92 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Sejborg wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


I would say the goal is to get the best product at the best cost. Not the best product at any cost. That's self defeating.
If having fully voiced PCs mean going from a 60 hour to a 30 game. That's quite a step back.

And what is the best product at the best cost? DA:O was so good it resulted in a record amount of preorders for DA2. Or do you think DA2 looked so good by it self that people just had to preorder it?

DA2 came of as incredible cheap. Reused maps and what not. It sold great for what it was. Will DA3 also sell great for another piece of left handed work? Is the reasoning: It's not a great game and it didn't sell much. But we invested so little ressources in it that we still made a profit. Because sure, that's a succes.

If you constantly look for ways to cut corners and even cut things out of your game because things need to cost as little as possible, then you will keep ending up with a halfassed product, and you will never be able to push the bounderies and amaze anyone else but the biggest fangirls. Why strive for lackluster instead of perfection? Because lackluster is both achievable and cheap?

Depends on your time and your budget.

Yes DA2 did come off as incredibly cheap. But that was like I said , down to project focus. Too much time spent prettying up some aspects of the game making others suffer. Uniformity across the board is much less noticable even if there are less high points.

I think there is a difference between lack lustre and realistic given your time/cost budget. Trying to do too much can be as bad as trying to do too little when you run out of time and end up having to rush.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

I like the idea of having a PC and 3 party members. It worked amazingly well in Dragon Quest VIII and allowed for a ton of different party builds (based upon weapon types, and other specializations that were invested in). However, despite how close it could bring the player to their companions, I can see how it limits the choices that Bioware fans expect. So, as much as I like the concept...it sadly won't come into fruition. Even though I typically only play with three other party members...(DA:O it was Wynne, Leliana and Alistair, DA2 it was Merril, Varric and Sebastian).

[AkiKishi]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I like the idea of having a PC and 3 party members. It worked amazingly well in Dragon Quest VIII and allowed for a ton of different party builds (based upon weapon types, and other specializations that were invested in). However, despite how close it could bring the player to their companions, I can see how it limits the choices that Bioware fans expect. So, as much as I like the concept...it sadly won't come into fruition. Even though I typically only play with three other party members...(DA:O it was Wynne, Leliana and Alistair, DA2 it was Merril, Varric and Sebastian).

I think it's down to whatever story they write. As long as they can sell it through the story I'm ok with it. But only on the condition that you do get more interaction and customisation , not like ME3, which reduced the squad size then gave most of the lines to Liara.
If we end up with three characters and the same interaction/customisation I won't be a happy bunny.

Taking a look at the core mechanics and giving the characters similiar versitily to DQVIII would not be a bad idea either.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 avril 2012 - 05:18 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I like the idea of having a PC and 3 party members. It worked amazingly well in Dragon Quest VIII and allowed for a ton of different party builds (based upon weapon types, and other specializations that were invested in). However, despite how close it could bring the player to their companions, I can see how it limits the choices that Bioware fans expect. So, as much as I like the concept...it sadly won't come into fruition. Even though I typically only play with three other party members...(DA:O it was Wynne, Leliana and Alistair, DA2 it was Merril, Varric and Sebastian).

I think it's down to whatever story they write. As long as they can sell it through the story I'm ok with it. But only on the condition that you do get more interaction and customisation , not like ME3, which reduced the squad size then gave most of the lines to Liara.
If we end up with three characters and the same interaction/customisation I won't be a happy bunny.

Taking a look at the core mechanics and giving the characters similiar versitily to DQVIII would not be a bad idea either.

I'm concern that we don't get more interaction and customisation out of it. I'm concern the same arguments like "DA2 had the same amount of dialogues as DAO,"  will be used again to justify it. Because that's not we expect here.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I like the idea of having a PC and 3 party members. It worked amazingly well in Dragon Quest VIII and allowed for a ton of different party builds (based upon weapon types, and other specializations that were invested in). However, despite how close it could bring the player to their companions, I can see how it limits the choices that Bioware fans expect. So, as much as I like the concept...it sadly won't come into fruition. Even though I typically only play with three other party members...(DA:O it was Wynne, Leliana and Alistair, DA2 it was Merril, Varric and Sebastian).

