PDA

View Full Version : Eidos Montreal, my new go-to studio



lastpawn
4th Apr 2012, 04:34
Hey all. I recently finished DX: HR. I'll go ahead and leave this here--perhaps it'll catch the eye of someone from the studio who'll appreciate a pat on the back.

I heard about DX3 sometime last year and then forgot about it because frankly I had no idea what to expect from Eidos Montreal. Then, just two weeks ago, I somehow stumbled upon the live action trailer and finally bought the game. The trailers, both live action and director's cut, are the best video game trailers I've ever seen, by the way.

Anyway, now that I've finished the game, I can say that you've more than proven yourself as capable and in the future I'll be pre-ordering your games. Until you disappoint me, anyway. :)

I'll write up a detailed review for the review thread sometime this week. But to let the proverbial cat out of the bag, while I had various gripes with the game, it entertained me perfectly, so to me it's a 10/10.

UPDATED: I posted a review in the review thread. Pasted below as well.

---

Here's my 2 credits. Some spoilers.

First, some (gaming) profiling. Favorite games: Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1&2. If you're thinking I enjoy western RPGs, you got it, kinda. I've also enjoyed some JRPGs, Half Life series, Starcraft 1&2, and so on. And I somehow always dislike Bethesda games--I like their worlds for about a dozen hours... and then they bore me.

That said, if you asked me how much I liked Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I'd say it entertained me perfectly so I'd give it a 10/10. Of course, I don't mean to say it was perfect. If you forced me to review games for a living (and I wasn't bought), I'd have to settle on a score between 8.75 and 9.25.

I'll offer a list of "I enjoyed" and a list of "This took away from my enjoyment." Nothing against paragraphs, but I like the aesthetics of lists better and it's my review. :cool: I'll finish with some more general comments.

:thumb: I enjoyed (in no particular order):

The music. So good it hurts.
I have a note somewhere, "buy soundtrack," and I will.


And... Visuals and the Feel. So good, again.
I'm including here the entire style/environments/sounds/feel of the world. From dirty gutters with meowling cats in Detroit to pristine labs in the "city above."


Conversations.
Well done. Very well done. A great balance between ME where sometimes I have no clue what the protagonist will say and having to read the entire line and THEN hear it verbatim. Social battles were great--you actually made me have that "hell yeah!" feeling usually reserved for epic boss fights. Importantly, they felt fair and made sense.


Many solutions.
Vents, hacking, conversations, blowing stuff up, sneaking--it all "works." It would have been even better if a limited number of praxis points limited us to some of those, though.


Many appropriate and interesting NPC reactions.
If I was sneaky, some guy told me I was a "real ghost." If I saved civilians, a Purity First member thanked me because he didn't want blood on his hands while a member of my corporation regretted a lack of "martyrs." Nice!


Related to above, detail.
So much detail. Broken mirror with note "ask for replacement, again" => "No, Mr. Jensen, I don't have your mirror so stop asking" => check email, "Last warning to pick up mirror" => tap on shoulder, punch in face. And that's just one little example. It's obvious a lot of love went into crafting this world.


Malik. & others, I guess.
Freaking love Malik.
Sarif was great. Pritchard was good, the Picus email was great, though I wanted more from him. Thought you did a great job with Adam, too. And special praise to the person(s) who created Adam's apartment. Walking into it for the first time, battle rifles everywhere, Adam's hobby, pictures of Megan and Kubrick, broken mirror, music--hell, what an experience! Unfortunately, some of the other characters, especially "bosses" were seriously sidelined to such an extent I can only guess: deadline and/or budget issues.


Finally: you treated me, the player, with respect.
The comedian Dave Chappelle once commented on how his bosses pressured him to treat his audience like exploitable dumb masses. When I look at many modern-era games, I can't help but get a sense that developers are told this same thing. So, thanks.


Trailers.
Not directly related to the game, but the trailers, live action, director's cut, and a few others, and nothing short of brilliant. I mean that: brilliant.


:thud: This took away from my enjoyment (in order starting with the worst offender):

Experience distribution. Bear with me--to me it was huge.
Consider the first mission: getting inside the plant. I go in shooting, I get 250+40=290 points. I non-lethally takedown everyone, and enter through the roof, I get 250+200+100+500=1050 points. And these points are prominently displayed on screen... with no way to turn off experience notifications at that (minor gripe).
Yes, overall these bonuses are relatively small, and eventually you get too many praxis points (another gripe). But in the beginning, when I REALLY wanted to grab the next praxis point, I sometimes felt like "Well, I guess I better non-lethally takedown everyone, crawl through all the vents, and hack everything, sigh." Bad.

