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
-
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.
-
So I think what’s going on here is that you’re actually just a hater.
A little lol
-
It is this exactly, and is the same problem film, tv, and music has. They are all populated by people who are good at becoming and staying at the exec level, not people who are good at whatever field they are working in. Often the really creative are difficult to work with, they do not make a “good fit” with other execs, particularly when they actually understand the medium.
Its the same group of people who are heavily invested in AI to replace creative people in these fields as they do not understand the difference between AI doing a passable copy of someone elses style and someone actually creative creating a new style or approach.
-
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.
Having trouble finding the link now, but apparently at a big dev conference with a bunch of the business suits involved, they want to make games faster. But not make them smaller or have worse graphics. Just faster.
And yes, shoving AI slop into everything is part of that plan.
In other words, the industry is completely lost, and I will continue to spend the majority of my gaming time on indie titles.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Indie devs want to make a game
AAA devs want to make money
It’s that simple.
Also, I can’t remember the last time I played a AAA game that was anything more than alright.
-
It is this exactly, and is the same problem film, tv, and music has. They are all populated by people who are good at becoming and staying at the exec level, not people who are good at whatever field they are working in. Often the really creative are difficult to work with, they do not make a “good fit” with other execs, particularly when they actually understand the medium.
Its the same group of people who are heavily invested in AI to replace creative people in these fields as they do not understand the difference between AI doing a passable copy of someone elses style and someone actually creative creating a new style or approach.
Its the same group of people who are heavily invested in AI to replace creative people in these fields as they do not understand the difference between AI doing a passable copy of someone elses style and someone actually creative creating a new style or approach.
This is a good example yeah, they just look at the cost of an artists’ salaries and drool about pulling those into the exec and owners’ takehome.
-
Indie devs want to make a game
AAA devs want to make money
It’s that simple.
Also, I can’t remember the last time I played a AAA game that was anything more than alright.
BG3 if that counts as AAA
Outside Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom I don’t think I’ve enjoyed a triple A release since 2017.
-
BG4: Modern Warfare will be a fantastic take on the D&D ruleset.
BG4: Torment(ing players) will be fun
-
Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.
Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.
Your complaint doesn’t align with reality.
wait, they made a portmanteau of bonanza and banana? HA! I have to play this game
-
There can be originality within franchises. Dr. Mario vs. Luigi’s Mansion vs. Mario Kart vs. Super Mario Maker (etc, etc). No, it’s not always an industry busting idea, but you can’t say it’s all rote repetition. It’s the same universe, but that’s ok. Not everything has to be a whole cloth original idea.
I will give you Pokemon, though. Outside of Snap and (kind of) Legends, it’s pretty clearly lazy, by the number installations, which is a shame. The universe clearly appeals to and inspires so many people. They deserve better.
dr mario was a tetris ripoff
-
I’m hoping Baldur’s Gate 4 has a battle royale mode with different skins you can buy, and crossovers with Star Wars, Monster Energy, and Nike. And a Season Pass you can buy monthly for early access to each seasons cool new crossover!
i won’t play it unless there are verification cans you drink for spell slots
-
They’re not soulless game farms churning out shit for the large non-gamer audience of video games. Indie is like an Oregan alehouse; AAA is like a Vegas game bar.
dammit i will make that trip up to the pie shop and let y’all know how it is in a few months okay
-
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.
there are plenty of crappy indie games, too
This is a massive understatement.
There’s this fantasy that indie = high quality, but just look through Steam chronologically. 95%-99% of indie games seem to be good ideas that faded into obscurity, buried under the tidal wave of other games, that their creators probably burned out making for little in return. Many are just… not great. But others look like bad rolls of the dice.
Basically zero indies are Stardew Valleys or Rimworlds.
This is the nuance the Baldurs Gate dev is getting it. It’s not ‘games should develop like indies’; they literally can’t afford a 95% flop rate.
But that doesn’t mean the metrics they use for decision making aren’t massively flawed.
-
That star wars sequel really was something…
So are we admonishing “playing it safe” here or are we shitting on attempted innovation? You don’t get to do both.
-
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.
So don’t spend so much that a bad release will sink you. Spread it out over multiple projects. It’s not that hard.
-
BG3 if that counts as AAA
Outside Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom I don’t think I’ve enjoyed a triple A release since 2017.
-
dr mario was a tetris ripoff
Tetris was just a go fish ripoff.
Dr. Mario was clearly inspired by tetris, but it had enough of its own unique mechanics (using matching blocks to get rid of germs being the one I can think of) that it’s not just a shameless copy.
