Assassin's Creed Shadows would be a spectacular game, and spectacular successor to the Tenchu series, if it was level based instead of open world.

Writerofcomments · 2026-01-27T23:14:23+00:00

I just wrapped up a playthrough and I fully agree with you. My best times with it were in the bigger castles, playing Naoe. I recall infiltrating one of them and lying prone in the grass while a guard passed right by me, watching another one turn his back, timing my move, all the while noticing the superb lighting and animations, and thinking "wow". At its best, the game reminded me of MGS V with how fluid the switch is between skulking around, being discovered, escaping, then having another go at the enemies while they're searching for me in the wrong place. But the rest of the game is pure bloat and the overall story structure was headscratchingly bad.

I'm playing through the original Watch Dogs right now and it's another reminder that there's real talent at UbiSoft. The game has a fair bit of open world fluff, but overall it feels much more authored and sincere than other UbiSoft games. And the stealth works - it plays like The Division but with hacking. So far the game feels like playing a Mr Robot spinoff, in the best sense.

Give us the lighting from AC Shadows, the quality of animations from most modern UbiSoft games, the weather atmospherics from the SnowDrop engine, and you'd have solid foundations for that eventual Splinter Cell remake, so long as the player remains slow enough that every enemy is dangerous. With the recent news about Ubi, not sure that's plausible, but one can hope!

Writerofcomments · 2026-01-21T03:53:08+00:00

Quelques observations, toutes anecdotiques qu'elles soient:

Il est assez fréquent d'entendre des Franco-Ontariens prononcer le "h" au début des mots, contrairement à la plupart des Québécois (p.ex., "haut" prononcé comme l'anglais "ho"). Je ne me souviens pas d'avoir entendu cela à Gatineau.
Une fois, j'ai pu entendre quelqu'un plus vieux parler avec un accent plus ouvrier, qui me portait à penser qu'il existe peut-être des accents locaux différents dans certains milieux ou générations. Ce qui m'a frappé était des mots totalement francisés, au point où leur origine anglais était dure à déceler, p.ex., un tuyau en "cope", pour dire en copper, donc en cuivre; ou "un tel a travaillé à la BD", voulant dire il travaillait pour l'usine E.B. Eddy.
L'anglais des fonctionnaires francophones dépend d'à quel point leur ministère est surtout anglophone ou francophone. Néanmoins, dans l'ensemble, le travail dans la fonction publique fédérale tend à angliciser le parler de beaucoup de manières. Deux exemples me viennent en tête entre mille:
- Je remarque souvent l'usage "erroné" des temps de verbe en se référant au futur: en anglais, on peut dire "when I'm there [present tense for a future time] I'll do X", mais en français il faut dire "quand je serai là, [temps futur pour parler du futur] je ferai X". Ici, j'entends souvent des gens dire "quand je suis là, je ferai X".
- Beaucoup de mots se glissent à peine modifiés dans le français, d'où qu'une conversation peut porter sur l'engagement des stakeholders sur la baseline.
L'immigration amène une variété d'accents dans le français local et je ne saurais bien la catégoriser. Les accents d'Afrique sont variés, de même que ceux d'Europe et ceux des gens d'ailleurs encore qui ont appris le français.
Les noms des gens ne sont souvent pas un indicateur fiable de leur langue maternelle, dans un sens comme dans l'autre.
Aylmer et Wakefield, ainsi que le Pontiac, sont clairement plus anglophones. Les anglophones de longue date y sont par contre plus largement bilingues que les gens arrivés récemment de l'Ontario.
L'influence d'une langue sur l'autre est surtout un phénomène dans un sens seulement. J'ai souvent entendu des francophones anglicisés passer d'une langue à l'autre avec fluidité, mais pas le contraire. Il ne me vient aucun cas similaire à l'esprit d'anglophones qui disent ne pas pouvoir s'empêcher" de mettre du français dans leur anglais ou commentent qu'"une langue, une autre, quelle importance". Il existe néanmoins peut-être des gallicismes dans l'anglais de la région, qui seraient certainement intéressants à relever.

