|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
|
'Highly cinematic' is not an innovation in bg3. Final Fantasy has been doing that for decades. So have others. Bio with kotor, je, da, and me have fine it. Plus a host of other crpgs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
We are talking about Xalavier’s points on scope and scale for what he calls “megagames,†not Larian’s specific style of game. Obsidian hasn’t put out an RPG since the Outer Worlds, and their production team is consistently divided across multiple projects. Did you think the announcements about Avowed made the game enticing in contrast to its initial release trailer?
I would prefer Obsidian spend its resources on experiences like Pillars, except with more budget and labor to produce fuller experiences.
Whether you like Larian’s style of game or not (even if you haven’t played it), Swen and co. Made extremely intelligent business moves that Obsidian easily could have taken. For example:
-Kickstarters (POE kickstarters were MASSIVE)
-Soliciting player feedback and developing player statistics and datasets.
-Seeking out strong IPs to piggyback or developing more tie in products for their RPGs and worlds.
-Cordoning of 15-20 percent of their game to release as an Early Access pre-order.
-Temporarily scaling company growth with revenue and project growth, and then consolidating after release.
-Centering your team on a small number of projects and maintaining talent enthusiasm and autonomy to avert “development hell.â€
-Finding ways to build hype through community engagement even after years of development. People shit on Swen for doing skits and wearing armour, but the panels and influencer collaboration helped to bring community engagement.
Demand more from your favorite companies, not less. In an alternate universe, Obsidian is also putting out their own take on the RPG of the decade, inspired by CRPG classics, Fallout New Vegas, and Owlcat’s Pathfinder. Fair enough. Obsidian and others are certainly open to critiques on their business decisions and their approaches to making games (going first-person, for example). However, based on the core topic of the thread, given that I consider Larian's games to not be good games (including BG3), the last thing I want is for other RPG studios to start cranking out games similar to Larian's games. Also, people continue to keep furthering the falsehood that PoE2 performed poorly. That is factually not true, and Obsidian have officially stated that PoE2 (eventually) ended up being a financial success for them. So ..., Larian: make a few big games that are all very smiliar to one another (D:OS, BG3), and which are all games I don't care for; Obsidian: make a range of games where games like their PoE games don's sell as much as Larian's games but are awesome niche games, and profits are made up my also making games like Grounded and TOW that make a lot of money for the studio, allowing them to get by with a smaller profit margin for their PoE games. In this scenario, I'd MUCH, MUCH rather have Obsidian than Larian. You and Gray Ghost made some good points that I overlooked in my own self-righteous fury. People have different preferences, and there are those individuals who prefer a studio focus on multiple smaller-scale projects rather than go all-in on one. One of Xalavier's points was that by making megagames the standard, consumers will get games made for everyone instead of the one game that was meant for each of us. We need to respect the idea that all developers have their own way of doing things, and the vertical megaproject is not a "one size fits all." Having said that, I do believe there are important conclusions for viable business strategies in development that people are learning: -There is a need to renegotiate the investor-developer relationship if creative autonomy can achieve the same level of profits and brand recognition as financially-prioritized control. -Crowdfunding can be very powerful if paired with an active playerbase and player feedback. Larian did not invent the kickstarter or early access, but it is showing the potential for these tactics to carry megaprojects. -The way an EA is structured can give different impressions to a playerbase as to what that EA is for, and how their contributions help the game. Compare BG3 with other EAs that develop the whole product over the course of the EA, ending with the final release of the game where version 1.0 is marginally different than EA version 0.90. -While it is attractive to build one's own IP for creative control and profit exclusivity, big name IPs can draw players that otherwise would not play your game. BG3 has the BG fanbase, the Larian fanbase, the CRPG fanbase, and the DND fanbase as a starting point, and is building on that to start with. -Maintaining enthusiasm over a long development cycle is essential. If you are not Rockstar or Bethesda, people are not waiting for your game with bated breath. -This one is still up in the air, but I am interested in the idea that company growth can scale with project and revenue growth, only to be consolidated after the project is finished. I don't think of game development as an industrial endeavor, but if it works, this approach could be huge for catapulting indie devs into AAA-sized devs. I have no quarrel with any of these points. My only issue is