I gotta go to bed or I’d write a longer reply, but you yourself used the word “exclusively” intended to cause arousal. And that’s how I define porn. If that’s not how other people define it, don’t care 
I will continue to define it that way cause I think it makes the most sense.
So … yeah, the h-scenes? Porn. The work as a whole? Not “exclusively” intended to cause arousal, therefore not porn.
For me it’s probably a bit different than most. For me it’s a company that cannot publish their game themselves in such a manner to receive wide audiance. This specifically does not include translations.
Whether capitalism is fair or not is a debate beyond the scope of this thread. However, no country, even the US, practices capitalism in the manner you are refering to. It practices a form of it, heavily mixed with politics, monopolies & oligochies, beurocratic favoritism, subsidies and tarriffs, etc. It’s more capitalistic than pretty much any other nation, but it still tends to play favorites that have nothing to do with capitalism. FE: copyrights are anti-capitalistic in nature by the definition of what capitalism is.
And that is the final thing i will say on capitalism in this thread reguardless of your comments.
Indeed. I understand the idea no one wants to take unneassary risks. Several problems though.
First, as far as doing it yourself, not everyone can just take out a loan. You get turned down by a bunch of companies and still are willing to take the risk with getting a loan, well if you don’t have collateral, you aren’t going to get that loan, even if your game will sell, you can’t get through that hurdle.
Second, most of those methods mention favor a certain type of person, usually someone who has gotten more of a programing background than not. This is in contrast to submitting a script for a film or show. So IE, if you have a good system of how your game would work, but no programing vs. the guy who has a bit of the game done but not much of it really fleshed out, not much idea what is wanting to be done besides some general targets, the guy with the programing will be favored, even if his game proposal is inferior. Even if you have artwork done, it’s still the guy with programing that is favored in general.
That’s why you can’t say it’s the same. If it were, then similar personality types of people who might make a movie script vs a game script should be able to have a chance at getting their game proposals turned into finished product (even if it’s only .1%), but that’s not the case. It’s not a 1:1 correlation, but close enough.
Indeed, you’re right. It’s cheaper, but the gap is closing every year as expectations of games approach that of interactive movies more and more (in general). As mentioned though, you have to have some bank willing to loan you the cash, which can be difficult for a number of people.
You’re theory there doesn’t hold much water. WoW was not always the big fish. EQ was. WoW came onto the scene about the time EQ2 came out and most people who played EQ either moved to EQ2 or stayed on EQ at the time. Those that tried out WoW, many of whom did, went back to EQ after several months.
WoW did not have the fanbase either. People think because it’s so popular now, Warcraft always had the fanbase it does, but it didn’t. It’s fanbase was no larger than any other company it’s size. Ultima Online had a bigger fanbase.
WoW did not have as good of graphics as it’s compeitor either. The game system wasn’t as balanced either.
WoW did have some name recognition, but not the same as EQ, atleast in MMORPG. Blizzard did not have the same advertising budget as EQ either, it was vastly inferior.
The only thing WoW had going for it at the time was their free 2 week game pass and more in-depth storyline. The free pass wasn’t enough because other games also gave free trials away as well and also failed. However, none of them developed their backstory for their world and continued to develope like WoW did. Of course without those free passes to get friends to try it. But with most MNORPG people having EQ accounts playing WoW simply because your friend played it wasn’t enough.
There were also differances in game mechanics that might have swayed some people, but only so many.
I still disagree. Even with porn they’d prefer more like 3 1 hour videos than 1 3 hour video.
[ 10-30-2007, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Jinnai ]
The wonderfulness of language where everyone uses his own definition of a word instead of how it’s commonly defined. It’s a good way to go, indeed.
Can’t you get what I’m saying? Even if the whole work doesn’t exclusively intend to cause arousal, it is porn by the mere fact it laincursed contains porn!!! Every material that CONTAINS porn IS porn!!! If you agree that the scenes are porn and that the whole work contains them, then you’re agreeing that the whole work IS laincursed porn!!! It has NOTHING to do with the fact the whole work in itself does or does not exclusively intend to cause arousal; it has to do with the fact it CONTAINS scenes which exclusive purpose is to cause arousal.
Had posting problems… for some reason this one would bomb on me. 
[ 10-30-2007, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
And as I said before: Is that fair? Sure it is. That’s capitalism.
