While Baldur’s Gate 3 is being widely celebrated by fans and developers alike, some are panicking that this could set new expectations from fans. Good.

  • MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    218
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m a game developer. No game developers are panicking about this game. I’ve not played it but I’ll probably play it soon. It looks great but even if it blows my mind it doesn’t cause me to panic. It inspires me. I don’t know of a game developer that gets panicked at the sight of good games. I know monetary goblins that might realize they can’t push heartless games anymore but in the last decade we’ve started to see games really take shape as cinematic masterpieces. Experiences that truly top movies. This is the inevitable next step. Games with more interactions and more meaningful choice out of those interactions.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      112
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think by “some developers”, they’re referring more toward the AAA studios who have spent the last couple decades baking MTX into every nook and cranny they can find in their games, and not indie devs.

      • NotInTheFace@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, nowadays it feels more like an indie studio is more of an indicator of quality than AAA. Most of the games I buy and enjoy are indie/small studios.

        • Goronmon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, nowadays it feels more like an indie studio is more of an indicator of quality than AAA. Most of the games I buy and enjoy are indie/small studios.

          Larian is about as indie/small as Bethesda was when Skyrim released.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          AAA games are very rarely as innovative as indie games, it’s all just the same rehashed stuff I feel like. Just whatever is “safe”.

          So, I very much agree, the typical AAA stuff from studios like EA, Ubisoft, etc. Don’t interest me.

          Although maybe Starfield will be interesting, we’ll see. I didn’t really like Fallout 4 though, I wished the RPGs were a bit more like the more old school ones lol.

          • Thrashy@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m willing to be surprised by it, but I’m not optimistic for Starfield. What I’ve seen of it so far looks mainly like they grafted chunks of No Man’s Sky onto a Bethesda Fallout game and are trying hard to pitch it as The Next Big Thing. Frankly, I’d much rather have the next mainline Elder Scrolls game instead, but at this rate I’m going to be 40 before I get to play a sequel to a game that came out in my 20s.

              • Thrashy@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m fairness, incomplete chunks is all that exists of Star Citizen.

                Well, that and a whaling operation on the scale of Victorian England’s.

                • cambriakilgannon@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am in the SC club and it’s a glitchy, broken, incomplete mess while also being one of the coolest gaming experiences I’ve ever had when it works.

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I saw a tier list meme that some teenager made on Discord of every game they’d ever played. You know what didn’t appear once on the list? Not a single Grand Theft Auto game nor a single Elder Scrolls game. I asked them why and they said because GTA5 and Skyrim are “old”

              They’re taking so long between releases now that they missed an entire generation of gamers

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are even great AAA studios out there that aren’t pushing mtx. I just played uncharted 4 and I can’t believe that is almost a decade old. It still holds up. Far better than Rockstar’s red dead redemption 2. That said there is room in the industry for everyone. The indie team that takes 6 years to make high quality games to the AAA studio pushing games out every 2 years. Including small indie studios of 5 people making huge hit survival games and indie games that were made in 9 months but have a lot of heart.

        Quality is subjective and I think we’ll start to see our genres break down as people go towards more and more specific definitions. We’ve already seen this a bit with the fps reverting back to doomlike with games like prodeus.

      • Big P@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even so they won’t be panicking. They can just pull a trusty piece of IP out and slap some microtransactions on it and the core target group will be all over it.

    • MoonlitSanguine@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      The video tries to imply it’s industry wide, but only show 3 tweets. I’ve also seen nothing but praise from other game developers I know.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Absolutely what I noticed too. The tweets didn’t seem like they were even “panicking” but just saying to players “Don’t expect this because most studios aren’t going to devote the same resources and ability to the party-based classic isometric-inspired RPG genre because the genre is fairly niche.”

        • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s just modern media, they often write about the internet exploding about something and then it’s just a few tweets from random people.

        • Goronmon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A few Devs decide to be contraian to the praise and then the media decides it a huge backlash.

          They are not even criticizing the game.

