From ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ to ‘Tears of the Kingdom’ to the same-day drop of ‘Marvel’s Spider-Man 2’ and ‘Super Mario Bros. Wonder,’ 2023 has been a fantastic year for gamers. But where does it stand historically in the GOAT gaming year debate?
“Antiquated” is certainly not a word I’ve heard anyone describe BG3 with until now. Personally, this is the first year in a long time that AAA has spoken to me, because they haven’t been catering to me much for the past number of years.
I mean, Larian isn’t even a AAA studio. They’re still technically an independent studio, though with the success and polish of Divinity I think most would have considered them AA even before BG:3. Also you’d need a lot of evidence to convince me that any cRPG isn’t a product of antiquated design, there’s a reason the genre completely died off. From my experience playing it, even Larian couldn’t figure out how to make combat with 20+ enemies feel fun, a problem nearly every cRPG has had for years.
I’d consider them a AAA studio, at least at this point. BG3 had a budget of $100M, a team of 400 people, and if I remember correctly, a 30% stake from Tencent. I think they count now.
As for antiquated, they added emergent design elements on top of a solid CRPG foundation and married that with a level of production value that we typically associate with RPGs that had to tone down their RPG systems, like Mass Effect or Cyberpunk, which is why I’m having a hard time meeting you on that word. If I was going to assign reasons to why CRPGs died off (only for about 10 years at that), I’d say it was because people were chasing that production value, but the audience still hungered for the depth that their predecessors offered. I had a ton of fun in the BG3 combat encounters with 20+ enemies. I love XCOM, and I thought BG3’s combat encounters were more fun than anything I played in XCOM.
I’d even say the genre never died, just became a little more niche. I think the ARPG kind of dominated there for a bit, but CRPGs still existed. The time between Baldur’s Gate 2 and Dragon Age: Origins was only 9 years. There were several games between those games that I quite enjoyed (Arcanum, Fallout Tactics, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, and more). I realize that wasn’t your argument at all, just wanted to add a little more weight to what you were getting across
I haven’t played DA:O to know if it counted, but I do know it was at least trying to tap into that lineage a bit. I was mostly going from NWN/KOTOR-ish to the Kickstarter boom that birthed Shadowrun, Wasteland, and Torment successors, among others.
The genre didn’t die off though. It may have become a niche, but died isn’t the right description. Not saying that means you should like it, just that it has been in the background for a very long time.
Not saying you‘re wrong, but your arguments are weird. cRPGs are obviously not dead, and I‘ve encountered a group of more than 10 enemies maybe a handful of times. And, subjectively, that was fun.
“Antiquated” is certainly not a word I’ve heard anyone describe BG3 with until now. Personally, this is the first year in a long time that AAA has spoken to me, because they haven’t been catering to me much for the past number of years.
I mean, Larian isn’t even a AAA studio. They’re still technically an independent studio, though with the success and polish of Divinity I think most would have considered them AA even before BG:3. Also you’d need a lot of evidence to convince me that any cRPG isn’t a product of antiquated design, there’s a reason the genre completely died off. From my experience playing it, even Larian couldn’t figure out how to make combat with 20+ enemies feel fun, a problem nearly every cRPG has had for years.
I’d consider them a AAA studio, at least at this point. BG3 had a budget of $100M, a team of 400 people, and if I remember correctly, a 30% stake from Tencent. I think they count now.
As for antiquated, they added emergent design elements on top of a solid CRPG foundation and married that with a level of production value that we typically associate with RPGs that had to tone down their RPG systems, like Mass Effect or Cyberpunk, which is why I’m having a hard time meeting you on that word. If I was going to assign reasons to why CRPGs died off (only for about 10 years at that), I’d say it was because people were chasing that production value, but the audience still hungered for the depth that their predecessors offered. I had a ton of fun in the BG3 combat encounters with 20+ enemies. I love XCOM, and I thought BG3’s combat encounters were more fun than anything I played in XCOM.
Gross
I’d even say the genre never died, just became a little more niche. I think the ARPG kind of dominated there for a bit, but CRPGs still existed. The time between Baldur’s Gate 2 and Dragon Age: Origins was only 9 years. There were several games between those games that I quite enjoyed (Arcanum, Fallout Tactics, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, and more). I realize that wasn’t your argument at all, just wanted to add a little more weight to what you were getting across
I haven’t played DA:O to know if it counted, but I do know it was at least trying to tap into that lineage a bit. I was mostly going from NWN/KOTOR-ish to the Kickstarter boom that birthed Shadowrun, Wasteland, and Torment successors, among others.
DA:O was touted as the spiritual successor to BG2 at the time, so totally was. And yeah, there was a little lull, but there were still games in there.
The genre didn’t die off though. It may have become a niche, but died isn’t the right description. Not saying that means you should like it, just that it has been in the background for a very long time.
Removed by mod
Not saying you‘re wrong, but your arguments are weird. cRPGs are obviously not dead, and I‘ve encountered a group of more than 10 enemies maybe a handful of times. And, subjectively, that was fun.
I would call either Divinity game polished
I didn’t really see anything in BG3 that was antiquated, but I also didn’t see anything innovative. It’s DOS2 in Faerun.