that you are assuming Larian is universally strong in all these ways and studios like Obsidian are not. Sorry if that's not your intent, but that's just how it comes across to me, so do feel free to correct me. Also, the notion that Larian's "megagames" are "meant for everyone" is not at all a valid claim (and I personally find it an arrogant claim). There are a great many RPG fans, such as myself obviously, amounting to millions I would wager, who are left out in the cold by Larian's megagames. By contrast, Obsidian's approach that includes making games like Pentiment and Grounded as fantastic, because even though those games are not at all to my liking I am so very happy that a quality studio is making such games for those people out there who love those games, so that they are not left out in the cold just because they don't represent a huge millions-of-customers fanbase. And I highly doubt Larian would ever care to make a niche game that makes a niche audience happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
But, for a great many people in today's social-mdia-driven society where superficiality dominates in every aspect of life, a hyper-cinematic video game is surely going to be "awesome." You’d have a better reputation if you found a way to express your opinion without casting shade on others’. I'm not casting shade at anyone, merely expressing my sincere point of view that is not targeted at any specific person (which btw is a view I share about ALL forms of entertainment nowadays, video games generally as well as movies, TV shows, everything). When I look at BG3, I see a superficial game. And yet, despite this, apparently quite a number of people like it. So what conclusion, exactly, am I supposed to draw?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
Joined: Oct 2021
|
We are talking about Xalavier’s points on scope and scale for what he calls “megagames,†not Larian’s specific style of game. Obsidian hasn’t put out an RPG since the Outer Worlds, and their production team is consistently divided across multiple projects. Did you think the announcements about Avowed made the game enticing in contrast to its initial release trailer?
I would prefer Obsidian spend its resources on experiences like Pillars, except with more budget and labor to produce fuller experiences.
Whether you like Larian’s style of game or not (even if you haven’t played it), Swen and co. Made extremely intelligent business moves that Obsidian easily could have taken. For example:
-Kickstarters (POE kickstarters were MASSIVE)
-Soliciting player feedback and developing player statistics and datasets.
-Seeking out strong IPs to piggyback or developing more tie in products for their RPGs and worlds.
-Cordoning of 15-20 percent of their game to release as an Early Access pre-order.
-Temporarily scaling company growth with revenue and project growth, and then consolidating after release.
-Centering your team on a small number of projects and maintaining talent enthusiasm and autonomy to avert “development hell.â€
-Finding ways to build hype through community engagement even after years of development. People shit on Swen for doing skits and wearing armour, but the panels and influencer collaboration helped to bring community engagement.
Demand more from your favorite companies, not less. In an alternate universe, Obsidian is also putting out their own take on the RPG of the decade, inspired by CRPG classics, Fallout New Vegas, and Owlcat’s Pathfinder. Fair enough. Obsidian and others are certainly open to critiques on their business decisions and their approaches to making games (going first-person, for example). However, based on the core topic of the thread, given that I consider Larian's games to not be good games (including BG3), the last thing I want is for other RPG studios to start cranking out games similar to Larian's games. Also, people continue to keep furthering the falsehood that PoE2 performed poorly. That is factually not true, and Obsidian have officially stated that PoE2 (eventually) ended up being a financial success for them. So ..., Larian: make a few big games that are all very smiliar to one another (D:OS, BG3), and which are all games I don't care for; Obsidian: make a range of games where games like their PoE games don's sell as much as Larian's games but are awesome niche games, and profits are made up my also making games like Grounded and TOW that make a lot of money for the studio, allowing them to get by with a smaller profit margin for their PoE games. In this scenario, I'd MUCH, MUCH rather have Obsidian than Larian. You and Gray Ghost made some good points that I overlooked in my own self-righteous fury. People have different preferences, and there are those individuals who prefer a studio focus on multiple smaller-scale projects rather than go all-in on one. One of Xalavier's points was that by making megagames the standard, consumers will get games made for everyone instead of the one game that was meant for each of us. We need to respect the idea that all developers have their own way of doing things, and the vertical megaproject is not a "one size fits all." Having said that, I do believe there are important conclusions for viable business strategies in development that people are learning: -There is a need to renegotiate the investor-developer relationship if creative