Nobody really expects RPG's to be as big and deep as BG3, they just want a complete game that works without shitty microtransactions everywhere and always online for no reason. Plus, having interesting characters and storylines, quests that can be solved in more than one way, and gameplay that's actually formed by taking player feedback and listening to it is what people reacted well to, among other things. Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even have Denuvo!
If there's one thing that I hope competitors learn from Larian and BG3, it's that respecting your players and giving them what they want leads to success. Similar to Elden Ring and from software, like that video mentioned. Now compare BG3 to Diablo 4 and Immortal, or the upcoming Starfield and you'll see why people love it. It's not about specs or scope, it's about designing a game to be actually FUN.
It's not about specs or scope, it's about designing a game to be actually FUN.
This is the key point that these publishers and studios are trying to avoid.
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on designing microtransaction psychologically manipulative money sinks (dark designs)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on creating addiction in the player-base so that they keep playing the game (and spending money)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit DLC (not actual new content)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit to satisfy shareholders?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on shit the devs don't want, but executives do?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit padding for marketing purposes?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit DRM?
And keep in mind, by budgets here, I mean both the dollar amount AND time spent by devs that could be spent elsewhere (which is part of the dollar amount since salaries, but I wanted to make it clear that time spent is also important).
Some of the absolute best games in the industry have literally none of that, and people still want to play and buy them years after release because gasp they're actually fun, but these publishers and devs don't want to compare to those, because they WANT the industry to be a bunch of "GAAS" bullshit that's basically a vacuum pushed into people's wallets, cause hey, if it worked for Candy Crush....
To summarize the actual tweets/comments/etc that these videos (there are multiple) are panicking about.
Smaller studios aren't going to be able to replicate the scale and complexity of BG3. So people shouldn't be using BG3 as the bar to compare future titles/RPGs from other studios going forward. Larian is comparable in size (or even larger) to Bethesda when they released Skyrim, and no one has been able to compete directly with Skyrim either.
Not all games and RPGs need to be as complex and long as BG3. Expecting open-ended, 100 hour-long RPGs for every future game/RPG isn't realistic. Not all games require that scope, it's rare to get such a budget for this type of game, and even if you did, most companies won't be able to replicate the game in a meaningful way. Just like how companies other than Rockstar would struggle to replicate the scale of games like GTA and RDR.
There, I've summarized multiple 20 min videos. Just without all the hand-waving and drama.
This is a massive free content update for a 5 year old game and a $5 update for Switch 2 owners who want higher resolutions and more online features. No reason to try and find something to complain about just because it’s Nintendo.
A small list of inclusions:
-Zelda/Lego/Splatoon crossover characters, items
-A hotel for villagers to stay in while they come visit
-Slumber Island - ability to create new islands (up to 3) without getting rid of your main island. Accessed by going to sleep
-Crafting multiple items at once
Definitely check out the first Darkwood! It’s story, atmosphere, and sound design are all amazing (here’s a good video essay if you don’t plan on playing). The lore stays fascinating if you want to do an even deeper dive. Zero jumpscares. I don’t want to say what the game’s about because it’s best going in not knowing anything.
I played a few rounds during the playtest but I’ve been keeping my eye on it for some time. I don’t know what reviews you’ve read but the extraction shooter crowd is excited because ARC raiders gets so much right and is arguably better than the king of the genre, Escape from Tarkov. Tarkov goes for a different experience so people who enjoy Tarkov might not necessarily enjoy ARC, but there are objective things that make ARC better than Tarkov. For example the PvE enemies are not bullshit. They’re hard but you don’t need to pixel peek through a doorway to kill them. The audio is far better because you can actually use audio to locate people. Less useless loot due to the ability to recycle loot. The performance is more uniform (in Tarkov streets is still somewhat unplayable for some people). The only clear negative people have had with ARC raiders is the third person view but I would say that’s hardly a deal-breaker. The rest of the game is fantastic. I dig the art style. I dig the audio. I dig the ARC and I dig core gameplay loop. I’m seriously considering finding time to invest into playing ARC raiders because that’s how much I enjoyed the playtest.
But with all this praise it’s worth remembering that at the end of the day it is an extraction shooter and extraction shooters are not for everyone. If the entire concept of risking your gear to get loot doesn’t sound appealing then not amount of praise is going to make you enjoy ARC raiders.
I never played Tarkov, but it always seemed a little too heavy for me. And the cheating issues everyone seems to be complaining about, and the issues people have been having with the devs, it all put me off from playing it.
The reviews I’ve seen for ARC Raiders said that the game was doing a lot of things right, but everything could be a little better. One of them called it something like “pleasantly mediocre” which isn’t awful, but also doesm’t sound like a resounding endorsement.
If I find some people to play with, I may pick it up. It’s not the kind of game I want to grind solo or play with randos, but it looks like a good time.
It’s an interesting concept, but the pvp was a huge turnoff. Maybe it’d be different if there was an option to form an alliance or truce while above ground, but then it’s just PvE with one massive team.
It’s an extraction shooter. Not a game for everyone. For those that like that genre, it’s incredibly well-designed and a welcomed take on the genre. For those that don’t like it, won’t care for it.
The recent Server Slam had very limited progression enabled, which stunted many people’s first-time experience. The greatest thrill of extraction shooters is the moment you find loot your really want to keep and do whatever you can to extract safely. When majority of the loot was mediocre, there was no thrill.
I personally only play PvE. Played the hell out of Killing Floor, Deep Rock Galactic, and Helldivers 2. I was turned off by the PvP aspect of Arc and do wish they kept the game as PvE, but the more I played and listened to their design philosophy, I now acknowledge why they added PvP to their PvE game, the pure fact that it will keep players more engaged.
PvE alone can get very casual, which is what many dad-gamers want: something predictable to relax to. But by adding PvP, it removes the comfort and replaces with some of the most stressful experiences in gaming. It will lead to much stronger experiences at the cost of not targeting the casual market. It is definitely a deliberate decision and one that we shall see if it pays off.
youtube.com
Gorące