You're viewing a single thread.
I have no problem if games reached this via a similar model that Larian used here (lots of experienced staff, pre-built systems, 6 years of development, 3 years of expertly done early-access with a highly engaged player base) but they're not going to. They're going to implement more crunch, more abuse, more destruction of the few people who want to work in games in order to get there. And that's where I have the issue.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less. Because that's what's needed to make truly great games. People who are passionate, not burning themselves out just to barely make deadlines, make great games.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less.
Honestly that's an excellent summary.
Don't get me wrong BG3 is probably one of the best games I've ever played and I eventually want BG4 or whatever expansion/spin-off/sequel they want to make. However I waited 23 years between BG2 and BG3, I don't want to wait that long again, but I can wait.
But to your point I want good games. I don't need 100+ hour adventures. In general I don't want 100+ hour adventures. Those should be rare. I want games that I can finish (at a casual pace) in a weekend or two.
Portal 1? Braid? Both are short puzzle games that are absolutely fantastic.
Stanley Parable? Gone Home? Excellent story games. You can beat them in about as much time as it takes to watch a movie.
It's disappointing that AAA studios don't recognize this. I don't want a bloated game that takes 300 hours to experience most of it. I don't want a giant map. I want a good game. I want a small map filled with life, not a large one with soulless procedurally generated dungeons.
I'm just putting it out there that I have finished almost 3 different playthroughs and I would 300% purchase DLC.
If the initial game is a full game and satisfactorily so, I would gladly fork over more money for additional content.
DLC is not inherently bad. It's just the way most companies have done it is.
What's particularly notable about this well above average gaming year is that the clearly top two games so far aren't using state-of-the-art graphics.
Given how messy PC gaming has been lately, with a recent history of GPU shortages followed by an underwhelming new generation and some very poor game optimization, I wouldn't mind seeing a trend of game development slowing down on graphics tech for a bit.
We have to go back!
But also legitimately. Like remember how good games would get near the end of a console's lifecycle? Then a new console generation would drop and the games would look sharp, but also a bit wonky, until enough years has past, and thennn... another new console generation would drop, and the constraints would disappear again. Always too soon, I thought - just as the games were getting truly good again!
Heh, yes, I still have fond memories of the late 16-bit generation and early fifth-gen games that didn't get on board the 3D bandwagon. Sprite-based games started to look mighty sexy until everyone decided that untextured polygons were the way to go for a while. 😑
Always preferred Duke 3D to Quake. The later is way more sophisticated from the technical standpoint (though Build does allow some neat tricks) but Duke is just so vibrant and fun. Destructible environment, original weapons, large enemy variety and proper bosses... Meanwhile Quake is just... brown.
Educate a pleeb here, I've been out of the gaming loop. What's the notable exceptions of great games this year and what two that are not state-of-the-art graphics do you mean?
This thread's on Baldur's Gate 3, that's one of them. I should have specified the other of the two most highly-rated games this year; it's The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. Both games are more or less running last-gen graphics tech and are ahead of the pack on review scores. Zelda looks good for a Switch game, though.
You could probably ask a dozen gaming enthusiasts and get a dozen different answers on why this year has been exceptional. I'd say it's because we have a lot of big releases from venerable franchises arriving all in the same year (Baldur's Gate is one, plus Diablo, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, Resident Evil, Star Wars, Street Fighter). There are hits from new IPs like Cassette Beasts, Dave the Diver, Hi-Fi Rush, and maybe Starfield in a few weeks if it's not a disaster.
It's a nice mix of old and new worlds and plenty of surprises. On top of all that, it's only August. I think there's a sense that the industry is starting to leave the pandemic behind, too.
I don't think demanding quality games is inherently at odds with wanting studios to not abuse their workers. What we really should support is broad labor protections and labor unions for developers. Because clearly the AAA studios don't need the excuse of high demand for features from gamers in order to abuse their people since they have been doing that for years while churning out trash titles.
Completely agreed. The issue is that gamers™ aggressively advocate for better quality, and do not care about workplace abuse or worse products with more features. This creates the current feedback loop we have where games that are longer, have flashier features, and aren't finished at launch.
Labor unions and protections would be excellent, but isn't something that I, a non-game developer, can do much to advance, besides avocation.
and do not care about workplace abuse
I think the recent ActiBlizz situation proves that one incorrect.
Not saying that 100% of Gamers care, just saying it's not 0% of Gamers who care.