Hi /u/bapplebo,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 6.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**.
> **Link to the original source; if the original source is inaccessible, then link to an acceptable alternative** - When a website embeds or copies content (articles, videos, interviews, etc.) from another source without adding significant information, we consider this blogspam. If an alternative source contributes significant and meaningful analysis or commentary on information given by the original source, it may be allowed but please try to locate and link the original source wherever possible instead. For sources which redirect to other sources please link to the source with the most information and context. For example, for a Tweet that links to a developer blog or announcement, please link directly to the announcement or blog post.
> If the original source is inaccessible, due to a paywall or any similar mechanisms that otherwise impede viewing the content without some form of transaction, usually non-monetary in nature, such as giving information, creating an account and logging in, etc., then posting an alternative as a source is acceptable.
> This rule does not apply to original sources that are not in English: an alternative source that provides an adequate translation (automated translations, such as Google Translate, is not permitted) is acceptable.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
The reactions to just the headline are a bit tiring, Larian isn’t choosing the headlines or to have so many articles written about them. It’s the general audience that is seeking them and that’s why these sites continue to write about them. We have no concrete proof of a studio getting a massively inflated ego.
If you want to be cautious about their next project, that’s great, remember that advice for every product moving forward. It will save you a ton of disappointment, but don’t start inferring a personality of an entire company based on a few choice quotes. RPGs have been a struggling genre, and fans of it have been complaining how little meaningful roleplaying choice we get in major titles like Cyberpunk and Bethesda releases.
So now developers can show a successful product to executives and explain that players want games with diverging narrative threads. And the cost for branching dialogue is not a waste, but instead a feature. As players would be happy that there is content they’re missing out on as well as willing to spend more time playing to see/hear the choices they had missed.
Same thing with celebrities to a degree. "Why does actor X think we care about their views on politics?" Well, actor X isn't putting out a press relief, someone is going and asking them that.
> The reactions to just the headline are a bit tiring, Larian isn’t choosing the headlines or to have so many articles written about them.
Its more about them being posted here and voted up. Almost every day brings a new "Larian CEO takes a walk outside" article, then the same BG3 glazers will vote it up despite it being of little worth.
CEO: We need our own BG3!
Dev: Yes, the team is excited! Here is a plan and a rough budget.
CEO: WHAT?! We will lay off 20% of the staff and then leverage AI to do the art, voiceover and code. Good news though we are bringing on new human roles to establish micro transactions in the game.
Dev: Thanks BG3!
Do you ever think about that the devs at other teams that want to develop something like BG3 might welcome 20% less of the people that prevented them from creating a great work thus far? That they welcome AI to help them in their own creativity to create a great game, rather than spend 5 years to create every single inconsequential piece of a game from scratch and by hand? You cannot complain about the state of AAA games and still wish everything stays completely the same.
Try reading the article. The lead is directly quoting a dev he spoke to:
>Smith goes on to give an example of one unnamed developer who told him that Baldur's Gate 3 gave them "a little bit of leverage in the next business meeting. When somebody says 'that's too much,' we can say 'it wasn't for them. And look what it did. It worked.'"
I mean, is he wrong here? BG3 was massive for CRPGs, and showed big corporations that people want and like them. I don't see anything wrong with this article
Getting high off your own supply definitely does more harm than good if you don't rein that crap at the appropriate time. Also see: CDPR post-Witcher 3 and Arrowhead's growing snowball that is the post-launch support of Helldivers 2.
THAT BEING SAID, it's absolutely *not* the case with Larian. They've been pretty down to earth when it comes to talking about BG3 and their future endeavors. I even recall them more than once going on Twitter to defend other developers when crowds started using BG3's success case as a cudgel to attack other games.
The above poster probably didn't read the actual interview and commented out of the (clickbait) headline.
Also BGS, Bruce Nesmith (design director of Skyrim) said during Fo76, BGS fell into their own hubris of "they can do no wrong" (as he said, they won 4 GOTY's in a row until Fallout 4, its hard not to have that feeling in your head). It's not a bad thing to believe in themselves ofc, all teams need this. But ofc, teams need to not go all in in believing they can't possibly mess up.