autonomy can achieve the same level of profits and brand recognition as financially-prioritized control. -Crowdfunding can be very powerful if paired with an active playerbase and player feedback. Larian did not invent the kickstarter or early access, but it is showing the potential for these tactics to carry megaprojects. -The way an EA is structured can give different impressions to a playerbase as to what that EA is for, and how their contributions help the game. Compare BG3 with other EAs that develop the whole product over the course of the EA, ending with the final release of the game where version 1.0 is marginally different than EA version 0.90. -While it is attractive to build one's own IP for creative control and profit exclusivity, big name IPs can draw players that otherwise would not play your game. BG3 has the BG fanbase, the Larian fanbase, the CRPG fanbase, and the DND fanbase as a starting point, and is building on that to start with. -Maintaining enthusiasm over a long development cycle is essential. If you are not Rockstar or Bethesda, people are not waiting for your game with bated breath. -This one is still up in the air, but I am interested in the idea that company growth can scale with project and revenue growth, only to be consolidated after the project is finished. I don't think of game development as an industrial endeavor, but if it works, this approach could be huge for catapulting indie devs into AAA-sized devs. I have no quarrel with any of these points. My only issue is that you are assuming Larian is universally strong in all these ways and studios like Obsidian are not. Sorry if that's not your intent, but that's just how it comes across to me, so do feel free to correct me. Also, the notion that Larian's "megagames" are "meant for everyone" is not at all a valid claim (and I personally find it an arrogant claim). There are a great many RPG fans, such as myself obviously, amounting to millions I would wager, who are left out in the cold by Larian's megagames. By contrast, Obsidian's approach that includes making games like Pentiment and Grounded as fantastic, because even though those games are not at all to my liking I am so very happy that a quality studio is making such games for those people out there who love those games, so that they are not left out in the cold just because they don't represent a huge millions-of-customers fanbase. And I highly doubt Larian would ever care to make a niche game that makes a niche audience happy. Just FYI, the "made for everyone" idea was something I paraphrased from Xalavier's critique of Larian and BG3, which is not the idea that the game is actually FOR everyone, but that it is "for everyone" in the way something might appeal to the lowest common denominator. He was talking about how bigger and bigger games need to appeal to a larger and larger audience that will spend more and more hours and money, leading to a larger return on investment, which is needed for funding what he calls "megagames." The idea that there is a game for each of us, or, as Xalavier put it, a game specifically made FOR YOU, is what is captured in the production of games like Pentiment and Grounded, which are made by smaller teams, targeting specific experiences. It was not a comment made out of arrogance, it was an observation that dividing your studio into smaller teams can lead to churning out more diverse and specialized products. If you have not read his thread or watched his videos critiquing the praise of BG3, I highly recommend it, as it seems right up your alley. Xalavier's point was exactly that "megagames" which require massive funds take away from the production of niche experiences. For indie studios, it means going all-in on a "popular" experience that requires massive funding, and risking everything and either continuing to produce that product or going out of business. For AAA studios, it means being dictated specific terms from corporate masters who see only the surface of what makes games successful and potentially being denied the opportunity to create new and diverse experiences. On the other side of the argument is that the mass consumers don't care. Competition breeds innovation, and, as Schumpeter would comment, innovation breeds destruction, which will, in turn breed new competition. Some may argue that games should get bigger and more ambitious, and the studios that cannot keep up will simply cease to exist. Obsidian is not bad at all of those things, but falls short in a small handful. For example, why did Grounded receive a 2-year early access with statistical player feedback and advance funding, but not Avowed, a highly anticipated first-person take on one of Obsidian's recent flagship universes? There are other areas where Obsidian made intelligent decisions: They built a name for themselves building sequels to other companies' beloved worlds, like Fallout, Neverwinter, and KOTOR. However, I cannot help but look at the development of Avowed, one of my most highly anticipated games, and feel a pang of disappointment in the news I hear about Obsidian internally regarding the project. A few years back, Avowed was reported by Jason Schreier to have been rebooted during the pandemic. Its development also competes with several other Obsidian projects. It had no active marketing or public interest for years. Then Obsidian vaguely gestures at their titles which are in the works, and say they cannot justify greater investments on their projects which are commensurate with greater risk. I think there are business decisions that Obsidian makes which are questionable at best, despite being an amazing company.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
