Current Events > Lawl there's devs trying to say Baldurs Gate 3 should not be the new standard of

(+) Yeah! (+)

There's devs trying to say Baldurs Gate 3 should not be the new standard of RPGs

There's Twitter threads, gaming articles, etc talking about this.

Moist critical has a video on the discourse.

But basically seems like dev's just want to be lazy and would rather think of new ways to squeeze money out of your wallets for cosmetics instead of making a good game.

"We all can't make games as good as Baldur's Gate 3".

It was the same discourse when Elden Ring came out and wiped the floor with almost every open world game in existence.

Thoughts?

AAA gaming has become a criminal scam for the most part.

Let these few shining examples of ethical game development and publishing speak for themselves.

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 games

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/6/9/AAAgybAADQg1.jpg

Zikten posted...

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 games

Yes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cycles

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.

Zikten posted...

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 games

I 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.

They've managed to develop a brand recognition and a sense of quality that some studios could only dream of, being one of the only successful independent game studios to come out of the Kickstarter scene after working with publishers during their early days. It's taken a lot of hard work and time to build the sort of reputation and product quality that they've developed partially due to their experience working with publishers in the past. Most studios don't have the chance, nor do they have the staff, funding or passion that comes with extended game development like Larian games.

I'm sympathetic, but Larian has just put the time and effort in and come out the other side in sterling silver. It's not quite as cut and dry as being the cream of the crop of indie devs, but they sure as shit are the cream of the crop of indie devs.

It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycle

Honestly, I think Baldurs Gate 3 is overrated.

It's definitly the best looking RPG ever so far, but I don't see why the gameplay or story should put it leagues above what we have seen in other.

People always say they don't care about graphics that much, and not about marketing at all, but the hype is crazy.

We got great RPGs over the years, all ignored by those who now praise BG3 beyond and above all.

I just hope that thanks to that the genre gets some more attention, but at this point, I doubt it.

As soon as the dialogs wont zoom in into your nice looking HD characters, it's automatically going to be "a step back from BG3".

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.

Rotterdammerung posted...

Yes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cycles

Smaller devs are putting out great games on tighter budgets without exploitative monetization.

They have no choice if they want to compete, they have to offer a better value.

dancing_cactuar posted...

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.

Yes!

dancing_cactuar posted...

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.

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.

scar_the_1 posted...

It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycle

but 100+ hours is the length of most RPGs and games these days are already taking years to make anyway

who cares

BG3 is making good money and also getting rave reviews. Don't hate someone for having success; feel good for them

MrMallard posted...

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.

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.

So yeah, no sympathy here. Publicly responding to a successful game with "but these guys shouldn't be that good; it makes us look bad!" just comes off as sour grapes, because, well... that's exactly what it is.

Rotterdammerung posted...

Yes and no - a lot of the smaller devs cant afford such long development cycles

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.

LordFarquad1312 posted...

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.

majin_nemesis posted...

but 100+ hours is the length of most RPGs and games these days are already taking years to make anyway

Yes and I'm saying that I don't want most games to be like that.

Philip027 posted...

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?

scar_the_1 posted...

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.

Note I also said left behind.

Philip027 posted...

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.

Note I also said left behind.

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?

scar_the_1 posted...

It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycle

Length isn't really what matters, quality is and that's the point.

LordFarquad1312 posted...

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.

Rotterdammerung posted...

Yeah, AAA developers have no excuse.

They are always the ones complaining and pleading poverty despite taking in record profits, dodging taxes, indulging in all of the monetisation practices (including gambling) and laying off hundreds of people at once while giving their overpaid (and even criminal) CEOs massive bonuses.

The A in AAA stands for asshole.

scar_the_1 posted...

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.

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.

Philip027 posted...

...Yes.

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?

scar_the_1 posted...

More specifically who is saying that others should be dragged down to their own level?

Read the topic title again.

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.

Philip027 posted...

Read the topic title again.

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

scar_the_1 posted...

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

If you don't get that the suggestion that a well-polished and received game "should not be the new standard" is basically the same thing as an admittance that you think inferior products should continue to be the standard, I'm afraid this topic may be beyond your scope of understanding.

scar_the_1 posted...

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

Its more nuanced than that. Its mostly not the developers fauly, but the publishers who set deadlines, budgets and meddle in the creative process cause "studies found gen z prefers this". Also not every games has to be a hundred hours, but at least BG3 seems to be making good use of the time.

Their point is that few devs have 400+ teams spanning the globe with years long early access. Along with most of them having to serve the whims of publishers and suits who don't give a fuck about the quality of the game.

Most of them simply can't reproduce it, no matter how much they might want to.

Naysaspace posted...

who cares

BG3 is making good money and also getting rave reviews. Don't hate someone for having success; feel good for them

The fat cats don't like having their own "when you attack success, you have less!" mantra thrown back at them. That's supposed to be THEIR mantra for walking all over the little guy, not the other way around.

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.)

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.

Open-world was the worst part of Elden Ring. In some ways, more tedious than the standard checklist collectathon.

Torgo posted...

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.

i do wonder when gamers as a whole will start to understand that the amount of money they pour into the gaming industry is maybe not even 1/4 of what comes back out from it.

for instance non-mobile games accounted for 90b in revenue in 2022 and i doubt we'll see anything close to 22.5b being spent on games or gaming-related production in a single year.

scar_the_1 posted...

It shouldn't. I don't want every RPG to be a 100+ hours game with a 6 year dev cycle

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.

I think it's true, if it's coming specifically from devs. Smaller studios can't afford to do it and bigger studios have people they answer to that won't allow them to do it.

Philip027 posted...

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.)

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.

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.

That is what many devs suffer under and few have the freedom Lairen do.

Lobinde posted...

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.

A game being 70-100 hours used to be a huge selling points for me, but now if a game is much over 30 I'm likely not going to finish it.

That said, sub 15 hour games that cost almost $90 CAD are hard to swallow.

They're right, something going above and beyond doesn't mean it should be expected for everything.

majin_nemesis posted...

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

I dunno, the new GoW does seem to tend in that direction doesn't it?

Funkydog posted...

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.

That is what many devs suffer under and few have the freedom Lairen do.

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

who are these devs

TetsuoS2 posted...

who are these devs

This pretty much sums up what I've seen from devs regarding this:
https://twitter.com/xArcky/status/1689961609697894400

scar_the_1 posted...

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

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.

Wonder how they would have to do that if customers start holding them to a higher standard?

scar_the_1 posted...

This pretty much sums up what I've seen from devs regarding this:
https://twitter.com/xArcky/status/1689961609697894400

yeah it's a bit odd.

Considering how long BG3 supposedly is, I certainly hope it doesn't become a standard on how much content should be in a game.

Thats dumb. BG3 is a specific genre of rpg. Not every developer makes those types of rpgs lol. I doubt developers are upset with it and its just a ploy by journalists.

Alteres posted...

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.

Wonder how they would have to do that if customers start holding them to a higher standard?

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

Funkydog posted...

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.

That is what many devs suffer under and few have the freedom Lairen do.

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.