They are scared. They could do the same quality as Larian but they don't want to. This is great for gamers, bad for devs who just want to push out substandard gamesYes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cycles
They are scared. They could do the same quality as Larian but they don't want to. This is great for gamers, bad for devs who just want to push out substandard gamesI kind of feel like Larian Studios is an odd double-A studio, both independent and experienced with triple-A development owing to their experiences with them in the 2000s. You're not gonna find an indie dev this consistent and strong in like 99.9% of indie devs, but most indie devs don't have the history that Larian Studios has had on both sides of the fence.
Yes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cycles
I'm obviously not expecting some dev team the size of Tunic's or some shit to pump out a Baldur's Gate III tier game, but AAA studios that make RPGs on the regular that have all the money in the world and make Larian look like ants in comparison have no excuse. So yes, I will have higher expectations, get your fucking cash shops out of my games and make a really good RPG.
I'm obviously not expecting some dev team the size of Tunic's or some shit to pump out a Baldur's Gate III tier game, but AAA studios that make RPGs on the regular that have all the money in the world and make Larian look like ants in comparison have no excuse. So yes, I will have higher expectations, get your fucking cash shops out of my games and make a really good RPG.
It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cyclebut 100+ hours is the length of most RPGs and games these days are already taking years to make anyway
Modern triple-A game development is often unsustainable, relying on crunch and high staff turnover in order to produce a Diablo or a Borderlands or a Street Fighter. To that end, I can understand where this sentiment is coming from.
That being said, Baldur's Gate 3 was an early access title that's only just getting its big push now after years of active development and playability. Perhaps it was able to be produced on a more sustainable model. It's also self-published, rather than having Activision or EA levels of demand or funding.
Baldur's Gate 3 may become the new standard in this style of game, and I understand the exasperation because not every studio can do that. Historically, that sort of breakthrough ala CoD or Mass Effect or whatever has come from a big publisher bankrolling a game and throwing people, money and advertising at it. As far as I can tell though, this has been a steady, years-long passion project from a group of independent devs that has naturally grown and developed in a playable state over the course of years. This is the fruits of the dev's constant labor. It's worthy of its praise, and if it becomes a new standard, I think that comes from the sheer quality that the devs have managed to accomplish with their unconventional development cycle.
So yeah, gotta say, I disagree with this take. Unless I'm totally wrong here, this is hardly the enemy that people are making it out to be.
Edit: I learned they've had some experience with publishers, I refined my thoughts in the next post.
Yes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cyclesIt's not small devs that are complaining. It's Bungie, Blizzard, Bioware and other big studios that have no excuse other than protect their bottom line.
It's not small devs that are complaining. It's Bungie, Blizzard, Bioware and other big studios that have no excuse other than protect their bottom line.Yeah, AAA developers have no excuse.
but 100+ hours is the length of most RPGs and games these days are already taking years to make anywayYes and I'm saying that I don't want most games to be like that.
If bad leadership is holding supposedly good devs back from making a good game, then maybe that leadership needs to be ousted or left behind.Oust how and by whom?
Oust how and by whom?
Not the consumer's job to figure out for you, much like how it's not Larian's job to stoop down to their level because of their feelings of inadequacy.I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying. That the workers should oust management? Or is it the shareholders? Should workers just quit their relatively stable jobs for.. what?
Note I also said left behind.
It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycleLength isn't really what matters, quality is and that's the point.
It's not small devs that are complaining. It's Bungie, Blizzard, Bioware and other big studios that have no excuse other than protect their bottom line.
Yeah, AAA developers have no excuse.
I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying. That the workers should oust management? Or is it the shareholders? Should workers just quit their relatively stable jobs for.. what?
...Yes.More specifically who is saying that others should be dragged down to their own level?
Basically, git gud instead of whining about how someone else who doesn't have your problems is able to make a better product than you. Solve your own problems instead of demanding everyone else drag themselves down to your level.
That's what I'm saying.
More specifically who is saying that others should be dragged down to their own level?
Read the topic title again.I've read the topic title, but I've not seen threads or posts saying that others should make worse games just because BG3 is good
Not wanting a successful game to become a new standard basically means you think the standard should be artificially lower, presumably to better match your own capabilities. The very definition of sour grapes.
I've read the topic title, but I've not seen threads or posts saying that others should make worse games just because BG3 is good
Yes and I'm saying that I don't want most games to be like that.by games do you means RPGs or games in general? because nobody is going to make 100+ resident evil games or 100+ god of war games and so on
who cares
BG3 is making good money and also getting rave reviews. Don't hate someone for having success; feel good for them
Yes... what the average consumer doesn't understand is that so much of the money being siphoned from them in these monetization scams just goes to pay executive salaries and shareholders while the coders and artists are being exploited and over-worked.
It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycleThis. The gaming industry for the most part has forgotten the value of getting to the damn point. When a game (even an RPG) is over say, 40-50 hours long I stop caring personally.
Nobody's reasonably asking or expecting small time indie devs to be able to make a game on the scale of BG3, Elden Ring, etc. It is a strawman argument. (It's still a funny one, though, when you nevertheless have the big-time AAA studios chiming in and whining about how they can't seem to do it though, even with far superior manpower and resources, and is where the bulk of my git gud sentiment is aimed at.)None of it unfortunately matters when you have out of touch suits, CEOs and publishers who care only about 'profits' and not making a good game.
What they want are developers who actually give a shit about the products they make and the people that play them. Because yeah, that will show in the product you make, even if the scope of the game isn't as large as with BG3. For me, it was clear just seeing this game's EULA. When even that is written in a way that gets the user to actually want to read it, you know it bodes well for the actual content of the game.
This. The gaming industry for the most part has forgotten the value of getting to the damn point. When a game (even an RPG) is over say, 40-50 hours long I stop caring personally.
The hours race obsession has gotten too out of hand.
by games do you means RPGs or games in general? because nobody is going to make 100+ resident evil games or 100+ god of war games and so onI dunno, the new GoW does seem to tend in that direction doesn't it?
None of it unfortunately matters when you have out of touch suits, CEOs and publishers who care only about 'profits' and not making a good game.Yeah this is my point. Sure you can hold devs to this standard but, it's gonna be unrealistic when the power is held by a group of people who are only looking to maximize profits. And if the response is "well then they should just leave/'oust' the leadership" then.. lol
That is what many devs suffer under and few have the freedom Lairen do.
who are these devsThis pretty much sums up what I've seen from devs regarding this:
Yeah this is my point. Sure you can hold devs to this standard but, it's gonna be unrealistic when the power is held by a group of people who are only looking to maximize profits. And if the response is "well then they should just leave/'oust' the leadership" then.. lolHmm, if demand for their type of game goes down they might have to find a way to adjust their business model to maximize profits.
This pretty much sums up what I've seen from devs regarding this:
https://twitter.com/xArcky/status/1689961609697894400
Hmm, if demand for their type of game goes down they might have to find a way to adjust their business model to maximize profits.Hey, I'm all for better games. But I'm not gonna expect Ubisoft to not cut whatever corners they can just because BG3 took six years to make and turned out great
Wonder how they would have to do that if customers start holding them to a higher standard?
None of it unfortunately matters when you have out of touch suits, CEOs and publishers who care only about 'profits' and not making a good game.As a software developer, then why are they working under those publishers instead of working for a studio like Larian? If my company suddenly started treating me like shit, Id look for work elsewhere.
That is what many devs suffer under and few have the freedom Lairen do.