That's just setting expectations for the brainless types that don't understand that games like that are created by locking developers/artists/designers/etc into the human suffering machine for a decade, right? Nobody with sense expects a game that big on a frequent basis.
Honestly, I wish we'd get smaller CRPGs with a decent amount of polish on them. Something like Tyranny, where it's short enough that replaying it doesn't feel like a total slog.
Being more charitable to what the original tweet meant: Larian had literally everything in their favor and that should be accounted for. Essentially, given the perfect conditions they didn’t squander it.
I think that framing that way ignores the real reason why this is unlikely to replicated: Larian is independent and not beholden to shareholders.
They had the chance to nerd out and spend 6 years making their dream game. With the IP they managed to attach to they made back costs off EA preorders and could afford to delay an entire year based off user feedback.
I guess the point is that when the suits aren’t involved artists get to make good art.
Edit: not to say I don’t still dislike the framing of it, just flat out say not everyone has the freedom to treat a big game like a passion project because of assholes beholden to “fiduciary duty” and other such nonsense.
Larian are also really good at figuring how to focus on the right things in order to deliver on an ambitious idea. They make sure that feasibility is a primary consideration, and also clearly have some smart people who can push the boundaries of what is feasible. But it seems obvious to me that they start from a place of only building systems that will work, instead of starting on something cool and then trying to find a way to make it work.
That said, this should also be common sense, and I'm all for holding game studios to a standard of "build intentionally and make working stuff".
That’s something I think the panel shows have highlighted: they focus on systems and reactivity as the mechanism which immerses the player in the role they wish to fill.
There’s something about crpg brain that just loves a convoluted series of interlocking systems that allow the player to enjoy the illusion of being a figure the world reacts to in a realistic/believable manner.
I’ve put like 120 hours into the early access.
There’s a reason people are coping on Twitter about “the game being an anomaly, please don’t adjust your standards”
That's just setting expectations for the brainless
types that don't understand that games like that are created by locking developers/artists/designers/etc into the human suffering machine for a decade, right? Nobody with sense expects a game that big on a frequent basis.
Honestly, I wish we'd get smaller CRPGs with a decent amount of polish on them. Something like Tyranny, where it's short enough that replaying it doesn't feel like a total slog.
Being more charitable to what the original tweet meant: Larian had literally everything in their favor and that should be accounted for. Essentially, given the perfect conditions they didn’t squander it.
I think that framing that way ignores the real reason why this is unlikely to replicated: Larian is independent and not beholden to shareholders.
They had the chance to nerd out and spend 6 years making their dream game. With the IP they managed to attach to they made back costs off EA preorders and could afford to delay an entire year based off user feedback.
I guess the point is that when the suits aren’t involved artists get to make good art.
Edit: not to say I don’t still dislike the framing of it, just flat out say not everyone has the freedom to treat a big game like a passion project because of assholes beholden to “fiduciary duty” and other such nonsense.
Larian are also really good at figuring how to focus on the right things in order to deliver on an ambitious idea. They make sure that feasibility is a primary consideration, and also clearly have some smart people who can push the boundaries of what is feasible. But it seems obvious to me that they start from a place of only building systems that will work, instead of starting on something cool and then trying to find a way to make it work.
That said, this should also be common sense, and I'm all for holding game studios to a standard of "build intentionally and make working stuff".
That’s something I think the panel shows have highlighted: they focus on systems and reactivity as the mechanism which immerses the player in the role they wish to fill.
There’s something about crpg brain that just loves a convoluted series of interlocking systems that allow the player to enjoy the illusion of being a figure the world reacts to in a realistic/believable manner.