I mean, I guess so, but this particular statement is still undeniable. But I'll concede that one shouldn't constantly claim their game as the best thing ever, which I don't think Larian is particularly doing here
The statement is really just "we know we made good game, that sold well, and we hope other studios can use it as example to get their pitch accepted".
I don't think they strode from pride into hubris with this one. Hubris would be saying "well, we're so great no other game studio can make something like it". Which is kinda what journos talk about them, not them themselves. The strongest I've seen from them is that they have been lucky with cirucmstances to not have publisher over their heads and allowed creative freedom.
> but this particular statement is still undeniable.
How so? Were RPGs not being made all the time before BG3?
edit: Oops, not enough BG3 cock down my throat I guess. sorry /r/games hivemind
Of course not, but I'm sure riskier CRPGs were having a rough time getting ahead in corporate meetings. BG3 gives developers more leverage on doing things differently than your standard AAA RPG
>CDPR post-Witcher 3
Most insufferable devs I've ever seen.
>Arrowhead
They're in a rough spot because their small franchise is now fucking massive and the way they used to operate just isn't working anymore. Not even from a game dev perspective but a community one, getting too personal is backfiring really hard.
Bethesda is unable to even replicate their own work from over a decade ago, what makes you think they'll do any better by trying to make Fallout an actual CRPG? I'd pray for Microsoft to just find a different studio (Obsidian or not) to make the next Fallout a CRPG, even though that's never going to happen, since 3D Fallout is much more popular than the classic games and most want more of that.
But how many people make games like them? To think they have "inspired" other developers is kind of stretching too far.
Dark souls have inspired more RPGs then bg3 ever will.
The claim is not about inspiration. It:s about leverage in meetings about what to make and how much money they'll get to make it.
And even if it's not relevant, you're still wrong about inspiring devs. You can't comment on that already because it's impossible to compare. Dark souls has had over a decade of devs making games after it came out to be inspired by it.
Who is making games that are out already that could have been inspired by bg3? Give bg3 over a decade too and then see how many games it's inspired.
Dark souls had other developers making soulslikes one year after it came out.
And bg3 isn't the first game larian has made of its kind. Nobody else is interested in copying them, even though DOS and DOS2 are excellent games.
In 2011/2012 games were made faster than now. Making a soulslike is also probably generally quicker to make than a whole crpg on the scale of bg3, especially if your quality isn't as high as From or Larian.
Soulslike needs good combat. There's a lot to that but it's just one aspect. The rest isn't a huge deal relatively.
Crpg needs main story, side stories, companion stories, all the companions, all the races, classes, balancing all of the builds and encounters, and with so many more moving parts, it takes longer to do.
1 player fighting 1 boss with 1 weapon vs 1 player controlling 4+ characters all with potentially 10+ spells or abilities vs 5+ enemies all with their own abilities and spells.
I'm not saying soulslikes are easy to make. They can use a good story and a lot of abilities and all that. But they can definitely get away with cutting out a lot more than a crpg can.
Well for a good souls game, there is good combat as you mentioned. The rest you've conveniently ignored or simply unaware.
There's level design, enemy design, weapons design. No two enemy movesets are same. None of which is a priority in larian's games. They infinitely recycle enemy movesets. Not complaining though, bg3 is a magnificent game.
And you have to design those only once. Doesn't matter if there are 1 enemy or 5.
>Nobody else is interested in copying them
What do you mean? cRPGs have been around a long time. BG3 genuinely was not *especially* innovative, it was just the first cRPG to have a gigantic budget for making it really big and giving it good graphics, good voice acting, and cinematic cutscenes and dialogue. I think Pillars of Eternity is much better mechanically but it cannot compete in the slightest on cinematic quality and that's something that is super beneficial for getting big sales.
I don't think it's about inspiring other Devs, it's literally just that their good market performance made publishers realise that people still want big classic western RPGs.
