Interesting thought. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to create this type of player-character at all in a game - where your motivation for your "deeds" comes from some fanaticism or extreme black-white view of a grey-shaded world. I mean if choice is involved, how would you motivate yourself to feel the fanaticism or hold the dangerously-warped worldview required to be the evil type who actually believes he is "good", or at least his actions are justified according to some moral code. It seems like it would take a lot of effort from the player to somehow find that motivation, to truly role-play a type like that. That, or the game itself limiting your options in some way. Otherwise, when making choices, it seems most people would drift away from those motivations as they don't truly share their character's fanaticism, etc.

Of course it would have to involve propaganda that could even trick the players into believing they're doing the right thing in this setting, because the information they get fed about the situations are biased, one-sided and/or rigged, without no way to see through it. The last part is the tricky one; RPGs that make you a pawn of someone else's schemes without giving you a real choice in it can be very aggravating if the schemes are too obvious and predictable (see Neverwinter Nights :P ).

There was some backlash, though not anywhere NEAR the level of NMS.

(yes, you were the one who pointed out that "ioun" was a Vance thing, and I've actually thought about that from time to time. Since I never really got into his fiction, I would've never known that otherwise).

Really? Do you remember what it was about? I searched but didn't find anything (maybe that's because I was too vague because I didn't know what to search in the first place :P).

I enjoyed Pillars and the expansion packs a lot, so unless I hear about DRM or pay-to-play nonsense with this one, it'll probably be a pre-order.

For what it's worth, the animated trailer I saw actually put me off the game. Not only was it a bit amateurish in terms of artistic ability, it gave me the impression that the game itself would have that art style. Furthermore, it didn't really make me imagine a game that looked like Pillars of Eternity or that fundamentally played like it (e.g. IE-style). Now I guess it's more obvious in retrospect that it would be in the mould of PoE, but these ARE the guys that made Stick of Truth, Alpha Protocol and FO:NV, all very different visual and gameplay styles.

Getting more info about it and seeing some in-game footage has taken me from "eh, don't really care" to "I really want this game". Maybe my experience is rare, hopefully it is because I wouldn't want people to be put off by something that isn't actually anything to do with the game itself.

On a side note, those two interviewers were terrible at their job and embarrassing to listen to.

Eh, maybe it was just a few other disenfranchised people like myself who found the game incredibly boring and lacking in real variety. I'm not saying it's a bad game, and I'm not saying others were, but there were detractors and in my little world, it seemed there were more than there are. At least that I can find.

I'm really stoked about Tyranny. As soon as it becomes available for preorder, I'm in.
Looks way better than the new "Torment".

Man alive.. I was enthralled and in love with everything about this..... Until the word Isometric.

Warning: Personal opinions ahead, Only give them the value that they are worth.

Not that there is similar context to compare here, but it does remind me of the old tag line about 3d in film. "Its the technology of the 80s... TODAY!"

In this case its the RPG game platform of the 1990s, but in 2016. Back in the 1990s it was understandable because the technology for 3d simply was not viable yet.

I mean technically I get it. Using it today is a conscious developmental decision that does have from a development perspective quite a few appealing advantages. Most notably allowing a smaller dev house to be able to put together large narrative works into a simplified game construct and allows them to focus on building the exposition of the RPG, which RPGs are a genre build around a foundation of narrative exposition.

I just cant go along for that ride because RPGs are supposed to be about creating a sense of immersion, and for me personally NOTHING breaks any hint of immersion in a game where I am trying to play the role of the character I am controlling than hovering overhead like some bemused God looking down with joy and pride at his most prized creation. Again just in my perspective, once we broke the plane of being able to tell a RPG in a full 3d FPP environment, everything that deviates from that detracts from the immersion. Yes that also includes TPP games because what is TPP but what evolved from Isometric view to include a rotatable camera.