          The opinions are basically either “Smaller studios won’t be able to replicate BG3” and “Not all games/RPGs need to be as deep and long as BG3”.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I also question how much that bar has truly been raised. I’ve not played Baldur’s Gate but I have seen people treat games like generation-defining games for them to just kind of not exist outside of their bubble. Like Uncharted 4, Last of Us, Spiderman, and God Of War. I just finished Uncharted 4 and it was truly amazing but for a lot of people, it did not raise their standards for the entire industry. I feel like, if anything, Baldur’s Gate 3 will raise standards for AAA RPGs. Then again, it might have just preemptively killed Starfield.

        • acastcandream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve not played…

          Then go play it and then judge it. This game is a seismic as Mass Effect 1 or even Doom.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            See, that’s what I am talking about. Mass Effect 1 didn’t have a huge impact on the industry as a whole. Doom only had a huge impact on the industry because it was very small and they started licensing out their engine with groundbreaking tech. The industry is huge now.

            I remember a lot of people were saying Half-Life: Alyx was a huge industry changer and that it would prove that games are far more enjoyable in VR. It is the best-reviewed VR game on Steam. Yet, now, VR is essentially dead.

            I remember when people were saying PUBG just changed the entire industry and we’d never look at it the same again. Which honestly, PUBG did have a large but temporary impact on the games industry. A lot of battle royals came out after. Now though, you’d be lucky to find a successful battle royal release in the last 2 years.

            I’ll certainly play it when I can but a 20+ hour game commitment is not what I am honestly looking for anymore. I like far shorter experiences. So overall, it feels like counting the chickens before they hatch. Is Baldur’s Gate 3 really going to stay in people’s minds? Is it going to influence the next games that come out? Are AAA studios building more classic isometric-inspired RPGs because of it?

              • MJBrune@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Doom did have a significant impact on the industry but only because the industry was small. Doom 2016 was released and people said it was “industry” changing but realistically counter-strike, valorant, and other FPSs are the same as before. I am just cautious between the whole industry changing and realistically only transforming a small subset.

                True industry-changing games can be felt today. I will say that Doom is industry changing but again because it was so small. Half-Life 2, was that industry changing? Frankly, between Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the first feels far more influential to me. I’d say Doom’s offshoots are more influential than actual Doom at this point. Minecraft feels industry changing and was around that time indie game development got huge. In part, because of Minecraft’s success. Mass Effect though? I remember it being called a fine RPG with terrible combat mechanics. I think people far remember more about Mass Effect 2 and 3 rather than Mass Effect in 2007. Your article was written in 2021 and the only other one I found was written in 2012 and talked about Mass Effect 3’s ending and how it changed the industry because Bioware listened to fans and caved to change it.

                Actually, let me put it this way. An industry-influential game is a game that any game developer should absolutely play even if they are making a console or PC game or mobile game. It doesn’t truly exist anymore but even if you cut off the mobile game developers and stick t just console or PC, BG3 is probably not industry-influential because someone making Slime Rancher or Survival Crafting games doesn’t really need to have knowledge from BG3. BG3 will probably influence RPG games and probably solely RPG games. That’s a subset of games that a lot of developers do not need to worry about. I do not need to go rush out and play BG3 in order to build any game.

          • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not even close. I’m playing it right now, well into act 2, and while it is THE ultimate example of what a cRPG should be, that doesn’t necessarily mean the breadth and scope would work in other genres. You’re WAY overestimating the impact this is having on the gaming industry, and that’s evidenced by how other developers are responding to it.
            Also. I’ve played through all the Mass Effects (even Andromeda, which I actually enjoyed more) and to say that it was industry-defining is a fanboy take. Full stop. From where I’m sitting ME1 did not introduce anything groundbreaking that hadn’t been done already by that point, and to be honest the early Fallout games had way more gravity when it came to choices and decision-making. I’d say of games in that era, the original Borderlands was more ground-breaking given it kind of kickstarted the looter-shooter genre, and that’s a stretch.

            • acastcandream@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You are free to disagree, but to hand wave me away as having “fan boy takes” is pretty rude and does not make me want to engage further. Thanks and have a great weekend. 

