My take is that if a dev wants to change engines they should just continue from where they left off (part 1 - part 2). Despite the illusion of choice and all the variables, most games end up with only a few paths(maybe 3 in average). So a quick recap where the player defines his path can be used as a quick solution. And I write this last bit cause some devs do complicate themselves with recaps containing every effing choice instead of just a "who the f you are pursuing" or something like that..My complaint there was no legitimate reason to change game engines. No reason to remake game. I find the reason game developers do this is to buy more time to get more money off the game as they have to start over from scratch and redo all the work they did before. To me when no legitimate reason it's too leech more money off the supporters.
STAT Bar is completely missing.
1. Remake Game (repeat work so don't have to progress story and leech more money)
2. Change Game Engine (unless legit reason like the engine can't support game details than it's to leech more money)
Problems with this are several cons below.
1. Supporters get screwed and have to wait for longer to finish game and often have to replay from beginning
2. Game is super buggy as developer is new with engine so it has lots of problems: crashing; laggy; and game bugs
3. Many times supporters stop supporting the game and leave after this stunt
So why do game developers think the cons outweigh the pros most of the time?