Honestly, this kind of pleading from the other AAA developers is just making them look pathetic. Yes, it's reasonable not to expect BG3 for every AAA games, but it's not because of time and money, but simply because developers are just not always going to make lightning strike twice. But these devs have plenty of time and money and they look terrible in comparison to a dev that took it's time to make sure it was well polished before release.
Exactly. Every new game doesn't have to be an instant classic that breaks new ground. But they should be functional, playable, and have enough polish to be considered finished. That doesn't necessarily mean bug free, but we all know what a finished game looks like, and what one doesn't.
The worst one I've ever personally played was the Lego Hobbit game. My wife and I used to line up kamikaze shots and play Lego games, figuring a child and a drunk adult were about the same level. The game stops when Smaug flies out of the mountain. Roll credits. I guess the last movie did so poorly that they never bothered making the rest of the game.
For ages, AAA games were classed as such by brand recognition, not by quality. Inevitably, they devolved into being just a platform to sell microtransactions. The shareholders want their dividents and the CEO needs a new yacht with coke and hookers.
It's too easy to exploit the dopamine rush playing the new, official installment of a well-known series. Even if it's terrible, the customers get their joy by ranting about how trash the game is and how they hope the next one will be better. BG3 being an actual game does not change anything and will not reset expectations.
That's sad because TT's games were quite good, I think they hit their apex at Lego Marvel Superheroes 1. Awesome open world, a ton of characters, and lots of exploration in addition to the normal level quests.
Honestly, this kind of pleading from the other AAA developers is just making them look pathetic. Yes, it's reasonable not to expect BG3 for every AAA games, but it's not because of time and money, but simply because developers are just not always going to make lightning strike twice. But these devs have plenty of time and money and they look terrible in comparison to a dev that took it's time to make sure it was well polished before release.
Exactly. Every new game doesn't have to be an instant classic that breaks new ground. But they should be functional, playable, and have enough polish to be considered finished. That doesn't necessarily mean bug free, but we all know what a finished game looks like, and what one doesn't.
The worst one I've ever personally played was the Lego Hobbit game. My wife and I used to line up kamikaze shots and play Lego games, figuring a child and a drunk adult were about the same level. The game stops when Smaug flies out of the mountain. Roll credits. I guess the last movie did so poorly that they never bothered making the rest of the game.
For ages, AAA games were classed as such by brand recognition, not by quality. Inevitably, they devolved into being just a platform to sell microtransactions. The shareholders want their dividents and the CEO needs a new yacht with coke and hookers.
It's too easy to exploit the dopamine rush playing the new, official installment of a well-known series. Even if it's terrible, the customers get their joy by ranting about how trash the game is and how they hope the next one will be better. BG3 being an actual game does not change anything and will not reset expectations.
That's sad because TT's games were quite good, I think they hit their apex at Lego Marvel Superheroes 1. Awesome open world, a ton of characters, and lots of exploration in addition to the normal level quests.