I mean, i think its worth to mention it, that Larian did NOT had 400 employees at the beginning, and almost went bankrupt twice. They started with 50+ employees when started to work in BG3, then went to 100+ and just NOW 400 employees. So, they wasnt "lucky" they worked hard a LOT, Sven (the ceo) was denied the license of BG 3 first, they had to prove themselves with the Divinity series
@@jaydunna2645 No shit, but the discussion isn't about smaller studios. The devs/execs that came out claiming that BG3 was an anomaly, and urged people 'not to get their expectations up with other rpgs in the future' were primarily AAA studios with publishers. Like Diablo 4 devs with blizzard.
@@jaydunna2645of course they were fortunate to be able to not only have capital from the two previous games. But EA sales more than likely increased the size of the game by a lot. When the game has been out for a few years I'm sure we will get a developer documentary of some kind. And a studio of 20-50 people. I don't even think people expect them to make rpgs that has to have any big branching story paths to be good. If they are it will be more in line with how telltale does it where maybe the last episode is actually two episodes and you get the one depending on choices. But devs didn't come out and complain when witcher 3 raised the bar. Nor gta5, rdr2, god of war, spiderman. So all of this has been weird to see. Yes of course future rpgs that try to do anything remotely similar. Some reviews will probably say something to the effect of "it's not baldur's gate 3 but it's still an impressive game worth your time." They will write it better than what I just did but you get the gist. Because that is what happens. You compare games to what the best has done. Why do you think it took such a long time until open world games were able to match early gta? It took a lot of effort to find a way for other devs to do it at least in the same ballpark.
@@GomulDart the discussion started with an indie dude asking gamers to not be retards like they usually are. That's what i'm referring to. "The point is, they did. Smaller studios wont have this luxury."
@@jaydunna2645 most people understand that smaller studios won’t be able to do what Larian did. That point is not what’s really blowing up. What’s blowing up is the fact that big names are saying it as well, as if we should also lower our expectations from bigger studios. Which is ridiculous. If that’s not what they’re saying, it’s sure giving off that feeling.
With all these whiny developers, I hope Larian gets Game of the Year and makes huge profits. Show others that there is a market for games made by passionate developers with make great single player story games. Too many developers have lost their way chasing profits over making great games, and that may be the fault of publisher overlords, but it still remains true.
It’s 100% the publishers who are chasing the money. How much money do you think individual devs are getting? Activision regularly makes record profits and then fires a ton of developers while paying Bobby Kotick hundreds of millions a year.
Loved your thoughts, and thanks for the exposure! Baldur's Gate 3 isn't a "safe" game for AAA studios. Many developers that joined the thread were just parroting what their management says, talking to consumers about things like constraints and team size. It's disappointing they don't see BG3 as a testament to commitment or inspiration.
The reason they are pulling in more players is because it shares cinematic story telling like dragon age. There are a LOT of people coming for that alone. Not only that but they have communicated with the fans over the years.. which is what a lot of devs DONT do. Larian made a game with the fans. not a game for.
@@scalpingsnake 100% .. I don't think other devs need to worry. I mean they are complaining the game will set a new bar , but take a game like for example, dragon age origins, and then take dragon age inquisition. Both fantastic games in their own way, both from the same company and genre.. People prefer Origins more than inquisition, regardless of it being the oldest and dated of the two. People don't care how a game looks, I mean for me at least , what captures me is the stories, and the commitment the devs put into the game in making me feel like im on the edge of my seat.. when devs come out and say "we're worried" or "it's setting a new bar" its not at all.. People will play games regardless... and we haven't had a really in-depth rpg game for such a long time, and that also adds to why so many people are waiting for BG3. I'm coming into it from Dragon Age, and because bioware have dipped with their time keeping on delivering, BG3 most definitely will fill the void. The only thing I wish BG3 has would be the running control system like Dragon Age. I'm not a huge fan of clicking everywhere, but regardless the story will distract me from that most definitely.
I mean for example a npc in the game became a full fledged romanceable companion just because of their customers reaction to him. The voice actor admitted to as much, so it shows that they are listening.
@@Virtual_Sphere_ I'm in the exact same boat the reason I'm excited is because I miss the old type of bioware games that we got. Since while I enjoyed DA:I. It was not on the level of origins. Or the mass effect trilogy. I've missed this very companion and story driven rpg with a lot of choices. So even though I am a bit intimidated by having to learn all of these D&D rules. Having played early access I feel compared to launch, patch 9 was much more accessible. And more capable of getting my head around it. So much so that I am looking forward to learning how to play something new. While I also appreciate that I can look on certain channels to find tips for optimal builds when I inevitably am going to struggle. Obviously the combat isn't real time or semi real time like dragon age. But maybe the best way for you to play it if you want a bit more direct control over the character is to use a controller. I'm actually going to play it mouse and controller instead of keyboard. Because I want that more direct control but it's also so much faster to use things like inventory with a mouse instead of needing to use the big menu wheel. I understand why you need it for console only. But inventory management is a big part of games like this so it's going to save time using both. Unlike DOS 2 they don't lock you in to having to choose one before starting the game.
Larian nearly went bankrupt twice ,they have worked hard,triple A studios have got lazy pushing games out as quickly as they can with no quality control ,Larian studios have shown "This is the way "
You know who may end up looking the worst? Bethesda and Starfield. Releasing a month later, being the biggest studio in RPG computer gaming, having the history, money, pedigree, staff. If BG3 lives up to the hype, it's going to look real bad if Starfield can't come close to matching. Sure, it will still make bank, but it may look really bad when compared. We'll have to wait and see.
True. Also this may be biased but I really don't think that Bethesda is good at creating dialogues. Even the stories they create are mediocre at best. They're good at making open-world games and have some good ideas but the rest is... unimaginative. Meanwhile Larien excells at both dialogues and telling stories. Plus, and I can't stress this enough, the devs from Larien seem genuiely passionate about this and talk about everything, compared to Starfield where Todd just talks about what he wants us to hear and ignores the rest. It's really annoying and cheap imo. But for some reason it seems to work on many people...
One really wonders about Starfield. I think it'll be a great game in its Bethesda way. The space exploration fantasy is something that's under-served in the RPG space and they'll find a big audience just from that I think. But the time when a Bethesda openworld could dominate the genre the way Skyrim did is long past. It's been gone even when Fallout 4 launched - itself outshined by the Witcher 3 the same year. But I'm just happy we have so many good companies making RPGs with such diverse approaches. CDPR is coming out with Phantom Liberty let's not forget. It's a great time for RPGs
@@waveplay3978 I'm not forgetting about Phantom Liberty, I love CP2077. I just think it's more of a known quantity at this point, and those who have played it and love it will be chomping at the bit to play Phantom Liberty, and those who didn't like it may have already written it off, even though it's a huge expansion and makes lots of changes. It really is a great time. It's been a drought for a while, and then we get BG3, Starfield, and Phantom Liberty all in less than two months. It's insane.
Twitter got rid of 80% of it's workforce, shut down redundant servers (which isn't a good idea long term, redundancy is a form of protection) and is loosing more money then when he started. So the twitter example is not a good example.
How can you use the comparison of Larian vs Obsidian and claim Larian has more experience? Larian has put out 7 games, including expansions. Black Isle / Obsidian has put out 29 games. How can you say, with a straight face, that Larian has more privilege and experience? Obsidian is owned by one of the wealthiest, most powerful companies in the world. If they went to Microsoft and said that they needed them to purchase Larian to get a game made, Microsoft would probably go do that.
@@YanChose For real. Look what happened with Elden Ring. Developers started complaining about that game, and next thing you know, Elden Ring started selling millions upon millions of copies
It's drama because all of these past RPG titan studios have been sitting around doing nothing for years on end. Remakes and half baked sequels. Zero innovation. Now a new sheriff is in town and they want to cry foul.
I think those studios like obsidian and insomniac are likely afraid of consumers looking at the situation and deciding that AAA studios can do more which can lead to overworking people even more than those studios already do. I’d imagine they’re trying to curb players expectations with the industry going forward.
They'd be less prone to the overwork crunch if they pushed back on investor pressure in the interest of their own developers. It CAN happen. It doesn't because executive incentives are horrifically prioritized. Exec incentives are geared to investor demand, and investors and boards almost without fail are filled with ppl who know money and little to nothing about games and gamer communities. They're always looking for the next best way they can slide players into the most ridiculous monetization strat the market will allow, lol.