I think it's down to whatever story they write. As long as they can sell it through the story I'm ok with it. But only on the condition that you do get more interaction and customisation , not like ME3, which reduced the squad size then gave most of the lines to Liara.
If we end up with three characters and the same interaction/customisation I won't be a happy bunny.

Taking a look at the core mechanics and giving the characters similiar versitily to DQVIII would not be a bad idea either.

I'm concern that we don't get more interaction and customisation out of it. I'm concern the same arguments like "DA2 had the same amount of dialogues as DAO,"  will be used again to justify it. Because that's not we expect here.

Could you please elaborate some more on what you're getting at? I'm kind of lost, but want to know what you're trying to say.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I like the idea of having a PC and 3 party members. It worked amazingly well in Dragon Quest VIII and allowed for a ton of different party builds (based upon weapon types, and other specializations that were invested in). However, despite how close it could bring the player to their companions, I can see how it limits the choices that Bioware fans expect. So, as much as I like the concept...it sadly won't come into fruition. Even though I typically only play with three other party members...(DA:O it was Wynne, Leliana and Alistair, DA2 it was Merril, Varric and Sebastian).

I think it's down to whatever story they write. As long as they can sell it through the story I'm ok with it. But only on the condition that you do get more interaction and customisation , not like ME3, which reduced the squad size then gave most of the lines to Liara.
If we end up with three characters and the same interaction/customisation I won't be a happy bunny.

Taking a look at the core mechanics and giving the characters similiar versitily to DQVIII would not be a bad idea either.

I'm concern that we don't get more interaction and customisation out of it. I'm concern the same arguments like "DA2 had the same amount of dialogues as DAO,"  will be used again to justify it. Because that's not we expect here.

Could you please elaborate some more on what you're getting at? I'm kind of lost, but want to know what you're trying to say.

More than a year ago, during the development of DA 2 we were promised to have more dialogue options through dialogue wheel since dialogue wheel can accomodote more spaces compare to text list. It did have the space and easier to navigate. But did we get more dialogue options? DA 2's fans insist that we had the same amount of dialogue choices as DAO, if not more. I don't see it happens There're only 3 choices, one occasionally investigate option and a star icon or heart icon . That's all I can see. Then they argue DAO also had 3 options bla bla. 

We were promised to be able to interact more with the companions because the dialogue will be systematically  distribute throughout the game either through main dialogue or companions personal quest or party banter. It did  systematically distributed throughout the game. But did we get more interaction with the companions? When we complaint about the lack of interaction with the companions, DA 2 fans insist we had the same amount of dialogue line as DAO bla bla.


I don't know how to use search function on this forum to find a year and 6 months old post therefore I can't provide you with source. I wish I could.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 avril 2012 - 06:01 .

[VampOrchid]

I like the entire PC + 3...It's better then just my pc alone....in the dark..

[nightscrawl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

More than a year ago, during the development of DA 2 we were promised to have more dialogue options through dialogue wheel since dialogue wheel can accomodote more spaces compare to text list. It did have the space and easier to navigate. But did we get more dialogue options? DA 2's fans insist that we had the same amount of dialogue choices as DAO, if not more. I don't see it happens There're only 3 choices, one occasionally investigate option and a star icon or heart icon . That's all I can see. Then they argue DAO also had 3 options bla bla. 

We were promised to be able to interact more with the companions because the dialogue will be systematically  distribute throughout the game either through main dialogue or companions personal quest or party banter. It did  systematically distributed throughout the game. But did we get more interaction with the companions? When we complaint about the lack of interaction with the companions, DA 2 fans insist we had the same amount of dialogue line as DAO bla bla.


I don't know how to use search function on this forum to find a year and 6 months old post therefore I can't provide you with source. I wish I could.

It's actually easier to just use Google and define the search to the BSN. This can also help you find your own ancient posts by searching for your username. I use this on forums frequently because built-in form searches tend to suck.

In the Google search field just type: <search terms> site:social.bioware.com


So, you keep saying "the fans" said this or that, or insist this or that like we are deluding ourselves based on our biased opinion of the game. The devs are the ones who have made such statements.