Continuing with experience gripes, why am I strongly incentivized to hack even when I have the code? C'mon! It's anathema to "open" play.


Animations during conversations.
Oh boy. During most verbal exchanges, the characters inexplicably become stereotypical crack addicts. That's an exaggeration, but I think no more needs be said about bouncy shoulders and jerky body-movements. Immersion-breaking.


Lethal versus non-lethal takedowns.
A non-lethal takedown is silent even if you take out someone's friend one meter away by smacking him around and then THROWING him on the ground. In contrast, a lethal takedown is heard apparently 3 rooms over when the actual animation looks far less noisy then some non-lethal takedowns. Here's the thing: I am willing to suspend my disbelief but only if the world you create is consistent. So either ALL takedowns are relatively noisy (they sure as hell look like they are), or they're ALL relatively quiet.

You could have made it possible to get an augmentation that muffles nearby sound, therefore making takedowns plausibly silent--and frankly this was a wasted opportunity to add more useful/interesting augmentations.

And finally on the note of lethal vs non-lethal, why no stun gun in the opening? I couldn't headcannon Adam the head of security to just sneak around those spec ops and all I had was a rifle... so I just killed them. Would have appreciated a stun gun.


Augmentations were a mixed bag.
Hacking felt necessary. Icarus was hella fun. Invisibility was fun but borderline OP and made the already-easy non-combat stealth playstyle even easier. As a stealth player, I found virtually no use for any of the so-called stealth augments like enemy cones. Social enhancer I ended up hating: it was distracting, felt cheap during social battles so I didn't use it, and more than once resulted in me getting LESS experience--come on! Finally, like I said earlier, there should have at least been a "make all takedowns silent" augment.

In general, augmentations felt somewhat off. In the beginning I was desperate for more praxis points... then towards the end I had a dozen unspent = bad. Additionally, while I haven't done this, I'm more than confident that I could play on "Give me Deus Ex" without spending a single praxis point, and it still wouldn't be particularly difficult.

Adam dies falling from a distance I'd probably survive... what the...


Cutscenes.
Not all cutscenes. Just the nonsensical cutscenes. Like Lawrence "I walk slowly, loudly, and my nickname is THE BULL" Barrett sneaks up on Adam "The Ghost with cutting-edge stealth augments" Jensen. Riiight.

Also... the opening where you walk around with Megan was good, why not more of that? And why oh why didn't you use the trailer scenes? Adam having the Icarus dream, waking up, and grabbing a drink. Such a powerful scene, not in the game...??? You obviously had the scene, I mean I saw it in the trailer. I bought the game thinking I'd see it, you know, in the game... /extremely puzzled at the blatantly wasted opportunity


Well, that's it. Some brief comments are in order. The dislike list is longer than the like list, but that doesn't matter. A game is more than the sum of its parts, and the whole here is far superior to any issues I have with the parts. You'll note that I didn't mention boss fights. They were meh--didn't hate them, didn't like them. Overall the game is tops in the last half a decade or so, with ME1 being up there as well.

Brief requests for DX4.
Most important: please do not use experience to incentivize particular playstyles--namely stealthy non-lethal hacker who crawls through every vent. The activity ITSELF should be the incentive. I should crawl through a vent because it affords me a superior vantage point for sniping, or allows me to bypass enemies. I should break down a wall because I suspect there might be goodies behind it, not because I want more EXP to hit the next praxis point ASAP. I should sometimes play like a Ghost because being undetected is fun and if I'm undetected the next level will have less enemies. And sometimes I should pull out the shotty and deal lead justice to the bastards who deserve it because that's fun too and maybe I'll find some interesting information and weapons on their dead bodies. No need to give me any further ADDITIONAL incentives in form of experience--that just cheapens it. I definitely shouldn't ever think, "I better hack this computer even though I have the passcode because I really need an additional 575 EXP at this point in the game."

Second: make the experience gap between lethal and non-lethal smaller, make it possible for both to be silent. Emphasize consequences. For example, if you choose to spare some boss, s/he reveals interesting and useful information (like you did with Zeke). If you spare someone else, maybe s/he commits a terrorist attack later in the game, killing dozens of civilians. So maybe sometimes you really should kill, and I'd be totally on board with that, as long as it makes sense. (Being locked in a room till you kill a boss usually doesn't.)