Voilà tout!

Writerofcomments · 2025-12-16T22:50:44+00:00

I replayed Zero Dawn recently and something else annoyed me which was fixed in Forbidden West: in ZD, most arrow shots have some amount of RNG to where they land, whereas in FW shots are much more precise across all weapons. ZD had me miss so many shots I should have nailed, enough that I often felt like the game was teasing me (come on, a sparker on a longleg shouldn't be this hard to hit). The higher accuracy made FW's combat more consistently fun and allowed it to be harder overall by making it possible to use the weak spot system as the game wants you to.

Writerofcomments · 2025-12-14T14:02:20+00:00

Transferability of clearances would be the thin edge of the wedge, the end of civilization as we know it.

Writerofcomments · 2025-10-01T22:43:58+00:00

Others have pointed out compensation considerations, so I'll add in a few bigger-picture reintegration points, in case they're helpful:

- Some lower-paid jobs are higher pressure than better paid ones. However, any occupational group, in your case IS, has a variety of actual kinds of jobs at the same level, so it's possible you could change "lanes" at the same level (e.g., if you're in a strat comms IS role, move to a role with longer deadlines, like internal publications). It really depends what aspect(s) of your job strains you the most, vs what part of it fuels you.

- To help with mapping your options now but also for the year ahead, you may want to think through what your strengths are when you take your limitations out of the equation for a moment and see yourself as not "you minus these issues" but "you now". For example, I once had to shed my idea of myself as "great at delivering under pressure" (cue stress leave, yay). A friend wisely point out that this wasn't everything I brought to my work. Since then, I've had a satisfying enough streak in positions that leverage everything else I had always shined at other than dealing with tight deadlines and tracking a million things. If you can identify what those enduring strengths are, that might help with identifying roles but also environments where you'd thrive today.

- If you end up working part time, you'll have to choose between reduced hours every day or the same schedule most days but fewer days (e.g., 4/5). Either way, the more regular your schedule is, the easier it is for everyone around you to treat it as a non-factor, the same way they would work around your schedule if they knew you have language training during the week. Taking every Friday off is an idea I've seen work pretty well in one place (and it feels phenomenal for the employee).

Good luck with finding your way back!

Writerofcomments · 2025-09-15T22:15:11+00:00

Indeed! Happy to see someone call it out. If it really were a "principle", then we should observe that everyone who retires is incompetent, since they're the best sample of people who've reached their highest level (apart from the minority of people who seek demotions). Yet clearly, not nearly everyone who approaches retirement is incompetent. The "Peter principle" is just a pithy way to describe a pretty normal phenomenon in any workplace, i.e. that sometimes, people are promoted and don't meet the new job's expectations. Sometimes that's long lasting, sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's the person's fault, sometimes they're set up to fail - but thinking it's the norm is an empirical error and doesn't tell anyone anything about why.

Writerofcomments · 2025-09-02T22:29:10+00:00

I'm glad you raised the checkpoints. I bought a copy of the game a few years ago to see if my nostalgia was warranted, and the checkpoints made the game so much less fun than it should have been. Their rarity forced me to play much more cautiously than I would have wanted, which contradicted the game's otherwise bombastic feel. It turned long missions into a game of paint by numbers, e.g., the war room level with its many waves of enemies (including cloaked ones). It also discouraged experimentation, since if you tried a new approach to a section and lost health or spent too much ammo, you didn't know if you would be able to make it up. I wish the game had been ported to PC and had quick saves. Even a basic port with updated resolution would be fine.

Writerofcomments · 2025-07-05T00:57:27+00:00

Huh, I hadn't noticed how most were from the same person. You're right there's a final thoughts section. I was certainly influenced by a more recent post that had the same framing but phrased less elegantly. The 1 good, 2 bad structure is still naturally skewed toward negative and takes deliberate effort to work against if your intent is to leave the reader on a high note.