What else than high expectation should we have for AAA games? All that crazy marketing, all those promises, we see how insanely successful those studios are (financially). There is nothing else to expect than the top tier games because that is what they promise. If they make it clear that the game will not be the absolute top of the industry and the price tag will be adjusted accordignly, most people would probably lower the expecation. Instead indie scene and AA studios are often showing "how it should be done".
I wouldn't complain about a raised standard or a new threshold. This response is indicative of a failed development/business model. When I played FF16, I felt like I got my money's worth. The story was complete, I didn't run into any bugs, the gameplay was fun, and the story is one of the best in the series. In terms of story, FF16 I believed raised the bar in alot of respects in terms of story telling in an Action game. I think Street Fighter 6 adding a beat em up RPG mode made that purchase worth the extra dollars. When Dragon Age 4 comes out, I expect it to deliver more for the additional dollars. These video games developers need to rework their production model. If only smaller studios can put out better games, that is the problem with the larger studios. A larger studio should be able to put out a banger every year. They should have enough developers working in parallel with a robust QA team to develop great games at a high standard proportional to it's size.
@@神林しマイケル That’s their problem lol we as consumers just want to play when we feel like it, especially when the game is not free and it’s single player as well. Single player games without online connectivity existed way before this whole online thing and we were just fine in terms of piracy.
I really think the reason this is somewhat blowing up is because AAA Developers/Publishers have personnel jumping in on this subject... Most gamers don't really expect smaller developers to make something like BG3 with their more limited resources... And I don't think the tweet thread would have been as big of a deal, had the bigger companies just kept out of the discussion... Because heck yeah, gamers will always hold big studios to standards set by new games that raise the bar in a given category, such as Story Rich RPG's... It really appears the big studio's are showing some signs of fear towards being held to a standard they may not want to strive for... Larian is a competitor, and this may just be a bruhaha to downplay their competitor in an attempt to placate gamers from expecting higher standards from themselves?
Absolutely. With much of my family at all ends of software development, this is really what it is. My wife is a Scrum master and she sees BG3 as a virtually perfect version of what Agile attempts to do. Bro in law is VP of MS Outlook and has been privy to inside convos amongst Xbox devs who long to be able to develop with the freedom Larian independence gives them, as well as some minority attitudes that this really hurts the highly profitable monetization scheme positions a lot of big studios have worked their way into. It's been a helluva thing to get to observe from the eyes of ppl deep in the industry.
@@oukeith both games have different scales. You are comparing two different world genres, albeit they are both RPGs, those two games offer two completely different game mechanics.
It is fair that for indie devs, expectations have to be kept in check. However, BG3's success DOES and SHOULD affect the bar for AAA studios like ActiBlizzard, Bethesda, Ubisoft, EA, etc. And if those AAA studios choose to spend their money on different priorities (more management, microtransactions, excessive GFX), that *should* be held against them.
No, it doesn’t, and it won’t. Fortnite makes TWICE as much every single year as BG3 made in its first year, which is always the year that sells the best. AAA studios will never make games like this, because mindless brainrotted whales will dish out hundreds and thousands on shit games that don’t deserve the money. Fuckin CANDY CRUSH makes more money than BG3. KONAMI, one of the most iconic studios in video game history, now exclusively makes fuckin mobile games because they make more money than incredible games like Metal Gear Solid. Indie studios that slowly grow large over decades are the only chance video games have to stay boundary-pushing and creative artworks
It's all about lowering consumers standards. Just give us your money and dont worry about how much better that other game is that those other peope over there managed to make. Its an anomaly trust us. 😂
Just think. Some of the studios that don't want to be held to these standards sell games for 70$+ with monetization. Edit: I do disagree on Diablo 4. Hell, I had more fun with BG3 Early Access then I did with the entirety of Diablo 4.
Personally, my productivity between my old job that I just kinda tolerated and my current job that I love and am passionate about is night and day. I imagine the same is true for almost everyone everywhere. Most people that I’ve worked with do as little as they can to get by. Why would things be different for video game devs, unless they’re actually passionate about what they’re doing?
Someone I watch made a point that games are supposed toset a new standard or make certain genres more popular. Games are made to be bought and please consumers, so if your game is bad they'll only remmeber how bad the game was. They don't care about how much work it took because if its bad its bad.
OT: You remind me of my brother who loves to use his computer table to make those intricate Gundam he loves so much out of very small pieces. The amount of patience and meticulousness to assemble one of those robots amazes me.
Honestly as an avid customer of Single Player Open World games I set my benchmark at RDR2, yes it is a very high benchmark but Triple AAA devs need to step up. I dont need it to be matching in terms of tech wise, it just need to match my level of enjoyment which is subjective to my experience.
I didn't see the Livestream, but I just realized that model had horns coming from it's chest and then saw the feathered wings on the table and was like "Oh sht that's Magnus the Red!" 😂
I didn't expect the same quality out of Stardew valley as I did elden ring but by God did that game surpass everything I expected. All for like 10-15 bucks. Triple A games don't have to hit the scope of Baldurs gate 3. They just have to make a good game with less live service micro transaction bull. I'd be happy paying 70 for a really good 12 hr game with some replay value. Triple A developers aren't even hitting that.
BG3 is a massive game. We get more content from the first act then most other games have in total. That's not impressive. The thing that impresses me is that you get 2 more acts for the low price of $50. Other companies are charging $90 for garbage.
When most games 'raise the bar' it's some new tech or approach to development. Baldurs Gate is raising the bar simply in its sheer scope and breadth of content. To expect other RPGs to match it wouldn't be to expect better, it'd be to expect MORE Having hundreds of thousands of lines of dialogue and a story that reacts to a countless amount of choices isn't a new technical achievement. It's the result of ungodly amounts of time and effort that I simply don't understand how they could afford and I don't expect anyone will match for a long time
@@existentialselkath1264 A bunch of Ubisoft titles have the same amount of content. Their last Assasin's Creed games were obviously influenced by Witcher 3 as well. Therefore they were obviously compared to it by gamers.
@@ulfgarion I considered mentioning ubisoft in my comment but I figured it went without saying. Ubisoft is a perfect example of matching the quantity, but not the quality. Comparing the side quests of Valhalla to those that came before is a perfect example. Writers and designers only have so much time, they can either spend it fleshing out more deep and interesting quests with choices and everything, or they can add a plethora of fetchquests and the like. Obviously both games have a mix, but as they get bigger they trend towards the latter.
@@existentialselkath1264 "Writers and designers only have so much time."??? It's not consumer's product that Ubisoft don't give games enough development time. And talking about that, Witcher 3 was made in 4 years by much smaller CD Project Red with less finances. While Valhalla was made in 3 years but by much bigger studio with more money. Ubisoft could have easily match both quality and size of Witcher 3, if not their awful management. But gamers don't and shouldn't care about bad management.
Thus is the point, this is pure entitlement and cope from developers that don't want to have to put in the effort and EARN your money, they just want you to consume, don't think just give us money for lesser work. No one is gonna demand someone like, the solo dev of Vampire Survivors, to pump out an Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate 3, but you can best believe people are gonna look at the AAA industry, with all their money and teams and see that those companies do nothing, have no passion and just farm out slop to get paid. It is stunning how many misconceptions and "You just got lucky" are behind the dev's words. Its honestly the soyjak facemask meme, where they are smiling or smug on the mask and then crying and seething behind it. Shame on every single dev that replied in agreement with this nonsense stance. The customers decide the bar, not your entitled 'give me your money' soulless game farms. Where was this cope and seethe for Bioware or CDPR? No its just that Larian, who have worked hard to get to this exact position must be rebelled against because they make everyone else look bad by comparison. Its truly pathetic.
Honestly it feels surreal how far the gaming industry has come if we think back on how it all started i actually cant believe so many people play games like damn
Ohh companies actually says: "We making lazy games yearly, we don't want to work so hard so don't think that Baldur gates 3 will give you some ideas ok folks?"
BG3 is what it us through absolutely earned achievement. There are so many things they did right, risked and were rewarded for, etc that brought us here, they absolutely deserve the shift in attitudes its sbout to create in legions of players sbout to experience it for the first time who will see what is possible without cash shops, abusive monetization, etc. They offered a fair deal, an early access at the price of the release version that gave you every iteration of the game up to and including full release. That gave them the funds they needed without getting greedy. And it gave them w perfect pool of beta testers dedicated to helping create the game as a team with Larian, and Larian absolutely respected their players at every layer. They integrated feedback, kept communication transparent, honest, and complete. And as things shaped up and the game was polished, tuned, and perfected, players and devs rightly began to see what they were helping create. A legit, awe inspiring game that isn't squeezing you for another dollar every minute. whether you bought early access or not, you paud for the full experience and it was a one time purchase. You bought the whole deal. Maybe there will be expansions. With Larian, i eill enthusiastically pay for them, because i will get the old-school, expansive experience you used to expect before things like DLCs and seasons etc gradually moved the goalposts to offer less content for the same price or more. I coukd go on, but im preaching yo the choir, lol
not really dude not every studio has the resources to keep up with the dogs at the top some mechanics yeah some modernization sure but not everyone has the talent and money to be at the top .
