‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Prepared for 100k Concurrent Players, They’ve Gotten 700K

I don't want to attack you personally but I think your post illustrates an common error in thinking that caused gaming to stagnate for the past decade. I can just hear the army of MBAs making spreadsheets and checklist reflecting exactly this "paint by the numbers" style of thinking. This in turn means that the next ten AAA titles starting production are going to check all these boxes and then ... will still fail. In reality there is no formular for making a hit game. You need people who care and know what they are doing and let them do what they love.

Seems like a pointless retort given their first point was that they had just made a great game previously.

I think you’re right but also making a good or beloved game is not really the same endeavor as making a massively profitable one. Stardew Valley is beloved. If you described the vision to a 10k employee game studio, they could probably make something that is stardew-like, widely played, and absolutely rakes in cash through micro transactions, $49.99 variegated eggplant DLC, etc. and has the charm and soul of a cold baked potato.

Beloved games have heart, vision, and they don’t establish a predatory relationship with their customers. There will always be a place for them to gamers, because these attributes can’t be faked. There will also always be a place for soulless AAA because, as you said, the MBAs can bake these on paper, reliably, and procedurally.

The idea of Stardew Valley with microtransactions just ruined my day.

Fair observations broadly, but gp’s points are fair too. It’s hard to predict hits but the points listed are all factors that helped the title out. Larian got the contract precisely because they proved themselves to be what you describe in your last sentence through the Divinity releases gp mentions. And even that was no guarantee here.

Sure there's no general formula, but it's really not a surprise that the first big D&D videogame in a long time would be a huge success, after several years of tabletop D&D skyrocketing in popularity.

> You need people who care and know what they are doing and let them do what they love.

That includes Pillars of Eternity, and the other games I mentioned. They made great games but they just weren't that popular. I agree in general about checkbox thinking.

havest carrot (10 hrs) [harvest instantly for 5 gems!]

It's just Farmville.

There must be at least some partial formula if some companies can consistently make critically acclaimed commercial successes.

This game also has the meta that most recent D&D games missed. If you know the tabletop game, you can build an optimized character in the bg series, because the game system is close wherever it can be. Some spells are just too freeform to work without a human DM, but they seem to have done very well, perhaps a bit too much focus on environmental damage like the divinity series, but they toned that down right? I haven't looked at it in over a year.

Are there any companies continuously making widely different critically acclaimed games? or do they typically have a hit and then make games in the same vein? Bioware had a certain take on RPGs, same with Bethesda's modern Fallout/Elder Scrolls, FromSoft make DS derivatives, etc.

If I'm missing some studio which has a diverse catalogue of consistently successful games, then please tell me which. But I feel they usually find a niche and then work that.

Even the ones I would never have expected to work do, I had a couple of potions of speaking to animals, which led to a lovely (fully voice acted) conversation with some oxen.

Nintendo? but that's more "publisher who curates external- or internal-studios who largely stay in the same genre each"

Yeah, Nintendo is the publisher in most of those scenarios. The individual studios, including Nintedo, tend to just iterate from what I can see.

It's just Dreamlight Valley.

Nit: POE _is_ a success story (bootstrapped by a Kickstarter, proved that people still buy isometric CRPGs) but I get your point. Personally I grew up playing games and DnD campaigns in the Forgotten Realms setting and am thrilled to see it with modern graphics

Supergiant is pretty close? Bastion, Transistor, Pyre and Hades have all been pretty big hits in different genres and styles. They're consistently high production value in terms of art/soundtrack/writing, but the gameplay varies a good bit. About the same release cadence as Bethesda in my memory while being a smaller studio.

And I think this is one of the things modern games have missed for a lot of BG-era players -- discovery and delight.

AAA production costs make it difficult: you can't just spread the game's budget equally into niche content most will never see.

But if you do it smartly, it seems like there's still financial and development space for "Wouldn't players find it cool if...?" things.

One of the major turn-offs of post-TES3 Bethesda style games has been just how soul-less the tracks through their content have been. It's obvious anything "weird" had to get approved through a committee and was watered down in the process.

Games were the better when there was a path for a development team member to have 10% time to implement some kooky feature.

And maybe now that needs to flow through approval... but don't soften it into pablum in the process.

Given almost every single D&D movie has been horrible it would be surprising if it wasn’t a well known studio like Larian doing it. It’s pretty common for games from existing “high profile” IP to be lazy, lackluster, money grabbing products.

The last D&D game I remember, Dark Alliance, is horrible.

I wonder what the "new game onboarding" process at Nintendo looks like. Thinking of something relatively more left-field and recent like the Mario Rabbids tactical thing for Switch.

Was that pitched to them? Solicited to studios by them? In the latter case that would be a fascinating process to observe.

