It looks and plays pretty well. But I think you can clearly see difference between Control and something like The Last of Us 2.
Well, this thread esculated quickly.
Anyone got anything to say about the documentary?
Divinity: Original Sin was crowd founded, just like Pillars. They made exactly one game between Divinity: Original Sin and BG3.
In other words: Larian is just a better managed company that produces better games and that's why they can afford:
- lengthy development time
- financial stability
- level of detail
Divinity: Original Sin released a year prior.
Control definitely looks and plays like a AAA, I would have never guessed it's even considered to be a AA.
It wasn't as big of a deal as PoE, though.Divinity: Original Sin released a year prior.
Yeah I'd say those are indies and remnant is more in the AA catagory. A more visually and technically demanding game, with near AAA production values if not quite matching those budgets. I say it's a scale of development thing.The AA portion of the industry is alive and better than ever.
Here are just 2 examples:
Or is AA different than Indie? Is AA more like Remnant II?
To be fair, Pentiment had the response it had mostly because of its quirkyness.And you're proving his point.
Pentiment debuted to great reviews and multiple GOTY awards so it's certainly not lacking in the quality department, but you're dismissing it because it isn't as detailed as a massive AAA production.
Head over to Twitter and the thread is filled with people arguing that if you make a cRPG that isn't as detailed as BG3, it's a 'lazy cash grab'.
One of my favourite studios, great documentary!
BTW: I wonder if Larian were acquired by Microsoft, how would their reputation in this forum be like?
The first post is someone telling that they are clowns. That's so sad. Sometimes I think people don't have life.
Weren't the Original Sin games Kickstarter backed?Embarrassing for you to state that POE2 bombed financially, then accusing them of 'selling out' when they did the sane thing and pursued a line of action that could keep them afloat.
Again, you're proving their point. They were given TWO YEARS to make Outer Worlds from scratch by their publisher.
That's a constraint Larian didn't face, for example.
Your comments on Avowed seem to be tied solely to quality of visuals of a game in a pre-alpha state. That's rubbish.
Weren't the Original Sin games Kickstarter backed?
I'm sorry, it was me. I shouldn't generalize like that so I apologize. Their Studio Design Director called this diarrhea of a Twitter thread "great" which is 100% a clown opinion. I will try not to generalize like that moving forward.
But in all seriousness, do you really not understand what people are talking about in the Twitter thread?
Do you think before BG3 major publishers would have invested the kind of money and time Larian was able to spend to fund a turn-based, D&D ruleset, CRPG based on a franchise whose last game released in 2000? When everyone was repeating ad nauseum that turn-based is dead?
Before BG3 there was some kind of baseline expectation of how much you could sell when making this kind of game, and if you were making a game like that it would define the budget you'd be able to spend in the development.
That's what the thread is saying and honestly everyone else seems to get it. Maybe things will change now and BG3's success will lead to more, larger projects being launched in the CRPG genre.
I want to say, but I'm not sure if it's true, that DOS2 sold three times DOS1. 'Many millions' is the real answer. Enough to sustain something like BG3 and allow us to develop.