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
-
Next you’ll tell me they both have jumping!
I mean that’s all really high level stuff.
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
-
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.
Capitalism.
-
A reminder that AA-AAA is basically just specifying how much money has been poured into its development. Not how much love, passion and hard work went into creating it.
Baldurs gate 3 is made by an indie game studio.
As in they’re independent and are not beholden to a publisher or external revenue sources that own their idea and forces them to take business decisions they don’t want to due to monetary reasons and outside pressure.
And yes, absolutely S+ tier games.
Seeing Ubisoft describe Far Cry 6 as AAAA made a mockery of the whole A-rating system anyway. It never really meant anything other than “erm, we’re charging more for it this year”.
-
Seeing Ubisoft describe Far Cry 6 as AAAA made a mockery of the whole A-rating system anyway. It never really meant anything other than “erm, we’re charging more for it this year”.
Wasn’t that skull and bones?
-
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
And I’m not saying you do have to enjoy the game. I’m just saying that you’re starting with the opinion “Nintendo bad” and trying to backfill the reasons, because saying Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t innovative just doesn’t line up with reality. And saying that Nintendo as a whole isn’t innovative is just ridiculous.
-
Indie devs have a vision
triple A games just feel so bland and corporate these days, no passion
Corporate art will always be underwhelming.
-
Corporate art will always be underwhelming.
Yup. Just looks so stiff and uninspired. Part of the reason why I miss those old 3D art character portraits of the early 2000’s, they looked goofy in a good way
-
Corporate art will always be underwhelming.
Corporate art. Now that’s a good oxymoron.
-
Wasn’t that skull and bones?
Was both of them I think. And both were a joke.
-
This post did not contain any content.
maybe if they were more focused in storyline, and gameplay. and not breaking through the uncanny valley, while squeezing gamers for every last penny, they could understand…whats its like…to be…human
-
This post did not contain any content.
Because the decision makers aren’t making games they want to play. There just making business decisions on what they think sells more. It’s not rocket science to make a game that’s fun but it takes a lot of involvement and passion, something that CEOs and other C suites don’t have time for.
