Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The text at least gives me some leeway to pretend that the Companions aren't gibbering one-dimensional tripe.
IMO, lack of funds is not a valid defense if no attempt was made to get the funds. They should have added a stretch goal for it. If instead of the goblin companion stretch goal that they failed to get, they would have added full VA as a stretch goal, I bet they would have gotten it.
I understand the point but it is a bit harsh :-) There will never be money for every single thing in a game and taking one element out of a large context stating that it HAD to be done is hardly fair. Ressource allocation is always a ♥♥♥♥♥ and I imagine that the folks behind the game have a long list of things they would have loved to include if they'd had unlimited time and money.
Oh, I still enjoy the game without it. The lack of VA doesn't break the game. However, it would have been a better game if they had given it a try. IMO, they could have separated into multiple stretch goals by percentage of VA. I bet that they could have gotten enough to fund 75% VA.
I liked Vordakai, its crow and Tartuccio, for instance