Baldur's Gate 3

[sXeth]

​

Not familiar with Ghost Rider in general although I did see the first Nick Cage one (assume there's been more) when it came out.
Spiky dreadlocked muscle guy to bloke with weird teeth is a bit of a downgrade.

​

That was prettymuch just for the movie. Probably cause this was 2004(?) CGI and they knew the other thing would look ridiculous (and had already spent their big budget on Ghost Riders skull/bike). Blackheart remained in his design in the comics (and videogames and such)

There is also a second Ghost Rider movie, which is marginally better then the first. They went with Blackout (just to be confusing) for the villain in that one and while his origin isn't the same did get his basic look and powers right.

 

[BrawlMan]

Not familiar with Ghost Rider in general although I did see the first Nick Cage one (assume there's been more) when it came out.
Spiky dreadlocked muscle guy to bloke with weird teeth is a bit of a downgrade.

I never read the comics much either and only familiar with the two movies, and the cameo Ghost Rider has (a completely different one that is Latino) in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D tv show.

That was prettymuch just for the movie. Probably cause this was 2004(?) CGI and they knew the other thing would look ridiculous (and had already spent their big budget on Ghost Riders skull/bike). Blackheart remained in his design in the comics (and videogames and such)

I know blackheart from the older marvel fighting games, he summoned weird devil minions and threw ice and explosions. Fun char.

2007 CGI. Considering how Venom looked in Spider-Man 3, Blackheart's original design could have worked ok. They were going for this Neo-Western look that kind of works, but it is a heavy downgrade with Blackheart. The only reason I knew of the character were from the licensed Marvel games by Capcom and Marvel vs. Capcom 2.

There is also a second Ghost Rider movie, which is marginally better then the first. They went with Blackout (just to be confusing) for the villain in that one and while his origin isn't the same did get his basic look and powers right.

I like both movies, but I do consider Spirit of Vengeance the better movie. Has more action going for it, and the best design for Ghost Rider ever made. The first movie has some good action that is well shot, but there is not enough of it, and some the action goes by too quickly. I do know SOV is love it or hate it between fans, but feelings have softened for most of them by the late 2010s and now. Though film critics have some retroactive changing bullshit opinions. BTW, Blackout is never actually named in the movie. You only know of his name in the credits. He's always just referred as Carrigan. Apparently, this version of character is a combination of himself, and another D-list villain from the comics that could suck out the light out of any environment.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

That was prettymuch just for the movie. Probably cause this was 2004(?) CGI and they knew the other thing would look ridiculous (and had already spent their big budget on Ghost Riders skull/bike). Blackheart remained in his design in the comics (and videogames and such)

There is also a second Ghost Rider movie, which is marginally better then the first. They went with Blackout (just to be confusing) for the villain in that one and while his origin isn't the same did get his basic look and powers right.

I reckon they could have just put The Rock in a wetsuit with some spikes glued on it and a dreadlock wig.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[CriticalGaming]

It is going to be very difficult for another game to beat this for GOTY for me.

 

[Lykosia]

This is stupid, manufactured, clickbait outrage.

Most other devs are not "complaining". They are largely complementing the scope of BG3 but also pointing out that most cRPG devs are relatively small outfits that simply do not have the resources to create something of BG3's complexity, so it cannot be assumed as an expectation from the genre in the future.

If they're asking 60€/$ for their games, then yes, they should be held for BG3 standards. Like the guy from IGN video said, BG3 is worth over 100$ compared to most other games we get with 60. And some of the complainers are from studios like Blizzard and Bungie.

 

[Ag3ma]

If they're asking 60€/$ for their games, then yes, they should be held for BG3 standards. Like the guy from IGN video said, BG3 is worth over 100$ compared to most other games we get with 60.

That's not how it works and never has been: it's economically illiterate.

There are cRPG indy projects on Steam created by teams a tenth of the size (or much smaller) retailing around half the price of a AAA title: but they have necessarily put in around a tenth of the effort/cost because of the size of their team. By your argument, they should be retailing at ~$6, not $30-40. But the latter is what they need to make it worth their while.

