|
bob dobbs is dead posted:good stuff To expound on this, the ancients were much more keen on the idea of inequality than we are now. If you look at any kind of Confederate writings Jefferson Davis (among others) goes through hoops justifying how slavery was actually good for black people and how the Confederacy was actually the TRUE equality and blah blah blah. Jefferson Davis was an immoral rear end in a top hat, but he tried to fit into modernish standards of equality. Let's compare him to Caesar's Commentary on the Gallic Wars (as translated by James J O'Donnell this time). Julius Caesar, Second Commentary posted:Next day the gates were broken - no one defended them now - and our soldiers entered and Caesar sold the whole town in one auction lot. The buyers reported the number enslaved at 53,000. Remember, this is a propaganda piece Caesar is sending back to Rome to convince everyone how awesome he is. What does Caesar think of slavery? Slaves are OK with it because it's for their own good or something maybe? Julius Caesar, Third Commentary posted:...all men naturally pursue liberty, and hate a slave's lot... Holy poo poo! Let's put that quote in context. Julius Caesar, Third Commentary posted:We've shown how difficult fighting would be, but much still encouraged Caesar to fight that war: the offense of detaining Roman knights, rebellion after surrender, betrayal after giving hostages, so many nations plotting-and chiefly he wanted to keep other nations from thinking they could do the same if he let this pass. He knew most Gauls loved uprisings and were easily and quickly roused to fight, while all men naturally pursue liberty and hate a slave's lot, so he decided to divide and distribute his army widely before more nations could join the plot. It's completely bonkers by modern standards. Caesar goes around enslaving everyone and straight up admits that nobody actually wants to be a slave. There's no rationalization with bullshit racism or divine will or whatever, it's literally "I need to make an example of these people and they hosed with Roman knights". We spend a lot of time in the modern day posturing about how we're not really doing power politics but adhering to our sacred principles, and here Caesar straight up says that slavery sucks for the enslaved but goes on adventures of selling thousands of people for money - and wants everyone to know how cool he looked doing it. The point to take away here is that the ancients do not think like us and do not have our morals and attempts to impose a modern viewpoint on the ancient world almost always end in dissonant failure. It's a massive problem not just with videogames but with the fantasy genre as a whole.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:The point to take away here is that the ancients do not think like us and do not have our morals and attempts to impose a modern viewpoint on the ancient world almost always end in dissonant failure. It's a massive problem not just with videogames but with the fantasy genre as a whole. At the same time, it would be really lovely if every fantasy novel adhered to accurate history, because, as observed, history was actually garbage and not worth emulating unless absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the result tends to be, to borrow from a fellow poster: Whybird posted:...Game of Thrones and its perpetual cry of "wasn't the past horrible to women! get a good long look at how horrible the past was to women! really gather round, don't be shy! you can jack off if you like!"...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Whybird posted:Game of Thrones and its perpetual cry of "wasn't the past horrible to women! get a good long look at how horrible the past was to women! really gather round, don't be shy! you can jack off if you like!" That stuff's gross as hell when it happens and I'm rather Tyranny chose to avoid it entirely rather than risk falling into the poop. really? it's been a while since I've read ASOIAF (read it for the first time right before the HBO series started) but I don't remember the books being wank fodder for people who hate women what I remember of the books is a rather honest (if nerdy) depiction of how everybody loving sucks for one reason or another, and the poor and downtrodden are the ones who always lose no matter who wins. I'd say it's a good representation of medieval power struggles and warfare, but maybe my memory fails me? please correct me if I'm wrong or maybe you were talking about the series which isn't exactly a paragon of good screenwriting no offense but one thing that I've kept noticing over the years is that - on these forums and on the internet in general - a lot of statements tend to be quite hyperbolic, cherry-picking specific elements to prove a point and to "win" the discussion e : sorry that sounded very holier-than-thou, my point was that "Game of Thrones and its perpetual cry of "wasn't the past horrible to women! get a good long look at how horrible the past was to women! really gather round, don't be shy! you can jack off if you like!" That stuff's gross as hell" sounded a bit too hyperbolic but again I don't remember the books to well. I remember the HBO series wanting to be titillating and provocative but I think that's just the norm when it comes to TV stuff? necroid fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
sunken fleet posted:I feel like you could also read the situation as Ebb being 'corrupted' by following around the PC and her party of baddies. I mean they've probably been together for a week, or a couple of weeks, in game time by now, right? Probably if everyone else in the party is all vicious and brutal all the time then there probably isn't a whole lot of room for acting out any sort of kindness or mercy, and by stepping out and volunteering to waterboard the opposition she's able to draw a clear line between 'us' and 'them' with her firmly in the 'us' category. I mean, with a bit more writing it could be inferred what Eb's motives were. Maybe she's taking after the protagonist. Maybe she's trying to impress her based on what she has seen of Kyrosian 'justice'. If the incident is not elaborated on at all, then it's probably rule of cool for the writers, and a notable faux pas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 13:10
|
|
|
This isn't totally out of character for Eb. Remember that our first introduction to her is when she forces the river to swallow a platoon of Disfavored soldiers. She's a war veteran who thought long and hard about how to apply her mystical powers in violent ways, and has plenty of experience of doing that. It's not immediately obvious from her portrait but she's closer to Langtry's age than anyone else on the team. She's had several kids, some of whom may already have kids of their own (or had, if not for Kyros' invasion). In the rebel path, she talks a bit about joining / starting up the Vendrien Guard rebellion, and it felt like she was fairly blase about the whole thing, even though she was aware this would most certainly end in death for many people on both sides of the conflict. She will use violence to achieve her ends. Choking an opponent but letting them live likely feels like charity to her. She's not a nice person - she just happened to be on the side we think of as "good guys" at first glance, when we are introduced to her in the story. The closest character to her I can think of comes from Discworld - she's Nanny Ogg, with a dash of early Captain Vimes thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
