It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The Occupation is now available DRM-free.

Your role is to uncover evidence as a journalist by sneaking through restricted areas and questioning people on their actions through a series of one-on-one interviews. All this takes place in a detailed, systems-driven world where people will react to your actions and where time is your biggest enemy.
avatar
MarkoH01: Addition: I think one important thing is also that you are able to show others that you achived said goals by unlocking such achievements (which are shown in your profile). Otherwise you could just set youself random additional goals and try to "achieve" those.
avatar
axl: What's wrong with setting yourself random additional goals and trying to achieve them? That's exactly what we did before it became a feature and I reckon it was more fun that way. You did what you felt like trying, not something that was imposed on you. It was done purely for enjoyment, not for bragging rights (therefore whether others could see them or not is irrelevant). But that's just my 2 cents.

(Edit: corrected a typo)
I never said that it is wrong. I just thought "bragging" would be additional fun with achievements. If you don't want or need to show others why should we need this technical feature in the first place then - maybe just to make the managing of such goals easier? To be honest, I never realized that people did achievements manually before they became a feature ... actually the first time I unlocked an achievevent all I thought was "what was that"? Then I tried to figure out what I just gained and was a bit unimpressed when I found out that the answer just was "an entry in an achievementlist went from grey to colored". That's just how I experienced achievements it should not mean that they are unnecessary/unimportant or even bad.
avatar
Zoidberg: Edit Finch feels definitely overhyped to me
I watched about 20 minutes of play on youtube, and I really liked what I saw. Then I played it, and enjoyed it less. In other words, as a narrated movie, it was enjoyable, which lends to the quality of writing and voice acting. As an interactive narrated movie, I felt that something was taken away from the experience, not being nearly as enjoyable.
avatar
Zoidberg: Edit Finch feels definitely overhyped to me
avatar
higix: I watched about 20 minutes of play on youtube, and I really liked what I saw. Then I played it, and enjoyed it less. In other words, as a narrated movie, it was enjoyable, which lends to the quality of writing and voice acting. As an interactive narrated movie, I felt that something was taken away from the experience, not being nearly as enjoyable.
Yeah, totally. Intrigued when I saw it and heard it about what's in it. Then I play and the balloon deflated...
avatar
axl: What's wrong with setting yourself random additional goals and trying to achieve them? That's exactly what we did before it became a feature and I reckon it was more fun that way. You did what you felt like trying, not something that was imposed on you. It was done purely for enjoyment, not for bragging rights (therefore whether others could see them or not is irrelevant). But that's just my 2 cents.

(Edit: corrected a typo)
avatar
MarkoH01: I never said that it is wrong. I just thought "bragging" would be additional fun with achievements. If you don't want or need to show others why should we need this technical feature in the first place then - maybe just to make the managing of such goals easier? To be honest, I never realized that people did achievements manually before they became a feature ... actually the first time I unlocked an achievevent all I thought was "what was that"? Then I tried to figure out what I just gained and was a bit unimpressed when I found out that the answer just was "an entry in an achievementlist went from grey to colored". That's just how I experienced achievements it should not mean that they are unnecessary/unimportant or even bad.
They are not a bad thing for sure, when I got my Xbox 360 and experienced them for the first time I got quite hooked on them actually and tried to 'max out' every game I played. Then after a while going for them felt more like a chore than a challenge and that's where I drew the line. There are quite some meaningful achievements around which are either challenging without being unfair or grindy and unlocking them feels really good or they are just very creative and highlight an aspect of the game which would otherwise might go unnoticed by most players, and then there are the genius ones which are both of these. My all-time favorite is probably 'Little Rocket Man' in Half-Life 2: Episode 2 where you had to carry a garden gnome with you (which I wouldn't even know is in the game at all, weren't for this achievement) all the way to the end which was sometimes frustrating but boy, did it feel good once I finally got there! (Generally speaking The Orange Box really hit a golden balance with its achievements.)

But they don't make or break a deal for me either. I understand the frustration when they are omitted from a platform which otherwise has full support for them while they are present on a different one, but since they are not in the games themselves, instead being parts of an external client I don't really care for them as I don't use such things unless it's mandatory (which on GOG it thankfully isn't). It's different when they are an integral part of the game itself, like the badges in Shadow Tactics for example, where I usually chase them. Not all, though. Cheers!

(Edit: a typo again... man, do I suck at this)
Post edited March 06, 2019 by axl
This looked interesting - although from what I've heard so far, they missed the mark a bit.

One thing that would likely bug me no end is the lack of actual "inventory" - which seems to be a trend for new-age adventure games for some reason. How did this come about? Did they do some focus groups with mentally challenged people and found that it was too difficult to organise what they're carrying? So the solution - instead of simply limiting the weight/space of carried items to a reasonable/realistic level, which would be fine - they decided that the PC is only ever going to pick up and carry a single item at any one time?

From the looks of it, picking up a document potentially means dropping a previous document!

I can totally understand not being able to carry more than one large object - e.g. a TV or something, or maybe even a plate. But a document? An eraser? A pen? Nope, apparently pockets didn't exist in this alternate '80s Universe.