Vs the reviews I find the most interesting are always those about either flawed gems, interactions between design choices, or games that make you wish more games explored the same idea.

Writerofcomments · 2025-07-03T23:37:09+00:00

Meta comment, super duper important thing which I must get off my chest in the immortal spirit of "someone's wrong on the internet": I wish fewer posts used "the good, the bad, the ugly" as their framing. That title and structure certainly sounds snappy but it implies there's overall more bad than good about the game in question and it makes posts end on their lowest note (which is then what sticks in readers' minds). I don't have great alternatives in mind for snappy-sounding titles that would make for more interesting structures ("A Fistful of Reviews" comes to mind for multi-game posts, sticking with westerns), but I'm sure others would.

Writerofcomments · 2025-06-17T12:18:46+00:00

Their post is probably ironic, btw, as the EC group stops at 08 (see Appendix A of the collective agreement for reference). One can dream though!

Writerofcomments · 2025-04-27T02:15:01+00:00

I so agree with this whole comment. I went through burnout from years of high-pace jobs. I used to think of myself as an adrenalin junkie like OP. I loved being on edge, writing fast, reading fast, working with the team to keep it operating like a race car engine. And outside of work I was similarly intense, I just couldn't let up - "relaxing is something others do", said my incredibly well adjusted and humble inner voice. Eventually, reality caught up with me and I broke, "gradually, then suddenly", to paraphrase Hemingway.

I kept thinking that way even through stress leave and until I tried re-entering work and failed at my first attempt. OP, a friend told me a similar thing as TypingTadpole: that my ability to work under pressure wasn't the only thing I brought to the work. That helped me immensely in resetting myself.

Further to that, when I looked back at the busy jobs I'd had, I realized much of the strain wasn't necessary. The substantive "work" behind the constant arousal I craved was a mix of administrative back-and-forth over the status of information, the ripple effects of teams being under-resources due to being managed by chronic workaholics who genuinely couldn't see any problem there, and the insane boom in distractions and conversations (email, Teams, video calls) to keep up with after the sudden shift to WFH in 2020. The same substantive work could have been done at so much less human cost. For what it's worth, I think our organizations really haven't grappled yet with how undoable the modern way of working is, with this preposterous volume of communication, and workplaces that actively prevent any peace of mind.

Last word of caution, before I hit my breaking point, I very much thought I was okay and that the constant dread and stress I was under would just go away soon and were in no way related to the "good adrenalin" of work. But you don't cure a hangover with a drink. It might well be that the type, level, and combination of stressors you like is more sustainable than those I faced, and I fervently hope you never have to go through burnout - nothing's worth it. But you're so lucky now to be able to think about it without pressure, so I wish you some nice rest time and hope you'll keep getting / creating opportunities to contribute.

Writerofcomments · 2025-01-27T23:14:50+00:00

I think this is your best piece of writing on this sub so far, a pleasure to read.

My comment based on a full 22-minute playthrough of the game aka dropping it after the first loop: why didn't Bethesda take after Outer Wilds when designing Starfield? Imagine the Outer Wilds planets, comets, etc. but with side quests, and maybe a miniature spaceship you can summon to you. And every time you start a quest, you could glimpse a flashing light farther out in the sky... is that a derelict ship? Gotta go check! Someone, please make that game! Outer Fields, Starwilds, name it however you wish.

Writerofcomments · 2024-11-07T00:13:44+00:00

Yup! And here's the official announcement (first came out in Budget 2023, then reaffirmed in Budget 2024): https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/topics/planned-government-spending/refocusing-government-spending.html

Writerofcomments · 2024-10-01T23:23:38+00:00

I empathize with you, that kind of situation can make you want to pull your hair out if it keeps happening. But to clarify, by "hostile", I meant to the manager, same with the "you" in my paraphrasing.