A game with the scope of the likes of bg3 does not come every month. It doesn't even come every year. There no lesson to be learned from bg3 for most developers, no matter how big or how small.
Only developers who can realistically make similarly huge games are studios like FromSoftware or CDPR. And they are very much doing their own thing, they don't need lessons from Larian.
You completely missed the point of what the developer made didn't you? Their point wasn't "more people and dev studios want to make games like ours now". Their point was "for the developers that do want to make these types of games, they can now have some (even if it's small) leverage towards their leadership/publishers to give them extra time and money as they can refer back to BG3 and how well it worked for them."
I disagree. Everything they say seems very reasonable to me and imo always shows humility derived from where the studio started; we know they have met many issues finding funding and I'm sure they experienced the highs and lows of that whenever a big success or failure in their genre appeared. People constantly joke about how when there is a new massive success, there's going to be a line of 'copycats' jumping on to try and capitalise.
This is the reality, it shows investors and publishers that these projects are financial worthwhile. I'd be willing to bet there have been meetings with studios across the board pitching more complex RPGs or even CRPGs that wouldn't have even been possible without BG3.
> we know they have met many issues finding funding
That is saying it lightly, IIRC on D:OS1 (or maybe 2, can't remember) they were at "bank wants to foreclose them" level of issues.
They have basically going all in on their last 4 games.
I will say this is atleast better than the fucking witcher 3 glazing because that game is still very boring. It's better than initial release, but the combat is pointless.
Hi /u/bapplebo, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 6.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**. > **Link to the original source; if the original source is inaccessible, then link to an acceptable alternative** - When a website embeds or copies content (articles, videos, interviews, etc.) from another source without adding significant information, we consider this blogspam. If an alternative source contributes significant and meaningful analysis or commentary on information given by the original source, it may be allowed but please try to locate and link the original source wherever possible instead. For sources which redirect to other sources please link to the source with the most information and context. For example, for a Tweet that links to a developer blog or announcement, please link directly to the announcement or blog post. > If the original source is inaccessible, due to a paywall or any similar mechanisms that otherwise impede viewing the content without some form of transaction, usually non-monetary in nature, such as giving information, creating an account and logging in, etc., then posting an alternative as a source is acceptable. > This rule does not apply to original sources that are not in English: an alternative source that provides an adequate translation (automated translations, such as Google Translate, is not permitted) is acceptable. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
The reactions to just the headline are a bit tiring, Larian isn’t choosing the headlines or to have so many articles written about them. It’s the general audience that is seeking them and that’s why these sites continue to write about them. We have no concrete proof of a studio getting a massively inflated ego. If you want to be cautious about their next project, that’s great, remember that advice for every product moving forward. It will save you a ton of disappointment, but don’t start inferring a personality of an entire company based on a few choice quotes. RPGs have been a struggling genre, and fans of it have been complaining how little meaningful roleplaying choice we get in major titles like Cyberpunk and Bethesda releases. So now developers can show a successful product to executives and explain that players want games with diverging narrative threads. And the cost for branching dialogue is not a waste, but instead a feature. As players would be happy that there is content they’re missing out on as well as willing to spend more time playing to see/hear the choices they had missed.
Same thing with celebrities to a degree. "Why does actor X think we care about their views on politics?" Well, actor X isn't putting out a press relief, someone is going and asking them that.
> The reactions to just the headline are a bit tiring, Larian isn’t choosing the headlines or to have so many articles written about them. Its more about them being posted here and voted up. Almost every day brings a new "Larian CEO takes a walk outside" article, then the same BG3 glazers will vote it up despite it being of little worth.
CEO: We need our own BG3! Dev: Yes, the team is excited! Here is a plan and a rough budget. CEO: WHAT?! We will lay off 20% of the staff and then leverage AI to do the art, voiceover and code. Good news though we are bringing on new human roles to establish micro transactions in the game. Dev: Thanks BG3!
They’ll want a celebrity VA to lead too so they gotta pay for that.