Anyway rant over - I'll probably still get this at some point since I'm a sucker for these kinds of dystopian representations in games (as long as it's done well).

EDIT RANT: It appears that most early reviewers are retards. and that apparently the PC has a briefcase which can hold multiple items (and has separate categories for IDs, documents, and what I presume are "other items". Though the first "level" (intro level) doesn't have the briefcase (and therefore you are limited to one item at a time in that case).
Post edited March 08, 2019 by squid830
avatar
amok: "Lure of the Temptress was the first game built with the Virtual Theatre engine (...)
Good info, thanks!
avatar
axl: What's wrong with setting yourself random additional goals and trying to achieve them? That's exactly what we did before it became a feature and I reckon it was more fun that way. You did what you felt like trying, not something that was imposed on you. It was done purely for enjoyment, not for bragging rights (therefore whether others could see them or not is irrelevant). But that's just my 2 cents.

(Edit: corrected a typo)
That's a good point. My feeling is achievements started to become more regular with online play and leaderboards. I think as human beings we've now got to the point where we feel we feel achieving something is for everybody to know about, to show off or make them feel good about themselves. As I've never been good at games I never felt the need to show off or try the hardest settings on a game therefore achievements were never a problem for me. It's only with Steam that I get a bit of OCD if there's an achievement system in place and I'm not completing them. But some games like the Luxor series don't come with achievements.
avatar
higix: It sounds interesting, but 5 hours of gameplay is pretty short for the price. I just paid under $20 for What Remains of Edith Finch + Donut County, which were on sale. And even that feels a bit steep, given that these games are something like 3 hours each. It was my first foray into these sorts of games (looking for different sorts of games to try), and I probably won't be buying more unless the prices feel like a good value.

And I'm not saying that I want games that are artificially filled with pointless time killers. But there is a time of playthrough value that I expect. For example, most action-rpg's are something like 30-60 hours of playthrough time, which comes out to $1-2 per hour of playthrough at release time for a $60 game. And most action-rpg's do have good replayability. But for these new fangled sorts of games, we are looking at something like $6-7 per hour of playthrough at release. $20 / 3 hours = $6.7 per hour of playthrough. $30 / 5 hours = $6 per hour of playthrough.

I suppose that someone crunched the numbers and came up with these prices per expected sales, but I think the prices are likely keeping many people from trying them. So maybe it's a wash or worse.

I'm adding it to my list in case the price reaches an acceptable value.
avatar
Zoidberg: Edit Finch feels definitely overhyped to me, add to that that with a non qwerty keyboard you re forced to use a gamepad... meh...

And also, the debate of how much bang for your buck in videogames? Besides the point, there's no debate for me.

Want the best bang for your buck? Go fetch a jokari, costs nothing and you can replay it ad nauseam.

I'm willing to pay for mleaningful experiences... and 80+h grindfests don't qualify... my best experiences with videogames are on the shortest end lengthwise.
avatar
Carradice: The description of the game brings to mind The Last Express. Albeit in a more open playground.

Good if they follow the path of the jewel that TLE is (with graphics and appeal pretty much atemporal).
avatar
Zoidberg: I should get back to this one, bought it on sale and never played more than 30 seconds of it. XP
Yeah, I don't understand how people equate the worth and price of a game with hours spent.

There's short games that did absolutely nothing for me and were a waste of money.

But the same goes for huge games, which is the reason I don't play any Ubisoft crap, because it's just pure repetition for the sake of creating an X-hour experience. Or take any Korea MMO in which you can literally grind for hundreds of hours and get absolutely nothing out of it.

Sure, I've also played long games like Dark Souls that I enjoyed every minute of it, but pitting Dark Souls against Gone Home, for instance, just seems ridiculous to me, because they're just not the same thing at all and I wouldn't prefer one thing over the other.

For a game to resonate with me, it doesn't need to be X hours long. It either happens, or it doesn't. It's not necessarily linked to how long a game is, but rather how the time is spent.

Edit: I found Edith Finch very meh, by the way. It sure was a nice story and the visuals were cool, but other than that, it felt kinda hollow to me.
Post edited March 22, 2019 by Caedryan
avatar
Caedryan: Yeah, I don't understand how people equate the worth and price of a game with hours spent.

There's short games that did absolutely nothing for me and were a waste of money.

But the same goes for huge games, which is the reason I don't play any Ubisoft crap, because it's just pure repetition for the sake of creating an X-hour experience. Or take any Korea MMO in which you can literally grind for hundreds of hours and get absolutely nothing out of it.

Sure, I've also played long games like Dark Souls that I enjoyed every minute of it, but pitting Dark Souls against Gone Home, for instance, just seems ridiculous to me, because they're just not the same thing at all and I wouldn't prefer one thing over the other.

For a game to resonate with me, it doesn't need to be X hours long. It either happens, or it doesn't. It's not necessarily linked to how long a game is, but rather how the time is spent.

Edit: I found Edith Finch very meh, by the way. It sure was a nice story and the visuals were cool, but other than that, it felt kinda hollow to me.
Great minds think alike! :3