The fact that small studio Larian is being compared to the other juggernauts is a win on its own. They blew sales expectations out of the water and definitely made money.
I haven't played the game myself and not a "fanboy", but BG3 was objectively successful by every metric, like it or not.
I haven't played the game myself and not a "fanboy", but BG3 was objectively successful by every metric, like it or not.
That's one of the worst things to happen to gaming, because it gives every studio -- and all the woketards -- all the ammo they need to keep pushing woke nonsense.
Normies will also use BG3 as another notch on the Overton Window further moving Left to say "Well, BG3 was a good game. Who cares about the woke stuff? You probably don't even know what woke means!"
I've seen plenty of coomer planktards on the normie YouTube videos defending BG3 as a "great game", and anyone pointing out the woke stuff is usually shouted down by the plankies.
Expect many other studios to follow suit in adding equal amounts of woke-stuff and following Larian's footsteps in adding a lot of (routed) "choices" so people will continue to defend the woke RPGs as they have with BG3.
This is one of the reason i get why its called "slop" cause in their fear to not get "political" a lot of normies will refuse to acknowledge woke crap being masked behind fun aspect or whatever and lap it up like pigs.
I dont think many will follow, they would need to be able to deliver a similar quality game where you can solve some quests in 5+ different ways. And at least Larian put some attractive women in their game. Doubt the others would do that. And it has the D&D license. A generic game without all that lore and races/classes wouldnt draw many in.
Weirdly enough, I have at least two games in my Steam library that are over 5 years old, still being developed, both of which had major releases recently with more to come.
7 Days to Die doesn't count. That game is an absolute freak of nature.
You're always going to find exceptions to the rule, though. And it's telling that neither game are from Triple-A studios.
Ok, so going by the metrics in the graph here it seems to indicate more people were and are playing BG3, even higher than AAA studios on release. How is that not "successful"?
And as a note, BG3 has half the budget of Starfield and again by the graph above, more than 4 times the players at launch.
Not every piece of media is going to be the Mona Lisa or Original Star Wars, but in this case a relatively small studio on a small budget outperformed the AAA studios in this graph. I don't know in what universe that's a failure.
I mean, I'd talk about my recent games more but they aren't ever relevant to the discussion.
Because when is Against the Storm, Book of Demons, or Symphony of War ever going to come up? They don't get controversy bucks or FOMO triggers going, so they just never happen because we don't have consistent video game discussion threads. Just a random one pops up every now and then and its usually buried by outrage farmers.
Shit on your own post I wrote a long screed about Triangle Strategy just a few days ago, a modern AAA game I just went back to and likely will many times over the years. Because for once there was a topic where a non-classic was relevant to the discussion.
You're right about how the falloff works, but should we expect story-driven single-player games to have a constant ongoing player base? I'm sure the devs would love that but they don't expect it. That's always been the market even before the AAA explosion. Studios have to keep making something new or die.
The fact that small studio Larian is being compared to the other juggernauts is a win on its own. They blew sales expectations out of the water and definitely made money.
I haven't played the game myself and not a "fanboy", but BG3 was objectively successful by every metric, like it or not.
That's one of the worst things to happen to gaming, because it gives every studio -- and all the woketards -- all the ammo they need to keep pushing woke nonsense.
Normies will also use BG3 as another notch on the Overton Window further moving Left to say "Well, BG3 was a good game. Who cares about the woke stuff? You probably don't even know what woke means!"
I've seen plenty of coomer planktards on the normie YouTube videos defending BG3 as a "great game", and anyone pointing out the woke stuff is usually shouted down by the plankies.
Expect many other studios to follow suit in adding equal amounts of woke-stuff and following Larian's footsteps in adding a lot of (routed) "choices" so people will continue to defend the woke RPGs as they have with BG3.
This is one of the reason i get why its called "slop" cause in their fear to not get "political" a lot of normies will refuse to acknowledge woke crap being masked behind fun aspect or whatever and lap it up like pigs.
I dont think many will follow, they would need to be able to deliver a similar quality game where you can solve some quests in 5+ different ways. And at least Larian put some attractive women in their game. Doubt the others would do that. And it has the D&D license. A generic game without all that lore and races/classes wouldnt draw many in.
Absolutely agree. OP makes it sound like the game flopped though when it clearly didn't. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand.
Weirdly enough, I have at least two games in my Steam library that are over 5 years old, still being developed, both of which had major releases recently with more to come.
7 Days to Die doesn't count. That game is an absolute freak of nature.
You're always going to find exceptions to the rule, though. And it's telling that neither game are from Triple-A studios.
Ok, so going by the metrics in the graph here it seems to indicate more people were and are playing BG3, even higher than AAA studios on release. How is that not "successful"?
And as a note, BG3 has half the budget of Starfield and again by the graph above, more than 4 times the players at launch.
Not every piece of media is going to be the Mona Lisa or Original Star Wars, but in this case a relatively small studio on a small budget outperformed the AAA studios in this graph. I don't know in what universe that's a failure.
I mean, I'd talk about my recent games more but they aren't ever relevant to the discussion.
Because when is Against the Storm, Book of Demons, or Symphony of War ever going to come up? They don't get controversy bucks or FOMO triggers going, so they just never happen because we don't have consistent video game discussion threads. Just a random one pops up every now and then and its usually buried by outrage farmers.
Shit on your own post I wrote a long screed about Triangle Strategy just a few days ago, a modern AAA game I just went back to and likely will many times over the years. Because for once there was a topic where a non-classic was relevant to the discussion.
You're right about how the falloff works, but should we expect story-driven single-player games to have a constant ongoing player base? I'm sure the devs would love that but they don't expect it. That's always been the market even before the AAA explosion. Studios have to keep making something new or die.