The development of a project involves costs, and the more development required the more it costs: those costs have to be sunk in before the money arrives in sales (although early access blurs this to some extent). The game price represents a certain degree of market forces, but fundamentally needs to be set at a level where the development costs are covered, makes a profit (partly to fund development of their next game), and bearing in mind a hefty percentage of the unit price goes to retailers and where relevant publishers or other financial backers. They will have to estimate sales, work out what percentage of the sales revenue they receive, and then fix a unit price they can get away with, and these will determine the development costs they can put in.

So the majority of devs in the cRPG field simply cannot make a BG3 under any circumstances, because it costs more money than they will ever be able to get hold of in the first place. Then, for the larger ones, they might be able to borrow the money, but this imposes a huge burden on and threat to them, because that gives them large debts and if the game fails to meet sales expectations then they face serious financial trouble, even bankruptcy.

You guys all need to understand that for every BG3, there are many more very ambitious projects that get started and damage, cripple or kill their development studio. Someone above mentioned CDPR and the problems Cyberpunk 2077 had: this exactly represents the sorts of things that can go wrong with even a successful and well-regarded developer. You might not even be aware of many of these troubled projects, because luckily the devs realise they're unviable and abandon them mid-way.

Perhaps you need to get your heads around the fact that these guys know what they are talking about and BG3 really might be a "freak".

 

[Lykosia]

That's not how it works and never has been: it's economically illiterate.

There are cRPG indy projects on Steam created by teams a tenth of the size (or much smaller) retailing around half the price of a AAA title: but they have necessarily put in around a tenth of the effort/cost because of the size of their team. By your argument, they should be retailing at ~$6, not $30-40. But the latter is what they need to make it worth their while.

The development of a project involves costs, and the more development required the more it costs: those costs have to be sunk in before the money arrives in sales (although early access blurs this to some extent). The game price represents a certain degree of market forces, but fundamentally needs to be set at a level where the development costs are covered, makes a profit (partly to fund development of their next game), and bearing in mind a hefty percentage of the unit price goes to retailers and where relevant publishers or other financial backers. They will have to estimate sales, work out what percentage of the sales revenue they receive, and then fix a unit price they can get away with, and these will determine the development costs they can put in.

So the majority of devs in the cRPG field simply cannot make a BG3 under any circumstances, because it costs more money than they will ever be able to get hold of in the first place. Then, for the larger ones, they might be able to borrow the money, but this imposes a huge burden on and threat to them, because that gives them large debts and if the game fails to meet sales expectations then they face serious financial trouble, even bankruptcy.

You guys all need to understand that for every BG3, there are many more very ambitious projects that get started and damage, cripple or kill their development studio. Someone above mentioned CDPR and the problems Cyberpunk 2077 had: this exactly represents the sorts of things that can go wrong with even a successful and well-regarded developer. You might not even be aware of many of these troubled projects, because luckily the devs realise they're unviable and abandon them mid-way.

Perhaps you need to get your heads around the fact that these guys know what they are talking about and BG3 really might be a "freak".

The thing is. I don't care. BG3 is the new standard whether they like it or not. I'm not going to pay 60 for something that isn't on it's level. Indie games rarely ask for that, so I don't have problems with them, but with AAA devs who ask that or more for full experience I've a problem with. If Bungie, Bioware, Blizzard, Obisidian etc are asking for 60, then I have a right as a consumer to demand similar quality from them. They have the resources to do it.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Perhaps you need to get your heads around the fact that these guys know what they are talking about and BG3 really might be a "freak".

BG3 can and bloody should shift industry expectations. Not CRPG expectations; industry expectations. And it is, as you pointed out, exactly about the economics rather than the game directly.

Larian, in terms of funding, company, and development team size, is comfortably on the low-ish end of triple-A developers. The only studios comparable to Larian in scale, are studios which basically only service a single, extremely well-established IP with a regular development and release cycle, using pre-existing engines and development kits. That is to say, low-risk, high-reward, cash dairies for major publishers.

Just napkin math and informed, highly conservative, speculation about BG3's budget and development team size based on Larian's total headcount as a developer-publisher...BG3 had to be a much more tightly and efficiently managed project than comparable games. That can, and should, be a shock to the industry, and inform consumers' expectations moving forward.

