lol ok that would only work if the whole game was just the trial runs DLC, maybe you should play it before judging the design.
BTW,
Dear Esther has the same environment artist, Robert Briscoe, from Mirror's Edge.
I've played it a couple of times (A couple of hours in total probably.).
But it wasn't a trashing attempt at Mirrors Edge -- it's more or less an opinon based on how I just can't figure out how video games are so extremely expensive. Yes, I understand people need to be paid, programs need to be licensed, but the insane amounts of money they claim they spend on games/need to make games just seems way too much.
I wouldn't be surprised if :
1. The ridiculous amounts of money "needed to make a game" is an elaborate ruse maintained by publishers/people who make money off games -- and like 50% of the money goes to a couple of executives of a game project who don't really do anything. I mean, who would know? The bill would state some sort of expenses necessary for the project or split across many people/shell companies for 'expenditures'', or whatever, while the people who work on the game wouldn't care as long as they are paid their normal expected salary.
2. Or if that's not the case, perhaps 50-80% goes to famous voice actors, or marketing -- but not the game itself.
3. People who are new to the industry who somehow made lots of money off a game (An indie developer for example.) and got into a position where he/she would be in control of a game project would quickly learn the "tricks" since the established publishers have been around for a very long time, or came from a similar industry with, most likely, similar tricks.
4. Or maybe the "big" companies are extremely inefficient -- ie, they have 150 people working and getting paid on a project, but due to the complex pipeline of game production & development, it gets bogged down so extremely much that if they somehow managed to produce the game efficiently, a game that's made in 2 years by 150 people should have easily been made in 2 months or less.