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then again, it might have just preemptively killed Starfield.

          They’re pretty different games. They’re both RPGs, and there’s some overlap, but turn based is ultimately very different gameplay than action, and one isn’t going to scratch the itch for the other to a lot of us.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, honestly, I doubt BG3 is going to cover the same ground for a lot of players. I don’t think people are going to play BG3 and expect more from Starfield. People will understand that they are far different games and BG3’s influence is probably going to stay in turn-based CRPGs rather than being an industry-wide influential game.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m fully expecting to go pretty hard at both, and BG3 might have me engaged enough to not jump straight into Starfield at launch, but I need immersive 3D games, too, and except Elden Ring which is it’s own thing (even if it does pretty comfortably check the boxes of ARPG), I’ve been waiting for something of comparable scope to Skyrim that doesn’t have a fatal flaw for a long time. Even as old and janky as it is now, it’s still a scale that’s only matched by a handful of games in the decade since.

              • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The beauty of Bethesda’s flagship titles (namely Fallout and TES) is even if they end up as buggy messes upon release, or have empty maps, the modding community corrects those flaws relatively quickly.
                It’s one of the reasons that I, a long-time veteran of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., am not worried if GSC Game World fucks up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2. Today, the best part of the first titles is the mods that fix, improve, and add content to the games. It’ll be the same with this one, and I’m excited to see what people do with A-Life 2.0.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      in the last decade we’ve started to see games really take shape as cinematic masterpieces. Experiences that truly top movies.

      Metal Gear Solid is from 1998

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure but I am talking about games as a whole. You see more cinematography today in most games than you saw in MGS 1998. In fact, MGS 1998 has cutscenes and it has gameplay. Games today are removing that divide. Your gameplay is in your cutscene. In MGS1 you’d hit a video and walk away for 10 minutes while listening to it and it’d be fine. Today you hit a cut scene and you stay because you’ll have to shoot someone as the conversation breaks down or the building collapses and you have to jump out.

        That’s what I am talking about when I say cinematic masterpieces. They don’t have jarring cuts between a cutscene and gameplay and they feel like cinematic moments while you are never taken out of the gameplay. Eventually, we’ll get to the point where you could show a game in a theater and people wouldn’t know the difference.

      • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Real talk. I don’t game on console anymore, but Metal Gear Solid is the crowning jewel of console game plots.
        Ever tried explaining the series to someone unfamiliar with it? You end up sounding like a fuckin meth head coming off a binge, and to me that makes it a narrative worth diving in to.

    • lotanis@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it can and should be a warning to studio heads, but as game consumers we absolutely should raise our expectations (and stop buying micro transaction crap). There are plenty of big studios with money who could buy the licence and spend years making the game, but those studios belong to the big publishers who optimise for profit not for game quality.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Man, parts of Death Stranding were so interesting they should have won movie awards. Brilliant supporting character/mocapped actors. Couldn’t agree more on that front.

  • Magrath
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    1 year ago

    Click baiting video. Other devs don’t care. As long as they can make money pumping out mediocre games then they will continue to do so. Acting like this is the first good game to come out in a decade or something.

    • DrM@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      1 year ago

      DEVs do care. As a developer working on something you want to be proud of it. Publishers do not care.

      • The individuals working on the game might care.

        The managers who make the decisions don’t. Doesn’t matter if they are a publisher or the development company itself. It’s a bit blurry these days anyway, what with how easy it is to self publish and how many publishers have their own internal development studios.

        • Ilflish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The managers who make the decisions is also unclear as power differs on the company. They could care all the way up to the CEO but if the CEO puts an unrealistic deadline, the game has an unrealistic deadline

      • bionicjoey
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Looking at how many games have stood in Dragon Age: Origins’ shadow over the past decade, I get the sense that lots of studios wanted to create the true spiritual successor but couldn’t come up with the resources to do so.

      • orbitz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wonder what a divine crit roll would cost, $5 in combat $3 outside? Heck that’s too complicated $10 for all, $7 for season pass holders.

