I think their way of handling it is utterly silly, but in the end, they design the game, and then bring it to market. As a work of art, the producers of it will have their preferences on what they put in it and how to present it. They are perfectly entitled to do that, and of course people are perfectly free to reject the product. I don't quite see there being huge demand for Hrothgar in the way they've been added, and monitoring the active figures a few months in will probably be highly revealing.
When the game's story becomes self-aware:
This is not how designing an AAA game usually works. Choices like this are not driven by artists, but by suits.I think their way of handling it is utterly silly, but in the end, they design the game, and then bring it to market. As a work of art, the producers of it will have their preferences on what they put in it and how to present it. They are perfectly entitled to do that, and of course people are perfectly free to reject the product. I don't quite see there being huge demand for Hrothgar in the way they've been added, and monitoring the active figures a few months in will probably be highly revealing.
But either way, no matter how you justify the decision, the way they handled revealing the information was definitely poor.
It doesn't change my answer, who specifically makes the decision. The company as a whole is the outfit putting together and tendering the product and I maintain that they remain free to do so on terms they are willing to do so. However, the comment I quoted was about a developer's own preferences factoring in, in any case.
When the game's story becomes self-aware:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |