A good first person RPG. Imagine if they stopped wasting resources on these gay isometric shits. "Hey cuckold, here's this fantasy world, but you can only watch from afar" like what's the point?
The game is pretty good, what are you on about? One of the more unique CRPGs in terms of the setting and the premise, I enjoyed enforcing the law and planning a rebellion.
>The game is pretty good, what are you on about?
That's what he's on about. See
The ending being so abrupt ruined it so much for me I can't even replay it. It ends right when it feels like things are picking up. It was such a slap in the face.
The game's main content was cut and some filler was added. It was planned to be much bigger.
I know and I agree that the game blueballs you at the end with that ending, but everything leading up to it was pretty good and I did like it in spite of that.
>The modular magic system was the best part of the game. >The fascist Dishonored > the bolshevik Scarlet Chorus. >Clearly incomplete as they introduce shadows at the end who go nowhere, build up revelations about the walls and their functioning which hang loose as plotthreads, have a whole system for using region-wide magic which is only triggered for the final battle, etc. It seems there were supposed to be acts where you (started) conquering the mainland and dealing with the walls. >For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women >art style's horrible soviet 'realism' with an oversaturated color palette
No one is mad about women fighting on equal footing to men, we know that's a lost cause to explain to someone who has never fought like you. What we're talking about is that you wouldn't be able to replenish your population if your women fought. 10 men and 80 women can repopulate the tribe after winning the war. 80 men and 10 women can't. Plenty of tribes have tried commonplace warrior women throughout history and the word for them is "gone".
i find it fricking hilarious when women argue against drafting them because of that while still insisting they can fight on the front lines
moronic fricking c**ts
i find it fricking hilarious when women argue against drafting them because of that while still insisting they can fight on the front lines
moronic fricking c**ts
[...]
i'm a big fan of the two married women who can somehow inherit property
because that's how these things work
why do you morons always complain about things that are not a problem if you are not an incel?
>your tribe not existing isn't a problem as long as you've had sex
moron you don't have enough women left to have enough kids to win the next war. You can't frick your way out of your women being dead.
most tribes who suffer significant losses against an enemy tribe just get absorbed by a neighboring one anyway
it turns out you can't just have such a signifcant part of your male population die out and immediately replenish
>repopulate the tribe
We are dealing with states with organized society, where war is domain of wealthy aristocratic elite or/and professional soldiers. You aren't going to run out of manpower because fighting population is small compared to civilian, you can run out of trained manpower. At that point if you are already funneling civilian resources into feeding military families you could as well try to maximize manpower from each family unit. >muh depopulation of aristocracy
Firstly if there is a need for serious "repopulation" you already lost so hard there is no need as you are actively getting enslaved by victors. Secondly, few males mating with many females is severely limited by monogamy. Thirdly because casualties are mostly among warriors, then when there is shortage of mates from their strata, it can be alleviated by marring with members of other castes.
If you've lost 7/8 men in your tribe the word for tribe is still "gone". You aren't recovering from that. Not that it matters because this situation isn't on the scale of tribes anyways.
Check this out. Add up the average strength of all the male and all the female characters in BG1. Tell me what you get.
Because the reality is that while D&D has been officially gender-neutral since 2E, most writers and creators weren't totally fricking moronic about it like they have been since 2010 or so, and (almost) never tried to aggressively depict a world where sex differences did not exist or were flipped. (The obvious exception being Forgotten Realms' Dark Elves which have always been incredibly cringe).
The rules were there so that you could roleplay your warrior woman if you really wanted to without any tedious gender rules getting in the way. They weren't there for neckbeard incel feminists to depict dumbass gender role reversal societies or make culture war statements.
D&D got rid of the differences in strength between men and women with 3rd edition. You are over 20 years out of date.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just wrong, in fact it may have even been dropped by AD&D 1E, I just don't have any 1E rule books. The only sex differences in 2E are the optional height/weight tables.
BG1 has 8 male warriors and 2 female warriors because the world had not yet gone full moron.
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
Well that's a Tiers cultural autism thing.
And Tiers get bodied in their first major war against a foreign power insanely fast, with insane ratio, with the only speed bumps along the way being caused by the internal bickering among the conquerors.
