Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Could BG3'S ambition kill the RPG as we know it

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.