        For those wondering there is no season pass.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fuck it, exiting the game now costs $2. We need to recoup the opportunity cost of you not being somewhere you can be directly marketed to.

    • ours@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Leaving money on the table” must be the exec’s perspective.

    • Thavron
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Won’t anybody think of the stockholders‽

        • Valliac@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          But however will the poor shareholders get their value this quarter?

          Someone think of the shareholders!

          • eskimofry@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I am thinking of them… how to murder shareholders in various unique ways… could be neat game idea too!

        • acastcandream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As much as I prefer this model that actually isn’t what creates engagement and retains players over several games and years. They don’t do it because it’s fun to make predatory things. They do it because it makes them heaps of money. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. That’s the sad truth here.

          Re: hats and paint jobs…hats dominated TF2 for how long? There was a black market and widespread scamming for cosmetics, that’s how nuts it got.

          • Pigeon@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder if the TF2 “buds” item is still used as a game-trading currency.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, but the other methods are demonstrably better at it. We didn’t arrive at them by accident. There are outliers like Civilization keeping people hooked for years; the people still playing Skullgirls all these years later sure aren’t doing it for any type of reward system. But the fast track to keeping people playing your game is to use all the scummy bullshit.

          • Pigeon@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder why they haven’t tried the model airport books and comics use, though. We could do it with games at this point. Like, make a series of games that are low budget, relatively short, and easy to pump out very quickly, but with a distinct series identity and maybe a consistent writer/artist across games. Then make a lot of them and get people hooked on the series instead of on 1 mega game.

            Even just text adventure style games, wireframe arcade style games, bullethells, shooters like Vampire Survivor & etc, visual novels, syuff like Undertale, whatever? I think it’s clear that a low budget or small team doesn’t equate to unpopularity these days, if the game is made with care and attention to detail.

            We do have series now but they’re high budget and long and kind of also trying to be the 1 mega game at the same time.

            There’s also a lot of options for reaching new/underserved audience. Like. Make a high quality horse game for once, please? And profit off a bazillion horse girls who’ve been waiting for just that for decades.

            Or make games for other countries that don’t have a big video games market yet, maybe. Like sell a console real cheap, at a loss, and then sell games in an area where there’s less competition? Maybe.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wonder why they haven’t tried the model airport books and comics use, though. We could do it with games at this point. Like, make a series of games that are low budget, relatively short, and easy to pump out very quickly, but with a distinct series identity and maybe a consistent writer/artist across games. Then make a lot of them and get people hooked on the series instead of on 1 mega game.

              I think that’s exactly what Fortnite and Destiny 2 do, even though I object to the way they do it for so many reasons.

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Like, make a series of games that are low budget, relatively short, and easy to pump out very quickly, but with a distinct series identity and maybe a consistent writer/artist across games. Then make a lot of them and get people hooked on the series instead of on 1 mega game.

              Urban Games currently does this with Transport Fever. They flat out said while hyping the release of Transport Fever 2 (which was their third transport tycoon style game) that their goal as a development studio is to make the best transportation tycoon game they can. So they intend to continuously iterate.

              N3V Games, who developes the Trainz simulator game was literally formed to buy up the property and talent from its original developer Auran and continue the franchise

              There’s a third example I was going to give but got distracted while writing this comment and forgot

            • ezures@lemmy.wtf
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              One example might be Fnaf (before security breach or help wanted), since they are relatively simple, short games made by one guy, not on high budget. Most of them launched like 3-6 months after each other, keeping up interest in the series.

              Something big aaa games also miss is the creativity, since a cool gimick can be implemented as a main mechanic in a 1-2 hour game, since it doesnt over stay its welcome.

              So yeah, most games are getting too long for their own good (like ubi sandbox games), not to mention the ‘games as a service’ games.

            • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              a series of games that are low budget, relatively short, and easy to pump out very quickly, but with a distinct series identity and maybe a consistent writer/artist across games

              Telltale has entered (and exited) the chat.

