You should see an increase, but likely small. Since the end point increased and since the curve only increases between upgrades, that means that all points before the end point must also increase. However, most of the benefit is now granted in the first half of the upgrades possible, so at your level the increase per level will be smaller than it was before.
This idea of triple I is going to be corrupted and backfire if it becomes organized. What I mean is that instead of great games like Stardew or Terraria (just to name 2 as examples) being labeled as triple I, we will instead get Ubisoft marketing their next open world as triple I only because it is based on a “new” IP. That new IP will likely be a warrior type character fighting for justice while assembling a crew of interesting characters to help them in their mission in a never before seen world filled with friends and foes alike… Blah blah blah.
Triple I will soon mean triple A, but for new IP. Triple I should be a designation bestowed by the community on outstanding indie games. It should be subjective and unregulated, otherwise it will lose its meaning and that’s exactly what large studio’s want.
The story of the present day in the first was bland. The story of the past was interesting to explore. I agree about the side quests, I skipped them entirely in the first, but some of the side quests in the 2nd were worth doing. The 2nd does a good job of listing which are side-story and which are side-fetch quests.
Game play is better, but similar. The improvements make it a fun challenge to take down the monsters piece by piece. I didn’t enjoy the game play of the first nearly as much.
The continuation of the story is good, but not as intriguing as the first. If story in the first was 10/10, this one is 8/10; so still pretty good.
If you enjoyed the first one, this one is definitely worth playing. There will also be a 3rd and having played the 2nd game will be required to understand the story.
Even Arkane alone at that time wouldn’t be considered indie. They had done a few contract jobs for major releases, like CoD, before developing Dishonored.
It was rather difficult to understand the point of this essay. It doesn’t state its thesis until about the middle. The first half is a philosophical review of automation games, taking a detour to explain what the word automation could mean (why?) to eventually arrive at the conclusion that tech bros (incorrectly associating them with Silicon Valley, which is focused on hardware, not software) are bad. The reasoning for which seems to be largely an opinion stated as fact with the supporting evidence being that these games are unrealistic.
I found it difficult to engage with these ideas because the linkage between them is so incredibly stretched that it is hard to see the connection at all.
I really loved the parry mechanic of Sekiro. I know the games were developed by different companies. Are you able to make any comments about how they compare?