The whole premise is exactly what I have been wanting out of a good RPG since I can remember. So I cannot say I WONT play it. If I do, it will not be anywhere near the priority it would have been otherwise. Also having to suffer that platform, If I do play it, That play through will end up being rushed simply to not have to continue playing in Isometric viewpoint. That is quite disappointing. Seeing a project that for me would have say a Dark Souls (Yes major complaint with souls Is TPP as well. It just counter balances that negative with other and superior immersive techniques that they mostly cancel out) which would be at the very top of my personal lists, down to the level of say... Gothic 4.

If any would be devs read this, please take this to heart. I get that Isometric allows you to get to telling your story instead of building assets, but with so much access to simplified dev engines that are now readily available that you can build in 3d, going with isometric is like trying to go forward in reverse.

If an RPG like Paper Sorcerer can be built by effectively a 1 man team, then there is no logical reason why even a small dev team cant build in a 3d environment and still have it look every bit as "lush" as the results obtained with high resolution sprites and textures.

Again, just my two coppers, so take them for what they are worth.

As for this specific project. I do WANT to be excited. Its a great idea that needs much more exploration.So here is hoping that it is still incredibly successful and a fun game for those who can handle the perspective better than I can.

Ah, this discussion of the nature of evil in a gaming context takes me back to the heyday of deep discussions here on GOG. Good stuff!

There are some game universes where the fanatic element is part of the narrative structure and is considered normative, at least within the game context. For example, games where you play an assassin (Assassin's Creed, Hitman) or an inquisitor (Inquisitor, Heretic) come pre-packaged with the presumption that your role is acceptable, to the main character at least if not to the world at large. As such your actions available within the game are already complicit in this framework. Naturally the player can rationalise, and even strive for redemption, to a certain extent and mitigate how evil (or at least criminal or immoral) they are. But you are correct that locking them into a narrow and unbreakable mold would likely fail as a game. It's more suited to games where there isn't a character per se but simply the environment in which to be evil (e.g., Dungeon Keeper).

I did catch your intent, and I concur. A lot of people do come to games for escapism from the real world, and that includes escaping real world morality and consequences. Not everyone wants to play a game with moral choices, just like not everyone likes sad movies. I do think that deep RPG games though should strive to incorporate morality in general however, because it is part of the immersive world experience. Players are of course free to ignore such things, but they should be included for people who find it enriches the game. To come back to movies, you can have an action flick where the protagonist just kicks ass, or one a philosophical film where the tension and conflict comes through circumstance and dialog, or a journey-of-the-hero tale where the protagonist struggles against opposing forces and has to make difficult choices. There is as much scope for RPGs of these kinds, and thankfully the audience seems large enough to support them all. :)

I don't think it's a matter of technical implementation.

But for example: I can't play 3D games at all. They make me feel dizzy and so I can't enjoy them. I understand the immersion is highest in first person 3D, but horrible headache break immersion too. So that's definitely a logical reason to make a game 2D.

There are probably many other logical reasons to make a 2D game. From nostalgia over "I simply think it looks better than 3D" to "In 2D you can create a lot more unique worlds and art styles".

When you think about the type of player who makes an online "game guide" to an RPG that is based on "min-max" and then concurrently consider a player who creates their protagonist in that same RPG to be a fleshed-out character that they can picture in real life, you have two totally opposite experiences, hence as they say, you can never judge from the outside appearance of things. One guy is struggling to "beat the machine" and using all they have while throwing ethics to the wind and the other is trying to play a real RPG and gain immersion. I guess this is the fine line that RPG game designers have to walk these days. Trying to make everyone happy. (I'm playing through Divinity:Original Enhanced right now and I can feel the design attempt to exist in both worlds. constantly). Luckily, to paraphrase you, there is room for everybody (...and while I used to resent the min-maxers, I actually welcome them since they make the genre more popular and hence more funding and games).

Yes, you can't mediate how someone chooses to experience your creation. You can only create it how you envision it to be, and tailor it for how you hope it will be experienced. Just like one can read "Macbeth" as Shakespeare wrote it and enjoy it that way, or read the Cliff Notes version just to pass an English exam. That some people will do the latter shouldn't prevent the creator from going for the former, of course. The creator just can't prevent the latter. :)