12Apr1961 posted:This isn't totally out of character for Eb. Remember that our first introduction to her is when she forces the river to swallow a platoon of Disfavored soldiers. She's a war veteran who thought long and hard about how to apply her mystical powers in violent ways, and has plenty of experience of doing that. This is more or less my read on Eb as well. Even if she happens to be on the 'good guy' side when we first meet her, she's a ruthless and violent person with a lot of experience - to the point of ingrained habit and impulse - using her magic to hurt and kill people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
necroid posted:or maybe you were talking about the series which isn't exactly a paragon of good screenwriting I was talking about the series primarily, yeah. Which while being critically panned, was still enormously successful and influential and inspired a whole lot of other hacks to go and do exactly the same thing but even shittier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This is more or less my read on Eb as well. Even if she happens to be on the 'good guy' side when we first meet her, she's a ruthless and violent person with a lot of experience - to the point of ingrained habit and impulse - using her magic to hurt and kill people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:At the same time, it would be really lovely if every fantasy novel adhered to accurate history, because, as observed, history was actually garbage and not worth emulating what’s with this black and white “every fantasy novel” hyperbole? you don’t have to retort someone’s argument by stretching it into an absolute also good to see we still prop ourselves up as morally superior to our ancestors by making GBS threads all over them
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Honestly, I have a lot more respect for the ancient "yeah slavery sucks but you're gonna do it because I have all the soldiers" position than anyone coming up with grand frameworks for how they are actually perfectly moral and altruistic people who just happen to go around enslaving and torturing others for their own good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:what’s with this black and white “every fantasy novel” hyperbole? you don’t have to retort someone’s argument by stretching it into an absolute i mean, how many genocides have you ordered? cuz if the count is less than like half a dozen, you're a better man than julius caesar. if your massacres killed fewer than hundreds of thousands of peeps, same yeah, there's modern genocides, but we dont celebrate them
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:i mean, how many genocides have you ordered? cuz if the count is less than like half a dozen, you're a better man than julius caesar. if your massacres killed fewer than hundreds of thousands of peeps, same Strictly speaking, I feel it’s safe to say the vast majority of our ancestors also didn’t order genocides. Of course there are people throughout history who’ve committed atrocities, but we didn’t achieve the moral reasoning we have now through happenstance. It’s a disservice to the people who came before and through generations reasoned out why doing bad things is bad. It isn’t simple to us just because we’re “better”, it’s because a hell of a lot of people sacrificed a hell of a lot of blood to figure it out, and I’m always frustrated when someone says “gee all of humanity and history before the last x number of years was poo poo and they sure were lovely people I’m glad we’re not those shitters”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
yeah, those are the whig history fuckers but history depends upon learning how the values of the past were alien from the values of the present, where they may be better or worse (more realistically, alien: more floob or quborknork) but the values on display in tyranny are basically like 2010s game developers, just like other games bob dobbs is dead fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:our stories are tainted by this, because we love to festoon our futuristic or medieval or whatever fantastical meat on homeric or other bronze or iron age bones. we think that this is just the nature of the story but chroniclers before modernity should be regarded with a little suspicion - was this guy like de born, that fucker? https://acoup.blog/2020/04/10/collections-antarah-ibn-shaddad-victory-songs/ Here's another very good post to remind you that "War is Good" isn't just a historical western thing. If a military aristocracy manages to thrive, they will develop some sort of value system that praises war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
it looks like this guys other example is literally de born lol dante put de born in hell in his book, you get 1 guess as to where and why
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:what’s with this black and white “every fantasy novel” hyperbole? you don’t have to retort someone’s argument by stretching it into an absolute The first part is because GEK literally said that lack of historical accuracy is a major problem with the fantasy genre as a whole, implying he thinks that any fantasy story that doesn't faithfully emulate the values and attitudes of the time period it most resembles has somehow failed in some capacity, or that it's some sort of flaw. As to the second part, yeah, we are morally superior to our ancestors. Have you gone around believing chattel slavery is A-OK recently? Had any core assumptions that women are property? Like, yeah, there are plenty of assholes in the world who are absolutely worse than some of the more egalitarian people of antiquity (we just voted one out of office), but the broad societal consensus and overall direction we're all headed in is, in fact, morally superior. Nowhere near perfect, certainly not uniform across the board, and there are definitely some times when we've backslid (just look at what happened when Reagan got elected, a decade or more of progress wiped out in an instant), but humanity in general has consistently improved over time, in terms of morality. In fact, a lot of the more high-profile evil we see in the world is explicitly stated to have sprung from nostalgia for some bygone age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
i guess differing attitudes towards violence is more whiggish but, say, our different attitudes towards religion are not. atheism was a footnote to the ancients, for weirdo philosophers, and public morality and law and religion were not separate and nobody saw anything wrong with that, and people were genuine about remarkably different religions in a way we cannot imagine in a literate society you got a lot of indigenous peeps in the age of european colonization listening to the basic tenets of protestantism and basically deciding that europeans were atheists tyranny opts out of this entirely, which is like excluding politics from americans experience of 2020 bob dobbs is dead fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:Strictly speaking, I feel it’s safe to say the vast majority of our ancestors also didn’t order genocides. Of course there are people throughout history who’ve committed atrocities, but we didn’t achieve the moral reasoning we have now through happenstance. It’s a disservice to the people who came before and through generations reasoned out why doing bad things is bad. It isn’t simple to us just because we’re “better”, it’s because a hell of a lot of people sacrificed a hell of a lot of blood to figure it out, and I’m always frustrated when someone says “gee all of humanity and history before the last x number of years was poo poo and they sure were lovely people I’m glad we’re not those shitters”. "Better" is subjective but I feel like it's very fair to say that modern systems of morality are very at least different from ancient ones and, when looked at through the lens of a modern system of morality, there aren't many ancient systems of morality that won't seem morally reprehensible to the observer. It's pithy to just say 'history was actually garbage and not worth emulating' but not particularly inaccurate when operating from a 2020 moral framework.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