I just want games that actually works.. games that dont use all my CPU and GPU power .. Caugh Caugh Last of Us on PC.. We have way too many games these days that simply does not work.
If Baldur's Gate is a niche, then that niche is huge. People have waiting for this for twenty years and it's better than we could have ever imagined. It's game of the decade materiel.
they are threatened by the fact that smaller studio is creating something that they cant. I mean lets look at Sony games (and this isn't a knock against them I enjoy Sony games) but most of their first party games are heavy story focused games that are heavy on mocap with very basic game play..I mean I love god of war but its telling how quickly everyone moved on from Ragnarok and how many people still talk about that ? how about horizon ?? and don't get me started on Xbox they haven't released anything notable in a while so ill pass over them until they finally start making games again instead of controllers. im happy BG3 is pissing off these devs it only shows me that these big studios are only interested in trying to get more money out of players after initial release with micros and GAAS crap. games like BG3 should be a benchmark in the industry instead it just brings out the hate..kinda sad
Honestly, I first heard about this on the Bg3 sub so I definitely reacted strongly when first hearing about it... but after watching the guy who originally started all this I definitely see a lot of his points and do think he provides some really good information in general (especially when he spoke about stealth games). The main issue I have is how he implies Larian got lucky? Sure they are an anomaly but give credit where it's due. But also no one is gonna assume the scale of BG3 should apply to all games? Indie devs obviously wont be expected to do this... and honestly if AAA dev teams get more expected from them, good. I don't think they have to reach the same bar but they absolutely should try.
I'm not sure you want to compare a company to Twitter, and the huge downfall. The changes they have made already existed in the system, nothing new was created, it was just changing the settings that already existed. So not a good comparison.
Lmao how narcissistic are developers to come out like that. To think we expect much from them. Most of them make dogshit to mediocre to decent quality games, then we have a massive game like BG3 and the shitty devs have the nerve to think WE expect them to pull off something like THAT? Don’t worry, Ubisoft, nobody’s thinking The Division spin-off will change gaming. We all know what to expect from you all. And that’s why BG3 is so special.
It's funny that they cite accomplishments and refer to them as 'advantages'... And then they pretend to congratulate with backhanded compliments. Also no mention of any challenges Larian has faced 🤦 How they say what they say speaks volumes.
I'd say that if you want to see a small studio make the same type game as BG3, just look at Solasta, which is a fabulous game, though nowhere near the level of BG3. Still, I'm happy to spend money on new Solasta content, and I know that they are working hard to continue what they started, which is worth it, and it's what I will play when I feel like a break from BG3, along with the Pathfinder games that have years of replay value as well. Everything doesn't have to be BG3, but it's easy to see when a game is a labor of love, and I applaud and invest in those games.
Most of us aren’t looking for door buster games. We just want games that are fun and actually work on launch! We don’t want to be preached to, super high-fidelity graphics, and movie long cutscenes. We want engaging game play, cool and good looking characters, and minimal bugs!
Makes sense to me when we're talking purely about the scope of the game, and not quality. It's not all that reasonable to expect every RPG moving forward to have 170 hours of cutscenes and 17,000 different ending permutations.
Didn't Guerilla Games come out and say they have 16 Horizon projects in the works? Granted, not all of those are games. I think UbiSoft said they have something like 14 AC games over the next 10 years or so? Something like that. I would far prefer that AAA development studios scale that way back. I only wish for the third Horizon game and a multiplayer game, and I only need a new AC game every 3 years or so. On that sort of schedule, AAA studios could vastly improve their games. Larian has also shown that you don't need the highest level of graphics (BG3 looks great, mind you) but you can have fantastic scope and depth with more time put into those departments. It really left a bad, bad feeling with me to see that original Twitter and then all these devs coming out to support it. They're essentially just saying "No, we don't want to do all of that. We have a quarterly publishing schedule to meet, and profits to hit. Do you think we are in business to make what gamers want?" So I tell you what: I absolutely will judge all AAA games vs Baldur's Gate 3.
I feel like bg3 (if it is that good) is just the apex of rpg's. The sentiment among AAA Rpg developers for a few years now has been that the games are approaching critical mass. That if we keep improving in scope, scale, complexity that within the next few years it will no longer be feasible to go bigger
Absolutely true no one is looking to hold indie devs or smaller studios to AAA standards but AAA studios like blizzard have zero excuse. I kind of enjoyed Diablo4 but it wasn't anything amazing and in truth I played it for maybe a month 3 or 4 times a week, it just didn't hold my interest. In truth a lot more should be expected from a company like blizzard. BG3 is just much better value for money than diablo4.
I really hope I can get into this game. I know the story will be great based on what everyone is already saying.. I unfortunately have a track record of just being bad at these types of games... which generally kills my fun :(. Its odd. I will struggle with games such as this. Last one I tried to play was Divinity: Original Sin 2.. I would get stomped in that game left and right. I don't know how many different time and ways I tried to approach fights. It just never worked. But as much as I sucked at that game. I would turn around, throw something like the Witcher 3 on death march.. and have an amazing time. Divinity, for what ever reason. Just destroyed me. I am hoping this one doesn't do the same :(
They started small and grew the scope over time. Whining about them is childish and salty. Not every game is GTA, not every game is BG3. Players understand that. Im sorry that these people don’t.
AAA games budget and stuff is completely misunderstood by 90% of gamers. their development budgets aren't so massive that the 70$ is even warrented. what makes modern AAA games cost so much to make is that they often have 1x to 3x the development budget as a marketing budget which they don't fucking need. they spend sooooo much on marketing and it doesn't show, you can easily market stuff like video games on the Internet because well most gamers spend atleast some time on youtube and twitch watching creators that are easy marketing tools and cost very little to make you market your game. some times all they cost are a free CDKEY.. Also if the 70$ price tag is a necessity to not make the company go under then why can CEO's and execs get Bonuses of 5-50m $ all the time in many of these companies? Besides the quality of many of these games are not even that high, because they try to be so broad that there is something for everyone and thus they master non of their elements and don't really excell at anything. Besides on this Drama about Larian: 1: they didn't start out with 400 people throughout most of BG3's development cycle it was like 80-140 people working on it, it is only here in 2023 they have reached that amount of people, and not all are developers, some are QA testers. 2: yes they have previous experience with top down turn based CRPG's in DOS 1 and 2 but well so does most AAA studios in their respective genre's. Lets not pretent like most AAA studios don't just churn the same franchises out over and over again so in that respect there is more difference between BG3 and DOS than fx Assasins creed Valhalla and Assasins Creed (Whatever the newest one is called) fx or Diablo IV and Diablo 3. 3: the game has been in development for a long time yes, but the post makes that seem like it's unfair to do so when many such AAA games have equally long cycles too, and furthermore it makes it seem like it was a priviledge by Larian and that everything was going swimingly in that time and nothing was hindering them, which is so completely ludacris.. in the time BG3 was developed there was the Corona Outbreak and the War in Ukraine both had an impact to some degree on the game and the cost to make it. 4: ''they are priviledge to have the D&D name attached to the game''.. sure it helps but so are you, AAA studios rarely create new original IPS anymore and so use existing franchises all the time which is the same effect. Not to mention D&D is more of a niche thing than other franchise names and so often times draw in less people on the franchise name alone. These devs excluding the Indie devs are completely out of their mind and defeatist's they give up before even trying which leads me to believe they don't really care about the products they make, and to the Indie devs and AA devs commenting on the post, i really don't understand why you believe anyone would expect you to make BG4 or GTA VI, nobody has ever expected such things whenever great games has come out, why should they start doing so now? did the Witcher 3 get used to hold you guys Ransom and expect such level of Polish and scale in your games? No it didn't because people know there is a difference and because all people care about is if the game is good or not, if it's fun or not, and if it is worth the price tag.
