this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
1345 points (96.2% liked)

Games

32456 readers
1403 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 113 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Would it be so bad if games didn't have insane budgets? Most of my favorite games from the past decade are from small studios operating on pizza and hope.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BG3 did have a pretty huge budget though. I would totally be fine if games took notes from BG3 but reduced scope a lot. Bioware used to make games similar to BG, but they stopped and now make garbage. The idea other studios can't make similar games is wrong. They can't make games this big usually though without publishers telling them they need to include microtransactions and other bullshit.

[–] avapa@lemmy.ml 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

BioWare didn’t just make games similar to Baldur’s Gate, they created Baldur’s Gate.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Yep, you're right. I didn't realize they were a studio at that point. Yeah, they have no reason to complain about new expectations. They could have created BG3 if they had kept doing what they were known for, but EA and the money were too good...

[–] NoMoreCocaine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wasn't that Black Isle? Or had they already evolved into their future downfall? It's been a hot minute since I've last looked at BG credits.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Black Isle was the publisher, Bioware developed the game. Baldurs Gate lead to BG2, which lead to Neverwinter Nights, which lead to Knights of the Old Republic.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

which lead to Knights of the Old Republic

Which lead to Mass Effect, don't forget

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

True, but IMO the link wasn't nearly as strong between KotoR and ME as any of the previous games in the link which were all clearly D&D based systems. ME1 had a lot in common with KotoR but there were some major deviations too as they moved away from the table top standard.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TIL Baldurs gate is the reason i hated the ending to ME3.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Kind of! Though if we are being entirely honest, the real thing to blame is the head writer being replaced and the dev time cut by almost a year.

Personally would have enjoyed it more if they went with the Biotics/Dark Energy that Drew Karpyshyn had put down groundwork for, rather than the AI subplot that Mac Walters hastily slapped together for ME3 that directly contradicted ME1 threads and subplots.

[–] zaphod@feddit.de 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lower budgets would probably be better. High budgets mean high risk, developers and publishers try to minimize that risk and you get bland games that try to cater to too many tastes. Movies suffer from the same problem. They get budgets in the hundreds of millions and you wonder what they spent it all for.

[–] FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

High budgets are killing the film industry. In the case of gaming, it plays a factor, but greed is probably the main issue. Most big budget AAA games in the past made large amounts of money even if they didn’t have universal appeal. Because companies realised that they could make large amounts of money off loot boxes, microtransactions, cash shops and battle passes, they started trying to funnel players into games, mainly so that players would buy things. That’s one of the main reasons the AAA industry is getting worse: games need to appeal to as many as possible, while coming out as fast as possible, all so that players will buy the overpriced in-game items endlessly shoved in players’ faces.

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love me some good AAA games and want them to stick around. But I think it would be much better if they were a bit fewer and further between, and the big studios shift to more regular AA games, and give their devs chances to do some more oddball stuff with even lower budgets. More expiremntation and risky projects can only enrich the industry.

You never know what those experiments can lead too. There will be a lot of failures however someone is going to look at the failure and realize what needs to be need to be tweaked.

Yep. The final fantsay series was a bunch of lads in an attic. Now those lads are legends.. with a fantasic legacy. Yet I'm still waiting for ES5 and GTA 6..

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

from small studios operating on pizza and hope.

And that's how it started.

[–] Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You could give studios unlimited budgets and they'd still complain they don't have enough time / money to get things right. The rhetoric is that "games are just so complex nowadays" and that justifies their 4/5/6 year development periods.

I'm not seeing the complexity that warrants that type of long development period. The visual fidelity on some games is impressive, but is it actually worth that 5 year dev time?