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.
Would be cool if there was 3 different teams instead 2. That could work with that team size. Plus the map needs to be smaller from what I have seen and read (I didn’t play myself).
The core gameplay looks interesting, with the Apex Legends like controls (at least it looks like) and all the abilities. Generally the game looks a bit too much inspired by Apex (size of team mates and map size and the looting). I actually don’t mind if they have their own formula and brings something new or different to the table, which it seems to do.
I keep seeing people saying that another team could work. But I think that would actually have a massive detrimental effect on the game. That adds another base, less chance of a comeback, and then you end up where you started in a 3v3 in an even more empty map with even longer matches.
This needs larger teams. Like 8v8 or 10v10 so you actually end up with skirmishes during the downtime. Your still going to have long matches, but at least something is more likely to happen. Or they need to rework the formula of the matches a fair bit.
I don’t get what makes this game so special that Geoff Keighley hyped it so much. That this thing was the big surprise that ended the game awards show was completely underwhelming. Out of the show, Highguard was the most generic game presentation. There was absolutely nothing about this game that seemed new or even interesting. Just the next hero shooter with comic look.
Tbf, I don’t think Apex Legends was completely new either. It refined and combined a lot of good ideas in other games into a battle royale. I think they’re trying to do that with this type of hero shooter vibe, having taken some ideas from Rainbow 6 Siege and a few other games. Doesn’t seem to have worked as well this time.
Well its not Concord 2.0. Already has WAY more players than Concord ever did, almost 100k peak players on Steam alone, currently 67k in-game as of the time I am posting this.
I can’t say that 3v3 is the right fit for the game, the maps are rather large for it. But I think with a bit more work in a few updates, it has far more staying power than Concord ever had.
Even still, its got more legs to stand on than Concord had, which was zero.
I think its serviceable unlike Concord, which required too many changes.
I guess we just have to wait and see if the server is shut down in two weeks. In reality, I don’t think we will ever see as monumental a train wreck as Concord was. Probably ever.
I’m 100% of the opinion that the main reason Concord failed is because it didn’t get any advertising. The first time I heard about Concord was the news that it completely flopped at launch and I wasn’t the only one. When that’s the first thing people hear about the game they’re not even going to bother to get interested in what the game is about. To this day I don’t even know if Concord had any redeeming qualities because I haven’t even seen any gameplay outside of 5 second no-context clips. Even bad games receive better numbers than Concord.
Highguard is going to have more staying power than Concord solely on the fact that it actually had an advertising budget.
Concord didn’t have any advertising because the data was showing them beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been throwing good money after bad.
But after they revealed it? Yes. From their reveal to their beta test, it seemed clear the game was not going to find an audience; definitely not enough to recoup $200M-$400M.
You can dig through This Week in Video Games episodes on SkillUp’s YouTube channel from back just before the game released. That’s where I got it from. Live service games are looking for the hockey stick shaped graph in order to take off, and it was quite clear that even when the game was free, it didn’t have the juice to make that happen. And even the lower bound of $200M is a tough bar to clear, but Concord was funded at a time when borrowing money was cheap and every asshole with a war chest thought they’d make a fortune by following the same formula; the problem with that is that everyone else thought they could do that too. And that’s not even to say Concord was the worst game ever made or anything. It was just a game that cost way more to make than it was ever, ever going to make back.
What advertising though? They didn’t have to pay for The Game Awards spot, Jeff just gave it to them for free. I haven’t seen any commercials or ads outside of that either. I think Concord had more advertising than Highguard, with Concord getting multiple devlogs and previews across a few Sony hosted events, IIRC.
My bad, I meant marketing strategy not advertising budget. Concord definitely had a bigger budget considering they got a Secret level episode deal before the game was even launched. But the budget and bits of marketing don’t matter when it doesn’t gain any traction and whatever their strategy was it gained no traction what so ever.
As for highguard, they did pay for the TGA spot. They didn’t pay extra to be the premier trailer, that Jeff gave them for free. And they did had a weird strategy of going completely radio silent after TGA. But despite that people at launch knew this game existed and has already beaten Concord numbers (at least on Steam) by hundredfold and I don’t think that’s solely because this game is F2P.
Looks cool but only going to play it when, it is 🏴☠️. I refuse to pay so much and then to be forced to get th DLCs for even more money. If it won’t be 🏴☠️ then I simply will not play the game.
I’ve had this game for a few years since picking it up for $5, but have been afraid to actually get into it because I’m intimidated by how big it is (so many updates over the years). For the uninitiated, what kind if game is it anyway? How easy is it to get into?
It’s not too big if you only focus on getting to the end boss and end-game weapons/gear. I think they also don’t want to go past the end boss anymore. This update for example adds a lot of QoL and other fun content you can do on the side.
And with the wiki it’s pretty easy to figure everything out.
It’s Minecraft on a 2D plane with a heavier focus on combat and survival. There’s not much of a story. It’s up to you to go as far as you want too. The progression is basically learn the systems. Learn how to survive above ground. Learn how to survive below ground. Start collecting gear. Start challenging bosses. It’s pretty easy to get into. The real challenge is in the bosses. You need to think outside the box early on because you’re not just wacking a boss to death like you will the normal mobs. Mobility and verticality are key.
It’s not Elden Rings level of difficulty. It’s like a harder Minecraft survival mode. There’s a lot to do and it’s not hidden from you. In Minecraft because you’re in first person view and there’s stuff all around you, you can miss a lot. And the crafting system is similar too. You don’t know what you’re getting until you put the ingredients together. With Terraria you can see everything because it’s all on one plane. So you’re not playing a guessing game. Crafting is the same way. Once you discover gold ore you know all the things you can make with gold now. So discovery isn’t a hey I found this let me search for more in hopes I can make an item. Its more of I know exactly where I can find some ore that corresponds to the item I want because I discovered it at this depth and I need exactly this much to make that item I want. Does that make sense? The real sense of discovery comes from there being so much to craft.
You have it. Try it. IMO it’s one of the best video games ever made. It has a bit of everything. Survival. Crafting. Metroidvania aspects. Platforming. It looks great and sounds even better. It’s one of a handful of game I ever put more than 100 hours into as an adult. It basically got me through college. I still pick it up every once and a while to let my mind veg while I listen to music and fight mobs while I build a pretty base.
I will say that, while the other comment comparing it to Minecraft isn’t wrong to do so, you shouldn’t go in expecting some 1:1, 2D Minecraft experience. Because while they have plenty of similar features, the core of each game is quite different. Minecraft for example is primarily a sandbox game, with lite survival elements sprinkled in. You’re mostly just there to build and farm and do whatever the hell you want, and the game doesn’t differ greatly between peaceful and hard. Terraria on the other hand is primarily an action game with some survival elements. Sure, you can build huge, beautiful cathedrals if you’d like, but unlike Minecraft that’s not really where the game shines at all. Terraria instead shines in it’s exploration (especially when you’re new to the game) and combat.
Edit: Oh also, unlike Minecraft, world difficulties change things drastically. Difficulty isn’t just a damage and health slider for enemies, instead it also modifies general enemy AI (in honestly annoying ways sometimes - looking at you lava slimes), and bosses all get major changes including new attack patterns. I’d stick with classic or journey mode at first, even if you normally tend to try harder difficulties when playing new games.
youtube.com
Gorące