I'm not suggesting most or all triple-A developers are degenerating into late-'90s era Ion Storm madness, nor am I suggesting triple-A games should all deliver value comparable to or greater than BG3. But what I am suggesting, is consumers should take close note moving forward as more information about BG3's dev cycle, budget, project headcount, and dev documentation comes out. Based on that information, they should ask themselves what Larian does that other triple-A studios don't, whether that success is replicable elsewhere in the industry, and what economic forces permit failure of continual improvement (in ways other than graphical fidelity and performance).

In the end, the competing tale is we consumers have to accept the $60 (increasingly $70) price point -- and trailing costs by way of DLC, expansion, microtransaction, monetized service model, etc. -- because developers have to have nine-figure budgets, dev teams measuring in the hundreds, support staffing, additional overhead to account for crunch, server farm access and internet service for them, and the like. For products that are, at best, iterative improvements over past games, for which development costs should by all rights be minimal.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

BG3 should be a gut/reality check to many studios about what consumers want and are willing to pay for. However, it will be more unlikely and unrealistic than the game’s massive success itself for this to be some “new standard” in the genre, let alone industry-wide. Larian had an exceptionally good plan, but at the same time the stars basically aligned for them to keep the whole project on point. Other more bloated AAA studios would need massive restructuring, cost cuttings, etc. to adopt a model like this.

Ultimately the biggest obstacle is, will enough of the mainstream reach Gamergate levels of awareness of this quality : price-point issue let alone care enough to vote with their wallets going forward? Probably not, so it’s safe to expect business as usual for the foreseeable future, and BG3 to be that one unicorn that’s seen once a generation if that.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Other AAA studios would need massive restructuring, layoffs, etc. to adopt a model like this.

They would just need a change in philosophy and expectations. The problem with the AAA business model is that they expect every game to bring in billions, and it isn't possible. There are going to be a handful of billion dollar games, but they can only reach that level with insidious microtransactions and live service garbage. The AAA business needs a crash and a reset on expectations so that a single player game making $100 million is mind blowing levels of success.

The steps these companies would need to take to enact this change are far too great for them to even consider while Madden brings them billions every year.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

The AAA business needs a crash and a reset on expectations so that a single player game making $100 million is mind blowing levels of success.

The steps these companies would need to take to enact this change are far too great for them to even consider while Madden brings them billions every year.

IE, significant cost cutting is still needed for most AAA studios if 100mil is to be considered mind blowing sales. Start with a new marketing approach I guess?

Exactly why we won’t see it anytime soon

 

[CriticalGaming]

IE, significant cost cutting is still needed for most AAA studios if 100mil is to be considered mind blowing sales. Start with a new marketing approach I guess?

Exactly why we won’t see it anytime soon

Oh the marketing for sure is a big reason. The marketing budget on a lot of titles is 5X what the development cost is.

Development cost is probably the easiest thing to cut down on, especially for yearly franchises. Madden for example doesn't need new models for any of the players really. They also don't have to do face scans of rookies in the league, what they need is just a graphic artist and a character creation tool that will allow the artist to get decently close from photographs. Which is far cheaper than doing a face scan, and mo-cap. There should be ZERO mo-cap needed for Madden anymore, considering how many games and how many animations they should already have in a vault. A passionate team could bang out a Madden entry in 8 months easily, and a REALLY good team could make tools that can be carried into each Madden entry in a single generation which could further streamline the process.

But again that takes foresight, planning, effort, and creativity.

Something AAA-developers don't have.

Did anyone see the video where Diablo 4 developers try to play the game? It is a fucking train wreck.

 

[Satinavian]

Well, Agema is right that most studios and projects will never have the kind of money for the next BG3. And projects that expect far lower sales numbers still have to ask for a relatively high price exactly beacuse they expect lower sales numbers.

Sure, one could just say those titles are not worth 60$ and not buy them. But that won't make other, better offers appear. There will only ever be very few games of similar scope per year. Per genre only once every few years. All the other games will always be way less ambitious.

Now that doesn't mean that BG3 can't change the industry. It is an unexpected success. As with every other unexpected success, it will inspire a million copycats and we will probably see way more cRPGs in the next decade than in the last. And many will try to copy various ideas from BG3. It will be the next Battle Royale bubble.