To sum: great game, some frustrations, still a great game. I look forward to whatever your company offers next--I'll be preordering. You have a fan.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Apr 2012, 09:10
I would love to go to Montreal and visit the staff at EM. :thumb:

Currently, this is just a dream for me but, hey, one day it might come true... :o

JCpies
4th Apr 2012, 15:50
My first choice of studio were I to look for a job in the future.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Apr 2012, 15:55
My first choice of studio were I to look for a job in the future.

My son's too.
JJB is his role-model. :cool:

lastpawn
6th Apr 2012, 23:00
My son's too.
JJB is his role-model. :cool:

Nice! When I was a kid (I'm talking high school age) I loved Warcraft 2 and working for Blizzard was something I aspired to. Then it was Bioware (not so much nowadays). I didn't end up working in games, went into pure mathematics instead, but it was still a powerful positive drive in my life.

TrickyVein
6th Apr 2012, 23:06
So...which branch of mathematics is 'pure?' :)

lastpawn
7th Apr 2012, 00:12
So...which branch of mathematics is 'pure?' :)

It's not a judgement :) it just means that the stuff I went into isn't directly applied to anything, though of course it may or may not be. So whereas I was initially interested in more applied mathematics, like computer sciences, I ended up studying set theory.

TrickyVein
7th Apr 2012, 00:45
Hmm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach). I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't going to say it. All of those burning-trashcan jokes and all. Excellent and cogent review, btw. I think I agree with most of it, but this could be an interesting comparison to make between our 'gaming personas': you list a few games which you have enjoyed, and mention that you can't stay on board with Bethesda's for very long:


I like their worlds for about a dozen hours... and then they bore me.

You have finished DX:HR. Four years on, I just re-installed Fallout 3, still play NV and have put in more hours into Skyrim over the past 6 months than any other game I've played over that time. I haven't finished DX:HR. I think it was boring, to be honest. Interesting comparison? What kind of insight should we be able to reveal about developers's 'intended' audience(s)?

lastpawn
7th Apr 2012, 07:42
In matters of taste, there is no argument. I understand why some love Fallout 3. It just wasn't for me. I had fun in that world for a bit. Reached a point where I was running around looking for some item or another, stopped playing for a moment, and then it hit me, just like it did with Oblivion, and every Elder Scroll game before that: Why am I playing in this world? What's driving me?

As I write that I realize it's a rather unsatisfactory explanation but all I can say is that that's really how I feel about it. It's like this gourmet meal that looks and smells delicious, but I can only have a few bites and then I feel like, well... the rest is the same and I'm full already, why bother. I will say that their games are getting better by whatever internal metrics I'm using, though. I couldn't get through more than 10 hours of Oblivion, I played something like 10-20 hours on Fallout 3, and I definitely made it to 20-some hours of Skyrim.

I did like Fallout: New Vegas, though.

Pretentious Old Man.
7th Apr 2012, 15:19
You have finished DX:HR. Four years on, I just re-installed Fallout 3, still play NV and have put in more hours into Skyrim over the past 6 months than any other game I've played over that time. I haven't finished DX:HR. I think it was boring, to be honest. Interesting comparison? What kind of insight should we be able to reveal about developers's 'intended' audience(s)?

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs8/i/2005/331/6/6/Morrowind_days_by_SnowSkadi.jpg

Everything you ever say on these forums, Tricky, makes it clear that you just HAVE to play Morrowind. Please? Just for me?

http://z.about.com/d/cameras/1/0/v/2/sadDog.jpg

Reven
7th Apr 2012, 15:32
I don’t even know what to say about that picture...other than it begin the near complete encapsulation of everything that made Morrowind so very great.

TrickyVein
7th Apr 2012, 15:47
@ POM: That made me chuckle. Quite a bit. :D*

I wasn't trying to put a value judgement on anything, only point out the difference in our experiences and try and explore if we can say anything meaningful about why those differences exist in the hopes of better defining what kind of a game DX:HR really is. If we can do that through looking at Bethesda's games in comparison, then so be it, but this is not as important. We can look at other games too.