The most recent being one I can point to from PAX East...

Q: I was more curious about character interaction. It was way awesome in Origins, but so-so in Dragon Age II.

A David: The actual volume was the same, but how we divvied it up was quite different. A lot more interaction in DA2 was in the follower plots, the followers had like three big plots each in DA2. Meh... because you had the time jumps right? While DAO they had like one small quest, so more of the interaction was just talking to them at camp, that sort of thing. I think looking at the reactions to the two games, I think a lot, some players, felt they that didn't have agency over their interactions with the followers; because there was less of them and because we had this feature that "told you" when they had new dialogue. People felt like they weren't responsible for initiating that dialogue. So, OK, cool. Hearing that, it's like "OK, agency is important." So I think what we'd like to do is bring some of that interaction back into just talking to them at the camp, giving your follower a kiss if you want, and asking them questions; but also still having as much of the character arc growth for each follower that we got, that we did get in DA2. I think that there is actually a middle ground. And I just want to give the players a little bit more of a feeling that they are the ones in charge of their relationship.

If you think about the structure of DAO dialogue, it's actually pretty similar to NWN dialogue. There is a list of choices, some of which result in an action by the PC (accepting a quest, forcing an end to the conversation, and so forth), whereas others are interrogative statements that continue the flow of the conversation and can change based on previous statements the NPC has made. Many times in those games, you can just go down the list picking every line, and then end the conversation with the appropriate choice.

In DAO, this pattern isn't consistent in several of the more meaningful follower dialogues because of approval changes resulting from options, but some conversations can feature "stacking" approval ratings after picking two or more choices during the conversation the follower approves of. DA2 features similar "stacking" by using the (?) icons to separate out the questions from the choices, BUT some questions can affect the choices you have and you will see them change on the right as the conversation moves on. The best example of this is the first mansion convesation you can have with Fenris, where in order to get the maximum amount of points you must ask him certain questions.

If you take the (?) icons into account -- which is present in almost every conversation you can have in DA2, even if there is just a single question listed -- it does actually appear that the volume is the same or close, but you don't see it all in front of your face as you did with a long list in NWN or DAO because you have to hit the (?) icon first. So at first glance, you see the three responses with the blue/purple/red choices and the volume seems much less.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 28 avril 2012 - 10:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

nightscrawl wrote...

It's actually easier to just use Google and define the search to the BSN. This can also help you find your own ancient posts by searching for your username. I use this on forums frequently because built-in form searches tend to suck.

I lurked a lot during DA 2 development. Therefore it's pointless to use my usename. 

nightscrawl wrote...

In the Google search field just type: <search terms> site:social.bioware.com

It didn't filter the date. I've search over 40 pages using different search terms. And I'm still searching.
 

nightscrawl wrote...


So, you keep saying "the fans" said this or that, or insist this or that like we are deluding ourselves based on our biased opinion of the game.

And I stil maintain that DA2 fans said that. I don't want to repost without poster's permission. You'll have to look back old threads 2 to 3 months after DA 2 release.

nightscrawl wrote...



The devs are the ones who have made such statements.

The devs didn't made much comments after DA2 was released. It was heated argument between pro DAO camp vs pro DA2 camp.  So yes. It was one of favorite argument commonly used by pro-DA2 camp. 

nightscrawl wrote...

The most recent being one I can point to from PAX East...

Q: I was more curious about character interaction. It was way awesome in Origins, but so-so in Dragon Age II.

A David: The actual volume was the same, but how we divvied it up was quite different. A lot more interaction in DA2 was in the follower plots, the followers had like three big plots each in DA2. Meh... because you had the time jumps right? While DAO they had like one small quest, so more of the interaction was just talking to them at camp, that sort of thing. I think looking at the reactions to the two games, I think a lot, some players, felt they that didn't have agency over their interactions with the followers; because there was less of them and because we had this feature that "told you" when they had new dialogue. People felt like they weren't responsible for initiating that dialogue. So, OK, cool. Hearing that, it's like "OK, agency is important." So I think what we'd like to do is bring some of that interaction back into just talking to them at the camp, giving your follower a kiss if you want, and asking them questions; but also still having as much of the character arc growth for each follower that we got, that we did get in DA2. I think that there is actually a middle ground. And I just want to give the players a little bit more of a feeling that they are the ones in charge of their relationship.

