Listen, all those companies suck, but you don’t have to put words in their mouths, everyone seems extremely positive about Baldur’s Gate, and I would say almost all developer aspire to reach the same breadth and depth as Baldur’s Gate 3 with as much polish as they put on it. There’s a long list of reasons why they can’t or don’t (often publishers… or scope creep… but mostly publishers).
Unless there’s a massive thread of shit talking from other developers that I’m missing, but I’m pretty sure that doesn’t exist.
I know what this post is referencing, but I don’t think that was really the message that they were trying to convey.
Baldurs Gate 3 is an incredibly good game, but it will be difficult for most average studios to emulate their success.
They had a very long developmental cycle of 6+ years, very successful early access, and a team of 400+ experienced developers who know this genre better than anyone.
I would absolutely love to see another studio attempt something this ambitious, but it’s going to be really hard to top this game for the foreseeable future.
So, so besides the story, what’s the difference between this and the Divinity games? It appears that it’s pretty much the exact same engine, doing the exact same thing, using the exact same functionality. The Divinity games were okay, but it’s not like they raised the bar or did anything ground breaking…how is this any different?
That said, have we just not had a good turn-based strategy game in so long that people are like, holy fuck this is so new and refreshing!
It uses a combat system based on D&D 5e (with some changes to suit the vidya medium). Also IMO it is more polished and has better pacing compared to DOS2. Otherwise not much is different.
Engine is similar but BG3’s is more enhanced. Story is a complete other level. It delivers on the level of what Todd Howard promises and starts approaching what Peter Molineux used to promise.
A decent comparison is the 5e SRD based game Solasta: Crown of the Magister that uses the same 5e ruleset as BG3, and it does some things better, but is an absolutely on-rails experience. Even one instance where you have to get caught stealing to proceed in the main quest.
Where BG3 shines is looking truly open.
E.G. In the primary map’s “main” conflict, you have three main factions, A group that runs a refuge,
B some refugees and C some goblins.
You can side with A, A+B, B, A+C, B then C, A then C, or even C then B+A. All of those outcomes will have rollon effects down the line. And not changes like Mass Effect 1’s Rachni Queen to Mass Effect 3’s “oh you killed that one, well someone else found a queen”, but like: this PC’s personal quest can’t be completed on this run. Or a vendor that carries multiple unique items has a quest you can’t complete because your loot goblin friend opened a chest the game told her multiple times to not open.
That’s almost exactly the difference. Mechanically, they are very similar with some expanded interactions and a bit more player agency. It feels more like playing d&d than ever before.
The SCOPE of the story is on an entirely different level. I’ve only played the first 10 hours, but I’ve done so almost 4 times, and each run through has felt >70% unique. Choices have weight, options are meaningful and plentiful, character interactions are some of the closest I’ve felt to interacting with other players in a turn based RPG.
Is it going to shock the world like Elden Ring and Breath of the Wild? No, probably not. It does show what can be accomplished by a great team of driven writers and programmers who actually care.
Definitely worth a try if you can pay the entry fee.
to me the biggest difference is that in divinity it still felt like i could do literally everything, and like I was just checking off steps in a task list until i made it to the end.
bg3 is the first game where i actually feel more like I’m playing an actual ttrpg that organically breaths and moves with my actions and let’s me do it all in literally any way i can imagine. it’s the first time I don’t think i could ever play through to every eventuality.
BG3 set the highest standard for a game. It’s not a bad thing that it exists, and the studio absolutely deserves the praise they’re getting. However, we should not seek to make it the minimum standard. Larian Studios worked hard on this for over 5 years without crunch. The ABK’s, Bioware’s, EA’s, and Ubisoft’s of the world will not do that. Games should not come at the expense of abusive workplace practices. There’s something to say about having higher standards for variety and creativity absolutely, but the game in it’s entirety should not be the expectation.
I want shorter games with worse graphics, made by people that are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding.
BG3 set the highest standard for a game. It’s not a bad thing that it exists, and the studio absolutely deserves the praise they’re getting. However, we should not seek to make it the minimum standard. Larian Studios worked hard on this for over 5 years without crunch.
If they made shorter but polished games without padded content, they’d achieve a similar level of quality. Heck, there are indie games by one person with an insane level of polish, just on a smaller scale. Cultic with its 4 hour length and retro graphics at a low price comes to mind.
You’re aware that the AAA gaming industry is rife with crunch, theft, and abuse of workers, right?