When I look at BG3, I see a superficial game. And yet, despite this, apparently quite a number of people like it. So what conclusion, exactly, am I supposed to draw? I’m sure we all privately draw conclusions about each other, but when they involve concluding that others are superficial or have some other negative quality, they’re better left unsaid, please. We want and see different things in games, and that’s fine. We can still show mutual respect and acceptance that other views than our own have merit. Or at the very least pretend to!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2018
|
But, for a great many people in today's social-mdia-driven society where superficiality dominates in every aspect of life, a hyper-cinematic video game is surely going to be "awesome." You’d have a better reputation if you found a way to express your opinion without casting shade on others’. I'm not casting shade at anyone, merely expressing my sincere point of view that is not targeted at any specific person (which btw is a view I share about ALL forms of entertainment nowadays, video games generally as well as movies, TV shows, everything). When I look at BG3, I see a superficial game. And yet, despite this, apparently quite a number of people like it. So what conclusion, exactly, am I supposed to draw? You can draw whatever conclusions you want, but if you don’t understand the arrogant and dismissive way you expressed yourself there then brushing up on your communication skills would be a worthwhile pursuit. The distinction between what you think and what you say is the domain of decorum. Saying society is so superficial and therefore of course this game is going to be received as “awesome†is an implied insult to everyone who is looking forward to it. That’s bullshit. I think you can do better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Saying society is so superficial and therefore of course this game is going to be received as “awesome†is an implied insult to everyone who is looking forward to it. That’s bullshit. I think you can do better than that. Yet we live in a gaming world where a very high amount of games are soulless unfinished bug ridden cash grabs and shitty monetization schemes because he's at the very least, partially right. If you took offense by what he said you were the one who decided to put yourself inside said group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
*Ahem* When I look at BG3, I see a superficial game. And yet, despite this, apparently quite a number of people like it. So what conclusion, exactly, am I supposed to draw? I’m sure we all privately draw conclusions about each other, but when they involve concluding that others are superficial or have some other negative quality, they’re better left unsaid, please. We want and see different things in games, and that’s fine. We can still show mutual respect and acceptance that other views than our own have merit. Or at the very least pretend to!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
BG3 isn’t superficial or otherwise this thread would not exist! Both some indie and AAA developers said that they couldn’t make a game like BG3 and shouldn’t be held to its standards!!!
BG3 has cinematic dialogue, voice acting, custom pc, 3rd person, lots of reactivity, dialogue choices, party of companions, in-depth romances, interesting quests, choice and consequence, multiple endings, pets, a large city to explore, freedom to do quests in any order while still having a strong plot and characters, turn-based combat, and the numerous spells, classes, and races of D&D! It is quite a great achievement!
I do hope some other AAA developers will step up as well, though!
Last edited by Icelyn; 21/07/23 09:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Calling popular suff "superficial" is silly. If anything niche things are superficial as no one will remember them in a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Back to the original article - while I understand the concern that people have I don't think BG3 will be the new normal. Indeed it might make to create a category above AAA where every line is voice acted, all major events have a cinematic vignette etc.
If anything I think this will allow developers to make more games in the BG2 / WotR model: 1/3 to 1/2 voice acting and the rest wall of text. Now that BG3 is so over the top in terms of production values people will accept that not every game needs to rise to that level just like people accept that not every movie is going to be the next Marvel blockbuster.
It's a just a guess but I'm guessing that in the next 5 or so some dev is going say "we're not trying to be BG3, we're aiming to be the next BG2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2018
|
Back to the original article - while I understand the concern that people have I don't think BG3 will be the new normal. Indeed it might make to create a category above AAA where every line is voice acted, all major events have a cinematic vignette etc.
