Baldur's Gate 3 dev says AAA is "perversely fascinated" by indie games, because those devs still understand how to make good ideas that aren't reliant on data
-
So then sit back and let the makers make their shi–oh we don’t need so many MBAs anymore? Oops!
we don’t need
so manyMBAsanymoreFixed it for you
-
This post did not contain any content.
Y’know, from a risk assessment standpoint, you can’t be too surprised they over rely on data since AAAs cost so much to make an a flop can lose millions, and sometimes even billions of dollars. Mediocre can still sell, and you and I both know they aren’t doing it for art or expression.
I do want to make one other point about survivor bias, though… there are plenty of crappy indie games, too. We focus a lot on the greats (and trust me, I hunger for the Silksong) but it makes up a pretty small percent in a world where everyone can make something. I sometimes will spin up a random game from regrettable purchases (like, indiegala bundles or those “mystery game” purchases) and some of them are really, truly horrible. I try to give is as much respect as I can, and sometimes I do find a few gems that nobody has played, but like… not every passion project is Undertale, lol.
Although tbh, I like streaming a bad game for friends because they can watch me suffer, haha, so I still appreciate the, uh, effort.
-
Even in your case, it’s still about feelings—although different ones: you’re expressing yourself through your farm, instead of focusing on the romance. “See, myself, this is what I built! Good job, me.” and the likes.
Neither is the “right” or “wrong” emotion, mind you. But a game needs to trigger at least some within you, to be a good game. And that’s what corporations don’t get: they’re chasing mensurable things. More graphics, presence/absence of a mechanic, even gameplay length can be measured; but you can’t really measure someone’s emotional experience.
On that we can agree. The game is great at giving players a plethora of paths and options.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think it’s more that the megacorp business model is fundamentally incompatible with making good video games. Their only reliable competitive advantage is money, they can spend more on a single project. But if they spend so much, they can’t go as risky as indies go. A ton of indies publish shit games, it’s just that some are absolute gems.
Point is, AAA games can only match indies in originality if they are okay with tanking the IP and the studio just to make something original. But since they are megacorps, they will never be okay with that. The also can’t amortise the risk over a lot of small projects, because then they lose the ability to outspend indies and would have to compete with them directly.
It’s like a sort of inverse economies of scale.
-
They also miss really bad why those games become popular on first place.
For example, the text mentions Minecraft, and all that “crafting” trend. What made Minecraft great was not crafting - it was the feeling that you’re free to express yourself, the way you want, through interactions with the ingame world. If you want to build a huge castle, recreate a wonder you love, or a clever contraption to bend the world’s rules to do your bidding, you can.
Or, let’s pick Undertale. It’s all about the mood, the game pulls strings with your emotions. Right at the start the game shows you Toriel, she’s a really nice lady, taking care of you as if she was your child. And being overprotective. Then the game tries to make you kill her, and your first playthrough you’ll probably do it. And you’ll feel like shit. Then you load the save back, and… the game still remembers. You’re still feeling like shit because you killed Toriel.
Stardew Valley? At a certain point of the game, you start to genuinely care about the characters. Not just as in-game characters, but as virtual people with their own backstories, goals, dreams. You relate to them.
It’s all about feelings. But corporations are as soulless as their “art”; and game corporations are no exception. Individual humans get it.
They made it so you couldn’t save scum killing her? lol
-
Honestly I’d like it if the Balders Gate 4 was a little bit more like COD.
This is a no-go unless COD has a fortnite death ring. Add 30 of those and maybe we might have an original idea on our hands.
-
Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.
Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.
Your complaint doesn’t align with reality.
I like how no one mentioned watered down donkey Kong rockband.
Anyone arguing against the fact that they’re milking dust out of their financial cow is delusional.
-
They made it so you couldn’t save scum killing her? lol
You can save scum and she’ll be back, but one of the characters highlights it:
Clever. Verrrryyy clever. You think you’re really smart, don’t you? In this world, it’s kill or be killed. So you were able to play by your own rules. You spared the life of a single person. Hee hee hee…
But don’t act so cocky. I know what you did. You murdered her. And then you went back, because you regretted it. Ha ha ha ha…
And the whole game is full of situations like this. Highlighting that your actions actually have some impact, even if you can reload or start a new game.