Do you ever think about that the devs at other teams that want to develop something like BG3 might welcome 20% less of the people that prevented them from creating a great work thus far? That they welcome AI to help them in their own creativity to create a great game, rather than spend 5 years to create every single inconsequential piece of a game from scratch and by hand? You cannot complain about the state of AAA games and still wish everything stays completely the same.
I like Larian and BG3, but all the posts are starting make me think that they believe their own shit does not stink.
Try reading the article. The lead is directly quoting a dev he spoke to: >Smith goes on to give an example of one unnamed developer who told him that Baldur's Gate 3 gave them "a little bit of leverage in the next business meeting. When somebody says 'that's too much,' we can say 'it wasn't for them. And look what it did. It worked.'"
God forbid someone be proud of working extremely hard on a project that ended up being almost universally beloved.
Right? The reflexive contrarianism on reddit is so fucking exhausting.
I honestly don't know why I bother looking at the comments of this sub. It seems like none of the people here actually like video games.
Some do, but I get where you're coming from. I avoid reading comments if I can help it.
[удалено]
I mean, is he wrong here? BG3 was massive for CRPGs, and showed big corporations that people want and like them. I don't see anything wrong with this article
Getting high off your own supply definitely does more harm than good if you don't rein that crap at the appropriate time. Also see: CDPR post-Witcher 3 and Arrowhead's growing snowball that is the post-launch support of Helldivers 2. THAT BEING SAID, it's absolutely *not* the case with Larian. They've been pretty down to earth when it comes to talking about BG3 and their future endeavors. I even recall them more than once going on Twitter to defend other developers when crowds started using BG3's success case as a cudgel to attack other games. The above poster probably didn't read the actual interview and commented out of the (clickbait) headline.
Also BGS, Bruce Nesmith (design director of Skyrim) said during Fo76, BGS fell into their own hubris of "they can do no wrong" (as he said, they won 4 GOTY's in a row until Fallout 4, its hard not to have that feeling in your head). It's not a bad thing to believe in themselves ofc, all teams need this. But ofc, teams need to not go all in in believing they can't possibly mess up.
I mean, I guess so, but this particular statement is still undeniable. But I'll concede that one shouldn't constantly claim their game as the best thing ever, which I don't think Larian is particularly doing here
The statement is really just "we know we made good game, that sold well, and we hope other studios can use it as example to get their pitch accepted". I don't think they strode from pride into hubris with this one. Hubris would be saying "well, we're so great no other game studio can make something like it". Which is kinda what journos talk about them, not them themselves. The strongest I've seen from them is that they have been lucky with cirucmstances to not have publisher over their heads and allowed creative freedom.
> but this particular statement is still undeniable. How so? Were RPGs not being made all the time before BG3? edit: Oops, not enough BG3 cock down my throat I guess. sorry /r/games hivemind
Of course not, but I'm sure riskier CRPGs were having a rough time getting ahead in corporate meetings. BG3 gives developers more leverage on doing things differently than your standard AAA RPG
>CDPR post-Witcher 3 Most insufferable devs I've ever seen. >Arrowhead They're in a rough spot because their small franchise is now fucking massive and the way they used to operate just isn't working anymore. Not even from a game dev perspective but a community one, getting too personal is backfiring really hard.
It's mostly how journos are spinning it that disgusts me
I bet they are already writing about "gamers turn on larian" and "larian's downfall".
I anticipate any small mistake Larian makes will make them vomit stuff like "is Larian going CDPR way?"
Praying for microsoft to try and copy bg3's success and makes bethesda make a fallout spinoff that returns the series to CRPG
Bethesda is unable to even replicate their own work from over a decade ago, what makes you think they'll do any better by trying to make Fallout an actual CRPG? I'd pray for Microsoft to just find a different studio (Obsidian or not) to make the next Fallout a CRPG, even though that's never going to happen, since 3D Fallout is much more popular than the classic games and most want more of that.