If you wanna play this, Epic Game Store is giving away this with all it's dlc and pillars of eternity with all dlc right now. https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/free-games
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:The first part is because GEK literally said that lack of historical accuracy is a major problem with the fantasy genre as a whole, implying he thinks that any fantasy story that doesn't faithfully emulate the values and attitudes of the time period it most resembles has somehow failed in some capacity, or that it's some sort of flaw. as an intellectual exercise, consider the law/faith/politics interplay of the present moment. we understand that each of those three distinct structures forms a seperate set of instructions on how to live your life, which must be balanced against one another at all times, and with considerable internal friction whenever a bloc you're aligned with puts more weight on a different part of the triad than you do. our predecessors would, with some justification, consider this insanity: they understood them as three different words for the same thing, how you're supposed to live. the ancients would be APPALLED at how far our understanding of how to function in a society has fallen! they would look at this and assume the priests, judges, and chieftains would be battling one another CONSTANTLY for control of any society so poorly organized, and, well, they wouldn't be entirely wrong. they would consider their society superior to ours, not despite our pluralistic tradition, but because of it. and the version of EclecticTastes who grew up in a pharaonic society would be right there with them, talking about how sure, not every god-king is perfect, but it's absolutely an improvement on the chaotic mess that came before. this is the phenomenon of Whig History, the understanding that every good and bad thing in history have as justification "they were necessary to bring about this, the present moment, which is better than all that came before." a society-level version of solipsism. there is no horror it cannot excuse, and no act of heroism it cannot co-opt. it presents a neat, simple understanding of a world that not only is improving, it can only improve. and coming from someone with no power... well, it's optimism. coming from someone with any power, it rapidly becomes Tunon explaining to you why Kyros' law is the ideal way to run a society. because Tunon keeps it running. and if it wasn't the ideal way to run a society, Tunon would not be a fair and impartial judge, but a cruel god-king who has hidden behind the mask of "law" to justify his actions for so long there is nothing left of the man he used to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:If you wanna play this, Epic Game Store is giving away this with all it's dlc and pillars of eternity with all dlc right now. woah I got GTA 5 and Pikuniku this way, time to grab these too! thanks for the heads up
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this is the phenomenon of Whig History, the understanding that every good and bad thing in history have as justification "they were necessary to bring about this, the present moment, which is better than all that came before." a society-level version of solipsism. there is no horror it cannot excuse, and no act of heroism it cannot co-opt. it presents a neat, simple understanding of a world that not only is improving, it can only improve. and coming from someone with no power... well, it's optimism. Ah, see, you misunderstand me. At no point did I say anything in the past was justified, and as I recall, I at one point said it "sucked poo poo" and that it was not something that should be emulated, and I'll also add that it should not be celebrated outside the context of "thank god we stopped doing that poo poo". Because it sucks poo poo and we're better now than they were then. Not a one of their atrocities was "necessary" and society would absolutely have kept on tickin' without them, but also everyone involved with them is long dead and it's not like we can wheel their remains into the Hague so I'm not sure what you expect me to do about them besides condemn them. And yes, they could point to bureaucratic inefficiencies in our current systems and act superior, but the difference is, they're wrong. For one thing, they'd be criticizing an organizational flaw, not a moral one. Second, some of the poo poo we've decoupled from politics is, in fact, poo poo that's been making society worse, and its removal from the political sphere is part of us becoming better people. That's not to say we don't still have toxic influences in society, but that's the thing. Making the world better takes work, and just because people have (more or less, and absolutely imperfectly) been doing the work so far, in no way means that they will continue doing that work. Everyone must constantly do what they can to ensure that society's progress continues, and that we don't slip into the evils of the past. These past four years have been a pretty harrowing glimpse at what can happen when we drop the ball, to the point of including a literal plague, and it's likely going to take a while to reclaim the progress we lost. That doesn't mean we're somehow no different than when death was the best thing that could happen to you when your village was invaded, it just means we need to keep up the effort to make this goofy-rear end species slightly less lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:"thank god we stopped doing that poo poo". We absolutely haven't "stopped doing that poo poo". War crimes and genocides are not a thing of the "distant past".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
nabo posted:We absolutely haven't "stopped doing that poo poo". War crimes and genocides are not a thing of the "distant past". You're making the assumption that that's what I was referring to. The very notion that we recognize something as a war crime is an improvement over most ancient societies, as is recognizing genocide as being bad, rather than the correct and proper way to deal with those of other faiths/cultures. The idea that just because (bad thing) still exists, that society hasn't improved at all is absurd. We've significantly curtailed all of those things, and many other ills besides, and we (here referring to a plurality of the human race) now openly accept that those things are bad and should stop entirely. This is not perfect. But it is better. Because there is no perfect. Humans will always gently caress up, and the way society improves is by dealing with those gently caress-ups better and doing what it can to prevent the biggest gently caress-ups. Though, to clarify, some of the things we've "stopped doing" (outside of specific individuals or groups that we all have rightly condemned) include: human sacrifice, using sexual assault as a tool of warfare, actively trying to genocide every group that doesn't look and/or worship like we do, chattel slavery, forcing teenage girls to marry men in their forties, and so on, and so on. EclecticTastes fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
