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
-
Nintendo, the company that released dozens of sequels and remakes of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, right? I guess my wildest dreams are a bit more wild.
Yeah, my wildest dreams are a bit more Expedition 33 or Chants of Sennaar.
-
Nintendo, the company that released dozens of sequels and remakes of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, right? I guess my wildest dreams are a bit more wild.
⊠in addition to a number of other games that have iterated on the ideas.
Iâm not gonna say that Nintendo is some saint of game design and innovation, but theyâre nowhere near the worst, either.
-
BG4: Modern Warfare will be a fantastic take on the D&D ruleset.
So an eberron game?
-
Honestly Iâd like it if the Balders Gate 4 was a little bit more like COD.
Iâm thinking you can pay to have more chances to re-roll the dice.
-
Iâm thinking you can pay to have more chances to re-roll the dice.
I prefer to pray for that instead
-
This post did not contain any content.
Iâm hoping Baldurâs 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!
-
Nintendo, the company that released dozens of sequels and remakes of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, right? I guess my wildest dreams are a bit more wild.
Thatâs wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesnât make PokĂ©mon.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They can be fascinated all they want, but I donât think thatâll help them much, because theyâre after a different thing. Indie games are fun, because people who make decisions about them largely like games and want to make games. With AAA, the decision makers are soulless MBA leeches that largely like money and want to make more moneyâŠ
-
They can be fascinated all they want, but I donât think thatâll help them much, because theyâre after a different thing. Indie games are fun, because people who make decisions about them largely like games and want to make games. With AAA, the decision makers are soulless MBA leeches that largely like money and want to make more moneyâŠ
So then sit back and let the makers make their shiâoh we donât need so many MBAs anymore? Oops!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Indie games reasonably start with more fleshed out and committed to ideas of what the game will look like in the end than AAA games. Constraints of money and less cooks in the kitchen
AAA games sound like itâs years of expensive pitches for gameplay and narrative, can be years of that even after publicly announcing the game, and then picking one and then deciding nevermind the markets hot on this so pivot. Rinse and repeat until cancellation or a stir fry of whatâs about to expire in the fridge
-
I love the data callout so much. I wish I remember the article I read this in, but there was a researcher who said weâre living in an age of data-driven stupidity and thatâs stuck with me ever since.
Itâs not that data is bad in all cases, but data aggregation is inherently reducing fidelity of detail in the process. When youâre approaching human-centric issues, such as making something fun and meaningful, data really canât help you that much. Youâve boiled the messy human elements, the elements most crucial to a powerful result, out of the conversation.
Yeah. You use data to target the most common factors to make your audience as broad as possible, and you end up making the most bland slop that nobody actually cares about.
-
Iâm thinking you can pay to have more chances to re-roll the dice.
Iâd rather kill
-
Thatâs wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesnât make PokĂ©mon.
I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much. While Nintendo doesnât make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.
-
Nintendo, the company that released dozens of sequels and remakes of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, right? I guess my wildest dreams are a bit more wild.
There can be originality within franchises. Dr. Mario vs. Luigiâs Mansion vs. Mario Kart vs. Super Mario Maker (etc, etc). No, itâs not always an industry busting idea, but you canât say itâs all rote repetition. Itâs the same universe, but thatâs ok. Not everything has to be a whole cloth original idea.
I will give you Pokemon, though. Outside of Snap and (kind of) Legends, itâs pretty clearly lazy, by the number installations, which is a shame. The universe clearly appeals to and inspires so many people. They deserve better.
-
They also miss really bad why those games become popular on first place.
For example, the text mentions Minecraft, and all that âcraftingâ trend. What made Minecraft great was not crafting - it was the feeling that youâre 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 worldâs rules to do your bidding, you can.
Or, letâs pick Undertale. Itâs all about the mood, the game pulls strings with your emotions. Right at the start the game shows you Toriel, sheâs 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 youâll probably do it. And youâll feel like shit. Then you load the save back, and⊠the game still remembers. Youâre 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.
Itâs all about feelings. But corporations are as soulless as their âartâ; and game corporations are no exception. Individual humans get it.
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.
I just like to make the cute farm go brrrrrrrr. Honestly, Iâm annoyed that marriage (or âroomieshipâ with the monster) is required to 100% the game.
-
⊠in addition to a number of other games that have iterated on the ideas.
Iâm not gonna say that Nintendo is some saint of game design and innovation, but theyâre nowhere near the worst, either.
Certainly not the worst, I think they have good quality control. Quite similar to Disney, they are makers of good quality and safe products, able to satisfy the mass.
-
Certainly not the worst, I think they have good quality control. Quite similar to Disney, they are makers of good quality and safe products, able to satisfy the mass.
In addition to a number of products that push boundaries of whatâs possible in the industry.
-
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.
I just like to make the cute farm go brrrrrrrr. Honestly, Iâm annoyed that marriage (or âroomieshipâ with the monster) is required to 100% the game.
Even in your case, itâs still about feelingsâalthough different ones: youâre expressing yourself through your farm, instead of focusing on the romance. âSee, myself, this is what I built! Good job, me.â and the likes.
Neither is the ârightâ or âwrongâ emotion, mind you. But a game needs to trigger at least some within you, to be a good game. And thatâs what corporations donât get: theyâre chasing mensurable things. More graphics, presence/absence of a mechanic, even gameplay length can be measured; but you canât really measure someoneâs emotional experience.
-
I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much. While Nintendo doesnât make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.
Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.
Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.
Your complaint doesnât align with reality.
-
In addition to a number of products that push boundaries of whatâs possible in the industry.
That star wars sequel really was somethingâŠ
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg "Lvxferre [he/him]"){kind=avatar}