Thank you. I didn't aware of it.

nightscrawl wrote...


If you think about the structure of DAO dialogue, it's actually pretty similar to NWN dialogue. There is a list of choices, some of which result in an action by the PC (accepting a quest, forcing an end to the conversation, and so forth), whereas others are interrogative statements that continue the flow of the conversation and can change based on previous statements the NPC has made. Many times in those games, you can just go down the list picking every line, and then end the conversation with the appropriate choice.

In DAO, this pattern isn't consistent in several of the more meaningful follower dialogues because of approval changes resulting from options, but some conversations can feature "stacking" approval ratings after picking two or more choices during the conversation the follower approves of. DA2 features similar "stacking" by using the (?) icons to separate out the questions from the choices, BUT some questions can affect the choices you have and you will see them change on the right as the conversation moves on. The best example of this is the first mansion convesation you can have with Fenris, where in order to get the maximum amount of points you must ask him certain questions.

If you take the (?) icons into account -- which is present in almost every conversation you can have in DA2, even if there is just a single question listed -- it does actually appear that the volume is the same or close, but you don't see it all in front of your face as you did with a long list in NWN or DAO because you have to hit the (?) icon first. So at first glance, you see the three responses with the blue/purple/red choices and the volume seems much less.

1. If you still have your DAO, played as Cousland. You will get 5 different dialogue lines at once at the beginning of the game starting with the conversation with Bryce Cousland and Rendon Howe. Let's assume that you use the same 3 dominant personalities like in DA 2 with  subtle,sarcastic and aggressive tones. Therefore  3 tones x 5 dialogue lines = 15 dialogue choices. All available right in front of you. instead of:

Line I ( subtle )
Line 2 ( sarcastic)
Line 3 ( Aggressive )

2. Morrigan's dialogue. She disapprove a lot. I can reroll/repeat the dialogue or I can talk to her later and try again different lines. If I fail I can always bribe her with gift. Therefore I have more conversation lines and opportunity. In DA 2, the dialogue move forward. You can't repeat choosing heart icon or heart break icons. If you made a mistake ( due to misinterpreting paraphrase ) you can't bribe the companions to max your friendship/rivalry. Therefore if your dialogue choice always end up approve and disapprove, you will never max your friendship/rival. Does that make sense to you? That you have to either agree all the way or disagree all the way in order to max friendship/rivalry? How to have dynamic conversation with this setting? You tell me. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 28 avril 2012 - 02:51 .

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

2. Morrigan's dialogue. She disapprove a lot. I can reroll/repeat the dialogue or I can talk to her later and try again different lines. If I fail I can always bribe her with gift. Therefore I have more conversation lines and opportunity. In DA 2, the dialogue move forward. You can't repeat choosing heart icon or heart break icons. If you made a mistake ( due to misinterpreting paraphrase ) you can't bribe the companions to max your friendship/rivalry. Therefore if your dialogue choice always end up approve and disapprove, you will never max your friendship/rival. Does that make sense to you? That you have to either agree all the way or disagree all the way in order to max friendship/rivalry? How to have dynamic conversation with this setting? You tell me. 

Okay, bribing friendship with gifts was something I hated in DA:O. It made it too easy to get to a high approval rating and I felt stupid for ever having done it. I did like the fact that you could have more than one option at starting up a romance however, and thought that DA:O was superior there. Just don't bring back the bribing of friendship with gifts, that was really, really stupid (IMO).

[nightscrawl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

2. Morrigan's dialogue. She disapprove a lot. I can reroll/repeat the dialogue or I can talk to her later and try again different lines. If I fail I can always bribe her with gift. Therefore I have more conversation lines and opportunity. In DA 2, the dialogue move forward. You can't repeat choosing heart icon or heart break icons. If you made a mistake ( due to misinterpreting paraphrase ) you can't bribe the companions to max your friendship/rivalry. Therefore if your dialogue choice always end up approve and disapprove, you will never max your friendship/rival. Does that make sense to you? That you have to either agree all the way or disagree all the way in order to max friendship/rivalry? How to have dynamic conversation with this setting? You tell me.