I don’t know where you’re going with this. If I can’t get a car loan, is it the auto market’s fault? So how is not being able to get a loan on a business venture, the venture of business’s fault? Credit is on an individual basis. If you can’t write a business proposal that gets approved by whatever credit institution you’re using – or worst your credit history isn’t up to par – that’s not the game industry’s failing. In fact, I’d say the failing person shouldn’t be in the industry: learn how to drive before driving the car.
Of course. And I’ll be explaining why in the next part.
Huh? If you want to send your game manuscript to Konami or Capcom, go ahead. Makes no difference than if you sent a movie script to George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. In fact, I can assure you the same thing will happen: no one will read it. Doing something random like that doesn’t work. Why? Liability. I can’t begin to tell you how many times someone has tried to sue a game company, claiming that they sent their idea to them, and the company stole it. Movie directors get the same thing. That why they don’t do it.
There’s a system in place: NDL, non-liabilities, application cooling, etc. If a would-be game designer doesn’t take the time to at least comply with company standards, then why should the company bother to take the time to read his submission? Respect and professionalism go both ways. However once everything properly followed, then I guarantee the game submission will be taken into the consideration process.
Movie industry? You’ve got a better chance of cheating the Devil in Hell. Spielberg himself once said, he only reads two or three “independent scripts” a year: and most of them are from other movie directors or well established novelists.
Television? Better odds… but studios want producers, not script writers. Even a cheapo studio like the Sci-Fi channel – which actually airs independent films – wants completed works. If you have an idea, you have to produce it – i.e. pay for it. They find the airtime: you make the movie. Plain and simple. Furthermore the television industry is cutthroat as hell. Depending on what rumors you want to believe, it seems EVERYONE is after each other. Actor screw with each other. Script writers screw with each other. Directors screw with each other. Hell… even commercial representatives screw with each other for getting air time for the best shows. No thank you.
So yeah: BIG difference.
Of course programmers get farther: they can provide a proof of concept to investors! Like my dad told me, “if you want to be a quarterback, you’d best learn how to play football.” When you’re looking for investment or employment by the established groups, the investment or established group is gonna want to see what their banking their money on.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from working for three different game companies, it’s this: EVERYONE has an idea for a game - the concept artist, the audio technician, the voice actors, all of them. But plain and simple: it’s the programmer who does all the real work. Because of that, the programmer finds (not gets) the most opportunities. He or she is actually fighting the war – not a “politician” (in this case a producer) or “bystander” behind the lines (non-programmers) – so of course they become heroes. That’s how guys like Shigeru Miyamoto started.
Also take this into account: the “core members” of game development team are multitasking. Take a look at Daisuke Ishiwatari (creator of Guilty Gear): he can program, he wrote the music, drew the character designs, implemented the game engine, and wrote the story. He also voice acts Sol Badguy. “OMG!” a person will scream, “he’s a genius!” I’ve got news. He’s very talented… and one hell of a businessman (I respect him more for this than his game making skills) but is traits are normal - Shigeru Miyamoto is the same. So am I.
Don’t take this as bragging – and there’s a reason why I’m telling you this: I can write manuscripts, I can program with the best of them, I can play several instruments (and thus write simple tunes), I can create pixel artwork (although my actual drawing skills aren’t anywhere as good), I can translate Japanese and Korean (as well as lived in them thanks to military service), I’ve taken various courses in business, I have experience in game production, I recently picked up a degree in probability mathematics (VERY important for level and difficulty designing); and because of time in the armed service, I’m 500% with teamwork, performing in groups, and working late hours without expectation of pay.
All this and more… and I still have problems getting a job or promotion in the game industry as a team developer. Why? Because there are people BETTER than me who can do all this and EVEN MORE. Game industry wants the best – and the best are taken. Why do they deserve less?
Oh yeah… and I have my own ideas for games too: just like everyone else.
However it’s not the game industry’s fault that customers want better looking games with higher budgets. Technology is outpacing the affordability (PS3 is a perfect example). People expect Devil May Cry 4 to look like a masterpiece of 3D engineering – not 2D crap. Thus Capcom will pay for such an expensive undertaking, because people will buy it and earn them profit. I see no problem with that. Company gets $$$ and the gamer gets a badass game.