When it comes to the big companies, I think the point is missed on Luke's part. Most of the problems with big video games offices is that they are publicly traded, which means they have to adhere to folks who aren't really engaged with the art they are trying to make, creating unrealistic deadlines, additions of things like microtransactions, etc. Larian doesn't have to deal with that, that's one reason that they'll be able to do what they do. Cutting down the people from a couple thousand to something less isn't going to make it better, it's just going to stress further who's left.
Thanks for a rational video on the whole stupid storm-in-a-teacup. I first read the original twitter thread and thought "huh, that guy is right. BG3 is going to be an exceptional game, made by an exceptional company who've been building up to this for a decade". Then the internet did its thing and interpreted the wording of "anomaly" in the most ungenerous way with the least benefit of the doubt, and ran with it. Suddenly other game devs are "scared" to be held up to BG3's new standard? Then the gaming sites and youtubers jumped on this "drama" for clicks and engagement, dragging the conversation further and further from the original message. Over the last 3 days or so I've felt really annoyed with online discourse. It's just such a mess amplifying the most low-faith voices all the time
It's not consumers problem that it's a norm for AAA games nowadays to be disappointing, buggy and lucky nowadays. And it's not consumers problem that other companies don't use their past experience to make better new games. Ubisoft produced so many Assasin's Creed, Far Crys and other series but their newer games aren't better than their old ones. Bioware's Mass Effect Andromeda is 4th entry in the series, but it's the weakest one. Baldur's Gate 3 simply had healthy production cycle. And it's not customers problem that other companies can't organise same production and instead release games unfinished or bugged. Plus, it's not even including the price, which is 60$ not 70$. And that many other AAA games now have bad monetisation practices of other companies, even Resident Evil 4 Remake wasn't fully clear of it
@@ulfgarion the thread did not come from Ubisoft though, and it wasn't in "defense" of current AAA standards. This is what I mean with my comment. The discourse twisted the original message to be something it completely else
to me its not the production value that makes BG3 so great. If BG3 looked like wasteland 3 or WH40K:RT and still had the same amount of depth of choice and consequence and the same story, i still would've considered it a great game
When I see Josh Sawyer making those statements, I think it makes sense coming from Obsidian. They’re known for branching stories with choice and consequence so a narrative as wide reaching as BG3 could be a hard precedence to follow. Obsidian has 200 employees spread across multiple projects so while they’re AAA size, they’ve got fairly small teams. I think Outer Worlds had a team of like 50-60 people working on it. So holding Obsidian to the branching stories standard of BG3 (with avowed coming next year and lined up to be the same size as Outer Worlds) would be unfair
Obsidian had same team, when they were working on Fallout New Vegas, which was a better rpg than Outer Worlds. Why they didn't use their past experience to make new product better?
@@ulfgarion they have multiple teams spinning up games all the time, working in different engines, different projects. Josh Sawyer directed New Vegas but didn’t direct Outer Worlds. The OW was actually directed by the duo that created the whole Fallout series to begin work (they now work at Obsidian). Different engines, different combat systems, different mechanics, it’s all a factor. Noclip has a great documentary on the making of OW that is really interesting. These guys were new hires at Obsidian and got put on directing The OW and had to learn how to make an FPS in Unreal while on the job with a crew of 50 while literally on the brink of bankruptcy the entire time. Josh Sawyer was handed source code and an engine from Bethesda and given 18 months to deliver a game with a different team within Obsidian. Just different teams in different situations.
If Obsidian has only 1 director, who can make their rpgs good, it's not consumers problem. Then the Outer Worlds shouldn't have been rpg to begin with. The Outer Worlds was mainly criticised by rpg players for it's story and characters, not lesser scope or different mechanics. And lack of budget doesn't excuse this.
@@ulfgarion now you’re just being ridiculous. Outer Worlds was a good game and the reviews across the board say the same 🤷♂️ you might not like the game but that doesn’t mean it’s bad.
People don't care how the game was made, what kind of technology is behind it, what kind of work environment it was made in. Only that it's a good game. No one cares about the details. If it will be good then it will set a new standard and all this whining will be for nothing.
17,000 endings sounds like Todd Howard saying Fallout 3 had over 200 endings. 17,000 different variants with some absolutely minuscule differences sure, but 17,000 unique endings? That's unrealistic and jumping on the hype train without engaing your brain's critical thinking capabilities.
Studio's previous game had 7 unique endings and a lot of permutations. That's more than enough for most players and Baldur's Gate 3 likely won't be different.
I mean, you're right, but even in terms of minuscule differences, 17K is an absolutely insane number. It's not something to get excited about on its own, but taken with all the other facts, it goes to show that the choice and consequence in the game is absolutely unprecedented.
Honestly, I never saw someone talk bad about a game just because of the scope, on the contrary, i've seen it because of bloated games(looking at you ubisoft), and it's usually because the projects aren't passionate, just souless, usually bad games, forced on devs by executives that want the highest possible profit, and I think that this whole drama demonstrates exactly the little agency devs have on their games. People don't complain about waiting 6 years for a game, nor the 70$, they do because they wait, pay that high price and the final product is an unfinished thrash.
i actually relate to what the indie guy is saying. If i understand correctly, all hes saying is...BG 3 is amazing and all, but it took 100s of people, 7 studios, over 5 years of dev time, and 100s of millions of dollars to make. Please dont expect the same for RGPSs made by smaller studios. BG3 is a bar raiser, not the standard.
So you are saying all scientist suck because they are not Einstein? IF BG3 is going to be an Einstein movement, that does not mean all other products now suck and all other future product will now suck because they didn't duplicate an ONCE in a UNIVERSE game. There is no possible way for me to look at BG3 dev cycle and write a handbook on how to duplicate it... I would have to make a world wide sickness and kill millions of people as part of my game development????? And that is just the most in your face special condition of BG3.
Being a whiny crybaby is NOT a good look for developers at huge corporations. "No, no, they are going to force us to make good games." seems to be the theme.
Double A, Triple A. We should not expect the same amount of content. But we should hold all companies to same standard. Open world game must have fast travel, mounts, interesting world. Rpgs must have branching choices in narrative and gameplay. Dont want to adhere to standards, don't make those kind of games.
This is why we all cant wait for AI to replace these developers. Then with a few "AI Whisperers" you can build massive games like Larian, but with 1/10 the people and 1/4 of the time
See you just explained why Star citizen has the funding model that it does and why 10 years later it's still nowhere close to being done.. because it would be impossible completely impossible to make the game they're going to make with normal game funding. I mean it took 220 million dollars to make horizon forbidden West let that sink it. I mean yeah Star citizens made like half a billion now and I'm sure they're going to make another half a billion but when that game is finished it will be unlike anything ever seen in gaming and in some ways it already is.. we've never seen a space game with spaceships that function the way they do in Star citizen
I mean, i think its worth to mention it, that Larian did NOT had 400 employees at the beginning, and almost went bankrupt twice.
They started with 50+ employees when started to work in BG3, then went to 100+ and just NOW 400 employees.
So, they wasnt "lucky" they worked hard a LOT, Sven (the ceo) was denied the license of BG 3 first, they had to prove themselves with the Divinity series
Larian didn't start with 400 people and seven studios. They were added throughout the Early Access period.
The point is, they did. Smaller studios wont have this luxury.
@@jaydunna2645 No shit, but the discussion isn't about smaller studios. The devs/execs that came out claiming that BG3 was an anomaly, and urged people 'not to get their expectations up with other rpgs in the future' were primarily AAA studios with publishers. Like Diablo 4 devs with blizzard.
@@jaydunna2645of course they were fortunate to be able to not only have capital from the two previous games. But EA sales more than likely increased the size of the game by a lot. When the game has been out for a few years I'm sure we will get a developer documentary of some kind.
And a studio of 20-50 people. I don't even think people expect them to make rpgs that has to have any big branching story paths to be good. If they are it will be more in line with how telltale does it where maybe the last episode is actually two episodes and you get the one depending on choices.
But devs didn't come out and complain when witcher 3 raised the bar. Nor gta5, rdr2, god of war, spiderman. So all of this has been weird to see.
Yes of course future rpgs that try to do anything remotely similar. Some reviews will probably say something to the effect of "it's not baldur's gate 3 but it's still an impressive game worth your time." They will write it better than what I just did but you get the gist.
Because that is what happens. You compare games to what the best has done. Why do you think it took such a long time until open world games were able to match early gta? It took a lot of effort to find a way for other devs to do it at least in the same ballpark.
@@GomulDart the discussion started with an indie dude asking gamers to not be retards like they usually are. That's what i'm referring to.