------------------
If we are really really lucky it will further reduce microtransactions and season passes and all that nonsense. But all those other good games in the past that didn't have these still couldn't push them back, so i won't hold my breath.

The marketing budget on a lot of titles is 5X what the development cost is.

And for by far most titles it isn't.

It really depends a lot on the specifics. Do you have an engine ? Does it work on all the platforms you want to use ? Can it actually do what you need it for or to you need to tweak it a lot ? Are there previous titles in the series that you can use for codebase or name recognition ? Do you have expensive ingredients like licences or lots of voiced dialogue ? Do you need to provide a robust multiplayer environment ? ...

 

[CriticalGaming]

And for by far most titles it isn't.

It really depends a lot on the specifics. Do you have an engine ? Does it work on all the platforms you want to use ? Can it actually do what you need it for or to you need to tweak it a lot ? Are there previous titles in the series that you can use for codebase or name recognition ? Do you have expensive ingredients like licences or lots of voiced dialogue ? Do you need to provide a robust multiplayer environment ? ...

Any mainstream AAA title it is. Sure there are other side projects that AAA-publishers toss out there like scraps, for example Forspoken. A lot of other games that come from AAA-studios are games that they are giving to "outside" teams. Studios that they own but don't directly oversee. Square had this with Crystal Dynamics and other American based studios for a while. They let them shit out some games to see what they can do, but one failure will end that studio. EA has shutdown how many studios now? Square sold off CD after Shadow of the Tomb Raider sucked a bag of skidmarks.

I think it's just nonsense expectations. Activision expects every game they release to perform like Call of Shitty, and sometimes not even all of those games hit their mark. EA expects everything to bring in Fifa levels of revenue. There is no difference in expectations based on the kind of game they are making. EA at least will fuck out a bunch of different types of games and seems to be mostly happy with having their top earning projects carry the weight of the rest of the shit. They'll still fart out a Need for Speed game, or a action game randomly here and there. Activision I think only produces exceptionally cheap shovelware and Call of Duty these days.

Seriously look at this list of Activision games from 2010-2022, https://gamertweak.com/activision-games-list/ 90% of it is fucking garbage.

 

[BrawlMan]

Seriously look at this list of Activision games from 2010-2022, https://gamertweak.com/activision-games-list/ 90% of it is fucking garbage.

I've been saying this since the early to mid 2010s, but nobody wanted to listen. I'm not including you in the list; don't worry. The last thing Activision ever produced that wasn't Call of Duty or lame shovelware, was Crash Bandicoot 4. That is the last thing worth caring about. And even then, they didn't develop the game, only published it. It was still developed in house though.

 

[Satinavian]

I think it's just nonsense expectations. Activision expects every game they release to perform like Call of Shitty, and sometimes not even all of those games hit their mark. EA expects everything to bring in Fifa levels of revenue. There is no difference in expectations based on the kind of game they are making. EA at least will fuck out a bunch of different types of games and seems to be mostly happy with having their top earning projects carry the weight of the rest of the shit. They'll still fart out a Need for Speed game, or a action game randomly here and there. Activision I think only produces exceptionally cheap shovelware and Call of Duty these days.

Are we talking about

1) games (where the vast majority has more development than marketing budget)
or
2) about AAA games (where both vary quite a lot)
or
3) about EA and Activision and their annual cash-cows specifically ?

I have never touched any version of CoD or Madden or Fifa, don't care about them and certainly have no interest in using them as stand-in for the whole industry.

 

[thebobmaster]

This is going to sound dumb, I'm sure, but...how feasible is it to play BG 3 with only one hand?

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is going to sound dumb, I'm sure, but...how feasible is it to play BG 3 with only one hand?

Very, you can control everything with just the mouse.

 

[thebobmaster]

OK, might look into that. Not 100% sure my PC can handle it, but I don't know when I'll be able to hold a controller again, as I broke my arm recently.

ETA: According to the website I found to cross-check my rig with the requirements, I meet the minimum reqs. Sweet. Not the recommended though. Really need to upgrade my RAM.