Look at game music alone: I can’t finish reading a game magazine, without gamers or a reviewer bitching that ALL games should use full orchestra background music. So it’s not Capcom or Konami to blame, that the “indy” can’t afford the Philharmonic Orchestra. So what then? Blame the gamers? Blame the customers? 
Look. The whole point of this entire debate we’re having, is was based off this:
An indy developer can’t get his game on the shelf of Walmart or Gamestop.
That’s false. An indy developer CAN get his game on a store shelf. There is nothing stopping him. What is hindering the indy, is that he has no idea of how to get it on the store shelf. I’m a normal person and I don’t have millions: I can get a game on the store shelf. What makes me different?
Because I have connections to the game industry? Okay. I won’t use them: I won’t call the people I know in Capcom or Konami. Still doesn’t stop me.
Because I can program, write the music, draw the art to my game without additional help? You can’t honestly fault me for learning as much as I can to be self sufficient. Besides, that’s what friends are for – and I would probably wouldn’t do it all by myself: I’d ask for more talented individuals to help me out in certain areas (like character designs). And just to continue this example, I can’t use my friends who also work for a game company. No big deal… not all my friends work for a game company.
Because I have good credit and can get a signature loan? I’ll keep the budget within $50K – which is a lot, but can be received though a business loan with reasonable expectations. Blah, blah, blah…
I mean come on here… what makes me different? Simple: I know how to get my game on the shelf of the local Walmart - not every Walmart in the country mind you; but the regional ones in my state district. Not the same, but still a major breakthrough. Of course that does not guarantee that it will make money… and if no one buys a reasonable amount within a certain timeframe, of course Walmart will pull it off the shelves. But that has nothing to do with PUBLISHING my game. That would be SELLING my game. Which is a whole new beast… and there are multimillion dollar games which can’t even do that.
This isn’t a huge secret… nor is it being withheld: one just has to put the effort to find and learn it.
No offense, but I think you just have unreasonable view of the game industry.
[ 10-30-2007, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
… as someone who is in the game industry and does have a game on some store shelves, it’s still not quite as simple as anyone being able to do it, even if you make a game - you still need to convince a lot of people with connections to help you get from A to B. But it’s a lot easier than getting a movie out there.
I was wondering when you’d show up. 
As an example: I’m working on the production of a free (yea… free!) ren’ai that will be as commercial quality as possible. Why? Because I want too: and the possible online reputation wouldn’t hurt to have on a resume either.
I set aside a budget for it, one from my own pocket so its not anything huge, to cover the cost of commissions and hosting and what have you. Yet you’d be surprised at how many talented people I’ve contacted - most of whom I’ve never known before - and are willing to offer their services at MAJOR discount… one has provided several contributions for free.
These people didn’t join me because I’m a huge charismatic… they joined be they honestly believe my venture as has serious potential: that the concept will be worth the work, having their names attached to it will be a good thing, and everything will generate positive buzz for us all. They’re sold on the game itself: and I’m very grateful for it.
Yea… maybe I could have marketed the idea to a corporation… or maybe I did and it was ignored, thus making me work on my free time to prove them wrong - even if I lose the chance to get rich.
[ 10-30-2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
Dude, EQ2 peaked at a fewer number of subscribers than EQ1 did. And I don’t even follow MMORPGs, but still know that. About 2 minutes of poking around and I even got something to back that up:
http://www.mmogchart.com/Analysis.html
Furthermore, Warcraft (without “world of” in front) essentially created the RTS genre. It’s not directly comparable, but I think that gives it bigger name recognition than Everquest.
created RTS yes, but not MMO and you fail to grasp that just because it created RTS doesn’t mean that translates into big fanbase.
Huh? It’s the “Warcraft” name that got people hyped about the MMO in the first place. I don’t know why you’re so hateful of WoW - and I’m your reasons are totally legit - but that doesn’t effect the fact that WoW is a HUGE success.
It has the largest paying subscription, earns the most revenue, and has third party licensing out the ying-yang. WoW is gold in the eyes of an investor, and those individuals who banked on it financially are VERY happy people.
And to be honest, for every person I hear complain about how WoW sucks, I hear three others who say it’s fantastic. Then again, I hear the same for EQ, Lineage, Ragnarok Online, Final Fantasy XI, etc.