"The point is, they did. Smaller studios wont have this luxury."
@@jaydunna2645 most people understand that smaller studios won’t be able to do what Larian did. That point is not what’s really blowing up.
What’s blowing up is the fact that big names are saying it as well, as if we should also lower our expectations from bigger studios. Which is ridiculous. If that’s not what they’re saying, it’s sure giving off that feeling.
With all these whiny developers, I hope Larian gets Game of the Year and makes huge profits.
Show others that there is a market for games made by passionate developers with make great single player story games.
Too many developers have lost their way chasing profits over making great games, and that may be the fault of publisher overlords, but it still remains true.
It’s 100% the publishers who are chasing the money. How much money do you think individual devs are getting? Activision regularly makes record profits and then fires a ton of developers while paying Bobby Kotick hundreds of millions a year.
Inshallah
The only whiny people I see here are the gamers who are literally fabricating drama.
@@theobell2002 then you didn’t even watch the beginning of the video where he went through how AAA devs from even Blizzard are chiming in.
Loved your thoughts, and thanks for the exposure! Baldur's Gate 3 isn't a "safe" game for AAA studios. Many developers that joined the thread were just parroting what their management says, talking to consumers about things like constraints and team size. It's disappointing they don't see BG3 as a testament to commitment or inspiration.
The reason they are pulling in more players is because it shares cinematic story telling like dragon age. There are a LOT of people coming for that alone. Not only that but they have communicated with the fans over the years.. which is what a lot of devs DONT do. Larian made a game with the fans. not a game for.
Exactly
Yup, I have a feeling this game just like how I see Elden Ring is gonna shift this genre from niche to mainstream.
@@scalpingsnake 100% .. I don't think other devs need to worry. I mean they are complaining the game will set a new bar , but take a game like for example, dragon age origins, and then take dragon age inquisition. Both fantastic games in their own way, both from the same company and genre.. People prefer Origins more than inquisition, regardless of it being the oldest and dated of the two. People don't care how a game looks, I mean for me at least , what captures me is the stories, and the commitment the devs put into the game in making me feel like im on the edge of my seat.. when devs come out and say "we're worried" or "it's setting a new bar" its not at all.. People will play games regardless... and we haven't had a really in-depth rpg game for such a long time, and that also adds to why so many people are waiting for BG3. I'm coming into it from Dragon Age, and because bioware have dipped with their time keeping on delivering, BG3 most definitely will fill the void. The only thing I wish BG3 has would be the running control system like Dragon Age. I'm not a huge fan of clicking everywhere, but regardless the story will distract me from that most definitely.
I mean for example a npc in the game became a full fledged romanceable companion just because of their customers reaction to him. The voice actor admitted to as much, so it shows that they are listening.
@@Virtual_Sphere_ I'm in the exact same boat the reason I'm excited is because I miss the old type of bioware games that we got. Since while I enjoyed DA:I. It was not on the level of origins. Or the mass effect trilogy. I've missed this very companion and story driven rpg with a lot of choices. So even though I am a bit intimidated by having to learn all of these D&D rules. Having played early access I feel compared to launch, patch 9 was much more accessible. And more capable of getting my head around it. So much so that I am looking forward to learning how to play something new. While I also appreciate that I can look on certain channels to find tips for optimal builds when I inevitably am going to struggle.
Obviously the combat isn't real time or semi real time like dragon age. But maybe the best way for you to play it if you want a bit more direct control over the character is to use a controller. I'm actually going to play it mouse and controller instead of keyboard. Because I want that more direct control but it's also so much faster to use things like inventory with a mouse instead of needing to use the big menu wheel. I understand why you need it for console only. But inventory management is a big part of games like this so it's going to save time using both. Unlike DOS 2 they don't lock you in to having to choose one before starting the game.
Larian nearly went bankrupt twice ,they have worked hard,triple A studios have got lazy pushing games out as quickly as they can with no quality control ,Larian studios have shown "This is the way "
You know who may end up looking the worst?
Bethesda and Starfield.
Releasing a month later, being the biggest studio in RPG computer gaming, having the history, money, pedigree, staff.
If BG3 lives up to the hype, it's going to look real bad if Starfield can't come close to matching. Sure, it will still make bank, but it may look really bad when compared.
We'll have to wait and see.
Well said
True. Also this may be biased but I really don't think that Bethesda is good at creating dialogues. Even the stories they create are mediocre at best. They're good at making open-world games and have some good ideas but the rest is... unimaginative. Meanwhile Larien excells at both dialogues and telling stories.
Plus, and I can't stress this enough, the devs from Larien seem genuiely passionate about this and talk about everything, compared to Starfield where Todd just talks about what he wants us to hear and ignores the rest. It's really annoying and cheap imo. But for some reason it seems to work on many people...
One really wonders about Starfield. I think it'll be a great game in its Bethesda way. The space exploration fantasy is something that's under-served in the RPG space and they'll find a big audience just from that I think. But the time when a Bethesda openworld could dominate the genre the way Skyrim did is long past. It's been gone even when Fallout 4 launched - itself outshined by the Witcher 3 the same year. But I'm just happy we have so many good companies making RPGs with such diverse approaches. CDPR is coming out with Phantom Liberty let's not forget. It's a great time for RPGs
True. And I don't think Bethesda is going to be a good RPG. Bethesda games haven't been for a while
@@waveplay3978 I'm not forgetting about Phantom Liberty, I love CP2077. I just think it's more of a known quantity at this point, and those who have played it and love it will be chomping at the bit to play Phantom Liberty, and those who didn't like it may have already written it off, even though it's a huge expansion and makes lots of changes.
It really is a great time. It's been a drought for a while, and then we get BG3, Starfield, and Phantom Liberty all in less than two months. It's insane.
Twitter got rid of 80% of it's workforce, shut down redundant servers (which isn't a good idea long term, redundancy is a form of protection) and is loosing more money then when he started. So the twitter example is not a good example.
How can you use the comparison of Larian vs Obsidian and claim Larian has more experience?
Larian has put out 7 games, including expansions.
Black Isle / Obsidian has put out 29 games.
How can you say, with a straight face, that Larian has more privilege and experience? Obsidian is owned by one of the wealthiest, most powerful companies in the world. If they went to Microsoft and said that they needed them to purchase Larian to get a game made, Microsoft would probably go do that.
This is literally free marketing for BG3 Xd
Not only free, when your competition admits they're not in the same league, it's hard to ask for a better stamp of approval !
@@YanChose For real. Look what happened with Elden Ring. Developers started complaining about that game, and next thing you know, Elden Ring started selling millions upon millions of copies
It's drama because all of these past RPG titan studios have been sitting around doing nothing for years on end. Remakes and half baked sequels. Zero innovation. Now a new sheriff is in town and they want to cry foul.
I’m obsidian entertainment will never be the team that made New Vegas
I think those studios like obsidian and insomniac are likely afraid of consumers looking at the situation and deciding that AAA studios can do more which can lead to overworking people even more than those studios already do. I’d imagine they’re trying to curb players expectations with the industry going forward.
They'd be less prone to the overwork crunch if they pushed back on investor pressure in the interest of their own developers. It CAN happen. It doesn't because executive incentives are horrifically prioritized. Exec incentives are geared to investor demand, and investors and boards almost without fail are filled with ppl who know money and little to nothing about games and gamer communities. They're always looking for the next best way they can slide players into the most ridiculous monetization strat the market will allow, lol.
What else than high expectation should we have for AAA games? All that crazy marketing, all those promises, we see how insanely successful those studios are (financially). There is nothing else to expect than the top tier games because that is what they promise. If they make it clear that the game will not be the absolute top of the industry and the price tag will be adjusted accordignly, most people would probably lower the expecation. Instead indie scene and AA studios are often showing "how it should be done".
I wouldn't complain about a raised standard or a new threshold. This response is indicative of a failed development/business model. When I played FF16, I felt like I got my money's worth. The story was complete, I didn't run into any bugs, the gameplay was fun, and the story is one of the best in the series. In terms of story, FF16 I believed raised the bar in alot of respects in terms of story telling in an Action game. I think Street Fighter 6 adding a beat em up RPG mode made that purchase worth the extra dollars. When Dragon Age 4 comes out, I expect it to deliver more for the additional dollars. These video games developers need to rework their production model. If only smaller studios can put out better games, that is the problem with the larger studios. A larger studio should be able to put out a banger every year. They should have enough developers working in parallel with a robust QA team to develop great games at a high standard proportional to it's size.