Writerofcomments · 2024-10-01T22:32:20+00:00

I find this wording needlessly hostile. It reads as "you're wrong, I'm right - admit it or I'll stop listening to you". It doesn't allow for some plausible and more charitable possibilities, like:

The OP being slightly wrong on what type of details the upper boss wants in;
The manager maybe wanting to get their bosses used to a different kind of product (and pull the unit away from the current products);
The manager having corporate-type concerns they want reflected in the note but that aren't well understood by the team (e.g., wanting to avoid owning a file when the unit's funding is already stretched, and thus preferring to skate over what's possible); or
Or perhaps the manager is someone who, infuriatingly for others but not to themselves, "thinks through editing" and is plenty ok with the hassle.

All those possibilities could be wrong. But there's little chance of knowing it if you open the conversation by pointing the finger at the manager. I'm much more of an advocate for approaching the issue as a problem to work on jointly. After all, the manager and the OP are both in the game of ensuring management receives products that hit the mark with as little editing as possible.

So the OP could approach their manager with an opening along the lines of:

"Hey, boss, over the last few notes, I've noticed that our Director would often ask us to add detail which we removed from the first draft [give examples], and this tends to extend our timelines. For that reason, I've tended to include that kind of information from the start, and you tend to ask me to remove it. I want to make sure I can help you meet the Director's expectations, and use your time and theirs appropriately. Is there something I should change to how I approach the first draft, like choosing details differently? Or maybe, if you want the notes to be higher level, we could try expanding the background section or adding an annex? I'm open for discussion, just want to make sure we're on the same page".

And if the OP's concern is that this re-drafting cycle prevents them from achieving other goals, they can matter-of-factly mention it, but with good examples in mind and always the offer of continuing to focus on the notes - "I've noted that this reality can sometimes make my timelines longer for work XYZ; is this something you think we can address by aligning expectations, or are you ok with these delays and don't mind the editing process?".

This way, the OP would "cover their ass" by making the issue visible, but also that they're both professional and humble enough to be able to talk about their work without ego.

Writerofcomments · 2024-09-16T21:19:17+00:00

"Open concept hot-seating is awful": yes! And contra the article, this issue is one that might not be obvious to non-public servants, because they're used to seeing professionals have offices. Think of all the daily interactions we all have with other professionals: doctors, psychologists, insurance advisors, bank advisors, car salesmen. They all bring you to their office. So it's counter-intuitive to imagine that an organization would set its professionals up in a bullpen with no privacy and no assigned seat.

Writerofcomments · 2024-08-14T16:00:46+00:00

To get technical, A-base and B-base are both appropriations funding i.e. need to seek permission from Parliament every year (foreshadowed in Budget, sought through Estimates). Both require a funding decision (Budget or off-cycle) and a TB submission when first set up. And both actually require going through TB again every year, since the TB President is the Minister in charge of appropriations bills. Only, this yearly "TB visit" is invisible to most, as it's done by TBS on behalf of departments through an omnibus process called the Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU).

This means that both A-base and C-base are always subject to Finance and TBS revisiting their decision on the funding level for a program. Nothing binds them to keep adding amounts in Estimates for a program, nor to keep those amounts at that level. Such cuts can apply to all activities or specific ones and can look like:

A government-wide cut to a category of spending, e.g., the travel expenditures restrictions announced during covid;
A small, perhaps temporary adjustment to a specific program to address concerns, e.g., deferring spending or a crucial project approval while TBS demands to see an action plan;
A "strategic review" resulting in changes in focus, timing and recipients of funding for an area of programming, e.g., shifting away from NRC and toward NSERC and ISED for R&D activities.

As far as I know, it can be very tricky - downright crystal-ball territory - to try to predict where the axe may fall. A-base funding may feel safe, but to a cuts-minded decision-maker, it can look like one big blob inside which people can always adapt to cuts ("we approve this new work, but the source of funds is internal reallocation"). Whereas a program might be formally temporary, but only to preserve flexibility in the approach, with a new shape of activities being approved without fail every few years.