Your example using the Cousland origin seems more like the argument against the voiced PC: if you have 5 lines listed and a silent PC, well you can choose to read them in your head however you wish, and sticking with the 3 tones from DA2 would lead you with 15 different lines should you choose to read them that way in your head. That's not how it works though. You didn't mention RP in your original post, you mentioned actual, factual, volume. Something that can be counted on the screen. You have a conversation with an NPC in DAO and a number of lines are presented. You have a conversation in DA2 and a number of lines are presented with icons. My argument is that in DA2 some of those lines are hidden behind an extra button, disguising their volume.

On the face of it, it might seem bad, hiding them behind the extra button, and it might seem more logical to have displayed them in a long list rather than a wheel. However, when you consider that some conversations can have up to six interrogative options in addition to the three tonal choices, and occasionally an additional heart or star icon, that list can quickly grow into a list of 10 different things, which might be an overwhelming screen presence.

That's not to say that DA2 dialogue doesn't have problems, it does.

As I see it, the problem with the system in DA2 as it relates to companions is that they made certain significant events dependent on F/R status, similar to DAO approval rating. However, unlike DAO where you can rig it with gifts, you are forced to be more careful about these choices or else you are liable to put yourself in a position of remaining at a constant level with a follower and never triggering their events. This was a bad way of doing it. It forces the player to be unnatural with their companions by either picking choices that don't fit their character, OR meta gaming by switching out companions solely for dialogue purposes.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 avril 2012 - 07:06 .

[Nadia]

Atakuma wrote...

What hoorayforicecream said is exactly the reason a game like TW2 costs significantly less to make than a game like ME3 while being technologically superior and having pretty much the same amount of voice acting. It's simply because the cost of living in Poland, where TW2 was made, is significantly less than it is in Canada, where ME3 was made.

Are you from Poland? Because living here maybe is cheaper to someone who comes here for vacation from a country like Canada. For native people it is extremely expensive - because they earn far too less money for the same work people do in f.ex. Canada, that's why so many people from my country must search for work abroad. However I don't know how much money guys from CD Project Red make, it's probably o lot now, so maybe in this specific case you are right.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

nightscrawl wrote...
Your example using the Cousland origin seems more like the argument against the voiced PC: if you have 5 lines listed and a silent PC, well you can choose to read them in your head however you wish, and sticking with the 3 tones from DA2 would lead you with 15 different lines should you choose to read them that way in your head. That's not how it works though. You didn't mention RP in your original post, you mentioned actual, factual, volume. Something that can be counted on the screen. You have a conversation with an NPC in DAO and a number of lines are presented. You have a conversation in DA2 and a number of lines are presented with icons.

Then ignore the tones or RP. Just focus on actual,factual volume. Those 5 dialogue lines at the start of DAO, do not contain any question marks. They're not investigate option. They're spoken line that reflect infinite type of characters. They are all tonal choices.   

nightscrawl wrote...

My argument is that in DA2 some of those lines are hidden behind an extra button, disguising their volume.
On the face of it, it might seem bad, hiding them behind the extra button, and it might seem more logical to have displayed them in a long list rather than a wheel. However, when you consider that some conversations can have up to six interrogative options in addition to the three tonal choices, and occasionally an additional heart or star icon, that list can quickly grow into a list of 10 different things, which might be an overwhelming screen presence.

Dialogue wheel can have up to 5 choice options and 5 investigate options per dialog node, accroding to BioWare's Craig Graff.
http://social.biowar...ex/3209421&lf=8
 
I was expecting overwhelming screen presence. I enjoy overwhelming choices. I was expecting 10 choices all there in front me at once. It makes it easier for me to RP. That's why I support dialogue wheel in the first place.  But it never happens. All I get was 3 tonal choices, occassional one question mark icon, sometime heart and heartbreak icon and rarely a star icon. That's all. I check for wiki and found some other unique icons like LIES icon. But what good are those special icons if they never appear on my sceens as choices?

nightscrawl wrote...