You obviously did not read what I said. I am not being hateful of WoW. I am saying that people have over inflated the pre-WoW franchise numbers because they base it on how popular WoW is today. Even the article found by Nandemonai, the person does this. They assume because WoW is so popular now and because Warcraft created the modern-day RTS that WoW gets its success from the number of Warcraft players. Warcraft had a fanbase, aye, but everyone has bloated that figure saying it’s responsible for the success of WoW and Warcraft’s popularity was always quite large, but it wasn’t because a lot of people don’t/didn’t like RTS games.
There were at around the same time other games that came out with similar or superior name recognition that failed as well.
That’s my point. I am not hating WoW. I am hating people who post-inflate numbers of original Warcraft fans to falsely show why WoW is a success.
I still don’t see where you’re going with this. Okay… let’s just ignore the Blizzard and Warcraft franchise name, as odd as that would be.
How do you explain the over 8 million paying subscribers world wide? How does that NOT make WoW a success? And those numbers are not inflated, unless you’re seriously implying that Blizzard lies about it… even to the US government and their stockholders: which is a HUGE federal offense. Even if that were true… it wouldn’t explain the $$$ that investors are getting back - unless there’s a major conspiracy going on.
Nandemonai only brought up the RTS, saying it was an influence… and it had an impact. Small or large - does it really matter? The original Warcraft isn’t the only thing that sells WoW. WoW has been selling to people who NEVER played the RTS - or have an interest in RTS.
The profit doesn’t lie. The success of the Warcraft RTS, followed by the success of the Warcraft MMO, only makes the franchise even MORE lucrative: add on top of that the merchandise line and an upcoming movie.
Blizzard’s other titles - StarCraft and Diablo - aren’t small fish anymore either. Not making the cash like Warcraft is right now, but I’m sure their aiming to change that.
[ 10-31-2007, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
sigh
Once again my point goes right over your head.
My point is that WoW’s success is do in more part being at the right place at the right time.
2 things that put it above the frey were:
it’s use of the 10-day (it’s now 14-day) free trial periods they gave in every CD case for friends.
Lower graphics requirements, anti of what is common for stand-alone games. It’s because it had lower graphics RQs than any of the new games (at the time) came out that more people could play.
The other titles by Blizzard are all on a similar vein of WC, ie RTS. Even Diablo.
My point is not that the title of Warcraft had no impact, but it’s impact was minimal. Had it been another game company with a similar setup with a different name, but everything else the same, it would have turned out the same. Name recognition was not important here and advertising budget wasn’t that big.
Once it got a foothold, a stong one defeating the other major contendors, then advertising budget and name recognition spurred it onward to complete domination, rather than just being more dominant.
[ 10-31-2007, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Jinnai ]
That would be market strategy, not being at the right place at the right time.
Hence my comparison with Ragnarok Online. The MMO for Warcraft and Ragnarok were both based off earlier properties. Also I might add: RO and WoW are both low system requirements and used the “free for a few days” deal.
The whole mentioning of EQ is what threw me off for a loop and made me lose track of what you were trying to point out.
However on advertising I disagree: Blizzard spent a lot of money on advertising from the beginning. There were some who joked the ad blitz cost more than the game production itself. Blizzard went out of their way to “get the word out” on WoW.
This is where a title like RO failed… they didn’t go to this level outside of Korea. Not to mention that the various Gravity license groups weren’t all that kosher either (the US group was in legal issues at least twice; the one in Japan had a few strange going-ons too).
I also feel you’re downplaying the “good name” Blizzard had gathered with Warcraft, as much as you claim people give too much credit for it.
Well of course, when the profit started rolling in, they ramped things up further: that would only be normal. I never said that WoW was uber dominant from the start… I just said they were big right now. I also pointed out that their ad blitzing was a huge influence for that being the case - and it was. Blizzard has one hell of a PR team.
[ 10-31-2007, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
Actually they probably failed due more to the bad publicity they got after going back on their ‘free to play’ theme.
Well, i hardly think so considering the number of people who prefer to overplay it.
I also have to say another thing for WoW’s success was no payed expansions early on. The first expansion came only after they had a secure dominant market in American and China. Other games continuously put out expansions you had to pay to get new major content. WoW stuck to not doing this for quite some time.
How many of you people have heard of a little PC RPG called Planescape Torment?
