Your questions for Content Designer Charles Gray's Priority One Interview
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
04-12-2012, 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by
We will be happy to! Just so you know it will be rephrased. It is rather loaded as written and our goal is not to pick a fight but to get answers. Our rephrasing will be more to the point, like this;
"Can you help us understand why Cryptic requires a development cycle many times longer than foundry authors experience?"
Will that suffice?
Unfortunately not. I understand the need to be tactful, but unless the question is loaded and direct, it is too easy to dodge or invent a half answer.
Fact: A single Foundry author can turn out content in quantity and quality in less time than it takes multiple professional developers working full time and on sallary to produce. Foundry authors only have spare time to do ths, and they don't get paid. Something doesn't add up here. I feel that the question needs to be asked exactly as written. It's a heavy question, to be sure. But it is not a disrespectful question. It is an HONEST one which deserves an honest answer. Everyone in this community who had to endure the content drought and who has been disappointed by the indications that there will be significantly less content developed (2, maybe 3 FE series instead of the 9 or 10 we were told was the goal, and the indication that the KDF's PvE development is still to take a back seat to everytyhing else) deserve an honest answer to that honest question. We must also remember that we were assured that Foundry would not replace the development of content by Cryptic. In fact, we were told that Cryptic intended to increase content development.
So yes. I feel that the question should be asked as written. It's the right thing to do. When you ask it, just keep your tone respectful.
Of course, it's your interview. You must ask the questions as you see fit. But i would be disappointed if we get a round about answer that doesn't really reach the heart of the matter because the question was not direct and pointed enough and thus gave too much wiggle room.