this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
408 points (99.5% liked)

Gaming

30579 readers
159 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 218 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (29 children)

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 112 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 47 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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 13 points 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 19 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MoonlitSanguine@lemmy.one 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Magrath@lemmy.ca 111 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 83 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 107 points 1 year ago (3 children)

BG 3 is so stupid, it's not even optimizing micro transactions for maximum profits

[–] forgotaboutlaye@kbin.social 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How am I supposed to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment without paying for my dice rolls?

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago

Unity CEO has entered the chat

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 87 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Oh no fans might demand good games at release! The horror!”

[–] Thavron@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

Won't anybody think of the stockholders‽

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 71 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh no, if people remember that games are supposed to be good, no one will buy our lootbox-infested crap anymore.

Good.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Loot boxes are so 2017. It's all about battle passes, engagement, and player retention now.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

You know what creates engagement and retains players?

Making a good game that's actually fun to play instead of focusing on how you're gonna sell me hats and paint jobs and weaponizing FOMO.

[–] Valliac@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

Someone think of the shareholders!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sir, allow me to introduce you to capitalism

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 46 points 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

[–] stagen@feddit.dk 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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...

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And again, Larian Studios used EA as intended, which allowed them to publish a good, polished game.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TauriWarrior@aussie.zone 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 32 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Nitrate55@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This reminds me of the time Ubisoft developers decided to have a bitchfit about Elden Ring because it didn't have any of the same shitty monetization or trash formulaic design choices as their games.

It's like these developers think that because they're painfully mediocre, every other studio is required to be as well.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 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.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 27 points 1 year ago (21 children)

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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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).

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No.... no its not.

Other developers appreciate art.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wcSyndrome@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I get everyone's sentiment here, boiling it down to "better games are better" but also keep in mind the development costs and times for making new games are constantly going up. Yeah of course there are fantastic indie games out there (and I love them myself) that have a fraction of AAA game budgets and dev time but those are the gems in the rough, not the norm.

I'm all for better gaming experiences but they do come with tradeoffs. Also, flops are now death sentences for studios so the pressure to perform is even higher

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

you sound like EA public relations

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

He's not wrong, though. Game development is a business, like any other, and larger-scale games require exponentially more resources to produce than smaller indie titles.

Obviously one could make the argument "Well they shouldn't be making every single game into a huge, multi-billion dollar blockbuster title that costs the player an arm and a leg to gain access to, then they wouldn't need that amount of resources to begin with", and that would be a fair argument. But ultimately, people keep buying those games, anyway. And not by force, they buy them of their own volition. So those games continue to be profitable. There's no incentive for big studios to change their ways when consumers keep giving them money, so they're going to keep making huge games that require huge resources and huge payments from the players.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The expectations have been set for a long time. BG3 isn't the first good game. It's just the first in a while, after mountains of AAA garbage ultimately driven by shareholders and MBAs.

The sad thing is: those people are so clueless that they dont see they'd make more money by just not getting in the way of a good dev team.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if games have to be good, not just eventually but on the day we sell it to someone.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›