Put the game in gamers' hands and let them figure out what happens next. Give them tools, not 'series.' Give them mysteries, not 'canon.' Give inspiration. Help gamers create.
The idea certainly has a certain attractiveness.
However, as we all know it's not going to happen; that there will
be a "canon" timeline ... I'd certainly prefer that timeline to be the best it can be straight out of the box.
Bearing in mind that tastes of course will differ — some are okay with the current timeline or
a modified one, some would prefer amendments for plausibility, some would like to see zombies in it, and some even feel the current one is preferable to any conceivable alternative. And among those who would prefer to see the timeline re-written for plausibility, there will of course be differences in preferences. What would constitute an optimal timeline for one will not necessarily be the same same for another.
So, bearing that in mind ... what would
constitute a timeline that would "be the best that it can be"?
IMHO, the best answer would be the one that is the least divisive
. And right now, the Alpha draft seems to fall somewhat short of that mark.
But having actively participated in and attentively watched this process since the Alpha was released (and
for months previous), I am no longer convinced that any of this really matters.
From comments posted here by Ligan, I get the impression that while there was
what was called an Alpha release, and while backers were
invited to comment and submit feedback, there appears to be certain parts of the books to which such feedback seems somewhat less welcome than to others. At least on the threads I've perused, the number of "good point, we'll have to fix that!" or even "we already knew that and might consider it" responses seem rather fewer than the "that's not likely to be changed" or downright "we don't consider that a relevant feature" responses, as well as some more overtly defensive comments.
And considering that the positive responses have pretty exclusively concerned mechanics, I am beginning to conclude that actual feedback on the timeline is really not solicited.
This may be because that part hasn't been written in-house, but commissioned from an external author. Meaning, it's most likely already been contractually delivered and paid for. To make extensive changes in it now
— never mind a full re-write! — would therefore probably incur substantial additional production cost, likely throwing Ligan's budget calculations for the project severely off-kilter.
I am right, this will mean that it won't — can't
— matter what feedback we submit on the timeline.
Literally whatever we could possibly say
about it — perhaps
short of pointing out that some part breaks the law or would get Ligan into deep waters with Twitter storms, as has happened with certain other companies — the timeline will not
And for my own part, I find that perspective rather disheartening.