That's not to say that DA2 dialogue doesn't have problems, it does.

As I see it, the problem with the system in DA2 as it relates to companions is that they made certain significant events dependent on F/R status, similar to DAO approval rating. However, unlike DAO where you can rig it with gifts, you are forced to be more careful about these choices or else you are liable to put yourself in a position of remaining at a constant level with a follower and never triggering their events. This was a bad way of doing it. It forces the player to be unnatural with their companions by either picking choices that don't fit their character, OR meta gaming by switching out companions solely for dialogue purposes.

Then I'm glad you agree It's BAD. 
It's limit my RP. I have a lot of disgreement with Anders, Fenris and Merril. But that doesn't meant I disagree with everything they said. I need time to think about them. But the game doesn't allow me to get back to them. The game just move forward without ever ever trigger their events.  The game doesn't allow me to make thing up with all the disagreement I had with them. I don't want to play unnatural character who agree or disagree on everything. I have enough unnatural character with blue, purple and red Hawke already.

So is it my fault that I just give up and stop bothering myself  with the companions? 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 29 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[nightscrawl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

But the game doesn't allow me to get back to them.

True. One nice thing about the DAO dialogue was that if say, I didn't really feel like talking to Alistair about the Grey Wardens, but I only wanted to ask him about Arl Eamon or something, I had the freedom to do that because the Grey Warden option would still be there the next time. In DA2, if you skipped a flirt option, failed to ask Merrill about the mirror's history, didn't ask Fenris about Danarius, and so on, that option was gone forever.

There were limitations with that too though, and I think DA2 was sort of an improvement in spreading out your follower relationships throughout the game. In DAO, you could get to a point where you had asked Alistair (or whoever else) all of the available questions and there simply would be no new options when you talked to him, just the "nevermind" type line to end it (in addition to the "discuss something private" options for romanced people.) In DA2, even though interaction outside of the specific quests was limited, it was nice that it was spread throughout so that there was something to look forward to in each act, no matter which companion you preferred.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[Pasquale1234]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...
Okay, bribing friendship with gifts was something I hated in DA:O. It made it too easy to get to a high approval rating and I felt stupid for ever having done it. I did like the fact that you could have more than one option at starting up a romance however, and thought that DA:O was superior there. Just don't bring back the bribing of friendship with gifts, that was really, really stupid (IMO).

While I appreciate your point, it is also true that giving gifts to your followers was optional and easily avoidable.

I found it much easier for the Warden to make in-character choices with no concern for their impact on follower approval, because the Warden could always make it up to them later with gifts.

DA2 introduced the friendship/rivalry system instead, and I think part of the reason why it was so broadly misunderstood is because friendship and rivalry were represented on opposite ends of the same continuum (scale).  This means that gaining friendship is essentially the same thing as losing rivalry, and vice-versa.  As a result, I found myself doing a lot more metagaming in DA2, deciding early whether I was going to go for friendship or rivalry with each companion, and then choosing which followers to take on any given quest according to the net friendship or rivalry points I would gain from my intended decision.  Otherwise, I would often end up in neutrality with several of the companions, and I don't think that is a terribly effective reflection of a relationship that has spanned 7 years.

[Kidd]

Some very informative posts in here, John. Thank you =)

syllogi wrote...

Ha, I'm 5'2, and I've always wanted to be tall.  But I often imagine my female player characters to be shorties too.  Not that I roleplay them as delicate, just that if I have to suffer with asking for help with high shelves, they do too.  

*6'1 amazon helps syllogi with evil high shelves* =)

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can't say for sure but the actors union would have something to say about digitally altering the voice, so I doubt that would be a cost free option.

I dunno, it's been done before. Last game I played with voice filters was Soul Calibur 5, where when you create your own character, you can change two kinds of pitch-like variables to form the voice you want. Tends to sound pretty good too if you don't venture too far down the sides of either of the two sliders. And it's not like SC5 doesn't use union actors considering Jennifer Hale is in it.

[MDarwin]

The "limited Resources" matter would need to be disgust/solved and layed out first.