Tiers get owned because they're against demigods with nearly infinite resources and "frick you" spells. What's "unrealistic" is that in this gynocentric society, all the roles are reversed but men and women still have the same biology as we do in real life. Irl there existed matriarchies, but men still did the hard work and the fighting. But even that wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for the moron writers who think that reversing roles means they have to write "strong" women, and their idea of strong women is always to act and talk like insecure douchebags that are always childishly aggressive. That's every woman in the game except for the white haired companion.
>Tiers get owned because they're against demigods with nearly infinite resources and "frick you" spells.
Tiers had their own Archons. Their main one (Occulted Jade, Archon of Tides) happened to be a women, and when push came to shove she did the women thng and fricked off beyond the ocean despite the fact that if she sayed and then participated in Cairn's rebellion during the Conquest they could gg ez the invaders.
>Irl there existed matriarchies, but men still did the hard work and the fighting.
They do in Tiers as well. The roles are different in that women are the landowners and hereditary nobility, and as such are forced into military leadershp roles in a massive existential conflict - but they mostly suck at it. You canonically kill the Queen of Apex in a duel at level 1 if you choose to do it.
> and their idea of strong women is always to act and talk like insecure douchebags that are always childishly aggressive
Eb is not like that, as you pointed out. Verse is not like that. Tarkis Arri is not like that. Zdenya is not like that. Sirin is like that - but she is literally a deeply traumatized child, and a well written one in that the game goes to great lengths to show that it's her coping mechanism and not the entirety of her character, and to point out that she is anything but strong - she is a weak person and that is why she is pushed around, manipulated, used and abused by everyone around her. Kills-in-Shadow is like that too, but she is a barely sentient animal.
Sparta was and remained a village for its' entire existence
>impoverished
This is why they were strong. Imagine letting the ~~*merchant caste*~~ rule your society, rather than the warrior aristocracy. >According to Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, not only did Lycurgus ban the use of gold and silver currency in favor of iron, but, just as the iron was red hot, it would be quenched in vinegar, thus rendering the metal unusable for any other purpose than money. This reduced the incidence of robbery and theft in Sparta, reports Plutarch, since the currency was difficult to transport and (because of its brittleness) lacked any intrinsic value as scrap metal.
Plutarch lived 300 years after Sparta was turned into a tourist attraction by romans
>Aristotle criticises the Spartans in his Politics: the helots keep rebelling; the Spartan women are luxurious; the magistrates (and especially the ephors) are irresponsible; reaching decisions by the loudest yell in the apella is silly; the wealth of the citizens is unequal (so that too many are losing the resources necessary to be a citizen and a hoplite); and the Spartiates let each other evade taxes, so the city is poor and the individual citizens are greedy. Above all, the Spartans know no other arts than war, so in peace they are incompetent and corrupt.
I guess that's why morons love it, because they think they'll be the epic meme warriors.
2 months ago
Anonymous
They know no other skills except flame war, so in peaceful discussion they are incompetent and schizo.
>impoverished
This is why they were strong. Imagine letting the ~~*merchant caste*~~ rule your society, rather than the warrior aristocracy. >According to Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, not only did Lycurgus ban the use of gold and silver currency in favor of iron, but, just as the iron was red hot, it would be quenched in vinegar, thus rendering the metal unusable for any other purpose than money. This reduced the incidence of robbery and theft in Sparta, reports Plutarch, since the currency was difficult to transport and (because of its brittleness) lacked any intrinsic value as scrap metal.
>Clearly incomplete as they introduce shadows at the end who go nowhere
Are you referring to the Bastard's Wound DLC?
>build up revelations about the walls and their functioning which hang loose as plotthreads
You're told not to go there but you have to go there to complete a quest. This is brought up at your trial.
>have a whole system for using region-wide magic which is only triggered for the final battle, etc.
Where else would you use it?
>It seems there were supposed to be acts where you (started) conquering the mainland and dealing with the walls.
Then why did the game have an ending explaining what happened to everyone?
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
They also have magic and iron.
>art style's horrible soviet 'realism' with an oversaturated color palette
You've never seen a Soviet game have you.
The ending being so abrupt ruined it so much for me I can't even replay it. It ends right when it feels like things are picking up. It was such a slap in the face.
Did you expect the game to go from 3 acts in the Tiers to conquering a continent 30 times their size?