But how many people make games like them? To think they have "inspired" other developers is kind of stretching too far. Dark souls have inspired more RPGs then bg3 ever will.
The claim is not about inspiration. It:s about leverage in meetings about what to make and how much money they'll get to make it. And even if it's not relevant, you're still wrong about inspiring devs. You can't comment on that already because it's impossible to compare. Dark souls has had over a decade of devs making games after it came out to be inspired by it. Who is making games that are out already that could have been inspired by bg3? Give bg3 over a decade too and then see how many games it's inspired.
Dark souls had other developers making soulslikes one year after it came out. And bg3 isn't the first game larian has made of its kind. Nobody else is interested in copying them, even though DOS and DOS2 are excellent games.
In 2011/2012 games were made faster than now. Making a soulslike is also probably generally quicker to make than a whole crpg on the scale of bg3, especially if your quality isn't as high as From or Larian. Soulslike needs good combat. There's a lot to that but it's just one aspect. The rest isn't a huge deal relatively. Crpg needs main story, side stories, companion stories, all the companions, all the races, classes, balancing all of the builds and encounters, and with so many more moving parts, it takes longer to do. 1 player fighting 1 boss with 1 weapon vs 1 player controlling 4+ characters all with potentially 10+ spells or abilities vs 5+ enemies all with their own abilities and spells. I'm not saying soulslikes are easy to make. They can use a good story and a lot of abilities and all that. But they can definitely get away with cutting out a lot more than a crpg can.
Well for a good souls game, there is good combat as you mentioned. The rest you've conveniently ignored or simply unaware. There's level design, enemy design, weapons design. No two enemy movesets are same. None of which is a priority in larian's games. They infinitely recycle enemy movesets. Not complaining though, bg3 is a magnificent game. And you have to design those only once. Doesn't matter if there are 1 enemy or 5.
>Nobody else is interested in copying them What do you mean? cRPGs have been around a long time. BG3 genuinely was not *especially* innovative, it was just the first cRPG to have a gigantic budget for making it really big and giving it good graphics, good voice acting, and cinematic cutscenes and dialogue. I think Pillars of Eternity is much better mechanically but it cannot compete in the slightest on cinematic quality and that's something that is super beneficial for getting big sales.
I don't think this is at all a fair comparison, it's way too early to be making claims like that. Give it time.
I don't think it's about inspiring other Devs, it's literally just that their good market performance made publishers realise that people still want big classic western RPGs.
[удалено]
A game with the scope of the likes of bg3 does not come every month. It doesn't even come every year. There no lesson to be learned from bg3 for most developers, no matter how big or how small. Only developers who can realistically make similarly huge games are studios like FromSoftware or CDPR. And they are very much doing their own thing, they don't need lessons from Larian.
You completely missed the point of what the developer made didn't you? Their point wasn't "more people and dev studios want to make games like ours now". Their point was "for the developers that do want to make these types of games, they can now have some (even if it's small) leverage towards their leadership/publishers to give them extra time and money as they can refer back to BG3 and how well it worked for them."
As long as he keeps producing quality. Who gives a shit.
I disagree. Everything they say seems very reasonable to me and imo always shows humility derived from where the studio started; we know they have met many issues finding funding and I'm sure they experienced the highs and lows of that whenever a big success or failure in their genre appeared. People constantly joke about how when there is a new massive success, there's going to be a line of 'copycats' jumping on to try and capitalise. This is the reality, it shows investors and publishers that these projects are financial worthwhile. I'd be willing to bet there have been meetings with studios across the board pitching more complex RPGs or even CRPGs that wouldn't have even been possible without BG3.
> we know they have met many issues finding funding That is saying it lightly, IIRC on D:OS1 (or maybe 2, can't remember) they were at "bank wants to foreclose them" level of issues. They have basically going all in on their last 4 games.
Do you think that larian is writing these posts?
okay then dont come to the specialist gaming news subreddit... geez
I will say this is atleast better than the fucking witcher 3 glazing because that game is still very boring. It's better than initial release, but the combat is pointless.