If anything I think this will allow developers to make more games in the BG2 / WotR model: 1/3 to 1/2 voice acting and the rest wall of text. Now that BG3 is so over the top in terms of production values people will accept that not every game needs to rise to that level just like people accept that not every movie is going to be the next Marvel blockbuster.
It's a just a guess but I'm guessing that in the next 5 or so some dev is going say "we're not trying to be BG3, we're aiming to be the next BG2" I’ve said this before, but I would love if Divinity-likes became a thing in a Similar trend to Soulslikes. That’s probably not going to happen, though, just like there are no Skyrim-likes, despite that being among the most popular games ever. Just more AAA CRPGs in general would be great though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
Just FYI, the "made for everyone" idea was something I paraphrased from Xalavier's critique of Larian and BG3, which is not the idea that the game is actually FOR everyone, but that it is "for everyone" in the way something might appeal to the lowest common denominator. He was talking about how bigger and bigger games need to appeal to a larger and larger audience that will spend more and more hours and money, leading to a larger return on investment, which is needed for funding what he calls "megagames." The idea that there is a game for each of us, or, as Xalavier put it, a game specifically made FOR YOU, is what is captured in the production of games like Pentiment and Grounded, which are made by smaller teams, targeting specific experiences. It was not a comment made out of arrogance, it was an observation that dividing your studio into smaller teams can lead to churning out more diverse and specialized products. If you have not read his thread or watched his videos critiquing the praise of BG3, I highly recommend it, as it seems right up your alley.
Xalavier's point was exactly that "megagames" which require massive funds take away from the production of niche experiences. For indie studios, it means going all-in on a "popular" experience that requires massive funding, and risking everything and either continuing to produce that product or going out of business. For AAA studios, it means being dictated specific terms from corporate masters who see only the surface of what makes games successful and potentially being denied the opportunity to create new and diverse experiences.
On the other side of the argument is that the mass consumers don't care. Competition breeds innovation, and, as Schumpeter would comment, innovation breeds destruction, which will, in turn breed new competition. Some may argue that games should get bigger and more ambitious, and the studios that cannot keep up will simply cease to exist.
Obsidian is not bad at all of those things, but falls short in a small handful. For example, why did Grounded receive a 2-year early access with statistical player feedback and advance funding, but not Avowed, a highly anticipated first-person take on one of Obsidian's recent flagship universes? There are other areas where Obsidian made intelligent decisions: They built a name for themselves building sequels to other companies' beloved worlds, like Fallout, Neverwinter, and KOTOR. However, I cannot help but look at the development of Avowed, one of my most highly anticipated games, and feel a pang of disappointment in the news I hear about Obsidian internally regarding the project. A few years back, Avowed was reported by Jason Schreier to have been rebooted during the pandemic. Its development also competes with several other Obsidian projects. It had no active marketing or public interest for years. Then Obsidian vaguely gestures at their titles which are in the works, and say they cannot justify greater investments on their projects which are commensurate with greater risk. I think there are business decisions that Obsidian makes which are questionable at best, despite being an amazing company. Hey this was a very interesting read, and I am very much in agreement with it all. It does appear I misunderstood the original reference, and I thank you for setting me straight even while doing it in a very cordial way. And thanks also for the reference of Xalavier, someone I've never heard of (prolly 'cause I don't do any social media). But now I'm gonna' look them up. And I too share your concerns about Avowed. It's the game announcement I've been the most excited about, but at the same time I'm also very apprehensive about whether Obsidian is making some fundamental mistakes with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
It's a just a guess but I'm guessing that in the next 5 or so some dev is going say "we're not trying to be BG3, we're aiming to be the next BG2" That would be the best news I could possibly get from the gaming world. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
Just FYI, the "made for everyone" idea was something I paraphrased from Xalavier's critique of Larian and BG3, which is not the idea that the game is actually FOR everyone, but that it is "for everyone" in the way something might appeal to the lowest common denominator. He was talking about how bigger and bigger games need to appeal to a larger and larger audience that will spend more and more hours and money, leading to a larger return on investment, which is needed for funding what he calls "megagames." The idea that there is a game for each of us, or, as Xalavier put it, a game specifically made FOR YOU, is what is captured in the production of games like Pentiment and Grounded, which are made by smaller teams, targeting specific experiences. It was not a comment made out of arrogance, it was an observation that dividing your studio into smaller teams can lead to churning out more diverse and specialized products. If you have not read his thread or watched his videos critiquing the praise of BG3, I highly recommend it, as it seems right up your alley.