So, I felt little or no connection to Adam or anyone in DX:HR. Their problems were their own and I, the player, was there just to be used to advance the story from one point to the next. I did not feel like I had very much agency in the game, or when I did it was when I was screwing around (always with the weighty feeling that this isn't how Adam is *supposed* to be playing the game). This would not be such a huge deal if the gameplay was there to make things enjoyable. Like you have said, as well as so many others, Adam is given too much power. Few of the augs seemed useful or attractive. The pace at which you could acquire praxis points and upgrade your weapons was completely unbalanced. In the same way that you could 'look ahead' and imagine playing, for instance, Oblivion at some point in time and not recognize change from what you were doing now, I lost interest in DX:HR when I could 'look ahead' and see what kinds of augs and weapons were available to me, and come to the conclusion that the gameplay would not significantly improve. (Rechargeable takedown moves probably killed this game for me.) What is common, it seems to both our respective dissatisfaction to the games mentioned is something having to do with the 'rate of player advancement/progress within an RPG given the perceived limitations within the game-world.' I would like to propose that a reason why I may not become 'bored' with a sandbox-type of game, given the same rate of player advancement one might find in a linear, story-based game like DX:HR, is that sandbox games don't...end. In the case of DX:HR, which has finality, and from my experience playing other linear RPGs, it is much better to always withhold goodies from the player. Only at the very end, or close to it, reward the player for amassing xp and give him/her the best weapons, items and gear. It's like saying - and here I am judging DX:HR - the best RPGs always dangle the carrot in front of the horse (the player) right up until the very end. DX:HR let you eat carrots and apples and cake right at the beginning of the game.

*You will be the first to know when I do.

Pretentious Old Man.
7th Apr 2012, 19:55
Hmm. They don't "end" per se, in the sense that there is no point at which the player is obliged to stop progressing through that story arc. However, there is a point at which you simply stop experiencing meaningfully different content. I think this is my biggest problem with Skyrim: it's by far the thinnest Elder Scrolls game in terms of content. Oh, sure, there are a lot of quests in terms of raw numbers, and the Radiant Story system keeps generating more, but from my point of view they're all just the same thing. Go to dungeon X, kill Draugr at Y, retrieve artefact X. Every time I try I return to Skyrim, I'm struck by the beauty of Skyrim, but also by how little there is to do in it. Funnily enough, I find to almost be the opposite of Oblivion. I felt Oblivion's side quests were often quite cleverly designed, but its world was the work of people who had no idea how actual societies work, and this soured me to the game. Conversely, in Skyrim I feel like the world is spot-on, but the quests are totally uninspired, and do not make me in any way wish to do them. I suppose that it goes without saying that, in Morrowind, I found the world to be the best of the three, and the also the quests to be the most motivating. The reason, in my view, is that there were an awful lot of joinable guilds and factions in Morrowind (something like 14 IIRC), all of which liked/disliked the others around them. Since each faction has friends and enemies, and there are pretty steep entrance criteria for each guild, doing their missions somehow invests you in that guild. Even when you have no missions to do, the world is well enough defined that I still feel able to go out and do actions that I feel like are impacting my faction positively.

I really miss Morrowind. As far as I'm concerned, Skyrim is but a shadow by comparison. All of the same glamour, but none of the actual substance. As I once observed to a friend, Skyrim plays to me like a game that was built to look good in trailers. Once you actually delve past the kind of content that makes trailers look "awesome", there's nothing really there. I found New Vegas vastly superior.

TrickyVein
7th Apr 2012, 21:49
...there is a point at which you simply stop experiencing meaningfully different content.

Indeed. So I guess that's where mods come in. Now, at this point, it would be erroneous to compare a game like Skyrim which can very easily be modded to a game like DX:HR which cannot. Consider, though the difference between these two different kinds of games (moddable vs. unmoddable). As a visual metaphor, for the sake of argument, lets say that 'gameplay' is whatever sits atop a table. The technical aspects, storytelling aspects, graphical aspects, etc. are what make up the legs of the table. Modding alters any one or more of the legs of the table, making it sturdier, slanted, wobbly, something that manifests itself in gameplay, on top of the table. I see DX:HR, the designed experience that it is, as-is, as sitting on top of a table with extremely thin legs.

It seems that a game like DX:HR is so meticulously designed to present one kind of experience for the player. I'm getting beaten over the head with HR's art-design and visual direction. In case I forget how I should be feeling at any given time, there are cut-scenes to remind me how Adam is feeling. Modding which aims to change the game in any significant way past altering HP, xp gain, tiny things for HR could be an affront to the developer's vision. It could make the table fall apart. This wouldn't be a problem if I had expected HR to be simply a linear story-driven game. I do not think that EM succeeded in delivering different 'pillars of gameplay' in the way it's advertised. Nothing, in my experience playing the game past stacking carboard boxes allowed for any real spontaneity. (Maybe it's there and I haven't played it long enough to see.)