The new D&D movie that just came out a few months ago was actually pretty fun, and it has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The GP is analyzing some dimensions to figure out if the success of Baldur's Gate is surprising or not. He/she finds that, given the limited dimensions we can consider, the success is surprising.

I read your reply as saying "no, it's not possible to analyze why games fails / succeed, because they're all different". I feel that's usually unhelpful: assuming we can't explain things because they're all idiosyncratic is usually not productive. It's more productive if you, for example, point to something extra that is missing.

This game is huge. It's 4 modern games in one. I am curious how one keeps a budget for a game like this. I agree love and passion are the reason this game is doing well, but honestly how do you convince the money to invest in something like, besides the trend of copying BG3 simply due to success?

I had fond memories of Dark Alliance. You maybe didn’t like it, and coming out for a console with no PC release was an odd choice for the series, but there was fun gameplay and story there. At least, 13 year old me playing co-op with my Dad through Dark Alliance 1 and 2 on my PS2 is a fond memory I have that maybe nobody else got.

Anyway, I was just surprised because I guess I never looked up a review of the Dark Alliance games but my general impression was actually pretty good.

edit: Apparently there is a Dark Alliance game with a naming collision that came out much more recently than the Dark Alliance series I'm thinking of. Smart move, Wizards of the Coast/DnD.

My first attempt with Speak with Animals led to a somewhat awkward conversation with a boar, whom an absent druid had recently promised a mate. His "haunches" clenched and quivered with anticipation.

I laughed heartily.

They may be referring to the version of Dark Alliance that was released a couple of years ago. It was pretty much a dud.

Main thing I'm missing so far is you can't ready an action, which makes it nearly impossible to play defensively.

If your turn doesn't give you enough movement to run up to the enemies and stab them, you can't say "I run next to the doorway and wait to stab the first person who runs through it."

Instead, you have to waste your turn and then stand around getting attacked. So it's often to your advantage to roll worse in the initiative order, because the enemies will spend their turn dashing to within your movement range and then you actually get to hit them on your turn. Kind of hate it, rolling high initiative is supposed to let you get the drop on people or set up the battlefield more to your liking.

BG3 players, please let me know if I'm missing something here.

Yep, went with my D&D party and a good time was had by all.

Probably a high 7 or low 8 out of 10 for me.

FromSoft is also making a new Armored Core, which I imagine should be pretty different from Dark Souls.

It's one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in years, I recommend it wholeheartedly.

I think OP is putting too much emphasis on brand and reputation. Blizzard had the best of both and they still manage to produce failure after failure (at least as far as critical acclaim goes). BattleBit had none is also a massive success. What makes a game fail or succeed? I don't think anyone knows. But I am fairly sure that whatever AAA mainstream is doing isn't really working. The biggest games are almost all either old franchises that usually have their roots in mods or some kind of simulator that just packages up and polishes something from the real world. So where has the innovation, the joy of video games gone? I think it's being smothered by spreashsheets and processes. If that's true then the solution is quite simple: Let people who actually like games and who can make games, make the games that people want.

i think the key is to start combat in stealth so they're surprised and they waste their first move

Whatever you label them, the same studios keep pumping out great games.

I’m not sure I follow the point of this criteria. They find niches and leverage their experience. This is what everyone in the professional world does.

The point is that there must be a formula if studios can consistently deliver.

2021 to be precise.

I've not been in that industry but was for a while, the closest input metric I ever saw that correlated to success was how fast your tools let you iterate on ideas to find the core of what was "fun" and the polish it until it shined. Same applied to the art side of the pipeline, the more headache importing/iterating in-engine the more things diverged from render -> in-game.

Oh and how much publishers meddled in games and/or set constraints. At one point one of the big 3 wasn't approving games that didn't have multiplayer regardless of genre, got to spend ~5mo working on multiplayer that was totally broken until we got sign-off that we could pull it from the title.

Depends what you mean by "fail". The MBA is going to be perfectly happy with a profit margin even if the metacritic score is well within the yellow range. Plenty of rehashed sports games and even beloved but ultimately fairly lazy franchises like Pokémon and Sonic (most recently ticking that open world.. er, excuse me, zone box) seem to do fairly well from that point of view.

I'd hazard diablo4 wasn't as award winning as nostalgia dictated, leading to baldurs gate gaining that.

Ah, probably my mistake then. Wasn't even aware that Wizards of the Coast decided to make a brand new game with a name collision there.

I had the same reaction as GP, thanks for the explanation! I don't think the original DA games hold up too well nowadays, but they were good at the time and still provide me with fond memories.

Rockstar has grand theft auto and grand theft horse.