nabo posted:We absolutely haven't "stopped doing that poo poo". War crimes and genocides are not a thing of the "distant past". but now, when we do them, it is being done in service of the Good Government, as opposed to before, when it was being done in service of the Bad Government. when the previous social organization did those awful things, it was indicative of moral flaws. now that ours, which is a good one, is engaged in them, we regret the organizational flaws that have prevented us from stopping, proving us superior. it is not a coincidence that this chain of thought was named after the parliamentary party of the British Empire at its peak. the Whigs were absolutely a less abhorrent party than the Tories, but when you're sitting on top of a dragon's hoard of wealth built by active, ongoing, bloody suppression of those icky foreigners who made the mistake of having stuff you wanted, you need a way to reconcile the twin platforms of "the aristocracy are not a superior class of being to the common man" and "better a million Irish starve than one landlord lose his investment." they put together a beautiful narrative whereby the whole of history was a march towards its shining apex, the British constitutional monarchy! and if a couple of foreigners had to die to get there, well, those were minor organizational whoopsies, which could not be held against the greater moral glory of the imperial project. yes, sure, Kyros' legions have done some regrettable things. but look at all the wonderful order Tunon's law has brought! can you imagine the nightmare of a world where things like Nerat walked free to do as they willed, instead of having a guy in a mask periodically make unhappy noises while he keeps doing them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:I am an enormous RPG nerd, and have played basically every CRPG worth playing in particular, and the only game with writing that even comes close to reaching the level of "serious" writing is Disco Elysium. Everything else with good writing has the unspoken qualifier, "for a video game". Tyranny's writing is great, for a video game, so yeah sometimes there's bits where there's no deep, well thought-out reason for it and it's just because the writers thought it'd be "cool". The real question isn't about what constitutes CRPG writing but what constitutes "serious" writing and how you are defining it. Having spent a frustrating amount of time talking to "serious" writers who dismiss both "genre fiction" and "popular" writing while ignoring the fact that almost every great author studied in schools today fits pretty neatly into one of those two camps, I'm a little suspicious about casual discussion of "serious" writing as good and everything else as bad. At the level of the individual sentence, Tyranny isn't good writing. And the characterization isn't especially subtle or even as consistent as it could be across most of what we've seen ITT thus far. But the writers are clearly trying to raise issues about the effects of Kyros on the world in general and the ways in which crapsack fantasy environment leads to a deeply distorted moral and ethical sense, even for those opposed to the tyrant largely responsible for the crapsack part. Depicting casual violence of this sort as a mix between "punch the air" satisfaction at someone getting his comeuppance and unease at the brutality involved isn't an especially sophisticated criticism and seems well within this game's wheelhouse. The game does fall into the trap of depicting violence of the sort that constitutes the main content of most CRPGs uncritically within the broader field of violence that gets critiqued in other contexts, but they did want to sell copies. Some people get very upset if you tell them their power fantasies are wrong and that they might be bad people for having them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:
One of my favorite bits from Xenophon (the journal of a greek mercenary troop that finds itself stranded in Persia having been apparently the only army to actually win their battle) is when they go to a village and demand that the village sell them all their food. The village says "no, we need that to eat" and the mercs promptly take them all prisoners to sell later and also take the food,. When they arrive at the city that was ostensibly protecting that village the guy in charge is understandably pissed about this whole situation, but accepts the argument of "well what else were we supposed to do?", and lets them into the city to sell their slaves. And everyone is just completely blasé about this whole series of events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Narsham posted:The real question isn't about what constitutes CRPG writing but what constitutes "serious" writing and how you are defining it. Judging by GEK's criticisms of the writing, I assumed that it's being held up to at least the standard of fantasy novelists like Terry Brooks or Tad Williams (just to name a couple of my favorites). And, as you say, Tyranny doesn't come close to that level. I, personally, don't expect it to, and judge video game writing as video game writing, by which standard Tyranny is pretty great. That's sort of the problem with attempting serious literary analysis of video games, is that if you don't grade on a curve, every game is going to look bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Eb was clearly doing a Darth Vader impression, not sure what the hubub is about
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:At the same time, it would be really lovely if every fantasy novel adhered to accurate history, because, as observed, history was actually garbage and not worth emulating unless absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the result tends to be, to borrow from a fellow poster: We've had some stuff come up in the thread about the writing of Tyranny and my less than stellar comments about the fantasy genre, so I'll try to comment on this as briefly as possible as I do want to have a bonus update of things I think Tyranny gets wrong. EclecticTastes posted:The first part is because GEK literally said that lack of historical accuracy is a major problem with the fantasy genre as a whole, implying he thinks that any fantasy story that doesn't faithfully emulate the values and attitudes of the time period it most resembles has somehow failed in some capacity, or that it's some sort of flaw. The problem usually arises when people send characters with modern morals into vaguely past situations so you end up with oddly anachronistic settings. Usually this comes in the form of some hero who derives power from their birthright - whether this be for unearned magical power or being a member of hereditary nobility/royalty or whatever - and then having these characters spout off about sexual consent or gay rights or antiracism or what have you while still enjoying the privileges of being better than the common man not because of their character but because of their unearned birthright. I think some of my favorite examples are Jenn Lyon's book where the protagonist is raised in a brothel that rents out sex slaves, his guardian is the musician at said brothel (and supports them via the sex slave industry) and then turns around to explain to other characters the miracle of sexual consent, NK Jemisins' tortured metaphors of how people with supernatural powers that cause mass death are vaguely equivalent to real world minorities, or good old Pat Rothfuss and how Kvothe is really a noble and shouldn't be treated like those stinking peasants. A lot of these authors want to use their books as a vehicle to reiterate a desire for modern equality while simultaneously having their protagonists be cool wish-fulfillment people who are Better Than