Uhh.. today's AAA studios have THOUSANDS of employees, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets, and huge IPs on which to draw. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, Diablo, Warcraft, Mass Effect, Dragon Age... these studios have VASTLY larger resources than Larian. Like, an order of magnitude larger. This is gaslighting and whining. I'm not having it. Do better, AAA devs. Do a lot better.
I have no problem if games reached this via a similar model that Larian used here (lots of experienced staff, pre-built systems, 6 years of development, 3 years of expertly done early-access with a highly engaged player base) but they're not going to. They're going to implement more crunch, more abuse, more destruction of the few people who want to work in games in order to get there. And that's where I have the issue.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less. Because that's what's needed to make truly great games. People who are passionate, not burning themselves out just to barely make deadlines, make great games.
Why are they getting so much attention for it?
Nintendo does the same with BoTW and ToTK. Long dev cycles that releases a functional game without micro-transactions.
FromSoft does the same with most of their games. Where people actually beg them to release DLCs.
But no... it's Larion they seem to go after.
Nintendo is huge. FromSoft has their own cult. But Larion? What's can they blame there? Nothing. Most big studios that bitch about this is larger than Larion. Maybe because they are more scared that if Larion can do it. There's no excuse anymore.
AAA companies: Makes bad game and releases apology promising to make good games now
Also AAA companies: We are not capable of making good games, stop expecting to much.
Remember fellow gamers, you hold the power of the purse, you get the final vote with your wallet.
If some studio head or developer manager tries to tell you that you have to accept micro transactions and such, just say no thank you, and move on.
There are plenty of other games from other good studios out there for you to give your hard-earned money to.
Here’s my thing: I don’t necessarily care what sort of game you make, I just want it to be feature-complete and technically solid (I.e. mostly bug-free). Whether that’s a small indie game or a massive AAA game, those two things should be true.
I think what most people find frustrating is that the in-game store is the most well developed part of most AAA releases nowadays, which often ship riddled with bugs.
Meanwhile:
Jan 2022: "Heres xenoblade 3, an absolutely gigantic single player game, no microtransactions, pushes the console to it's absolute limit, Monolithsoft at the top of their fucking game. Announced today, out in september."
April 2022: "Lol, it's now out in july. Enjoy.".
Baldurs gate is fucking sweet, but let's not act like it's a unique occurance in AAA gaming.
Cry some more, corpos.
I think that one (HUGE) part of BG3's success is that it was in Early Access for, what, 2-3 years? During which it grew a dedicated modding scene, received a metric fuck-ton of feedback, and regularly dropped large content patches. This wasn't an average dev cycle, and I think it shows. In some ways, the Dev. Feedback and interactivity reminded me a lot of the way Warframe does dev interactions.
It is exactly what I except going forward because, as that moron mentioned this is a fucking AAA game, not a Indy game.
AAA games developers absolutely have those resources and even more, so yes, they should have all of that.
Maybe we need to update the nomenclature. Software with loot boxes, pay to win mechanics, predatory gameplay loops, and storefront-first design should now be called “casinos”. They should have disclaimers about gambling and addiction in their load screen, have age restrictions, and should be forced to institute limits on what can be spent in a certain time frame. Feature-complete software with zero storefronts of any kind would be allowed to brand themselves as “games”.
Who are these people? Seems like some randos if you ask me.
People have been saying this game is exciting because of the lack of mtx, but it seems to me that any big rpg gets a lot of attention. Eldan Ring got similar praise last year. Bioware was making these kinds of games fairly consistently about a decade ago and then stopped to make shit like Anthem. It's a design decision not a budget problem.
I have a large backlog of games to play before I even think about buying anything new, but is this even a good game? Serious question because I know there has been a huge amount of press on it, but haven't watched any reviews yet (on purpose because I hate spoilers and don't want to be tempted with a new purchase yet).
this "dev" are really dumb.
you mean they got the D&D license for free?
He should've stayed on VACATION, imho
If devs actually think all 800k active players + the ones who pirated it all play DND, then they have another guess coming. Most of them probably have never touched a Handbook
And they're staring to have Battle Passes have multiple tiers of cost such as in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and NBA 2K24. What's next? Multiple battle passes at once like in the free to play Monster Legends? In $69.99 priced games? Where the battle passes cost at least $19.99 per month?
"what funding?" Bro you're kidding right?
They made a D&D video game. The most popular and successful board game ever made. They had BUCKETS of funding from wizards of the Coast for this. They also had a massive studio with more than 400 people working on it.
James Stephanie Sterling did a fantastic video about Baldur's Gate 3. Essentially, everything came together in just the right way for this game to be made. It's not responsible to call this the new standard in the same world where we vilify overwork and 'crunch-time', but that's not to say you shouldn't expect more from game developers. You absolutely should. But you should do so reasonably.
I find it sad that if you make a decent game now you are praised. It's not that good. That's just how low the bar is now.
