• 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    3 months ago

    The devs over there were able to create an engaging and fun game on a constrained budget, using a combination of various unity assets, in house design and modelling and a lot of attention to detail (especially with animations), which ran exceptionally well for an early access release.

    An AAA studio with the same limitations applied would likely not have made anything close

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      AAA is the budget, not a review of the game.

      Being an indie developer, they didn’t pump a whole lot of money into this game.

      • hddsx
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        TIL. It makes a little more sense why Ubisoft just declared a game as AAAA - they spent a lot of money on it. It didn’t mean we as gamers get a better experience

        • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, it’s a bit of a catch 22 in that case. Because so much money is being spent on developing the game, there’s an expectation of high quality in order to get a return on that investment. And charging more for a game, well, we as consumers expect a better game than a standard $60 game.

          The problem with Ubisoft’s case is they spent the “AAAA” budget for a mediocre game. Had the game been awesome, we’d probably be cheering on the idea of a AAAA game.