You by divine right or whatever. Instead of engaging with the ancient ideas behind nobility and how it contributes to the inequality they profess to hate they abdicate any kind of responsibility because being Lord X is cool. To go back to Tyranny, I have no idea where Ferris' cry of "snowflake" comes from unless we apply it in a modern context. We can vaguely apply it to Eb because she has white hair, but no other characters refer to her as a snowflake (and plenty have the motives and means to insult her!) and "snowflake" is fundamentally a modern insult. "Snowflake" is tied into the internet culture wars. The clash between ancient and modern results in something that resembles neither and jolts the reader out of the writing into a sense of confusion. The fact that all Ferris' soldiers stand there while Eb attacks their commander (instead of hucking a javelin at her face) just makes the scene even more dissonant. Narsham posted:At the level of the individual sentence, Tyranny isn't good writing. And the characterization isn't especially subtle or even as consistent as it could be across most of what we've seen ITT thus far. But the writers are clearly trying to raise issues about the effects of Kyros on the world in general and the ways in which crapsack fantasy environment leads to a deeply distorted moral and ethical sense, even for those opposed to the tyrant largely responsible for the crapsack part. I will cop to giving Tyranny a lot more leeway due to the authors having some consistent ideas they wish to communicate. The writing is extremely bloated and redundant and describes several things happening that the game doesn't show us, like Graven Ashe saving our life - something which is very important to our decision to betray him! The game really did need someone to come in and cut down a lot of the words. Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Eb was clearly doing a Darth Vader impression, not sure what the hubub is about The developers posted:I’ve found most of my inspiration comes from non-fiction: fascism, American exceptionalism, drug cartels, capitalist corporations, and militaries through the ages have all provided a great deal of inspiration as to how evil wins. There's a fair amount of takes in the thread about how this is just violence in the Bronze Age setting, and that's somewhat true, but we need to look at what Eb is doing. Eb is drowning a man to get him to comply, and it's very similar to the practice of waterboarding, which is a form of torture designed to make people think they're drowning. The developers are on record as quoting "American exceptionalism" as one of their inspirations for Kyros, and thus it's very strange to me to see one of the sins of America put in the hands of the heroes with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. Even the Darth Vader comparison is missing the point - Lucas (via Yoda) makes it very clear that Vader's use of the Force to hurt and kill others is wrong and is one of the ways Lucas communicates to the audience that Vader is evil. Note that when Vader is redeemed he physically picks up the Emperor to destroy him instead of using the Force! As Narsham points out, this use of violence to compel others into obedience is the hallmark of Kyros and the Archons and to see Eb using it casts serious doubts on both her moral integrity and that of the resistance she fronted for. As a "gently caress yeah, take that snowflake-using chud" moment it's hilariously tone-deaf with the rest of the work as the work characterizes impulsive violence as a hallmark of people like Nerat. I will have more to say as the game continues, but do note that we are essentially walking the path Kyros once did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:this is alien to us because an artillery shell aimed right can get you wherever you are and whoever you are, but without artillery and with enough armor there were large amounts of time where peeps could actually enjoy the experience of battle and slaughter at relatively little risk, because arrows are way less scary than shells. its the foundation of why ancient generals accompanied their troops to battle and why modern ones do not. You're on to something about the gaps in training and equipment allowing warfare to be (relatively) safe for the nobility, though this varied tremendously based on the time and place. However, I'd reckon that the limitations of pre-modern communications had more to do with generals personally accompanying their armies into the field. When the fastest form of communication is a man carrying a letter riding a horse, the only way to effectively command your soldiers is to be where they are. Plenty of ancient generals did not fight from the front (Caesar's journals, for instance make no mention of his own prowess as a warrior), while commanding officers continued to be present on the battlefield even well into eras where gunpowder had rendered armor entirely obsolete, personal martial ability was of very limited value on the battlefield, and being wealthy and important offered no special protections from incoming fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Honestly, I have a lot more respect for the ancient "yeah slavery sucks but you're gonna do it because I have all the soldiers" position than anyone coming up with grand frameworks for how they are actually perfectly moral and altruistic people who just happen to go around enslaving and torturing others for their own good. For that one, well, in late antiquity you have our good buddy Saint Augustine to defend it, and twist and turn an argument to say that actually God was all for it and that made it all OK, because the original sin. Although it is true that the ancient world had a far more "yeah, it sucks, get used to it" attitude to it, except for some rather particular posts such as some Roman public slaves who were slaves as a legal arrangement to hold them to account in financial dealings of the state and were automatically made freedmen after their stint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
It's not just St. Augustine among the ancient philosophers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2019/09/10/aristotles-defense-of-slavery/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-01-classics-of-western-philosophy-spring-2016/lecture-notes/MIT24_01S16_SES23.pdf That said, if you want a palette cleanser from the above with more modern perspectives: https://historyofphilosophy.net/slavery
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