No one is mad about women fighting on equal footing to men, we know that's a lost cause to explain to someone who has never fought like you. What we're talking about is that you wouldn't be able to replenish your population if your women fought. 10 men and 80 women can repopulate the tribe after winning the war. 80 men and 10 women can't. Plenty of tribes have tried commonplace warrior women throughout history and the word for them is "gone".
What if only women who have had children fight?
I really want to like this game, but the constant issues with the writing and gameplay frustrate me too much. For example if you choose option 2 you gain max wrath with the population in this area, but if you click option 5 nothing happens. I also had a similar thing happen during the burning library where I wasn't allowed to save the archive because I had sided with the forsaken forcing me to redo the last 2 areas and breaking my alliance with them.
>For example if you choose option 2 you gain max wrath with the population in this area
After they provided you with evidence. Asking for more just annoyed them. Asking for more time to consider the evidence does not.
>I also had a similar thing happen during the burning library where I wasn't allowed to save the archive because I had sided with the forsaken forcing me to redo the last 2 areas and breaking my alliance with them.
You sided with the Disfavoured by agreeing to destroy the archive. If you refuse you're put on the anarchy path, which affects how this area works.
>After they provided you with evidence.
That didn't happen. I walked up to the beast, it said "I din do nuffin", I click option 2 and everyone wanted my head. >You sided with the Disfavoured by agreeing to destroy the archive.
That's your quest objective, yet you're not even given the option to betray them for what is hyped up as a powerful artifact with immense knowledge. Why wouldn't my spellcaster even consider it? >If you refuse you're put on the anarchy path
You're not allowed to refuse. I was forced to go back a number of saves to kill a random disfavored which was put right before this level. I was confused when I first found him as to why I was given the option to kill the guy, until I reached the archive. >which affects how this area works.
Not at fricking all, the only change from betraying them was a small fight next to one of the keys was finished before I got there.
The game had potential but probably needed both an entire extra year of development, and the devs to not be such cowards. Act 3 is a complete joke and needed to be redone entirely. And this has been said already but the game was sold as, you are working for the villain who has already won, and being evil is the path of least resistance rather than being good like a normal RPG. This simply isn't true. There are very few properly evil things you can do, and just like in a regular rpg for the average quest being a nice guy is the better option.
>can only spam vague buzzwords when someone says things you don't like because you don't have your usual downvote option
Try and be direct for once you feminine sounding homosexual. I can already guess your own typical beliefs
I quit around the part with those weird ethereal enemies. Too much dull repetitive combat, and the story seemed to be heading towards railroading the player into rebellion.
>seemed to be heading towards railroading the player into rebellion.
That's actually the hardest ending/route to pull off. If anything, by the end you're either with the Law and Order faction or with the Chaos Reigns Supreme one.
I really want to like this game, but the constant issues with the writing and gameplay frustrate me too much. For example if you choose option 2 you gain max wrath with the population in this area, but if you click option 5 nothing happens. I also had a similar thing happen during the burning library where I wasn't allowed to save the archive because I had sided with the forsaken forcing me to redo the last 2 areas and breaking my alliance with them.
I like the idea of playing as the bad guy, and I like the spell crafting system, despite 80% of it just being stat increases. There's just a lot of small things I like that unfortunately come attached to everything else.
The edicts being zone effects is really neat, despite their effects being minimal. The reputation system is a really cool idea, that unfortunately is filled with mediocre active abilities. I liked the conquest section and how it established your history with the area through your actions. There's a lot of good things in this game, unfortunately there's a lot more bad shit.
>Get to the end of act 2 >Decide to restart on hard with a plan to lore max >Get all the way to act 3 >Tyranny deletes my fricking saves >Look this up and it's apparently a common issue that's never been fixed
I ended on 200 lore, and was planning to respec so I could get it even higher.
Of what?
Not having to put up with a shit thread
A good first person RPG. Imagine if they stopped wasting resources on these gay isometric shits. "Hey cuckold, here's this fantasy world, but you can only watch from afar" like what's the point?
You mean great games like the Outer Worlds?
None of the best RPGs are first person. Many are isometric. This is not a coincidence.
Wizardry 7
UU
Might and Magic 6
NTA, I liked M&M, but lets not pretend they would make games like that, instead of
like this.
>None of the best RPGs are first person
Least homosexual CuckoldRPG player
>first person meme
Go back to Ganker
Third act
It should have been a bioware game
No.
I expected you'd be able to do more heinous stuff to be honest. My guy in Jade empire was a much bigger c**t
Tell me about it. Still mad they cut Kills-in-Shadows' romance path.
