Watch the Footage archive

What I want to know is, did you guys really intend us to split up when it seemed that it was the occasion to do so?
How did you react when we fought, bent, but didn't break after all?

If so, how much of a deviation from your plans did that cause?

We expected a larger base where fewer players were on a first name basis. This expectation needed to change when the player base ended up forming a Tram. In response, we shifted our goal from "two teams working at odds, racing against each other" to a model where it was more like "one team with difficult moral questions to answer through consensus". In the end, you found what I thought were good answers, in a world where we made a perfect answer impossible. I was impressed with your constant desire to work through consensus.

Cthulhu was added in part to pull you together at the end, since we felt if you'd stuck together all that long, you deserved a totally united finale.

Also, Cthulhu was a huge amount of fun.

It caused Cthulhu.

We intended for some of you to side more with the Cabal than with Mr. A, and for some of you to side with Mr. A more than the Cabal. What we did not intend was how these viewpoints were sometimes taken personally, as if you were against the other Metaguards. We intended for two different sides to race toward a goal, neither able to impair the other therefore not viewing them as the enemy but as a motivational force.

So we added something designed to bring everyone working on one side.

Tom wrote:Also, Cthulhu was a huge amount of fun.

I'm pretty sure this is the only place where that sentence has, or ever will, be used.

[/off-topic]