Here’s something cool: it’s the “sales pitch” the people who developed Planescape used to sell the idea to investors and distributors:
Right-click and Save As to save my poor server some workload. 
http://www.elizar.com/Torment_Vision_Statement_1997.pdf
An interesting read if you’ve never seen one before. Even more interesting since the writer was a bit… err… creative than usual. Even-even more-more interesting if you’re a fan of Planescape Torment.
[ 11-08-2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]
I have a copy of it myself, letting my teenage son play it now. One of the best RPG’s made (IMHO). I have a backup copy for myself (the Planescape: Torment/Soulbringer pack they came out with later…)
Sadly I kept getting some kind of error trying to open the .pdf file. Hopefully I can work around it, I would like to see what kind of person created it.
It’s from Chris Avellone. He’s the maker of the game.
It was compiled using Adobe version 6 engine - so you’ll at least need Adobe Reader 6. Is anyone else having problems reading the file? If so, I’ll upload it again.
Ooooooooooo … I’ll have to check this out. Thanks. ‘Heard of’ Torment? it’s only my personal vote for best RPG of all time.
Narg stole this interview.
With Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer finished and on store shelves, we fired over a handful of tough questions to lead designer and producer Kevin Saunders. Our questions and his answers to follow:
GB: Tell us a little about yourself and your role in the creation of Mask of the Betrayer.
Kevin: My name is Kevin Saunders and I was the lead designer and the producer for NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer. My educational background was in environmental engineering, but I’ve been a game designer for over nine years, working on titles such as Shattered Galaxy (MMORTS), C&C Generals: Zero Hour (RTS), and Knights of the Old Republic 2 (RPG). I’ve been playing D&D since I was 5 and have a deeply rooted passion for the game.
GB: What was your primary goal with Mask of the Betrayer and do you feel that you accomplished it?
Kevin: My answer is boring, but our primary goal was creating a great game on time and within our budget. Fans probably hate to hear this, but at the end of the day, developing games is a business. Unless we can do it efficiently enough, we go out of business. While it’s true that some in game development get rich, most of us work hard just to be able to pay the bills and live a life like everyone else (our big payoff is that we tend to love our jobs).
Of course, we wanted to make the best RPG experience we could, while improving the tools for the mod community as much as we could. We wanted to have reactive, realistic characters, a story that adapted to the player’s decisions, an immersive world with stunning visuals, etc. - and I think we achieved all of these things at least to a large part. But on MotB a priority was to maximize the game play experience without requiring more time or additional resources from our original schedule and budget. Yes, we achieved this goal.
GB: What aspect of the expansion pack are you most proud of?
Kevin: As a project, I’m most proud of how the team truly excelled. Everyone worked together very well and no one was deterred by the numerous challenges that come up in game development. A lot of individuals did stellar work and the quality of MotB reflects their efforts and their cooperation and teamwork.
As a game, I’m most proud of the consistency and coherence of our depiction of the world. From the characters, to the visuals, to the individual minor quests, I feel we did a great job of presenting the game’s setting (Rashemen and a few more exotic places) and telling a story that players will remember.
GB: Is there any content that you regret leaving out or didn’t have time to add?
Kevin: No (but see below). There are a few things I wish we could have added. One was a side quest we called Patron of the Arts. It was a complete tangent from the main storyline and mostly for nostalgia value and comic relief. It involved organizing a play using the actors at the Veil (and competing with actors at the Sloop).
The play would be about your adventures from the NWN2 campaign and would culminate in a cut scene of the play that would have depended upon how you “wrote” the script and which actors you convinced to play the roles. It was an idea that we all really liked, but it became clear that we just wouldn’t have the time to do it well, so we dropped it from consideration early on.
GB: Mask of the Betrayer has even garnered some comparisons to Baldur’s Gate II and Planescape: Torment. Did you draw any inspiration from BioWare/Black Isle Studios games of the past decade?
Kevin: Not directly. Many of the MotB developers have played those games so they certainly had an influence, but no specific ideas or inspiration was drawn from them. We didn’t go into MotB with a plan to make it like either of those games.
GB: The expansion focuses more on an inward story combined with cosmological elements than on any of the classic down-to-earth approaches of RPG storytelling. Why did you choose this route?