Games that are moddable sit atop comparatively sturdier legs. Changes to gameplay probably don't end up altering the end result in any way that the developer's might see as antithetical to their vision or what they have to offer. (In fact, the community offers some pretty quality content...at times :)) It's akin to being a slave to 'user-friendly' software or operating systems. You have a right to purchase said software and use it for the function - and only that function - for which it was developed, but there are built-in barriers and legalities preventing the user to alter said software for his or her individual preferences. And that's how I feel about HR's gameplay too. I can't make it my own, because every single aspect of the game has already been controlled for (with or without mods). The bugginess of many of Bethesda's games probably mirrors a design philosophy which maximizes player agency. EM has delivered a game that feels so polished it's stifling. This could be because they are an up-start studio and wanted to 'get it right' which is admirable (oddly, maybe paradoxically when it comes to player-agency). Next time, I would suggest leaving some more breathing room for players, if the goal truly is to create a kind of 'simulation' in the spirit of the original DX.

lastpawn
7th Apr 2012, 23:52
That's a lot to mull over. It's beautiful outside so I'll just throw out two half-baked thoughts for now.

1. Some games require us to take on another persona. For example: Adam Jensen. This character has a mind of his own. Adam isn't much into the whole science thing, even though I, the player, love science. And while you can be overly nice or overly rude to Haas, Adam's personality still comes through either way. Even if you're intrigued by your new abilities, Adam notes he didn't choose to become augmented. And so on.

Other games simply give us a "shell" to play around with, e.g., the main character in Fallout 3 (or 1 and 2 for that matter). While not a complete unknown, this character has many more possibilities open to him/her. Not everything goes, of course, because those possibilities are ultimately determined by whatever developers include, but within those bounds the "shell" can be filled in a variety of ways.

I want my characters to be well-defined in some way--it makes them real and makes me invested. Now this can be done with a shell character, but it requires a lot of effort, and thus usually isn't. I think Fallout 2 did it rather well, albeit not perfectly by any means. Planescape: Torment did it extremely well. In comparison, the options in Fallout 3 are just not enough for me to ever feel like the character I'm playing is real. The illusion isn't strong enough. And I don't see this changing in the near future. Why? Because including extra possibilities costs a lot more now than it used to (nowadays you need voice actors, facial modeling, etc... ).

2. On progression. Looks like we're both on the same page here--HR progression was off. There was no real "need" for any of the augmentations and as such that aspect of the game suffered. So I want to say that I agree... but it ultimately didn't hurt my experience like it did yours. I guess when it comes down to it, I enjoy games like Half-Life just fine without any real leveling/progression system in place.

While on the topic of progression. There are games like Diablo 2... Blizzard has polished the "hamster wheel" to perfection really--I remember playing Diablo 2 and feeling like a Pavlovian dog every time a "Gold" item dropped with that particular *ching!* sound or I got another level under my belt. So there was this amazing progression that really never ended. Similarly it is so in most MMOs. Or hell, I remember playing DragonRealms, a text-based MUD, and being essentially addicted to the progression of individual skills. But at the end of the day, that progression itself just wasn't enough.

PS I also want to say something on "playing in a particular way" but I'd like to think about it more first. Thanks for the interesting ideas.

PPS I liked a lot about Morrowind. But as I recall it was too easy to reach god-mode by fiddling around with character creator and spell maker, which made me less interested/invested in the world.

Zerim
8th Apr 2012, 00:31
Lastpawn, I don't have a lot of time right now so I'm just going to say I'm starting to suspect that we might be the same person. I just have never found myself agreeing fully with everything a person said on a forum before.

Do you happen to design games on paper extensively as a hobby by any chance?

Also, I second Viktoria; visiting Eidos Montreal is on my to-do dream list too.

And even though I know no one cares, the two other game studios on that list of mine are GSC Game World and Bohemia Interactive. And maybe Obsidian. Maybe.

Isn't it maddening to think that you will probably never get to actually meet all the cool people who you know you would totally get along with?

lastpawn
8th Apr 2012, 02:05
Zerim, no, no game design on paper. I used to be a DM is the closest I've come to games on paper. Guess I'm not your alter ego after all :)

Pretentious Old Man.
8th Apr 2012, 16:25
Indeed. So I guess that's where mods come in. Now, at this point, it would be erroneous to compare a game like Skyrim which can very easily be modded to a game like DX:HR which cannot. Consider, though the difference between these two different kinds of games (moddable vs. unmoddable). As a visual metaphor, for the sake of argument, lets say that 'gameplay' is whatever sits atop a table. The technical aspects, storytelling aspects, graphical aspects, etc. are what make up the legs of the table. Modding alters any one or more of the legs of the table, making it sturdier, slanted, wobbly, something that manifests itself in gameplay, on top of the table. I see DX:HR, the designed experience that it is, as-is, as sitting on top of a table with extremely thin legs.