How could little La-La-La-Larian accomplish this in a for their workers sustainable and responsible manner over the course of five years if big players like EA and Ubisoft cannot?
It’s not that the AAA devs can’t, it’s that they won’t. They have a formula that works. They are able to shit out a big puddle of diarrhoea on a yearly basis that people eagerly lap up, and so long as that remains the more profitable option they’ll sacrifice as many talented and passionate workers they can get their hands on.
The ultimate goal isn’t to create a good product, it’s for all us walking little wallets to spill as much money as possible, even if it means financially ruining ourselves in the process.
You’re responding to a AAA game dev. I work at one of the companies I listed. I’m very well aware of the abuses that occurs at these companies. The developers have 0 say it the timetables for launch. The people I work with are incredibly talented and capable of doing amazing work. The corporate side is where I have concerns, companies will literally grind employees to dust if it means making a game like BG in a corporate time span.
Yes. The solution is a crash. Corporate is a festering pustule that’s just ready for popping.
I work in business applications development. While my interests were initially set on games dev, the absolute toxic cesspool that is the gaming industry set me down on a different path.
We don’t have crunch. We don’t always meet timelines, and yes the customer does get a final say in what features make it and which ones don’t, but the end result are happy customers and happy workers.
Can you say the same? Corporate is pushing greedier and more anti-consumer tactics, there are systems in place to feed on addicts and squeeze as much money out of people as possible.
There are so many reports of stress casualties, workers that burn out, some that even die, for what? A mediocre shitty product that had all of the creative vision stripped out for the sake of some garbage formula we’ve seen in every single game for almost two decades?
There is no benefit to anyone but shareholders. No good games are being made. Workers and customers are being exploited.
I don’t see whats wrong with expecting AAA developers to spend more time on making better games without crunch is. The fact people like you will accept it not being the standard minimum for AAA developers is precisely why they will never do it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Said none of those companies.
Listen, all those companies suck, but you don’t have to put words in their mouths, everyone seems extremely positive about Baldur’s Gate, and I would say almost all developer aspire to reach the same breadth and depth as Baldur’s Gate 3 with as much polish as they put on it. There’s a long list of reasons why they can’t or don’t (often publishers… or scope creep… but mostly publishers).
Unless there’s a massive thread of shit talking from other developers that I’m missing, but I’m pretty sure that doesn’t exist.
Agreed. What’s especially dumb is that only one of these studios (BioWare) is even in the business of making the same genre of game.
BioWare hasn’t been in that business for quite some time now
I think this is in response to the IGN story about developers being afraid of the new standard BG3 is setting.
The companies haven’t officially said it, but various people working for these companies have whined about it on their personal social media.
I know what this post is referencing, but I don’t think that was really the message that they were trying to convey.
Baldurs Gate 3 is an incredibly good game, but it will be difficult for most average studios to emulate their success.
They had a very long developmental cycle of 6+ years, very successful early access, and a team of 400+ experienced developers who know this genre better than anyone.
I would absolutely love to see another studio attempt something this ambitious, but it’s going to be really hard to top this game for the foreseeable future.
All these companies have to do is remember the olden days and make complete games like they used to.
Heck, Baldur’s Gate 3 was inspired by games like Baldur’s Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights made by Bioware.
These companies set the standard then they forgot them.
They did not forgot the old ways. It was not profitable for the investors.
So, so besides the story, what’s the difference between this and the Divinity games? It appears that it’s pretty much the exact same engine, doing the exact same thing, using the exact same functionality. The Divinity games were okay, but it’s not like they raised the bar or did anything ground breaking…how is this any different?
That said, have we just not had a good turn-based strategy game in so long that people are like, holy fuck this is so new and refreshing!
It uses a combat system based on D&D 5e (with some changes to suit the vidya medium). Also IMO it is more polished and has better pacing compared to DOS2. Otherwise not much is different.
The last good turn-based game I played was… oh wait, D:OS2. Huh.
Engine is similar but BG3’s is more enhanced. Story is a complete other level. It delivers on the level of what Todd Howard promises and starts approaching what Peter Molineux used to promise.
A decent comparison is the 5e SRD based game Solasta: Crown of the Magister that uses the same 5e ruleset as BG3, and it does some things better, but is an absolutely on-rails experience. Even one instance where you have to get caught stealing to proceed in the main quest.
Where BG3 shines is looking truly open.