It was pretty good. I liked playing as an autistic lawgay.
t. Paradox
A rare case of the executives giving the developers TOO much freedom
The game is pretty good, what are you on about? One of the more unique CRPGs in terms of the setting and the premise, I enjoyed enforcing the law and planning a rebellion.
>The game is pretty good, what are you on about?
That's what he's on about. See
The game's main content was cut and some filler was added. It was planned to be much bigger.
I know and I agree that the game blueballs you at the end with that ending, but everything leading up to it was pretty good and I did like it in spite of that.
>The modular magic system was the best part of the game.
>The fascist Dishonored > the bolshevik Scarlet Chorus.
>Clearly incomplete as they introduce shadows at the end who go nowhere, build up revelations about the walls and their functioning which hang loose as plotthreads, have a whole system for using region-wide magic which is only triggered for the final battle, etc. It seems there were supposed to be acts where you (started) conquering the mainland and dealing with the walls.
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
>art style's horrible soviet 'realism' with an oversaturated color palette
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
Said anon about a work of F A N T A S Y.
No one is mad about women fighting on equal footing to men, we know that's a lost cause to explain to someone who has never fought like you. What we're talking about is that you wouldn't be able to replenish your population if your women fought. 10 men and 80 women can repopulate the tribe after winning the war. 80 men and 10 women can't. Plenty of tribes have tried commonplace warrior women throughout history and the word for them is "gone".
i find it fricking hilarious when women argue against drafting them because of that while still insisting they can fight on the front lines
moronic fricking c**ts
why do you morons always complain about things that are not a problem if you are not an incel?
>your tribe not existing isn't a problem as long as you've had sex
moron you don't have enough women left to have enough kids to win the next war. You can't frick your way out of your women being dead.
most tribes who suffer significant losses against an enemy tribe just get absorbed by a neighboring one anyway
it turns out you can't just have such a signifcant part of your male population die out and immediately replenish
>repopulate the tribe
We are dealing with states with organized society, where war is domain of wealthy aristocratic elite or/and professional soldiers. You aren't going to run out of manpower because fighting population is small compared to civilian, you can run out of trained manpower. At that point if you are already funneling civilian resources into feeding military families you could as well try to maximize manpower from each family unit.
>muh depopulation of aristocracy
Firstly if there is a need for serious "repopulation" you already lost so hard there is no need as you are actively getting enslaved by victors. Secondly, few males mating with many females is severely limited by monogamy. Thirdly because casualties are mostly among warriors, then when there is shortage of mates from their strata, it can be alleviated by marring with members of other castes.
If you've lost 7/8 men in your tribe the word for tribe is still "gone". You aren't recovering from that. Not that it matters because this situation isn't on the scale of tribes anyways.
>Every fantasy setting has to pander to the same moron modern day librosexual blank slate progressive ideology
You're an idiot.
It's been that way since the 90s. No one cared that 1/3 of your companions in BG1 and 2 were women.
Check this out. Add up the average strength of all the male and all the female characters in BG1. Tell me what you get.
Because the reality is that while D&D has been officially gender-neutral since 2E, most writers and creators weren't totally fricking moronic about it like they have been since 2010 or so, and (almost) never tried to aggressively depict a world where sex differences did not exist or were flipped. (The obvious exception being Forgotten Realms' Dark Elves which have always been incredibly cringe).
The rules were there so that you could roleplay your warrior woman if you really wanted to without any tedious gender rules getting in the way. They weren't there for neckbeard incel feminists to depict dumbass gender role reversal societies or make culture war statements.
Give it a rest, moron. You haven't made a single good post since you got here and your posting style is extremely obvious.
I have only made 2 posts ITT and you seem fresh out of witty comebacks.
D&D got rid of the differences in strength between men and women with 3rd edition. You are over 20 years out of date.
Just wrong, in fact it may have even been dropped by AD&D 1E, I just don't have any 1E rule books. The only sex differences in 2E are the optional height/weight tables.
BG1 has 8 male warriors and 2 female warriors because the world had not yet gone full moron.
i'm a big fan of the two married women who can somehow inherit property
because that's how these things work
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
Well that's a Tiers cultural autism thing.
And Tiers get bodied in their first major war against a foreign power insanely fast, with insane ratio, with the only speed bumps along the way being caused by the internal bickering among the conquerors.