Can’t call Diablo IV accessible when you need online connexion to play a single player game i’m sorry.
The only reason they do that is for game pirating. It makes it considerably harder to pirate.
@@神林しマイケル That’s their problem lol we as consumers just want to play when we feel like it, especially when the game is not free and it’s single player as well.
Single player games without online
connectivity existed way before this whole online thing and we were just fine in terms of piracy.
Diablo IV is not a singleplayer game. Also, who doesn't have an internet connection in 2023? lol
@@theobell2002 Travel more, if you can.
I really think the reason this is somewhat blowing up is because AAA Developers/Publishers have personnel jumping in on this subject... Most gamers don't really expect smaller developers to make something like BG3 with their more limited resources... And I don't think the tweet thread would have been as big of a deal, had the bigger companies just kept out of the discussion... Because heck yeah, gamers will always hold big studios to standards set by new games that raise the bar in a given category, such as Story Rich RPG's... It really appears the big studio's are showing some signs of fear towards being held to a standard they may not want to strive for... Larian is a competitor, and this may just be a bruhaha to downplay their competitor in an attempt to placate gamers from expecting higher standards from themselves?
Absolutely. With much of my family at all ends of software development, this is really what it is. My wife is a Scrum master and she sees BG3 as a virtually perfect version of what Agile attempts to do. Bro in law is VP of MS Outlook and has been privy to inside convos amongst Xbox devs who long to be able to develop with the freedom Larian independence gives them, as well as some minority attitudes that this really hurts the highly profitable monetization scheme positions a lot of big studios have worked their way into. It's been a helluva thing to get to observe from the eyes of ppl deep in the industry.
2:49 the only validity in their “concerns” are the repressed feelings of inadequacy.
Funny thing is, they would never say that about Starfield...
Insight gained 👌
Starfield is no where near the scale Baldurs gate 3 is.
I'd hope the same holds true for Starfield. Expecting every open world game going forward to have 1000 planet sized explorable areas would be idiotic.
@@oukeith I’m definitely gonna get and am 100% hyped for starfield but I will 100% agree with this from what they’re saying
@@oukeith both games have different scales.
You are comparing two different world genres, albeit they are both RPGs, those two games offer two completely different game mechanics.
I don't have the platform to play it but I'm going to just buy it for support to the developers for being awesome
can you play via cloud? i know NVIDIA has cloud service
Hey you mind buying me a Steam key while you're at it? Hahaha
So... they should do better?
Naaahhh... That's insane!
It is fair that for indie devs, expectations have to be kept in check. However, BG3's success DOES and SHOULD affect the bar for AAA studios like ActiBlizzard, Bethesda, Ubisoft, EA, etc. And if those AAA studios choose to spend their money on different priorities (more management, microtransactions, excessive GFX), that *should* be held against them.
No, it doesn’t, and it won’t. Fortnite makes TWICE as much every single year as BG3 made in its first year, which is always the year that sells the best. AAA studios will never make games like this, because mindless brainrotted whales will dish out hundreds and thousands on shit games that don’t deserve the money.
Fuckin CANDY CRUSH makes more money than BG3.
KONAMI, one of the most iconic studios in video game history, now exclusively makes fuckin mobile games because they make more money than incredible games like Metal Gear Solid.
Indie studios that slowly grow large over decades are the only chance video games have to stay boundary-pushing and creative artworks
If developers want lower expectations, how about they lower the price as well? Because they raised the price to $70, and so will the expectations
It's all about lowering consumers standards. Just give us your money and dont worry about how much better that other game is that those other peope over there managed to make. Its an anomaly trust us. 😂
Lol see!!!
Just think. Some of the studios that don't want to be held to these standards sell games for 70$+ with monetization.
Edit: I do disagree on Diablo 4. Hell, I had more fun with BG3 Early Access then I did with the entirety of Diablo 4.
Personally, my productivity between my old job that I just kinda tolerated and my current job that I love and am passionate about is night and day. I imagine the same is true for almost everyone everywhere. Most people that I’ve worked with do as little as they can to get by. Why would things be different for video game devs, unless they’re actually passionate about what they’re doing?
Someone I watch made a point that games are supposed toset a new standard or make certain genres more popular. Games are made to be bought and please consumers, so if your game is bad they'll only remmeber how bad the game was. They don't care about how much work it took because if its bad its bad.
OT: You remind me of my brother who loves to use his computer table to make those intricate Gundam he loves so much out of very small pieces. The amount of patience and meticulousness to assemble one of those robots amazes me.
Honestly as an avid customer of Single Player Open World games I set my benchmark at RDR2, yes it is a very high benchmark but Triple AAA devs need to step up. I dont need it to be matching in terms of tech wise, it just need to match my level of enjoyment which is subjective to my experience.
I didn't see the Livestream, but I just realized that model had horns coming from it's chest and then saw the feathered wings on the table and was like "Oh sht that's Magnus the Red!" 😂
I didn't expect the same quality out of Stardew valley as I did elden ring but by God did that game surpass everything I expected. All for like 10-15 bucks. Triple A games don't have to hit the scope of Baldurs gate 3. They just have to make a good game with less live service micro transaction bull. I'd be happy paying 70 for a really good 12 hr game with some replay value. Triple A developers aren't even hitting that.
BG3 is a massive game. We get more content from the first act then most other games have in total. That's not impressive. The thing that impresses me is that you get 2 more acts for the low price of $50. Other companies are charging $90 for garbage.
Bg3 has never been $50.
@@SnailHatan Early access it was
When most games 'raise the bar' it's some new tech or approach to development.
Baldurs Gate is raising the bar simply in its sheer scope and breadth of content. To expect other RPGs to match it wouldn't be to expect better, it'd be to expect MORE
Having hundreds of thousands of lines of dialogue and a story that reacts to a countless amount of choices isn't a new technical achievement. It's the result of ungodly amounts of time and effort that I simply don't understand how they could afford and I don't expect anyone will match for a long time
Witcher 3 also just raised the bar simply in its scope and content, not in tech.
@@ulfgarion and many games since still don't match the amount of content or the quality of content, even fewer manage both.
@@existentialselkath1264 A bunch of Ubisoft titles have the same amount of content. Their last Assasin's Creed games were obviously influenced by Witcher 3 as well. Therefore they were obviously compared to it by gamers.
@@ulfgarion I considered mentioning ubisoft in my comment but I figured it went without saying. Ubisoft is a perfect example of matching the quantity, but not the quality.
Comparing the side quests of Valhalla to those that came before is a perfect example. Writers and designers only have so much time, they can either spend it fleshing out more deep and interesting quests with choices and everything, or they can add a plethora of fetchquests and the like.
Obviously both games have a mix, but as they get bigger they trend towards the latter.
@@existentialselkath1264 "Writers and designers only have so much time."???
It's not consumer's product that Ubisoft don't give games enough development time. And talking about that, Witcher 3 was made in 4 years by much smaller CD Project Red with less finances. While Valhalla was made in 3 years but by much bigger studio with more money. Ubisoft could have easily match both quality and size of Witcher 3, if not their awful management. But gamers don't and shouldn't care about bad management.
compys getting but hurt that someone is airing their dirty laundry
Thus is the point, this is pure entitlement and cope from developers that don't want to have to put in the effort and EARN your money, they just want you to consume, don't think just give us money for lesser work. No one is gonna demand someone like, the solo dev of Vampire Survivors, to pump out an Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate 3, but you can best believe people are gonna look at the AAA industry, with all their money and teams and see that those companies do nothing, have no passion and just farm out slop to get paid.
It is stunning how many misconceptions and "You just got lucky" are behind the dev's words. Its honestly the soyjak facemask meme, where they are smiling or smug on the mask and then crying and seething behind it. Shame on every single dev that replied in agreement with this nonsense stance. The customers decide the bar, not your entitled 'give me your money' soulless game farms.
Where was this cope and seethe for Bioware or CDPR? No its just that Larian, who have worked hard to get to this exact position must be rebelled against because they make everyone else look bad by comparison. Its truly pathetic.
Honestly it feels surreal how far the gaming industry has come if we think back on how it all started i actually cant believe so many people play games like damn
Ohh companies actually says: "We making lazy games yearly, we don't want to work so hard so don't think that Baldur gates 3 will give you some ideas ok folks?"