I mean Aristotle and Plato being bad and wrong is just part of their essential nature, I breathe, you eat, we drink, they are wrong. It's just what they do, it's not really worth mentioning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Concerning slavery: Its a step up from just killing anyone defeated in a war, which was what frequently happened before (but also after) slavery got established. Not a fan of Caesar, but at least he is somewhat honest about it. In this he arguably compares favorable to Napoleon. Heck, Napoleon did things Caesar would likely have considered to be completely dishonorable. For example replacing the king of spain with his brother, despite spain being his ally before that, also, a bunch of Napoleons "but my pretty borders" annexations. Ironically, these are typically regarded as Napoleons great mistakes, as they pissed off Russia (making it hostile) and Sweden (shifting it from quasi allied to belligerently neutral), and the rise of unconstrained and unchecked French power shifted the position of the Ottomans from a "gently caress you Russia, I would ally with Satan against you" to "lets eat some noninvented popcorn while French Shaitan and Russian Shaitan fight it out". Like, if you had Caesar word, preferably in writing, it was meaningfull. Napoleon gave absolutely no fucks. However, the episode of the Napoleonic war that Caesar would have found the most outrageous would go to the British sack of Copenhagen. First Britain got Danemark to send their armed forces to the border in order to prove their "neutrality", then it set Copenhagen on fire and demanded the turnover of the Danish fleet to them in exchange for no longer burning people to death. Caesar, if he was around, would have probably commented something like "Britain, resorting to that type of stuff makes you look really weak and strongy implies you could not win a fair fight against this Danemark". Danemark then became essentially one out of 2 faithfull rather then forced allies of Napoleon, Poland/duchy of Warsaw being the other one. TLDR: Warcriming and dishonorable stuff pays if you win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Like, if you had Caesar word, preferably in writing, it was meaningfull. Napoleon gave absolutely no fucks. I suspect the vestiges of the leadership of the Roman Republic which Caesar overthrew would disagree about how valuable his word was. GEK’s point about consistency is well-taken, especially when the narrative and characterizations tacitly approve of the employment of methods the game as a whole seems determined to criticize. It isn’t even clear whether the failing is in the writing, or reflects an inconsistent application of the underlying ethical or moral system producing the critique of evil. “Comedy waterboarding” undercuts serious arguments being made by the game, but it isn’t hard to see how such a thing might find its way into the script. I do think many of the complaints, including many of GEK’s criticisms, reflect a failure to edit well, not a failing in the initial writing. Some of that involves consistency across multiple development cycles, while some of the descriptive redundencies look to me to be pretty clear signs of text being written before the system to partially animate portraits of those in conversations got implemented. I suppose there may have been a conscious decision to leave in redundant descriptions for some users (very color-blind users who might not be able to see the animations clearly?), but it looks more to me like the game development cycle didn’t worry that much about late-stage editing, though I can’t tell if that was the product of a release-date crunch or available resources. I’d expect greater scrutiny of all the Tunon material than some brief encounter with what amounts to a gate guard who in another era would probably only say “I am a guard” and have to be fought. There are clear differences between bad writers who also badly need editing and never get it (Ernest Cline), writers who are in the average to good range whose improvement in writing styles gets undercut by an increased editorial control over their own works (JK Rowling), and stylistically accomplished writers who aren’t getting a lot of editing that would still be helpful (Rothfuss, with an argument to be had over the first part; Tolkien with an argument over the second part). Editing and writing are separate skills, though many of the best writers are accomplished in both areas. I suspect the CRPG development cycle undervalues editing, or mistakes it for spelling and grammar checking, because this particular shortcoming is near-universal. The best CRPGs will at least have some polished areas, but finding consistent editing across all the content in the game is extremely rare. Many published RPG adventures suffer from similar flaws, so perhaps this particular skill isn’t well-represented in the subgenre at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
only disco elysium i can guarantee was a total exception to the general rule that rpg peeps treat editing like schoolchildren do: poorly
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
I can't think of a RPG that was released without end crunch, and thus would have time for proper final editing pass. This makes the question of whether there is lack of editing skill or lack of interest kinda redundant...  I also suspect that the target audience for crpgs is not that interested, compared to lot of different stuff, like the goddamn romance options that are everywhere lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Ancient slavery is not immoral, it is amoral. Starting with Plato, philosophers have tried to match emerging views of morality with the existence of slavery. The ancients simply didn't have the concept of inherent/subjective rights, let alone a right to freedom (although, the Greeks would have had less problems understanding a right to freedom than the Romans). Subjective rights only arose in the 16th century - the theological/judicial thinking of the school of Salamanca and Hugo Grotius come to mind. You need to pair the (theological) idea of right and wrong with the (legal-theological) idea that everyone will get judged in front of the Supreme judge and the (theological) idea that all of earths humans are a creation of God (and thus ultimately under the protection of God) in order to grant rights to people from outside of society - say, indigenous people in the new Spanish territories. In ancient Roman times (coming from a Roman law perspective - my Greek and Egyptian law is skittish), there was no concept of rights - the legal system was a system in which priveleges were tested by a Roman-backed court of law. When Caesar sells a whole city in slavery, there's no moral aspect to it. The Gauls could not fall back on any legal protections, so they could be sold withour limitations. By being a slave, they would have been protected to a certain extent by Roman law. The status servitus is the normal state for everyone in a familia (which you needed to be in to gain access to a court of law) if you're not either the head or closely linked (wife, children...). Being a Roman law servus meant you had obligations to the one in whose mancipium you were (dominus), but not that this dominus could do whatever he wanted with you. In an inheritance, it was not legal to seperate a slave couple. For Greek law - Slaves are usually worth half of what a citizen is worth. So, if they are the victim of a some kind of misdeed, their owner would receive half the fine one would receive if the victim were freeborn. Hammurabi has similar provisions (though usually ending in the death of said slave). Modern views on slavery depend a whole lot on the colonial experience of the 17-19th century - where the concept of human rights renders the idea of slavery clearly immoral - and the various justifications in those times (But we are natural brains, they are natural brawns! But we are uplifting them!) draw from defenses in the earlier times. And there, defenders of slavery had every advantage in portraying ancient slavery as bad as possible (and looking good in comparison). Ben Hur draws on American 19th century imagery to portray 1st century Romans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Cleopatra Jones and the Boring rear end Dungeon Last time on Tyranny, we threw the laws of Kyros in the garbage and went into the Oldwalls to stop Raetommon from carrying out his incredibly stupid plan. After a bit of heroic torture, we rejoin Cleopatra and the girls in the Oldwalls.  I'm not gonna sugarcoat things. There's a lot to talk about in the actual text of Tyranny, but the gameplay is extremely boring!  We get this cloak, the most interesting thing about it being the implication that a skilled mage can maybe control Bane?  