How is that unrealistic or delusional in any way?
Tiers get owned because they're against demigods with nearly infinite resources and "frick you" spells. What's "unrealistic" is that in this gynocentric society, all the roles are reversed but men and women still have the same biology as we do in real life. Irl there existed matriarchies, but men still did the hard work and the fighting. But even that wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for the moron writers who think that reversing roles means they have to write "strong" women, and their idea of strong women is always to act and talk like insecure douchebags that are always childishly aggressive. That's every woman in the game except for the white haired companion.
>Tiers get owned because they're against demigods with nearly infinite resources and "frick you" spells.
Tiers had their own Archons. Their main one (Occulted Jade, Archon of Tides) happened to be a women, and when push came to shove she did the women thng and fricked off beyond the ocean despite the fact that if she sayed and then participated in Cairn's rebellion during the Conquest they could gg ez the invaders.
>Irl there existed matriarchies, but men still did the hard work and the fighting.
They do in Tiers as well. The roles are different in that women are the landowners and hereditary nobility, and as such are forced into military leadershp roles in a massive existential conflict - but they mostly suck at it. You canonically kill the Queen of Apex in a duel at level 1 if you choose to do it.
> and their idea of strong women is always to act and talk like insecure douchebags that are always childishly aggressive
Eb is not like that, as you pointed out. Verse is not like that. Tarkis Arri is not like that. Zdenya is not like that. Sirin is like that - but she is literally a deeply traumatized child, and a well written one in that the game goes to great lengths to show that it's her coping mechanism and not the entirety of her character, and to point out that she is anything but strong - she is a weak person and that is why she is pushed around, manipulated, used and abused by everyone around her. Kills-in-Shadow is like that too, but she is a barely sentient animal.
You would be the kind of Greek who would complain about how Amazons aren't realistic huh
No, I'd be the kind of greek who complains that Plato thinks Sparta is greater than Athens, while it's an impoverished north korea shithole.
Yet Sparta lasted longer as a Polis than Athens
Sparta was and remained a village for its' entire existence
Plutarch lived 300 years after Sparta was turned into a tourist attraction by romans
>Aristotle criticises the Spartans in his Politics: the helots keep rebelling; the Spartan women are luxurious; the magistrates (and especially the ephors) are irresponsible; reaching decisions by the loudest yell in the apella is silly; the wealth of the citizens is unequal (so that too many are losing the resources necessary to be a citizen and a hoplite); and the Spartiates let each other evade taxes, so the city is poor and the individual citizens are greedy. Above all, the Spartans know no other arts than war, so in peace they are incompetent and corrupt.
I guess that's why morons love it, because they think they'll be the epic meme warriors.
They know no other skills except flame war, so in peaceful discussion they are incompetent and schizo.
>nerd criticizes jocks
some things never change
>impoverished
This is why they were strong. Imagine letting the ~~*merchant caste*~~ rule your society, rather than the warrior aristocracy.
>According to Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, not only did Lycurgus ban the use of gold and silver currency in favor of iron, but, just as the iron was red hot, it would be quenched in vinegar, thus rendering the metal unusable for any other purpose than money. This reduced the incidence of robbery and theft in Sparta, reports Plutarch, since the currency was difficult to transport and (because of its brittleness) lacked any intrinsic value as scrap metal.
>The fascist Dishonored > the bolshevik Scarlet Chorus.
Scarlet Chorus represents anarchy.
>Clearly incomplete as they introduce shadows at the end who go nowhere
Are you referring to the Bastard's Wound DLC?
>build up revelations about the walls and their functioning which hang loose as plotthreads
You're told not to go there but you have to go there to complete a quest. This is brought up at your trial.
>have a whole system for using region-wide magic which is only triggered for the final battle, etc.
Where else would you use it?
>It seems there were supposed to be acts where you (started) conquering the mainland and dealing with the walls.
Then why did the game have an ending explaining what happened to everyone?
>For a "Bronze age" setting it's golem delusions where half the soldiers are women
They also have magic and iron.
>art style's horrible soviet 'realism' with an oversaturated color palette
You've never seen a Soviet game have you.
What a profoundly moronic post, yet I could believe someone is this moronic. 8/10 bait.
The ending being so abrupt ruined it so much for me I can't even replay it. It ends right when it feels like things are picking up. It was such a slap in the face.