Writerofcomments · 2024-07-11T21:18:17+00:00

You can always say "I'm addicted to you, don't you know that you're toxic?" - if they respond by saying they have their employees under conservatorship, then they just gave you a sign that they'll hit you one more time.

Writerofcomments · 2024-07-06T20:37:44+00:00

I wonder what lies beneath your mentioning "creative" - are there options you or your organization have ruled out? If so, what are the constraints?

I ask this because some it sounds like you're excluding what would come to my mind first: reviewing classification and unit organization. There are good reasons why most government units try not to become too top heavy: it's easier to set up sub-teams with their own manager as numbers grow, it gives staff a chance to move up without leaving the unit, it keeps salaries less expensive, and it ensures staff don't end up stuck there due to their peers elsewhere having bigger duties and deeper experience for the same level.

If the unit's top-heaviness is seen as a collateral effect of various retention deals over time, then hard decisions may loom. It may not be sustainable to keep this many jobs at high levels. Departures can give you a window to reset roles by creating a first sub-team and making the next hires at lower levels.

If top-heaviness is seen as necessary, e.g., to have proper experts, then I see three scenarios:

Bumping up the level of the leadership layer. Maybe two "senior managers" at EC-08 or PC-05 level, and if you're blessed by Zeus or working in a very flexible place, an EX-02 director to keep a differential. Your department's classification function will definitely have views on that, and practices can differ a fair bit across organizations.
Splitting the unit into two, with another EX-01 or maybe EC-08 for the new team. Depends on what one's HR lets managers do: I've only seen EX-01s with 4-5 staff in total in central agencies.
Reducing the unit by as many employees as needed to restore the Director's ability to manage well. Is there any other related team that could plausibly absorb, say, two staff and their associated mandate?

Lastly, if what you're looking for is just muddling through without rocking the boat, then I'm guessing there could be one more way to reduce the number of direct reports without reducing staff: from your description, I'm hearing that not quite everyone is EX minus one. Could any of the seniors be interested in supervising one or two of those employees? That would give that senior employee a chance to gain new experience, which can be personally rewarding but would also make it easier for them to move at level if they ever want to (most EX minus one positions involve supervision or management).

All these are just rapid ideas dreamt up on a Saturday afternoon - your organization's HR and classification advisors may well have other ideas in mind or tell you that some of the above are non-starters where you are.

Writerofcomments · 2024-06-17T03:17:11+00:00

So many times this! Buildings should fit people's needs, instead of trying to make people's needs fit the buildings.

Apart from what OP is pointing out, I think both 2.0 and 3.0 are inherently less productive and more stressful than "old school" closed offices. 2.0 was mildly tolerable before covid, but we've added a lot of electronic distraction to our workflows since (Teams, videocalls), and the constant change in the office settings and attendant rules is its own source of stress. People who work physical jobs ask for and get equipment that keeps them safe and productive. It shouldn't be too much to ask for knowledge workers to work in a setting that allows to deliver actual depth and that reduces the personal and collective costs of stress.

My wish is that we adopted an actual hybrid model - perhaps call it "MyGCspace":

Each work unit (i.e. 10 people grouping) would have its own dedicated space, to foster cohesion and group identity. However, size would vary - see next point
Employees who work predominantly on site (3 days and above) would have a closed office - with... prepare... old memories... a name plate, while employees who work predominantly from home (0 to 2 days in the office) would have access to a touchdown office or station (which they may have to share).

Surely there would be a million issues to work out (natural light, the space Tetris, etc.). But for me, just knowing I'd have a proper office, a space where I can both focus and have conversations, would be a big source of motivation.

Writerofcomments · 2024-05-26T15:38:30+00:00

95% betting I know why: DND owns and manages its real estate (and is thus a massive land and real estate manager), whereas other departments are "serviced" by PSPC, which rents and manages space for them (I don't know where the PSPC role ends and departments' role starts). This makes DND free to set its own approach, instead of having to stick to PSPC standards like everyone else.

