quote:

---

Originally written by DreamGuy:
And I stand behind my statement that Kelandon's choices on how he developed his scenario were pretentious, ego-driven, and not all that good. This is further shown by the way he responded to criticisms. (Things like refusing to add an option to turn off the cutscenes because he considers them the best part and so forth.)

---

quote:

---

Firstly, despite my characters' importance to the story, and the other characters' preoccupation with them, I didn't feel like they were the center of the world. TM made Canopy seem, to me, like a living, breathing reality, with a dynamic existence beyond that of the party, and he did so by limiting me, not empowering me. My characters couldn't go everywhere or do everything, and their actions weren't the be-all and end-all of causality in the game world. These touches made Canopy more real for me than any amount of choices ever could have made Geneforge-land.

---

quote:

---

Although the end of Canopy was more passive than the first, say, three quarters, this did not bother me because the events in the cutscenes were both a culmination of the drama that the narrative had built up to that point, and evidence that a lot was going on around the party; again, the world of Canopy existed outside of the challenges that my party faced and the actions they took.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dahak:

Is the end or the way to the end more important?

---

quote:

---

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop ANY solid atmosphere in a strictly nonlinear work"

---

quote:

---

"Why should the party be so influental?"

---

quote:

---

"If so, I challenge you on A: how could Bahs have been made non-linear without destroying the story?"

---