Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'obligation'.
My question is simple: how strongly are developers morally bound to respect some aspects of the stretch goals? I'm talking about game design propositions like adding in X number of classes or races, etc, and not about purely technical things like translations. Is Obsidian limited to what's has been put forward for the stretch goals that are finally reached? I guess not. But can they, during the development of the game, remove a class that was set to be part of a stretch goal, despite some backers likely to have backed the project based on those expectations? Can they reduce the number of companions, or double it? If the team ends up incredibly inspired with the companions and includes 20 of them (BG1 was close to that, if I recall), would it be, in a way, false advertising to have prompted people to give money to get to 9 companions, whereas those numbers in the final game would mean nothing? In a way, I want the team to make the best decisions for the game, and I think that if a character sucks, it should be removed from the game, even if it means having less companions that what was announced. In the same way, if Obsidian finds the Barbarian class to be pretty silly in the end, I think they should be free to remove it from the game, or replace it with a more original one. If they create more recruitable characters than originally planned and if they are all really interesting, why not remove the Hall of Adventurers (which is a terrible idea in my opinion)? Anyway, just a thought.