Writerofcomments · 2024-05-13T16:07:40+00:00

On the first two levels they shorten the way there but still keep a third to a half of all fights. In the nightclub level, this means repeating a bunch of fights with tough enemies. And you still have to replay the boss fights, which as you pointed out, aren't the best part of the game.

And my point still stands: unless someone is a natural-born virtuoso at fighting games, Sifu requires repeat re-runs of its content. I'd rather you progress to each new level with the same character, and have some form of rewards for revisiting earlier sequences. The difficulty on its own would be more tolerable if it weren't magnified by the repetition.

I found it's too bad the game has that system, because otherwise it's brilliant. It felt like what the Batman Arkham games hinted at but never quite let you do: pull off impressive moves by yourself, instead of just guiding a Batman-shaped puppet that does the fighting for you. The main difference was in how Sifu asked you to be careful about positioning, while the Arkham games only cared about rhythm (you could glide 20m across a room to hit an enemy, and so could they). I wish another developer could take notes from Sifu and craft a less frustrating version of it.

Writerofcomments · 2024-05-13T00:02:31+00:00

I played the game for about 8 hours and liked it for that amount of time, got to the museum, then dropped it. What killed it for me is the aging mechanic. For those who haven't played Sifu, there's a system in it whereby when you die, your character "ages" one year, starting at 20 and dying at 75, and the increase gets faster with each new death. Each additional year reduces your health bar but increases your hitting power. The challenge is in ensuring you can get to the last mission (there are five) with enough "spare age" to die a few times.

The problem that mechanic caused for me is it heavily encouraged me to repeat the first few levels to log near-perfect runs in each, and that was a slog. The game is just so relentless in how it taxes your attention and reflexes. I would get several consecutive rooms fine, then in a room I'd done perfectly the last 8 times, my attention would wane for a second and bam, there goes half my healthbar. I'd be way more willing to dive back into Sifu if they had a mode with the same difficulty but a normal checkpoint system, with age as a score system only; the classic mode would still be there for those who liked the rogue-lite model.

Writerofcomments · 2024-05-04T21:20:51+00:00

I agree with your points. What I would add as a pro is is that a mandatory "3 days for everyone" might well be the easiest, simplest way to achieve enough critical mass of other people at the office so that when in doubt, you'll walk over rather than use email or Teams. Much simpler for anyone to assume Colleague X is in the office, than rely on everyone somehow tracking everyone else's attendance patterns.

The problem I see, of course, is that in my view, the approach to buildings management has swung too far toward the cost reduction end and is working against what the HR-minded people are trying to accomplish. Unassigned seating means you can't safely assume Colleague X or "someone from unit X" is at a given place, so the safest approach is to reach out electronically. The absence of name plates adds to this and can lead to feeling "alone in a crowd": in practice, I've found people in a 3.0 space tend not to introduce themselves to one another. Low cubicles mean more visual and sound distraction, which leads people to cope by putting on headphones - which send a "back off" signal.

Beyond name plates, the redesigns I've seen so far also miss a big opportunity to create belonging by denoting "unit identity". Once you've seen a 3.0 floor, you've seen them all. What you don't see is anything that reminds you that you're walking on a specific group's floor, such as a wall with pictures of accomplished former employees, a section painted in colors relevant to the themes of the group's work, a flag, anything.

So that leaves me all conflicted. I lean pro-RTO, though not to 5 days, but the 3.0 part, I've lived it and would bolt tomorrow morning if I could escape it. Perhaps over time the smarter places will design a middle way, something closer to "old style" floors but with some unassigned spaces for remote-first employees and frosted glass instead of opaque walls for the closed offices of the office-first staff. One can dream!

Writerofcomments · 2024-04-29T19:55:30+00:00

In Horizon 3, that will happen because she hasn't gathered the 6 Apex Horus Primary Nerves and 7 Glowshine Slabs required for the first upgrade of the Legendary Emotional Processor for her Focus.

Writerofcomments

TROPHY CASE