BG3 is what it us through absolutely earned achievement. There are so many things they did right, risked and were rewarded for, etc that brought us here, they absolutely deserve the shift in attitudes its sbout to create in legions of players sbout to experience it for the first time who will see what is possible without cash shops, abusive monetization, etc. They offered a fair deal, an early access at the price of the release version that gave you every iteration of the game up to and including full release. That gave them the funds they needed without getting greedy. And it gave them w perfect pool of beta testers dedicated to helping create the game as a team with Larian, and Larian absolutely respected their players at every layer. They integrated feedback, kept communication transparent, honest, and complete. And as things shaped up and the game was polished, tuned, and perfected, players and devs rightly began to see what they were helping create. A legit, awe inspiring game that isn't squeezing you for another dollar every minute. whether you bought early access or not, you paud for the full experience and it was a one time purchase. You bought the whole deal. Maybe there will be expansions. With Larian, i eill enthusiastically pay for them, because i will get the old-school, expansive experience you used to expect before things like DLCs and seasons etc gradually moved the goalposts to offer less content for the same price or more. I coukd go on, but im preaching yo the choir, lol
not really dude not every studio has the resources to keep up with the dogs at the top some mechanics yeah some modernization sure but not everyone has the talent and money to be at the top .
I don’t think one person played Owl Cat’s Pathfinder and expected an Assassin Creed budget.
I just want games that actually works.. games that dont use all my CPU and GPU power .. Caugh Caugh Last of Us on PC..
We have way too many games these days that simply does not work.
The world would be a much better place if people worried about themselves.
If Baldur's Gate is a niche, then that niche is huge. People have waiting for this for twenty years and it's better than we could have ever imagined. It's game of the decade materiel.
they are threatened by the fact that smaller studio is creating something that they cant. I mean lets look at Sony games (and this isn't a knock against them I enjoy Sony games) but most of their first party games are heavy story focused games that are heavy on mocap with very basic game play..I mean I love god of war but its telling how quickly everyone moved on from Ragnarok and how many people still talk about that ? how about horizon ?? and don't get me started on Xbox they haven't released anything notable in a while so ill pass over them until they finally start making games again instead of controllers. im happy BG3 is pissing off these devs it only shows me that these big studios are only interested in trying to get more money out of players after initial release with micros and GAAS crap. games like BG3 should be a benchmark in the industry instead it just brings out the hate..kinda sad
Honestly, I first heard about this on the Bg3 sub so I definitely reacted strongly when first hearing about it... but after watching the guy who originally started all this I definitely see a lot of his points and do think he provides some really good information in general (especially when he spoke about stealth games).
The main issue I have is how he implies Larian got lucky? Sure they are an anomaly but give credit where it's due. But also no one is gonna assume the scale of BG3 should apply to all games? Indie devs obviously wont be expected to do this... and honestly if AAA dev teams get more expected from them, good. I don't think they have to reach the same bar but they absolutely should try.
Sounds like excuses to me...
Naw. Every single studio has been put on notice. This is the bar, meet it or die.
I honestly think it's going to be a clash between Starfield and BG3 for GOTY. Im leaning more towards BG3 but we'll see.
Starfield has no shot. BG3 is the underdog against Zelda.
14:21 nice quote
I'm not sure you want to compare a company to Twitter, and the huge downfall.
The changes they have made already existed in the system, nothing new was created, it was just changing the settings that already existed.
So not a good comparison.
The Pareto distribution is real. Identify the 20% that's doing all the work, give them raises and fire the other 80%.
Lmao how narcissistic are developers to come out like that. To think we expect much from them. Most of them make dogshit to mediocre to decent quality games, then we have a massive game like BG3 and the shitty devs have the nerve to think WE expect them to pull off something like THAT? Don’t worry, Ubisoft, nobody’s thinking The Division spin-off will change gaming. We all know what to expect from you all. And that’s why BG3 is so special.
It's funny that they cite accomplishments and refer to them as 'advantages'... And then they pretend to congratulate with backhanded compliments. Also no mention of any challenges Larian has faced 🤦
How they say what they say speaks volumes.
I am very hyped about BG3!!
I'd say that if you want to see a small studio make the same type game as BG3, just look at Solasta, which is a fabulous game, though nowhere near the level of BG3.
Still, I'm happy to spend money on new Solasta content, and I know that they are working hard to continue what they started, which is worth it, and it's what I will play when I feel like a break from BG3, along with the Pathfinder games that have years of replay value as well.
Everything doesn't have to be BG3, but it's easy to see when a game is a labor of love, and I applaud and invest in those games.
Most of us aren’t looking for door buster games. We just want games that are fun and actually work on launch! We don’t want to be preached to, super high-fidelity graphics, and movie long cutscenes. We want engaging game play, cool and good looking characters, and minimal bugs!
Makes sense to me when we're talking purely about the scope of the game, and not quality. It's not all that reasonable to expect every RPG moving forward to have 170 hours of cutscenes and 17,000 different ending permutations.
Hehe I guess there is 2 type of studio, those who are passionate with their product and those making half-assed sequels/reskin cash-grab.
Didn't Guerilla Games come out and say they have 16 Horizon projects in the works? Granted, not all of those are games. I think UbiSoft said they have something like 14 AC games over the next 10 years or so? Something like that. I would far prefer that AAA development studios scale that way back. I only wish for the third Horizon game and a multiplayer game, and I only need a new AC game every 3 years or so. On that sort of schedule, AAA studios could vastly improve their games. Larian has also shown that you don't need the highest level of graphics (BG3 looks great, mind you) but you can have fantastic scope and depth with more time put into those departments. It really left a bad, bad feeling with me to see that original Twitter and then all these devs coming out to support it. They're essentially just saying "No, we don't want to do all of that. We have a quarterly publishing schedule to meet, and profits to hit. Do you think we are in business to make what gamers want?" So I tell you what: I absolutely will judge all AAA games vs Baldur's Gate 3.
I feel like bg3 (if it is that good) is just the apex of rpg's. The sentiment among AAA Rpg developers for a few years now has been that the games are approaching critical mass. That if we keep improving in scope, scale, complexity that within the next few years it will no longer be feasible to go bigger
Well; If you can't go bigger, you have to go deeper.
Insomnia next game is RPG 😂
Absolutely true no one is looking to hold indie devs or smaller studios to AAA standards but AAA studios like blizzard have zero excuse. I kind of enjoyed Diablo4 but it wasn't anything amazing and in truth I played it for maybe a month 3 or 4 times a week, it just didn't hold my interest. In truth a lot more should be expected from a company like blizzard. BG3 is just much better value for money than diablo4.
I really hope I can get into this game. I know the story will be great based on what everyone is already saying.. I unfortunately have a track record of just being bad at these types of games... which generally kills my fun :(.
Its odd. I will struggle with games such as this. Last one I tried to play was Divinity: Original Sin 2.. I would get stomped in that game left and right. I don't know how many different time and ways I tried to approach fights. It just never worked. But as much as I sucked at that game. I would turn around, throw something like the Witcher 3 on death march.. and have an amazing time. Divinity, for what ever reason. Just destroyed me. I am hoping this one doesn't do the same :(
It's like EA Kinder moment.
They started small and grew the scope over time. Whining about them is childish and salty. Not every game is GTA, not every game is BG3. Players understand that. Im sorry that these people don’t.
Devs 100s want people to keep expectations in check on this. They just arnt good at saying it.
AAA games budget and stuff is completely misunderstood by 90% of gamers. their development budgets aren't so massive that the 70$ is even warrented. what makes modern AAA games cost so much to make is that they often have 1x to 3x the development budget as a marketing budget which they don't fucking need. they spend sooooo much on marketing and it doesn't show, you can easily market stuff like video games on the Internet because well most gamers spend atleast some time on youtube and twitch watching creators that are easy marketing tools and cost very little to make you market your game. some times all they cost are a free CDKEY..
Also if the 70$ price tag is a necessity to not make the company go under then why can CEO's and execs get Bonuses of 5-50m $ all the time in many of these companies?
Besides the quality of many of these games are not even that high, because they try to be so broad that there is something for everyone and thus they master non of their elements and don't really excell at anything.
Besides on this Drama about Larian:
1: they didn't start out with 400 people throughout most of BG3's development cycle it was like 80-140 people working on it, it is only here in 2023 they have reached that amount of people, and not all are developers, some are QA testers.
2: yes they have previous experience with top down turn based CRPG's in DOS 1 and 2 but well so does most AAA studios in their respective genre's. Lets not pretent like most AAA studios don't just churn the same franchises out over and over again so in that respect there is more difference between BG3 and DOS than fx Assasins creed Valhalla and Assasins Creed (Whatever the newest one is called) fx or Diablo IV and Diablo 3.
