Baldur's Gate 3 - Zero Live Service
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
That's all well and good, but the fact that Larian Studios dropped any plans for an expansion also speaks volumes. I.e. the effort needed to make the game seemingly burned out the development staff. I'm not sure that's a promising model for future single-player games.
- Joined
- July 31, 2007
- Messages
- 8,986
Yeah, that is unfortunate. They could've easily reused the same production pipeline and basically printed money.
But it's also wonderful to see the leadership caring about their burnout and moving on. One of the few cases when this even happens.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 8,986
It can be apparently. They delivered a masterpiece, that's a fact. Maybe having clearly defined ends for projects is a a more sustainable strategy for a studio?
The important thing is to keep your talent. We've seen some examples of studios who bled talent and haven't been able to deliver any more.
I think a lot of that was self-inflicted - pandering to absolutely unreasonable expectation from rabid fans - everything must be supported, every whim indulged, they could have aimed for something more modest and still have produced an excellent game. I think they raised expectations so high that if was impossible to climb down, and they had to slave away to try and get *everything in* (*bear sex, sex scenes with the correct animations for halflings vs humans, more 'sensitivity' in handling relationships etc - you know, important stuff for RPGs) in the game, to try and appease everyone. People are full of shit, they surely know that now.... I think they had a money printing machine from the get go, because it was "Baldurs Gate" and people enjoyed their previoius titles, so they could have delivered a less expansive game that was still really good and still had time to enjoy their lives.
Agreed, and they could have managed all right without making a cutscene for every single possible interaction, no matter how mundane. Granted, the models were all unfailingly attractive and the animations were nice.
Zloth
I smell a... wumpus!?
Jeesh, this guy keeps complaining! People are declaring that single player is dead. Fine. They announced PC was dead plenty of times, too. Who cares? If single player games start vanishing, THEN worry. As for the 'battle passes' and whatever else the industry cooks up to get you to pay more, they are easily countered: don't buy the game for a couple of years. All those battle passes will be tied up in a nice bundle for you to buy or not, and at a steep discount pretty often as well.
I don't agree. It was not a money-printing machine. It's not easy to make sequels to popular IPs, we've seen a lot of them fail.
What makes you think they didn't have time to enjoy their lives? All I know is that Swen felt that the team was burned out on this project, so they're moving on to the next one(s).
Seems to me they handled it pretty great.
No, it's not a fact. You may think it to be the case subjectively and it may have achieved a widely popular vote that people like to harp on about these days but I think you'll still find plenty of arguments and opinions to the contrary. The game certainly from my point of view, was not adequately critiqued on this website by a long shot. Act III is still a mess and feels barely coherent at times with several incidents ignoring my choices. This is where it needed to be strongest; where the content connects with its heritage the most in the city. I'm slogging through it already at the level cap and I'm barely into the main quests. That would call the word "masterpiece" into question for me. A reasonably good game? Sure, I can accept that - but not all the time mind you as my experience with that Isobel encounter shows. Thus, I think it's probably a good idea to keep the extreme superlatives for when a game actually deserves them or to least indicate subjectivity when gushing about the game. Objective fact that it's a masterpiece? I think not.
Ok, I agree that we need to qualify the word "masterpiece", in the sense that it's not an absolute masterpiece, but a relative masterpiece. There very few that are better, if any (which heavily depends on personal preference anyway).
It is a top class RPG, without denying that it has flaws or that not everyone likes it.
But that's not the point of this discussion. My point was that their strategy worked to the extent that they delivered a very, very good product.
It is a top class RPG, without denying that it has flaws or that not everyone likes it.
But that's not the point of this discussion. My point was that their strategy worked to the extent that they delivered a very, very good product.
Yeah, I just watched it, and he's full of shit. First he gives examples of multiplayer and live service games that failed but says nothing of the ones that haven't. Then he goes on to act like BG3 was the first single-player game we've had in years. Not really sure what he's trying to accomplish.
Zloth
I smell a... wumpus!?
(Getting off topic) Naaaah, you don't have to. A masterpiece is something that has gotten a LOT of critical acclaim. It's a society-as-a-whole thing, not a relative-to-the-individual thing. So yes, BG3 is a masterpiece, and that is, in fact, a fact. That game won so many awards that geologists may need to tweak the numbers for Belgium's mineral content!
D
Deleted member 43349
Guest
I don't agree with that. In that case Shakespeare in Love (maybe the worst movie to ever win an Oscar and mostly well-reviewed) is factually a masterpiece. Many would disagree with that description.
I give Larian lots of credit for their approach and attitude to game production and I'm glad for their great success. These are the kinds of games I want. But IMO it's a game that reappraisal will find not quite the stellar game the hysteria suggested at the time. A good game for sure and did some things very well, but no masterpiece.
I have to think it's going to remain among the top computer RPGs of all time for decades to come. Is it supreme artistic achievement? It depends on who you ask. There were definitely moments when the game touched me emotionally, so it feels like an artistic achievement. More so than many video RPGs.
Zloth
I smell a... wumpus!?
It's the definition of the word. If it has a lot of critical acclaim, and especially if it has the most for that particular creative source, it's a masterpiece. You can mess around with just how much critical acclaim you need (is one Oscar enough?), but BG3 got a ridiculous number of awards and high review scores. If you say it didn't get enough, I expect you'll exclude all but a handful of video games and possibly every RPG.
Is it my personal favorite? Heck no. I got half-way through Act 2 and put the game on ice to play something else. I liked Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2 better than this one, at least so far. Doesn't mean it isn't a masterpiece. It just means my tastes don't line up with the critics that well. (Not much of a shock to this Last Remnant lover.)
Well based on playing every Larian RPG released, is they always some how feel like the last part or epilogue is lacking. They at least tried to fix it with patches and new content.
Also I'm sure many of us have a few negatives about BG3. We just learned based on past threads to just not bother sharing. Otherwise a few members rage flamed threads.
Also I'm sure many of us have a few negatives about BG3. We just learned based on past threads to just not bother sharing. Otherwise a few members rage flamed threads.
D
Deleted member 43349
Guest
I'm not going to set a threshold for what makes a masterpiece because that's my point. There is no such thing as factually a masterpiece. There's only what's considered a masterpiece and that's always debatable. It's fine we disagree but there is no right or wrong. Just like with movies I think games that hit that mark are fairly rare and it takes time before a reputation gets cemented. I just don't find BG3 to be at those heights and I don't think its reputation will stand up like the BG2, for example.
D
Deleted member 43349
Guest
Yes if it gets like that I will take refuge in the Politics forum, where it's calmer.
I quietly question the merit of relying on the "authority" of societal consensus in this context to claim something is a masterpiece as objective fact. Top 40 music to me is largely rubbish; I don't need a majority to tell me what is good and what isn't. You can win all the awards you want, but that doesn't make it above criticism or negate the opinion of the individual who thinks otherwise. It's not a masterpiece.