At least Cleo levels up through all this mess.  This talent is incredibly powerful and would be even better if you guys had let me take all the mages.  More importantly, we hit the soft cap for Wits and we can drink the elixir raising Cleo's spell damage further.  Spells for the spell god!  The big gimmick for the dungeon is that the torchkeys can be applied to stands like this one and will unlock switches, levers, and new paths for us to take. This will recur later in the game. I'm honestly not going to go too in depth here, the dungeon is kind of blah!   We're going to have to come back later, as I recall there are powerful endgame sigils behind this keystone.  Disregard currency, click buttons.  There are also arcane traps that shoot you when you get too bored.  See those glowing octagonal things in the walls?  Those are Bane traps. They pop and spew Bane all over our hapless party.  I really don't have a lot to say here! It's not clear whether the Bane themselves are artificial, but they are harnessable by people who have ideas clearly outside of the Kyros-permitted ecosystem. We can extrapolate from our reading that the Bane represent the threat of new ideas and/or cognitive dissonance - clearly, the ancients built these big towers and were able to use the Bane - but at the end of the day it's just walking through a dungeon and fighting some ghost dudes.  At least there's this piece of loot. I am legitimately not sure which character is intended to use this, as Eb and Lantry favor light armor, Fatebinder mages prefer light, and Barik is once again locked into his poop suit. Oh well!  Keep trekking.  The dead Brotherhood member over there has loot.  Specifically, another torchkey! We're up to two (purple and now yellow) and different stands react in different ways.  What's this?  Bane attacking yet another unlucky squad of Brotherhood members! Have I mentioned that Raetommon is a bad leader yet? As you can guess from the full Bane traps on the walls this is a ton of combat that consists of me facerolling the spell keys so let's skip it, shall we?  This guy doesn't even get a name so I'm not making him a portrait.  : You're welcome. : Raetommon never had any intention of coming back for you. I'm sorry. TheGreatEvilKing summary posted:
 The Bane show their displeasure by subjecting us to Tyranny combat.  We get it! At least we can feel morally comfortable stealing the Magebane Helmet because we're personally massacred every last Bane in these Oldwalls.   No! Stop already! To continue the running Lethe analogy, Cleopatra has to fight a ton of doubts, foreign ideas, and cognitive dissonance to grasp the idea that the best thing for her to do is to break Kyros' laws. If only it weren't so tedious for the player.  More traps.  This is a Forge-bound apprentice who we would have gotten a quest to rescue back in town, but we kinda missed it. it's OK, though, this is the other way to pick up the quest. Unlike most of the rest of this dungeon, this conversation is actually interesting. : Slow down. What are you doing here? : I was searching the area near the Oldwalls entrance for unique metals or runes I could use in my crafting.: I'm... I'm trying to advance to the next level of my apprenticeship. Impressing forge masters is much harder than it sounds and Master Lohara is especially demanding. You really need to stand out, and I thought this was my chance.This sounds familiar. Remember the trial we helped Tunon with? The Forge-Bound who found an Oldwalls stone, and made a magic hammer? : I didn't even know the Bronze Brotherhood were here until some of them showed up. I grabbed a discarded helmet and tried to blend in until I could get away.: Their leader thought I was a soldier who got stuck away from his post, so he demanded I return to my duties. I was scared so... He shrugs with defeat. I followed my 'orders' and went inside. : [Lore 46] Don't you know it's illegal to trespass on the Oldwalls?  We get the extremely stupid option to kill him and piss off the Forge-Bound. : I'm in the Oldwalls too, aren't I? Let's just keep this secret between us.We're kind of boned anyway and the entire town knows we went after Raetommon. Disregard the Archons. : Sometimes I forget that you Fatebinders are beholden to Kyros' law. Of course! If I get out of here, I won't mention it to anyone. : Why not disguise yourself and sneak out?: I would have, but I was committed to finding that connection with Lethian's Crossing and left behind the Brotherhood armor I found. It was ill-fitting and noisy, and didn't help me evade the Bane, which I can assure you is a far more pressing concern this far into the Oldwalls than some hotheaded thugs!: But you're right, the disguise is the better choice. He grimaces, shaking his fist in frustration. It wasn't smart of me to let go of it. I know, I'm [sic] haven't been thinking straight. It's been a moment-to-moment struggle just to stay alive in this cursed place!: I'm not sure you can find the gear I left behind, but I have heard the Brotherhood running through these halls. I'm certain there must be at least one around here that isn't in need of his armor anymore. With it I believe I can make my way out.TheGreatEvilKing summary posted:
 This dead guy five feet away has the Rho torchkey, Convenient!  MORE loving BANE  I guess Cleo is really repressed and just letting it all out here.  This is the final piece of the Spire rune - but we unlocked the Spire anyway. Oh well!  This would be a lot more harrowing if we were burning resources or something, but as it stands I think I can count the number of times I've used camping supplies on one hand, and I'm playing on Hard.  This is the armor Garrick needs. Unfortunately we can't just dump all the armor pieces we looted on him.  : Why not use this armor I found to disguise yourself and sneak out? On the surface, it's a fetch quest. In actuality it confirms that the Forge-Bound, despite being sworn directly to Tunon, don't actually give a gently caress about Kyros' laws or upholding them. Lohara won't directly go against Tunon for removing Barik's armor (though you can force her to do it), but in actuality the Forge-Bound are all about breaking as many laws as they can get away with. Don't believe me? On the rebel path, Eldian and the Forge-Bound immediately send you into the Oldwalls to look for Bane! It ties into the theme of Lethian's Crossing. The player character is waking up and realizing that even in relatively normal times these laws don't work, both for the stated purpose of keeping the peace and feeding people and the actual purpose of stopping the enemies of Kyros.  Three keystones, three stands, and if you mismatch one you get piles of Bane dumped on you.  At least we got this!  When we get to this part of the dungeon the engine takes over for a cutscene.  That's a big Bane that is about to shove my poo poo in.  We are forced across the trap bridge while Raetommon and his last three friends stare at the Big Bane like lonely men in a strip club.  Yup, we saw the ball, we can infer his emotions from the dialogue, and he's speaking like a pompous rear end while the game describes "authority and petulance".  The clown strikes back.  : Just as quickly as it comes, his rage subsides and he smiles, but it doesn't quite reach his eyes. But I might as well be yelling curses at the encroaching darkness for all the good it will do me to admonish you. You'll never leave Brotherhood affairs alone - never keep out of something you have no business in.: Still, I will applaud you. I never expected you would get this far.We can't see his eyes, game, he's wearing the helmet!  : [Point to where you threw the rock.] How's your head, Raetommon? : I've heard he gets nothing but complaints. In fact, most people ask for their rings back.: It figures someone as base as the Fatebinder would keep equally crass company. Eb smiles and blows Raetommon a kiss. : Why did you take the Magebane Helm and kidnap Zdenya? Raetommon is desperately trying to look like a cool Darth Vader dude but is still a clown. : With the Helmet, I can drive them back. They will give me the glory, the chance to have Lethian's Crossing as mine alone! He laughs, the sound eerily echoing back in the large chamber.: Why Zdenya? To rebuild, we will need a Master of the Forge and who better to take that role than the Master of all forges?It's amazing how small Raetommon's ambition is compared to the forces he's trying to unleash.  : What is in that prison? You've described him as manic and maniacial, and yeah...the writing's still not good and we can't see his eyes. Oh well.  : What did you do to the Sage? : [Lore 28] You have gone completely insane. What happened? You seemed so composed on Ironhaul Trail. Doctor, Pagliacci, etc.  : You don't think the Bane will kill you as soon as you release them? The Brotherhood worship the Bane per their faction bio. This literally never comes up outside of Raetommon's weird devotion here which he is going to demonstrate by attacking his...gods? I don't know. : Do you even know how to release the Havoc?: OF COURSE! He shouts and stomps his foot again. He shakes his head at you, as if the answer is the most obvious thing in the world.: My special Sage 'told' me everything. He was very knowledgeable about the Oldwalls in this particular region - and the rumors of a key that could unleash the Bane. He didn't want to tell me. I could tell he wanted Kyros to have Lethian's Crossing, but I showed him how wrong that kind of thinking can be. He bites on the tip of his thumb, lost in thought.I honestly think this style of RPG writing lulls people into not paying attention, because poo poo like this is the game beating you over the head that Raetommon is an insane idiot who has a stupid plan that got most of his men to either desert or die. None of the rest of this poo poo really matters. How did Raetommon know about the Bane? Well, his company worships the Bane, it's not hard to believe they know stuff and this Sage doesn't matter. What's his plan? He's told us before. He likes torturing people, but we already know his methods were brutal from the attack on the town. We don't need all these screens to show a breakdown, the dialog is sufficient. The Tyranny writers seem perfectly capable of being somewhat subtle, but this is where they break down and start hitting the player. : What did the Sage mean about four points of a compass?There are four torchkeys, there are four stands around the Bane, Fatebinders are not this stupid.  It does provide another opportunity for dunking on Raetommon for being a worthless dumbass.  : [Lore 51] Give me the vellum you got from the Sage. It might be important. Sure. Why not. First he hates us, but he gives us the clue because he's a moron. : Any chance you'll give me that torchkey you hid when I walked in?: [Athletics 46] [Threaten] Give me that crystal. Now. Or I will take it from you. TheGreatEvilKing summary posted:
 It ends about as well for the Brotherhood as you'd expect. Raetommon is down to four guys including himself. If he'd kept his whole force together with him they could have just shoved Cleo and the gang into the pit by sheer weight of numbers, as it stands they get burned to death by an angry wizard. Oops!  Raetommon surrenders while his men die all around him, a worthless coward to the end.  : [Kill] I need that helmet, but I don't need you. Looks like your plans die with you. This apparently pisses off the Brotherhood, despite Welby asking us to deal with Raetommon and the surviving members of the Brotherhood being the ones who concluded that he was a worthless idiot with nothing to offer. Oh well, we can now delay getting knocked out by 4 seconds once per encounter. Yay?  Cleopatra puts on the helmet, which gives her a huge spell defense bonus and a forgettable active ability that shoots a laser at Bane.  Killsy takes this axe.  We also find the green keystone on Raetommon's corpse, which lets us go around and hit all the glowing torchkey stands.  We find this wacky BDSM collar that I'm probably just gonna sell.  Upon activating the third keystone, the shield around the Big Bane collapses.  Those are indeed Bane traps full of adds, and here my trouble begins.  Those of you who haven't played this game are probably going "what's the big deal? You said combat was stupid easy and all you have to do is faceroll on the keyboard." That's...usually true.  All of these loving Bane traps break at once and start dumping more Bane onto the battlefield. Two of them have Malices, which are the second tier of Bane that are spellcasters, while the little Scourges poo poo up the battlefield everywhere. No one in this party actually has any meaningful ability to hold aggro. Now, to be fair, Barik can't really hold aggro outside his AoE taunt, but that will at least clump the Bane up in one spot so we can AoE blast them to death.  Of course, the Tyranny threat system hates you personally, as this Bane sees that Eb is in a bikini and likes sex and thinks maybe he has a chance.  This turns into a clusterfuck in the middle. Verse has a single-target taunt, so we pull the Bane off Eb before he can offer to show her his collection of packaged Star Wars action figures in his mom's basement.  We can absolutely beat the ever loving poo poo out of the boss. The problem is that this party is not built for a sustained fight with opponents who resist statuses (or inflict them) and that's exactly what this fight is.  When we've beaten Big Bane up enough instead of monologuing about the darkness like a reasonable Bane he just loving disappears and becomes untargetable.  The rest of the Bane take the opportunity to rush the mages now that Killsy is down.  gently caress.  Yea these assholes absolutely tear through our party.  Let's try this again.  This is the invite for the DLC area.  We send a polite reply, as we have a boss to kill.   I decide to pre-buff this time.  This fight is a lot harder without Barik and three mages.  gently caress!  poo poo! Ok, one more try.  The plan this time is to use Eb's wacky floating mode to kill all the ads and then 4v1 the boss.  The boss busts out this Blade Storm ability, which is the signature manuever of a bonus boss much later in the game Motherfucking Graven Ashe!!!!!!! and wrecks my poo poo. Look at that! That's 91 damage on Killsy! We can't even move out of the area of effect because despite my best efforts there are Bane everywhere - including both casters - and the melee guys have us pinned down. It's at this point I get frustrated because it was late, Cyberpunk had just come out, and I was kind of tired. In all seriousness, I consider this Bane fight the hardest in the game. You're probably not cheesing out Lore (unless you beelined the Infirmary), your spells can't cover a wide area, you're just starting to be able to rotate out through a spell rotation without getting boned by cooldowns, and this boss actually makes you do a sustained fight against things you can't just keep locked down forever. The terrain is terrible and Tyranny's aggro mechanics don't work, so the little Banes can just jump all over poor Eb or Lantry and make them die, and they cut through armor, too! Next time: Time to kill a Big Bane! TheGreatEvilKing fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Oct 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 03:28
|
|
: Thanks for saving us! Did Raetommon send you?