    • prole@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      people remember that games are supposed to be good

      I’ve played a lot of great games in the past few years 🤷‍♂️

  • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you have to panic because a competitor makes a good game maybe you should reconsider why you’re a game developer in the first place. If it’s not to make the best games you can make, you shouldn’t be a game developer. I’m guessing the developers panicking aren’t the ones who pour their heart and soul into every game they make.

    • worfamerryman@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe release 1 good game every year or two instead of 10 mediocre games a year to make as much cash as possible.

      I don’t have a convenient way to play this game at the moment, but I’ll pick it up as soon as I get a steam deck.

      • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My counter to that is the last 2.5 BioWare games - I say 2.5 because Dreadwolf has been in development for ten years total now and still isn’t out. Andromeda was in development for 5 years. Anthem had money galore thrown at it until it came out. Too many devs, not just BioWare, are wasting years of development time because they haven’t got a clue what they can feasibly make then rush to get things out the door.

        Instead of making excuses for why gave dev is the way it is now - a way that isn’t working - maybe look at what Larian did right and ask why more studios aren’t doing that. Early Access is normal used by indies with overinflated budgets? Well, why aren’t larger studios taking advantage of it or using systems like it?

        The new normal for a have to be developed is turning into 5+ years, and there’s no excuse for the hot messes that have been coming out lately.

      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d like to ask…why are publishers even required anymore? Games don’t need physical releases anymore. You don’t need a publisher to host a zip file on a web server. Storefronts let indie developers self-publish so why do the big names still fall for the publishers who exist only to enshittify gaming anymore? They bring negative value to the industry.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They bring funding when you have none. Also marketing. How likely are we to have heard of The Plucky Squire without it being featured alongside several other Devolver games?

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because all those things make it possible to release independently, it’s still not easy. Marketing and getting exposure is hard, it’s a totally different skill. With a publisher, you don’t have to worry about any of that - you might even get funding up front.

          Personally, I still think it’s worth doing - I’m in that position, and although I’m having a lot of trouble getting off the ground, at least I’m free to follow my visions

          But I get why people would do it. A slice of a big pie is worth more than all of a tiny one.

          It’s also stressful if it’s not in your skillset - I’ve started using chat gpt to rewrite my announcements and such. Before I’d stress trying to put them together and focused on being clear and honest, but no one was reading them. I find it worse than public speaking, at least when I get on stage I’m too busy to feel self conscious.

          The stuff I come up with using chat-gpt is a bit cringe, but at least people read them - sadly corpo speak draws people in

  • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    Developers? Panicking? Developers will rejoice that they don’t have to build these garbage mechanics. Publishers and game studio execs? Yeah they’ll panic

  • Space Sloth@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I hope this does indeed set a new gold standard. Probably not with the whole early access thing, though. It’s a thing that needs to go away.

    • Pixel@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      EA is an immensely useful tool for game devs, the issue is EA as an excuse to ship unpolished games or to leave games unfinished forever. Neither of which are problems intrinsic to early access, they’re just bad business practice that should be shunned like any other

      • soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a gamedev: Early Access was useful for devs, back when it was real Early Access. Think: Kerbal Space Program (the first, not the second).

        Nowadays it’s mostly a marketing tool, that allows to generate the hype for launch twice… Publishers and players expect “Early Access” games to be feature complete and polished before the “Early Access” launch…

        • Maultasche@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I liked what Daemon X Machina did, where they released a demo, sent out questionnaires to everyone who downloaded it, published a video about the results save how they were planning to act on it, and a few months later released a new demo with a new questionnaire.

          • soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yep, that’s probably the most helpful thing for devs. This sadly often conflicts with publishers’ announcement schedules. There are, however, companies that do NDA-protected play-tests, where you get the same kind of information, without publicly announcing the game.

          • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ubisoft did (does?) it to a degree with their Rainbow 6 TTS (beta) servers to test the sandbox and did so for a few technical alpha/beta releases acting as selected pewviews to see how the game is received and where bugs are.

    • TauriWarrior@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Early access worked well for them, part of the start of the game was able to be play tested, the community got to give feedback, and they actually listened, its how it should be done

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but not how the remaining whole industry treats it.
        I saw literally no outcry regarding BG3 and early game bugs. Comparing it to CP2077 it was a stellar release in terms of PR.

        • Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          CP2077 didn’t have early access tho? How is this an argument against early access

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think Early Access should go away as it’s not inherently bad in and of itself.

      What’s bad about it is when it’s used to sell a totally unfinished piece of shit that stays an unfinished piece of shit indefinitely.

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Making bad developers panic maybe?

    I can’t imagine something like this makes the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

    Actually Redfall likely doesn’t make the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

    • sandriver@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t the whole thing with Redfall that it was Bethesda mismanagement? I’m not going to put that on the Redfall team. Does make me completely disinterested in buying any Bethesda games that aren’t mainline TES though.

      • Pigeon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        For what it’s worth, I thought it’d be horrible from the reviews and ended up trying it anyway, and I actually really enjoyed it. shrug Rather feels like I played a different game than everyone else.

        I’m sure it’s partly the difference between starting with rock bottom expectations vs starting with Prey/Dishonored expectations, but I think even without that I’d like it.

        Also, it has no micro transactions! Zero. Not even for cosmetics - those are just unlockables. Credit where credit is due.

        Anyway if you liked the look of the trailer and you have gamepass, it’s worth at least trying, imo.

    • sodiumbromley@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s faithful enough to 5e that my partner and I broke out the players handbook to do some long term class planning together. A couple of things are different, like buffs to frenzy barbarian and changes to roleplay feats or spells to have a more mechanical benefit.

      But yes, as a long term DM for 5e, it’s faithful to 5e.

    • hastati@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The most significant change I noticed was you can cast any number of leveled spells per turn. That’s a pretty significant shift from 5e’s rule of only one leveled spell (excluding using action surge if you dip into fighter) per turn.

      However it makes the player stronger so I doubt anyone is really complaining about it.

      • rivingtondown@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been playing BG3 and perhaps I’m misunderstanding but you only have one action and one bonus action per turn and you only have so many spell slots per caster. Unless you have a leveled spell as an action and a separate leveled spell as a bonus action and enough spell slots for both you’d be hard pressed to cast more than a single spell per turn per character

        • LiquorFan@pathfinder.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s been a while since I played 5e, but if I remember correctly you could do some fuckery with Haste and/or Sorcery Points if you don’t follow that rule.

        • hastati@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Plenty of spells cast as a bonus action. With a cleric I can cast Spirt Guardians and Spiritual Weapon on the same turn. Or polymorph and mass cure wounds. It makes a significant difference for bonus action spells.

    • 73rdNemesio@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Larian has been absolutely phenomenal through their process on both of these. Kept with the ‘it’ll release when it’s ready’ model, the exception with the alpha/early release on BG3 which I would say helped improve the quality of the Release product that much more, through testing/reports and cash influx without the ‘pre-order today, get whatever you get tomorrow’ mantra.

  • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    BG3 is what games used to be and what they should have been like. It bring me back to my KotOR1/2, and Witcher 1 days. It’s great.

    • 50MYT@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      In similar fashion, EA/Dice woukd have desperately tried to ignore battlebit.

      4 devs made a game that is better in nearly every way than any of the last few battlefield games in their spare time.

      I hope AAA studios clear house and find a new formula that doesn’t ruin good IP.

      • 50gp@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        dice is the perfect example of a studio with the worst kind of incompetent people in charge of game direction

        they released a great game in battlefield 1 and went to shit after that chasing trends and monetisation strategies over everything else

        (shoutout to the guys who worked on base gameplay of BFV, they got fucked over by dumb decisions from higher up)

        • Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Battlefield 1 is still good. God it’s fun to play. Though they left balance kinda weird on the last update. I wish standard issue rifles were better than the theoretical automatics that most soldiers didn’t have, or the ones that were invented in the last week of the war.

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    How does it cost millions of dollars to make a current AAA game, and they’re rarely worth it?

    If you have 5,000 people on your payroll for a game what the hell are they doing? Every game should be fantastic.

