it's gameplay; (it's basically just a real-time RPG like any other you've played) but it will satiate that hunger for solid, clever stories wrapped in an unfaltering RPG shell, if that's what you're so inclined towards. So unless the final act I'm approaching manages to screw everything up to an unreal degree, I'm pretty comfortable calling Tyranny my recommended game of the month. Because that's a thing I decided that I'm going now and you can't tell me it's dumb, I already know that it is.