3: the game has been in development for a long time yes, but the post makes that seem like it's unfair to do so when many such AAA games have equally long cycles too, and furthermore it makes it seem like it was a priviledge by Larian and that everything was going swimingly in that time and nothing was hindering them, which is so completely ludacris.. in the time BG3 was developed there was the Corona Outbreak and the War in Ukraine both had an impact to some degree on the game and the cost to make it.
4: ''they are priviledge to have the D&D name attached to the game''.. sure it helps but so are you, AAA studios rarely create new original IPS anymore and so use existing franchises all the time which is the same effect. Not to mention D&D is more of a niche thing than other franchise names and so often times draw in less people on the franchise name alone.
These devs excluding the Indie devs are completely out of their mind and defeatist's they give up before even trying which leads me to believe they don't really care about the products they make, and to the Indie devs and AA devs commenting on the post, i really don't understand why you believe anyone would expect you to make BG4 or GTA VI, nobody has ever expected such things whenever great games has come out, why should they start doing so now? did the Witcher 3 get used to hold you guys Ransom and expect such level of Polish and scale in your games? No it didn't because people know there is a difference and because all people care about is if the game is good or not, if it's fun or not, and if it is worth the price tag.
When it comes to the big companies, I think the point is missed on Luke's part. Most of the problems with big video games offices is that they are publicly traded, which means they have to adhere to folks who aren't really engaged with the art they are trying to make, creating unrealistic deadlines, additions of things like microtransactions, etc. Larian doesn't have to deal with that, that's one reason that they'll be able to do what they do.
Cutting down the people from a couple thousand to something less isn't going to make it better, it's just going to stress further who's left.
I think what the are trying to say is.... Our focus in on making as much money as possible, Not to make Great games that people want to play.🤨
Thanks for a rational video on the whole stupid storm-in-a-teacup. I first read the original twitter thread and thought "huh, that guy is right. BG3 is going to be an exceptional game, made by an exceptional company who've been building up to this for a decade". Then the internet did its thing and interpreted the wording of "anomaly" in the most ungenerous way with the least benefit of the doubt, and ran with it. Suddenly other game devs are "scared" to be held up to BG3's new standard? Then the gaming sites and youtubers jumped on this "drama" for clicks and engagement, dragging the conversation further and further from the original message. Over the last 3 days or so I've felt really annoyed with online discourse. It's just such a mess amplifying the most low-faith voices all the time
It's not consumers problem that it's a norm for AAA games nowadays to be disappointing, buggy and lucky nowadays. And it's not consumers problem that other companies don't use their past experience to make better new games.
Ubisoft produced so many Assasin's Creed, Far Crys and other series but their newer games aren't better than their old ones. Bioware's Mass Effect Andromeda is 4th entry in the series, but it's the weakest one.
Baldur's Gate 3 simply had healthy production cycle. And it's not customers problem that other companies can't organise same production and instead release games unfinished or bugged.
Plus, it's not even including the price, which is 60$ not 70$. And that many other AAA games now have bad monetisation practices of other companies, even Resident Evil 4 Remake wasn't fully clear of it
@@ulfgarion the thread did not come from Ubisoft though, and it wasn't in "defense" of current AAA standards. This is what I mean with my comment. The discourse twisted the original message to be something it completely else
They are trying to defend their mediocrity.
Curuculing backering toring.
to me its not the production value that makes BG3 so great. If BG3 looked like wasteland 3 or WH40K:RT and still had the same amount of depth of choice and consequence and the same story, i still would've considered it a great game
When I see Josh Sawyer making those statements, I think it makes sense coming from Obsidian. They’re known for branching stories with choice and consequence so a narrative as wide reaching as BG3 could be a hard precedence to follow. Obsidian has 200 employees spread across multiple projects so while they’re AAA size, they’ve got fairly small teams. I think Outer Worlds had a team of like 50-60 people working on it. So holding Obsidian to the branching stories standard of BG3 (with avowed coming next year and lined up to be the same size as Outer Worlds) would be unfair
Obsidian had same team, when they were working on Fallout New Vegas, which was a better rpg than Outer Worlds. Why they didn't use their past experience to make new product better?
@@ulfgarion they have multiple teams spinning up games all the time, working in different engines, different projects. Josh Sawyer directed New Vegas but didn’t direct Outer Worlds. The OW was actually directed by the duo that created the whole Fallout series to begin work (they now work at Obsidian). Different engines, different combat systems, different mechanics, it’s all a factor. Noclip has a great documentary on the making of OW that is really interesting. These guys were new hires at Obsidian and got put on directing The OW and had to learn how to make an FPS in Unreal while on the job with a crew of 50 while literally on the brink of bankruptcy the entire time. Josh Sawyer was handed source code and an engine from Bethesda and given 18 months to deliver a game with a different team within Obsidian. Just different teams in different situations.
@@ulfgarion but I think OW was pretty good! Just small in scope
If Obsidian has only 1 director, who can make their rpgs good, it's not consumers problem. Then the Outer Worlds shouldn't have been rpg to begin with. The Outer Worlds was mainly criticised by rpg players for it's story and characters, not lesser scope or different mechanics. And lack of budget doesn't excuse this.
@@ulfgarion now you’re just being ridiculous. Outer Worlds was a good game and the reviews across the board say the same 🤷♂️ you might not like the game but that doesn’t mean it’s bad.
People don't care how the game was made, what kind of technology is behind it, what kind of work environment it was made in. Only that it's a good game. No one cares about the details. If it will be good then it will set a new standard and all this whining will be for nothing.
17,000 endings sounds like Todd Howard saying Fallout 3 had over 200 endings. 17,000 different variants with some absolutely minuscule differences sure, but 17,000 unique endings? That's unrealistic and jumping on the hype train without engaing your brain's critical thinking capabilities.
Studio's previous game had 7 unique endings and a lot of permutations. That's more than enough for most players and Baldur's Gate 3 likely won't be different.
I mean, you're right, but even in terms of minuscule differences, 17K is an absolutely insane number. It's not something to get excited about on its own, but taken with all the other facts, it goes to show that the choice and consequence in the game is absolutely unprecedented.
Honestly, I never saw someone talk bad about a game just because of the scope, on the contrary, i've seen it because of bloated games(looking at you ubisoft), and it's usually because the projects aren't passionate, just souless, usually bad games, forced on devs by executives that want the highest possible profit, and I think that this whole drama demonstrates exactly the little agency devs have on their games. People don't complain about waiting 6 years for a game, nor the 70$, they do because they wait, pay that high price and the final product is an unfinished thrash.
i actually relate to what the indie guy is saying. If i understand correctly, all hes saying is...BG 3 is amazing and all, but it took 100s of people, 7 studios, over 5 years of dev time, and 100s of millions of dollars to make. Please dont expect the same for RGPSs made by smaller studios. BG3 is a bar raiser, not the standard.
So you are saying all scientist suck because they are not Einstein?
IF BG3 is going to be an Einstein movement, that does not mean all other products now suck and all other future product will now suck because they didn't duplicate an ONCE in a UNIVERSE game.
There is no possible way for me to look at BG3 dev cycle and write a handbook on how to duplicate it... I would have to make a world wide sickness and kill millions of people as part of my game development????? And that is just the most in your face special condition of BG3.
God i am really sick of how UA-cam now effing kills your entire comment when a damn ad pops up! Am i dreaming or us this not how its always been?
Being a whiny crybaby is NOT a good look for developers at huge corporations. "No, no, they are going to force us to make good games." seems to be the theme.
Double A, Triple A. We should not expect the same amount of content. But we should hold all companies to same standard.
Open world game must have fast travel, mounts, interesting world. Rpgs must have branching choices in narrative and gameplay.
Dont want to adhere to standards, don't make those kind of games.
This is why we all cant wait for AI to replace these developers. Then with a few "AI Whisperers" you can build massive games like Larian, but with 1/10 the people and 1/4 of the time
See you just explained why Star citizen has the funding model that it does and why 10 years later it's still nowhere close to being done.. because it would be impossible completely impossible to make the game they're going to make with normal game funding. I mean it took 220 million dollars to make horizon forbidden West let that sink it. I mean yeah Star citizens made like half a billion now and I'm sure they're going to make another half a billion but when that game is finished it will be unlike anything ever seen in gaming and in some ways it already is.. we've never seen a space game with spaceships that function the way they do in Star citizen
Its not drama, its just a sad demonstration of triple-A development.
in the words of certain game git gud and instead of twitter they should focus on doing their job