    I love indie and AA games. Smaller teams. More focus. More fun. Usually more quality content.

    • AMuscelid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an issue of time and scalability. Going from 100 employees to 200 employees wont make the game in half the time. And corporate accounting would rather have 2 mediocre games per year than 1 extremely good game every 2 years, even if it sold 4 times as well since revenue is analyzed within fiscal years and financing isn’t free. Capitalism sucks.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism sucks.

        All the greatest games ever made were created in capitalistic economies so i cannot see how that is a determining factor. I don’t know what games your thinking of. Tetris?

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you’re missing the point. They’re just saying the incentive structure of capitalism doesn’t necessarily encourage the best types of games. We see this with borked EA launches, predatory MTX, loot boxes, battle passes, etc

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think there is a difference between “capitalism” and “capitalism”.

          I think a more nuanced argument is that better games come from companies that are not primarily driven by the quarterly revenue cycle of Wall Street, that is defined as “capitalism”.

          I think it’s more of a hit-and-miss, and good corporate leadership is the kind that people forget it’s there when good games come out. I mean CDPR had a CEO both when Witcher 3 was the thing, and also when Cyberpunk 2077 was the thing that flopped. Obviously, people were more interested in the beancounters’ influence in the latter case.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We don’t exactly have many non-capitalistic economies.

          But we have games that people made outside of the incentives of capitalism. i.e., because they wanted to make the game they wanted to make. This is what has created the absolute best games in existence. Not the incentive of money.

          Was terraria made for the purposes of money? Was outer wilds? No. They were passion projects. Of course they had to earn money, because you need to earn money to survive, but that wasn’t their primary goals. Contrary to games such as call of duty or whatever. Which are just incredibly bland in comparison.

          I mean see how much microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Is ruining the atmosphere of games and exploiting the hell out of people and kids. Don’t tell me devs are putting that in because that is what their dream game would contain. No, they put it in purely because of capitalistic incentives. Would you argue that that is good?

          • ampersandrew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Making a good product is an incentive of capitalism too. Microtransactions, battle passes, loot boxes, and other “live service” trappings dilute once-good products because people are often too attached to brands. As people tire of bad products, good ones can come along and thrive, which is what Battlebit appears to be doing for Battlefield fans, what Baldur’s Gate 3 appears to be doing for RPGs, and what Elden Ring and the last two Zelda games are doing for open world games; what Cities: Skylines did for SimCity fans and maybe what Life By You could do for Sims fans. There’s money to be made for making a good version of something that the reigning champs screwed up, abandoned, couldn’t think of, or didn’t bother to bring to market; that’s capitalism.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you think those games wouldn’t have been made without capitalism?

              All of those examples are driven by people wanting to make a good game because that is their passion.

              If they were given infinite resources to make a game, and would gain nothing else beyond just a decent standard of living or whatever, do you think they wouldn’t made them? Because I think they would.

              • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How hypothetical are we getting here? Somehow we live in a world where everyone has infinite resources? Capitalism just distributes the finite ones we have to things that people buy. A government can do that as well, but we don’t have a great track record of them being able to buck the realities of where those resources need to go. If there’s a UBI, you could end up with more games of the scope of Stardew Valley, or once tools and game engines get to be good enough, you could end up with more games that are feasible to be made by one or two people in a handful of years like that one was. But Baldur’s Gate 3, Elden Ring, Zelda…no, probably not. I can’t predict the future, but they seem to be impossible to be made by small teams even with magical game engines that automate a lot of work that went in to make them.

                Once you get beyond the profit motive, you’re now at this point where you need to hire more people. Anything beyond really small teams are going to have a hard time sticking to someone else’s vision unless one person is the boss calling the shots; otherwise known as the one with capital, paying those other talented people to work toward that goal. Of the 600 people making Baldur’s Gate 3, I’ll bet 550 of them disagreed on lots of directions that it went in, and it just becomes an insurmountable problem to wrangle that many people otherwise and keep them on track. If you don’t need the money and you disagree with what the boss is doing, you’ll just do your own project instead.

