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
-
I love the data callout so much. I wish I remember the article I read this in, but there was a researcher who said we’re living in an age of data-driven stupidity and that’s stuck with me ever since.
It’s not that data is bad in all cases, but data aggregation is inherently reducing fidelity of detail in the process. When you’re approaching human-centric issues, such as making something fun and meaningful, data really can’t help you that much. You’ve 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.
-
I’m thinking you can pay to have more chances to re-roll the dice.
I’d rather kill
-
That’s 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 doesn’t make Pokémon.
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 doesn’t 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. 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.
-
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? 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, I’m annoyed that marriage (or “roomieship” with the monster) is required to 100% the game.
-
… in addition to a number of other games that have iterated on the ideas.
I’m not gonna say that Nintendo is some saint of game design and innovation, but they’re 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 what’s 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, I’m annoyed that marriage (or “roomieship” with the monster) is required to 100% the game.
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.
-
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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t align with reality.
-
In addition to a number of products that push boundaries of what’s possible in the industry.
That star wars sequel really was something…
-
That star wars sequel really was something…
Which made billions of dollars for them, that they then put towards things like Andor and Encanto and at least a third to half of the more recent Pixar movies.
No one’s saying they don’t also produce shit, but often that shit bankrolls the things that aren’t.
-
Honestly I’d like it if the Balders Gate 4 was a little bit more like COD.
So…Skyrim?
-
Let your devs explore their wildest dreams! Nintendo gets it. Too bad they have too mny legal sticks up their ass…
Idk why people are giving you shit on that, you’re right. Not necessarily indie-level right, but people hired to do the next Mario or Zelda are given remarkable freedom. I read up on the BotW development and they pitched their crazy idea, got green lit, and when leading their team they took suggestions from every part of the team (quite literally, artists, marketers, localization specialists, etc.). If I could remember the link I’d share it, but it’s straight up good AAA management.
Though, to be fair it’s really team by team and it’s quite possible they got lucky with some of these. There are plenty of misses, after all. I’m kinda glad I’m off the Nintendo bandwagon after the whole Yuzu/Ryujinx legal crap.
-
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.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg "Lvxferre [he/him]"){kind=avatar}