I hope some day to play grand theft spaceship, grand theft dragon, and maybe grand theft dinosaur.

That's all well and good, but all of this success is happening before reviews are in or anyone has even had time to play and recommend the game. People are buying it solely based on criteria like the parent described.

It's been in Early Access for about 4 years now. I bought it because of word-of-mouth and reviews from the Early Access players.

I went in with zero expectations since nothing else was playing in my theater and I chuckled a good bit. Definitely fun and entertaining.

This comment undervalues cold baked potatoes. They are a great snack.

> honestly how do you convince the money to invest in something like, besides the trend of copying BG3 simply due to success?

you cannot. The money is interested in making more money. Good art may, or may not make money - and that's because the goal of the artist(s) aren't aligned with making money. It just so happens that it _could_ make money, and thus that became the pitch to investors.

If given the chance (imagine an unlimited UBI for example), the same artists would make such a game without investors (and might make an even better one...).

Works for some characters, not really a strategy for a heavily armored fighter.

And either way, if there's a crowd of archers in the next room I wouldn't want to walk in (sneaking or no) where I have no cover, so I'm going to try and hold at the door. Still the better play even if it costs a whole turn of not being able to use my action.

The missing Ready action really tilts things toward those "alpha strike" characters made to hit first and hit hard, which isn't a design choice I like much. I want to be able to lure enemies into a room with minor illusion or other sounds and have the whole party readied the jump them.

Valve and Obsidian Entertainment have such catalogue but even great studios fail from time to time.

Most will find a formula that works for a niche and stick with it. Which is smart because innovation increases both the chance of achieving something great and of releasing a fiasco.

Indeed. This is true for most creative pursuits.

It reminds me of the montage scene in Matrix 4 where all these business types are telling Neo how to make a new hit game, when he already had made one, so he should be telling them.

This difference, is the key difference I've seen in my career between successful startups and ones that fail.

Ready an action could get really complicated from a design perspective, but I really miss the "dodge" action. It would've been easy to integrate and support offensive play. I use it in the tabletop often when I play tank characters to hold chokepoints. Interested in the reason why they don't have it, maybe some EA players involved in the feedback process know why?

Ready an action is only usable in combat, so RAW outside of combat readying actions to jump on people you lured with an illusion into a room is not possible. This is an ambush and would be dealt with stealth / surprise rules and THAT is in the game, so it is possible if you play it by the rules.

The ready action is designed to get used for delaying actions to bypass initiative order.

Or, Stardew Valley is FarmVille+ love.

Maybe that's the secret.

Rabbids are a spinoff from Rayman. I would assume Ubisoft was the driving creative force behind it. And it's somewhat damning that the "relatively recent" innovation is currently two expansion packs into its second installment.

Agreed on the dodge action, that's also a great default to have around too when you can't find something useful to do.

As far as readying an action, at minimum it could work like XCOM's "Overwatch" action, targeting the first enemy you see within range.

But it would be nice to give you a choice of targeting options so that you can designate a smaller area, just in case that's useful. But fine leave it as "first enemy in this area" instead of trying to give you full pencil and paper D&D flexibility. There is a UI for picking between options in an action, such as Enhance Ability needing you to pick an ability.

Is it considered weird to drop into combat grid and initiative order to handle action strategy like trying to dodge around a guard patrol, even if nobody's been stabbed yet and nobody might get stabbed at all?

Speaking of delay, I know that's not part of 5e (it was in 3.5), but if we can't have ready action could we at least have the delay option? A lot simpler to implement and it'd at least help with the situations where you would have been better off at worse initiative.

If it's limited to readying an attack, it would look like pretty much all the tactical games which have an "overwatch" mode. They already have most of the logic they need with attacks of opportunity. Just need a slightly different trigger.

Video games are like 50 years old now, relatively recent is relative... ;)

Interesting, the way other games have dealt with this problem, is a wait option. you roll to move first, decide to wait, now everyone with lower initiative must move before you do. It’s a version of first in last out, if everyone waits, the last to wait must move first. Sort of an elegant solution to part of this problem. Other games might also have a generic guard move. Move+guard and you attack first thing to come in range

3e used to have a "delay" option where you could opt to move down the initiative order (and stay there going forward), but 5e did away with it and the only way to change when you act is via the Ready action.

The way readying usually works is basically "move + guard", though it's more flexible than that in regular D&D with a human DM where you can line up whatever action you want like "I'll stay put, but if the goblin comes toward me I retreat into the next room" rather than only being for attacks.

But if they wanted to only implement it as letting you attack or cast a spell when an enemy enters a target area, that would be a lot better than nothing.

Isn't that essentially what Leslie Benzies is working on with the 'Everywhere' project?