-
They also miss really bad why those games become popular on first place.
For example, the text mentions Minecraft, and all that “crafting” trend. What made Minecraft great was not crafting - it was the feeling that you’re free to express yourself, the way you want, through interactions with the ingame world. If you want to build a huge castle, recreate a wonder you love, or a clever contraption to bend the world’s rules to do your bidding, you can.
Or, let’s pick Undertale. It’s all about the mood, the game pulls strings with your emotions. Right at the start the game shows you Toriel, she’s a really nice lady, taking care of you as if she was your child. And being overprotective. Then the game tries to make you kill her, and your first playthrough you’ll probably do it. And you’ll feel like shit. Then you load the save back, and… the game still remembers. You’re still feeling like shit because you killed Toriel.
Stardew Valley? At a certain point of the game, you start to genuinely care about the characters. Not just as in-game characters, but as virtual people with their own backstories, goals, dreams. You relate to them.
It’s all about feelings. But corporations are as soulless as their “art”; and game corporations are no exception. Individual humans get it.
Stardew Valley’s success had more to do with smart marketing than anything. The game has the exact same formula as Story of Seasons and Rune Factory, which are very corporate-run series, just not at AAA scale. The difference was Eric Barone cultivating word-of-mouth marketing via influencers and online communities to reintroduce the genre to the Western market (along with lucking into capitalizing on what was then a more nascent pixel art indie gaming trend).
Undertale’s a good example, though (I’ll still note this particular example is a huge spoiler). I did the thing and it was a very fresh idea, and one of the best hooks I’ve seen in a video game. Thing is though, I doubt even 10% took that route to see it. That’s something the game has in common with Baldur’s Gate 3, which is full of those low-percentage moments. AAA devs don’t like investing a lot of resources into things most people aren’t going to see.
-
I think it’s more that the megacorp business model is fundamentally incompatible with making good video games. Their only reliable competitive advantage is money, they can spend more on a single project. But if they spend so much, they can’t go as risky as indies go. A ton of indies publish shit games, it’s just that some are absolute gems.
Point is, AAA games can only match indies in originality if they are okay with tanking the IP and the studio just to make something original. But since they are megacorps, they will never be okay with that. The also can’t amortise the risk over a lot of small projects, because then they lose the ability to outspend indies and would have to compete with them directly.
It’s like a sort of inverse economies of scale.
They could go for more double A games. Still more budget than indies, not as risky or innovative, but not as big of an investment as AAA. Studios could work on new IPs in shorter cycles and smaller games, and eventually release big AAA sequels to the successful ones.
-
I think it’s more that the megacorp business model is fundamentally incompatible with making good video games. Their only reliable competitive advantage is money, they can spend more on a single project. But if they spend so much, they can’t go as risky as indies go. A ton of indies publish shit games, it’s just that some are absolute gems.
Point is, AAA games can only match indies in originality if they are okay with tanking the IP and the studio just to make something original. But since they are megacorps, they will never be okay with that. The also can’t amortise the risk over a lot of small projects, because then they lose the ability to outspend indies and would have to compete with them directly.
It’s like a sort of inverse economies of scale.
The cycle of megacorps- this works in most industries with a lower barrier of entry.
First the industry begins as a bunch of small competing startups that build a shit ton of absolute trash. Eventually a few companies find the right formula and start to find some medicum of success. Innovation is rapid but quality is low.
Next the industry consolidates in a feeding frenzy of mergers and aqisitions. During this time innovation is high but demands for quality is also high. New startups are constant as the forming megacorps pay high prices to control innovation or suppress competition.
Then the consolidation reaches a peak. At this point innovation almost completely ceases as megacorps refuse to pay out any more. Quality rapidly decreases as the few remaining megacorps try to maximize profits. The entire industry turns to shit products and high prices.
The only thing that can save the industry from stagnation is government anti-trust action breaking up the megacorps into smaller competing companies like in the second stage.
-
Stardew Valley’s success had more to do with smart marketing than anything. The game has the exact same formula as Story of Seasons and Rune Factory, which are very corporate-run series, just not at AAA scale. The difference was Eric Barone cultivating word-of-mouth marketing via influencers and online communities to reintroduce the genre to the Western market (along with lucking into capitalizing on what was then a more nascent pixel art indie gaming trend).