E.G. In the primary map’s “main” conflict, you have three main factions, A group that runs a refuge,
B some refugees and C some goblins.
You can side with A, A+B, B, A+C, B then C, A then C, or even C then B+A. All of those outcomes will have rollon effects down the line. And not changes like Mass Effect 1’s Rachni Queen to Mass Effect 3’s “oh you killed that one, well someone else found a queen”, but like: this PC’s personal quest can’t be completed on this run. Or a vendor that carries multiple unique items has a quest you can’t complete because your loot goblin friend opened a chest the game told her multiple times to not open.
That’s almost exactly the difference. Mechanically, they are very similar with some expanded interactions and a bit more player agency. It feels more like playing d&d than ever before.
The SCOPE of the story is on an entirely different level. I’ve only played the first 10 hours, but I’ve done so almost 4 times, and each run through has felt >70% unique. Choices have weight, options are meaningful and plentiful, character interactions are some of the closest I’ve felt to interacting with other players in a turn based RPG.
Is it going to shock the world like Elden Ring and Breath of the Wild? No, probably not. It does show what can be accomplished by a great team of driven writers and programmers who actually care.
Definitely worth a try if you can pay the entry fee.
It uses a completely different RPG system for all the mechanics.
deleted by creator
to me the biggest difference is that in divinity it still felt like i could do literally everything, and like I was just checking off steps in a task list until i made it to the end.
bg3 is the first game where i actually feel more like I’m playing an actual ttrpg that organically breaths and moves with my actions and let’s me do it all in literally any way i can imagine. it’s the first time I don’t think i could ever play through to every eventuality.
BG3 set the highest standard for a game. It’s not a bad thing that it exists, and the studio absolutely deserves the praise they’re getting. However, we should not seek to make it the minimum standard. Larian Studios worked hard on this for over 5 years without crunch. The ABK’s, Bioware’s, EA’s, and Ubisoft’s of the world will not do that. Games should not come at the expense of abusive workplace practices. There’s something to say about having higher standards for variety and creativity absolutely, but the game in it’s entirety should not be the expectation.
I want shorter games with worse graphics, made by people that are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding.
If they made shorter but polished games without padded content, they’d achieve a similar level of quality. Heck, there are indie games by one person with an insane level of polish, just on a smaller scale. Cultic with its 4 hour length and retro graphics at a low price comes to mind.
You’re aware that the AAA gaming industry is rife with crunch, theft, and abuse of workers, right?
How could little La-La-La-Larian accomplish this in a for their workers sustainable and responsible manner over the course of five years if big players like EA and Ubisoft cannot?
It’s not that the AAA devs can’t, it’s that they won’t. They have a formula that works. They are able to shit out a big puddle of diarrhoea on a yearly basis that people eagerly lap up, and so long as that remains the more profitable option they’ll sacrifice as many talented and passionate workers they can get their hands on.
The ultimate goal isn’t to create a good product, it’s for all us walking little wallets to spill as much money as possible, even if it means financially ruining ourselves in the process.
You’re responding to a AAA game dev. I work at one of the companies I listed. I’m very well aware of the abuses that occurs at these companies. The developers have 0 say it the timetables for launch. The people I work with are incredibly talented and capable of doing amazing work. The corporate side is where I have concerns, companies will literally grind employees to dust if it means making a game like BG in a corporate time span.
Yes. The solution is a crash. Corporate is a festering pustule that’s just ready for popping.
I work in business applications development. While my interests were initially set on games dev, the absolute toxic cesspool that is the gaming industry set me down on a different path.
We don’t have crunch. We don’t always meet timelines, and yes the customer does get a final say in what features make it and which ones don’t, but the end result are happy customers and happy workers.
Can you say the same? Corporate is pushing greedier and more anti-consumer tactics, there are systems in place to feed on addicts and squeeze as much money out of people as possible.
There are so many reports of stress casualties, workers that burn out, some that even die, for what? A mediocre shitty product that had all of the creative vision stripped out for the sake of some garbage formula we’ve seen in every single game for almost two decades?
There is no benefit to anyone but shareholders. No good games are being made. Workers and customers are being exploited.
Let it crash.
I don’t see whats wrong with expecting AAA developers to spend more time on making better games without crunch is. The fact people like you will accept it not being the standard minimum for AAA developers is precisely why they will never do it.
Remnant 2 in the background: Am I a Joke to you?
Why are you people so obsessed with these developers?