Did you expect the game to go from 3 acts in the Tiers to conquering a continent 30 times their size?
What if only women who have had children fight?
>For example if you choose option 2 you gain max wrath with the population in this area
After they provided you with evidence. Asking for more just annoyed them. Asking for more time to consider the evidence does not.
>I also had a similar thing happen during the burning library where I wasn't allowed to save the archive because I had sided with the forsaken forcing me to redo the last 2 areas and breaking my alliance with them.
You sided with the Disfavoured by agreeing to destroy the archive. If you refuse you're put on the anarchy path, which affects how this area works.
That was the original intention, yes. The art book reveals there were supposed to be five acts.
>After they provided you with evidence.
That didn't happen. I walked up to the beast, it said "I din do nuffin", I click option 2 and everyone wanted my head.
>You sided with the Disfavoured by agreeing to destroy the archive.
That's your quest objective, yet you're not even given the option to betray them for what is hyped up as a powerful artifact with immense knowledge. Why wouldn't my spellcaster even consider it?
>If you refuse you're put on the anarchy path
You're not allowed to refuse. I was forced to go back a number of saves to kill a random disfavored which was put right before this level. I was confused when I first found him as to why I was given the option to kill the guy, until I reached the archive.
>which affects how this area works.
Not at fricking all, the only change from betraying them was a small fight next to one of the keys was finished before I got there.
>Games called Tyranny
>Can't even commit any Assyrian tier atrocities
The game had potential but probably needed both an entire extra year of development, and the devs to not be such cowards. Act 3 is a complete joke and needed to be redone entirely. And this has been said already but the game was sold as, you are working for the villain who has already won, and being evil is the path of least resistance rather than being good like a normal RPG. This simply isn't true. There are very few properly evil things you can do, and just like in a regular rpg for the average quest being a nice guy is the better option.
Magic system and companions were neat though.
>thread immediately devolves into /misc/shit with an incel sperg caricature ranting about women
like clockwork
>immediately=3 days later
why are obsidiots such drama queens and kings
>can only spam vague buzzwords when someone says things you don't like because you don't have your usual downvote option
Try and be direct for once you feminine sounding homosexual. I can already guess your own typical beliefs
This is the third most overrated rpg of all time.
What's the fourth?
Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Give me your top ten overrated RPGs. I'm intrigued.
I didn't really enjoy the mmo combat or the infantile Saturday morning cartoon villain writing.
if you paid for it, yeah you were probably robbed.
Striked the homosexual OP, very roughly. Best post in this Black personcattle thread.
/thread
Imagine if BG3 had a decent story with meaningful choices and branching paths.
I quit around the part with those weird ethereal enemies. Too much dull repetitive combat, and the story seemed to be heading towards railroading the player into rebellion.
>seemed to be heading towards railroading the player into rebellion.
That's actually the hardest ending/route to pull off. If anything, by the end you're either with the Law and Order faction or with the Chaos Reigns Supreme one.
I really want to like this game, but the constant issues with the writing and gameplay frustrate me too much. For example if you choose option 2 you gain max wrath with the population in this area, but if you click option 5 nothing happens. I also had a similar thing happen during the burning library where I wasn't allowed to save the archive because I had sided with the forsaken forcing me to redo the last 2 areas and breaking my alliance with them.
>I really want to like this game
Why
I like the idea of playing as the bad guy, and I like the spell crafting system, despite 80% of it just being stat increases. There's just a lot of small things I like that unfortunately come attached to everything else.
The edicts being zone effects is really neat, despite their effects being minimal. The reputation system is a really cool idea, that unfortunately is filled with mediocre active abilities. I liked the conquest section and how it established your history with the area through your actions. There's a lot of good things in this game, unfortunately there's a lot more bad shit.
>can't frick Verse
gross
But Verse is worst girl?
>Killsy/Eb
>Siren
>
>
>Verse
I just wish this game had good ui & in-game art. The art design is so strong in the conquest section and then it just falls apart.
Are the loyalty routes good?
>Get to the end of act 2
>Decide to restart on hard with a plan to lore max
>Get all the way to act 3
>Tyranny deletes my fricking saves
>Look this up and it's apparently a common issue that's never been fixed
I ended on 200 lore, and was planning to respec so I could get it even higher.
>no way to fug the water hag and the songbird girl
shit game