It seems that a game like DX:HR is so meticulously designed to present one kind of experience for the player. I'm getting beaten over the head with HR's art-design and visual direction. In case I forget how I should be feeling at any given time, there are cut-scenes to remind me how Adam is feeling. Modding which aims to change the game in any significant way past altering HP, xp gain, tiny things for HR could be an affront to the developer's vision. It could make the table fall apart. This wouldn't be a problem if I had expected HR to be simply a linear story-driven game. I do not think that EM succeeded in delivering different 'pillars of gameplay' in the way it's advertised. Nothing, in my experience playing the game past stacking carboard boxes allowed for any real spontaneity. (Maybe it's there and I haven't played it long enough to see.)

Games that are moddable sit atop comparatively sturdier legs. Changes to gameplay probably don't end up altering the end result in any way that the developer's might see as antithetical to their vision or what they have to offer. (In fact, the community offers some pretty quality content...at times :)) It's akin to being a slave to 'user-friendly' software or operating systems. You have a right to purchase said software and use it for the function - and only that function - for which it was developed, but there are built-in barriers and legalities preventing the user to alter said software for his or her individual preferences. And that's how I feel about HR's gameplay too. I can't make it my own, because every single aspect of the game has already been controlled for (with or without mods). The bugginess of many of Bethesda's games probably mirrors a design philosophy which maximizes player agency. EM has delivered a game that feels so polished it's stifling. This could be because they are an up-start studio and wanted to 'get it right' which is admirable (oddly, maybe paradoxically when it comes to player-agency). Next time, I would suggest leaving some more breathing room for players, if the goal truly is to create a kind of 'simulation' in the spirit of the original DX.

Oh I agree with you on all counts, I just wanted to make the observation earlier that Morrowind got the whole sandbox design a lot more "right" than Skyrim, in my view. In fact, I would say that Morrowind is to Skyrim what DX1 is to DX3: the same basic concept, just executed in a much more intelligent and player-respectful way.

FrankCSIS
9th Apr 2012, 03:50
So...which branch of mathematics is 'pure?' :)

hari seldon's psychohistory ;)

TrickyVein
9th Apr 2012, 03:59
I had to look that one up, and then I was like 'Oh...those books!' I never really got Asimov's Foundation trilogy. :scratch:

FrankCSIS
9th Apr 2012, 04:06
Foundation was quite fun, the first part of Foundation and Empire equally so, but then it took a whole different tangent, which I wasn't particularily fond of.

I still maintain a space adventure based on his universe would make a seriously badass game.

68_pie
9th Apr 2012, 15:53
I'm still waiting for a tactical RPG based on the Inquisitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitor_%28game%29) system (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/characters.html) from Warhammer 40K. Man, if Obsidian made this I would pretty much die with happiness.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2012, 18:05
Nice! When I was a kid (I'm talking high school age) I loved Warcraft 2 and working for Blizzard was something I aspired to. Then it was Bioware (not so much nowadays). I didn't end up working in games, went into pure mathematics instead, but it was still a powerful positive drive in my life.

My son is exceptionally good in mathematics too... so who knows what he will do in the future.
He's only 14 years old at the moment, so plenty of time for him to decide. :)

lastpawn
10th Apr 2012, 05:34
My son is exceptionally good in mathematics too... so who knows what he will do in the future.
He's only 14 years old at the moment, so plenty of time for him to decide. :)

For sure. I bounced around subjects for a while myself. Public perception of many careers--like mathematics--is skewed, which (in part) makes it difficult to decide.

Anyway, I popped in to say that I've thought a bit about playing in a particular way. Yes, some games essentially craft "correct" ways to play them. And yes, I agree that HR went too far. That's not too deep, I know. :)

I think another point is replayability. Some of my friends love that they're still playing Fallout 3. To them, it was a great value for the money. I'm not one of those people because I can at most play a game... about twice. Even my favorite games, like Planescape: Torment, I could only play a handful of times (say, 3). There's some freshness or something that's lost... On consequent playthroughs all I see is the game rather than the world it is supposed to immerse me in. So replayability is not a big issue for me. Yet I know it is a big issue for others.