Kevin: It was the type of story we wanted to tell. NWN2 had a classic fantasy RPG story and we didn’t want to do that again. As an expansion, we felt we could try something different and gamble a bit with the story. The majority of people who buy an expansion for a game like NWN2 are pretty hard core gamers and role-players and we thought they’d appreciate an atypical story.
GB: The expansion has been praised for its dialogue, story, and NPCs, but somewhat criticized for bugs and gameplay elements like the camera, UI, and spirit meter. How do you feel about such criticism?
Kevin: All opinions are valid when it comes to something like game design. Our goal is to entertain the player, so when someone dislikes an aspect of the game, we’ve disappointed that person in that regard. I’ll briefly discuss each of the elements you mention separately.
Bugs. We shipped with very few known bugs, especially for an RPG. That is, we fixed most everything we found through our internal testing. So where we failed was that we didn’t allocate enough resources for finding bugs. Fortunately, from the reports/reviews/posts I’ve seen, most of the bugs people have encountered have been either fairly minor or easily circumvented. Still, most people seem to come across at least a couple notable issues while playing the game and that’s disappointing.
For the camera and UI, part of the issue was resources. In making an expansion for a game, your primary audience is people who played and enjoyed the first game. For this reason, combined with having a relatively small team, we didn’t make overhauling the camera and UI a huge priority. We did make some major improvements, I think - the two camera modes play much better than NWN2’s camera, the inventory interface gained a sort button and notification of newly acquired items, companion influence was clearly communicated, etc. But since we saw our primary audience as people who enjoyed NWN2, we didn’t see recreating major portions of the interface as a priority (as those who liked NWN2 were at least OK with the original interface).
With regard to the spirit meter, I think the situation is slightly more complicated. I’m not sure that the system itself was flawed, but rather our presentation of it. For example, some reviews have mentioned that the “evil” path is inferior to the “good” one. But there are actually some huge game play benefits you gain by succumbing to the spirit hunger. You gain new combat abilities as your craving increases and you also acquire unique essences that can be used to create artifacts or add very powerful enchantments to your existing items. So I think where we could have improved the spirit-eater implementation was to better train the player in how the system works and what the trade-offs were.
Now back to your original question: how do I feel about the criticism? Terrible. The team did a fantastic job creating Mask of the Betrayer and, because of a couple specific decisions, they aren’t receiving the praise they deserve for their incredible work over the past year.
GB: While Obsidian’s games are well-executed, gameplay issues seem to be one of the biggest concerns for critics - even going back to the Black Isle Studios days with titles like Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment. Do you feel this (the mechanical side of game design, so to speak) is something that needs more focus or additional player input in future games?
Kevin: That’s an interesting question. Actually, most of the Mask of the Betrayer team (myself included) didn’t work at Black Isle Studios. I think the problems mentioned are by no means systemic issues or Obsidian issues. The criticisms come down to a couple specific decisions and it’s as simple as that.
GB: Would you say that more time could be spent on polishing the gameplay without sacrificing any focus toward storytelling?
Kevin: For the most part, the two things (story quality and “mechanical” quality) aren’t exclusive and both can be done well. There’s one huge exception, though - bugs. Some aspects of good game storytelling - specifically things like branching storylines, character development paths, and outcomes - are very difficult to test thoroughly. That is, in general, a deeper, more reactive story means more bugs to find and fix and thus more bugs that will reach the players. With MotB we did make those sacrifices in some cases - choosing a less awesome story event that we felt would result in too many bugs to be a net gain. For example, we certainly could have implemented the Patron of the Arts quest I mentioned earlier - but if we had, it would have had bugs we wouldn’t have been able to fix and other bugs we did find and fixed would have slipped through.
Or we could have hired more testers, but then we would have had fewer people in other departments and other things wouldn’t have gotten done. Everything is a trade-off.
GB: What are your final thoughts now that the expansion pack has been released?
Kevin: I’m very proud of what we accomplished and think Mask of the Betrayer is the best game I’ve worked on yet.
But, as mentioned above, I’m unhappy with our review scores. It’s frustrating to see a number of reviews saying how MotB is a big improvement over NWN2 and then giving MotB a lower score. An 81% average isn’t bad, but I really thought we’d be closer to 90%. So I’m disappointed in myself for not getting the team the recognition and success they deserve.