Undertale’s a good example, though (I’ll still note this particular example is a huge spoiler). I did the thing and it was a very fresh idea, and one of the best hooks I’ve seen in a video game. Thing is though, I doubt even 10% took that route to see it. That’s something the game has in common with Baldur’s Gate 3, which is full of those low-percentage moments. AAA devs don’t like investing a lot of resources into things most people aren’t going to see.
Good marketing and luck do play their roles, but aren’t enough by themselves. With those two but without pulling your emotional strings, SV wouldn’t be seen nowadays as a “spiritual successor” to Harvest Moon / Story of Seasons, but rather as a “cheap knock-off”.
Doubly so for an indie game - indie devs don’t have enough money to make shit look like ambrosia, unlike AAA studios.
Also note HM/SoS did not start as a corporate-run series. The formula was already there in the SNES game, developed by a rather unknown studio (Amccus). Apparently Yasuhiro Wada came up with the idea because he wanted to try something different, and he’s from a rural background.
Corporate is kind of lucky the formula is enough - to make someone feel proud of their farm (like in Ech’s answer) or relate to the characters (interacting with them often, giving them gifts, seeing cutscenes etc.), otherwise it would’ve ruined it with “more graphics! 9001 love interests! 9001 crops! …what do you mean, the characters aren’t relatable?”.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The suits always dictate what sells, and they’ll look for anything that would keep revenue coming.
-
I think it’s more that the megacorp business model is fundamentally incompatible with making good video games. Their only reliable competitive advantage is money, they can spend more on a single project. But if they spend so much, they can’t go as risky as indies go. A ton of indies publish shit games, it’s just that some are absolute gems.
Point is, AAA games can only match indies in originality if they are okay with tanking the IP and the studio just to make something original. But since they are megacorps, they will never be okay with that. The also can’t amortise the risk over a lot of small projects, because then they lose the ability to outspend indies and would have to compete with them directly.
It’s like a sort of inverse economies of scale.
Not only good videogames. Good art in general. Music, text, movies, tv series and videogames all go for the “mid” nowadays. Offend noone, include everything and everyone and above all: make no hard choices which others haven’t done already.
Which results in data driven hollow 1000 in a dozen AI “caught in the algorithm” trash. Just look at most what comes out of Netflix “studios” these days. It will be the end of them.
And you hear it in music too: everything sounds the same these days. Everything.
And you see the same in writing: more and more generic stuff. The big names pump out more and more of same-ish stories. Say what you like about Prime Stephen King for example, but what he wrote during his crazed coke/whiskey fueled years… It was original. And weird.
-
The suits always dictate what sells, and they’ll look for anything that would keep revenue coming.
Probably because the suits don’t play games, so they have no clue what makes a game good or not. All they have is data, but data without context is just numbers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Uh-huh. But did you focus test that statement, though?
-
They could go for more double A games. Still more budget than indies, not as risky or innovative, but not as big of an investment as AAA. Studios could work on new IPs in shorter cycles and smaller games, and eventually release big AAA sequels to the successful ones.
Yeah, but there’s the catch, they would have to compete on equal footing with indies then. Money is their only advantage.
-
This post did not contain any content.
.
-
I like how no one mentioned watered down donkey Kong rockband.
Anyone arguing against the fact that they’re milking dust out of their financial cow is delusional.
So I think what’s going on here is that you’re actually just a hater.
-
I think it’s more that the megacorp business model is fundamentally incompatible with making good video games. Their only reliable competitive advantage is money, they can spend more on a single project. But if they spend so much, they can’t go as risky as indies go. A ton of indies publish shit games, it’s just that some are absolute gems.
Point is, AAA games can only match indies in originality if they are okay with tanking the IP and the studio just to make something original. But since they are megacorps, they will never be okay with that. The also can’t amortise the risk over a lot of small projects, because then they lose the ability to outspend indies and would have to compete with them directly.
It’s like a sort of inverse economies of scale.
Megacorp business model is incompatible with every industry, it’s entirely based on what is the absolute bare minimum that will still make money. Absolutely no passion in the work, no interest in quality, and no care for the people getting trampled to make it.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg "Lvxferre [he/him]"){kind=avatar}