                Meanwhile, we just got a Titan Quest II announcement, which I’ll bet is a reaction to the general direction Blizzard has been going in since Diablo Immortal was announced, much like I was saying earlier. There’s also another perspective I’d like to add on here, which proves both of our points. Ryan Clark of Brace Yourself Games, makers of Crypt of the NecroDancer, used to do a YouTube show called Clark Tank, similar to Shark Tank, talking about how to make indie games that make money. Creatives have tons of passion projects they want to make, and you’ll never get through all of them in a lifetime. However, you know types of games that you would like to make, that you can observe are also making money, that you’re confident you can deliver while they’re still popular, so that you can profit, expand, and repeat the cycle. In a sense, passion projects and what the market is asking for via where they’re spending their money.

                • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My point was that capitalism and its incentives do not create good games.

                  Capitalism rewards profit at any cost, and nothing more. In the end this allows for cash grabs and terrible working conditions, which the industry is riddled with. Good games would still have gotten made without these incentives.

                  There’s many assumptions in this text, and it ignores great games that were financial flops (or couldn’t get made in the first place), and terrible ones (like gacha games or basically the whole mobile games ecosystem) which are greatly rewarded and successful. There are so many resources wasted on objectively not good things for players such as how to exploit their psyche to spend money which compromises the game design, or resources spent on stuff like marketing just because that’s what pays back, instead of spending those on making a better game.

                  I would argue that capitalism’s incentives hampers the creation of good games if anything. Because now instead of thinking what makes a game good, devs are instead forced or incentivized to think what makes money. And they are very much not the same thing.

          • ampersandrew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Counter point: Baldur’s Gate is selling well within capitalism because it satisfies what the customer wants, which capitalism rewards in an environment with lots of competition, and video games have lots of competition. As big publishers like Ubisoft, EA, Activision-Blizzard, and Take Two have scaled back their offerings of lots of different types of games, including the type of RPG that Larian makes, it’s no surprise that the likes of Larian are rewarded for making that type of game. It’s why companies like Embracer, Anna Purna, Devolver, and Paradox are going to be growing a ton over the next decade.

          • bmaxv@noc.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @acastcandream @Murvel

            Trust me, I get it and I agree, #capitalism sucks. Mostly.

            But that’s not how it works.

            You can’t just take an arbitrary event and claim it came to be despite the circumstances, not because of them.

            Like, that’s not how causality works.

            Besides, It’s a way stronger argument to point at the overwhelming amount of bad games and bad features and say those got produced under capitalism and that’s why it’s bad full stop.

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know that’s probably rhetorical, but probably a similar problem to modern movies where (as described in the video Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive) they are going after spectacle (rather than story or other elements) and due to cost they must make a ‘safe’ product to stay profitable, where a bland but universally palatable product will sell more tickets/copies than a stellar niche thing.

      I’d also add that companies know they can usually ride the success of their own name/brand recognition. Even worse here with games because of pre-ordering, early-access as a product, and crowd-funding (which some wildly successful publishers still do–on top of unpaid self-promotion and all the other things–because people still think of them as indie).

      • WagesOf@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The main problem is they drop $20mil on effects and star faces and fucking spend $20/hr for a fucking committee to write a story in a week that wouldn’t pass a screenwriting 101 course.

        The problem with movies and games these days is where the money goes, not how much of it there is.

    • 50gp@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      games are art projects at the end of the day and there are often many non-art people (or just people without the right skills or vision) making executive decisions on direction, deadlines etc.

    • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Usually they don’t. Something like Horizon Forbidden West credits almost 3500 people even though Guerilla Game has less than 500 employees, most of the rest is absolutely massive bloat from different outsourced teams and Sony departments - like the “Head of Opportunity Markets Business Operations Tim Stokes from Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.: Global Business Operations” was undoubtedly very important for the development of the game.

      As for Baldurs Gate 3, Larian Studios currently has 450 employees in 6 different locations, so they are actually around the same size as Guerilla. I wouldn’t be surprised if the credits end up being well above a thousand people (D:OS2 has around 500 credits even though Larian back then had only 130 people).