Xalavier's point was exactly that "megagames" which require massive funds take away from the production of niche experiences. For indie studios, it means going all-in on a "popular" experience that requires massive funding, and risking everything and either continuing to produce that product or going out of business. For AAA studios, it means being dictated specific terms from corporate masters who see only the surface of what makes games successful and potentially being denied the opportunity to create new and diverse experiences.
On the other side of the argument is that the mass consumers don't care. Competition breeds innovation, and, as Schumpeter would comment, innovation breeds destruction, which will, in turn breed new competition. Some may argue that games should get bigger and more ambitious, and the studios that cannot keep up will simply cease to exist.
Obsidian is not bad at all of those things, but falls short in a small handful. For example, why did Grounded receive a 2-year early access with statistical player feedback and advance funding, but not Avowed, a highly anticipated first-person take on one of Obsidian's recent flagship universes? There are other areas where Obsidian made intelligent decisions: They built a name for themselves building sequels to other companies' beloved worlds, like Fallout, Neverwinter, and KOTOR. However, I cannot help but look at the development of Avowed, one of my most highly anticipated games, and feel a pang of disappointment in the news I hear about Obsidian internally regarding the project. A few years back, Avowed was reported by Jason Schreier to have been rebooted during the pandemic. Its development also competes with several other Obsidian projects. It had no active marketing or public interest for years. Then Obsidian vaguely gestures at their titles which are in the works, and say they cannot justify greater investments on their projects which are commensurate with greater risk. I think there are business decisions that Obsidian makes which are questionable at best, despite being an amazing company. This was interesting. They did discuss in the Panel from Hell that they created Character Creation so that it would be easier for new players to process all the information. Even I am not confident that I can create a good build yet.
Last edited by buttercup; 22/07/23 01:15 AM. Reason: fix quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Niche things are superficial? Funny you say that... FO was 'niche'... it certainly was not forgotten. 
Last edited by Volourn; 22/07/23 01:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Niche things are superficial? Funny you say that... FO was 'niche'... it certainly was not forgotten. The og fallouts are forgotten yes. New Vegas is really the only well remembered game these days and it had a lot more mainstream appeal than the early games
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Until fairly recently, RPGs were considered niche, I think to a lot of people they still are. What are you basing Fallout being forgotten on? They seem to be used in plenty of RPG discussions. Even if for most people they're first exposure to Fallout was the Bethesda era, that still puts the originals into the zeitgeist. This reminded me of a segment of the old Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3 c. page 81 thread. Sales aren't the same as impact.
Last edited by Sozz; 22/07/23 04:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Until fairly recently, RPGs were considered niche, I think to a lot of people they still are.
What are you basing Fallout being forgotten on? They seem to be used in plenty of RPG discussions.
Even if for most people they're first exposure to Fallout was the Bethesda era, that still puts the originals into the zeitgeist. If you talk with average rpg gamer 99% won't know anything about the og fallouts. I wouldent call rpg's niche they are probably the biggest genre second to shooters. They've been pretty mainstream since mass effect if not before. Mass Effect made a hell of a bigger impact than the wicher 1 for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
|
"The og fallouts are forgotten yes."
That makes no sense. Those original FOs have led to how many games in the series?
FO is not forgotten despite being a niche game. And, that despite the fact, it wasn't even a huge seller when originally released.
'Forgotten'. Come on, man.
FO was and is one of the most impactful crpgs ever.
|
|
|
|
|
