It absolutely worked. There is nothing wrong with storytelling being manipulative. Complaining about it is more an indictment of the complainer and not the media itself.

This is the worst possible way to do it. The entire point is to hate Abby the way Ellie does and THEN seeing the other side 

Less focus on large, individual projects, and more focus on maintaining a constant development cycle that includes small and medium sized games.

Then you missed my entire point in your simple minded quest to defend the guy.

Kind of a silly question. The right reason is to help people. The wrong reason is to profit.

I’m not the one that made the claim. You are. You’re claim was that a truly choice driven game, as I described it, was impossible and will always be impossible. You have completely failed to back up that claim. Embarrassingly so, I might add. Your entire argument rest on an assumption. A pretty naive one at that.…

The man pushes the limits of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. At a certain point, it becomes harder to reconcile.

That’s an awful example. NK doesn’t nuke us because of direct actions the US and other nations have taken. Had those actions not be taken, the chances would massively increase.

“However, we can use precedent to form accurate predictions on what will actually happen.”

Pedantic fits you like a second skin.

You’re still making an incredibly flawed claim. As I have explained multiple times. Being more and more pedantic doesn’t strengthen your counter claim at all. You still can not say, with certainty, that something can’t or won’t happen.

Yeah, that’s all just conjecture and predictions that you can’t possibly verify or prove. We know what we know and have now. We cannot just hand wave away possible changes in technology, development processes, market trends, etc.

You still can’t make that claim at all because that runs on the assumption that game development technology and practices are essentially 99.9% to where they will ever be. You’re still basing that on a limited and current understanding.

It is not an objective fact that it will never happen or that it can’t. That is a claim based on an assumption of cost. While that assumption may have merit, it is still an assumption. Especially so when making the claim that it will NEVER happen.

If its pointless, than pushing back against it is even more pointless.

No. You’re being pedantic by stretching the definition of choice driven to cover player agency. That’s just silly.

Now you're just being pedantic

Yeah, so, never said it doesn’t. Just that it isn’t likely to be choice driven.

No, the start of this conversation was how this game isn’t going to be choice based and someone else claimed it being Obsidian is an encouraging sign that it will be. I simply said I stand by my original claim.

You didn’t do anything in great detail. You just repeat the same argument multiple times when I’ve already addressed it. The game doesn’t need to be AAA. That was an assumption YOU made, not an argument I made.