Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Starfield is lame - Bg3 is going to win GOTY - Taking bets.

Uuuh, this has objectively been a huge year for games.

Legend of Zelda
Final Fantasy 16 (I didn’t like it but many did)
Baldur’s Gate 3
Street Fighter 6
Armored Core 6
Star Wars Jedi Survivor
Hogwart’s Legacy
Diablo 4
Starfield
(Those last two got mixed receptions but lots of people did enjoy them)
Cyberpunk’s DLC is apparently getting positive buzz

If fine if you didn’t like anything that came out this year, opinions and all, and I don’t care for most of the stuff on that list, but it’s pretty wild to say 2023 was an abysmal year for gaming. This was the biggest year for gaming in a long time.

Oh I was being generous with the 6 million copies thing. They won't release sales numbers so we have to guess. That in itself is a sign that it's not doing well, or they would be broadcasting that info far and wide.




It's more complicated than that. I want companies with AAA resources and development teams to release products that reflect that. I want those companies held to account by the gaming community when they fall short. It would be dishonest to say that I don't feel some sense of joy when those games fail or are panned as Starfield has been. AS for waiting - time is NOT on Bethesda's side on this one. People report that the more they play the less they like the game and marketing becomes less effective over time.


I am not in total agreement here. Yes, work needs to be done on Bg3, especially ACT 3 and the Multiplayer system, as well as Modding tools. However, the bones of the game are very strong, and - unlike Starfield - I can see, feel and hear the work that was put into Bg3. I am confident that within 6 months to a year we will have a more polished game with additional features at no cost.

When playing Starfield I am left wondering what a company like Bethesda with a larger development team, and more resources than Larian was doing for the last six years. I don't see 6 years and 450 devs worth of work. If a team of 20-30 devs had made this game I would be impressed - but they probably would have made better basic core design choices as well.

Also how is it that a handful of modders have developed a UI that is 1000% better in less than a week (it doesn't solve the core problems but it makes vast improvements)? Why are those people not working for Bethesda?

Did Starfield really have a larger development budget though? I mean, its certainly plausible, but Early Access dropped a boatload of cash in Larian's lap to develop Baldur's Gate, so I also find it plausible that BG3 had a comparable budget. Does anybody have actual numbers?

I'm not. And the reason is simply: Regardless of the amount of extra work put into the DE of DOS:2, they never really managed to make the back half of that game feel good.

Your reasoning seems a little odd to me. Both Starfield and BG3 have people who have really enjoyed them while also having humongous, glaring flaws. You seem to think that there is some fundamental difference between these two games for reasons I cannot really understand. I think it's very likely that many people at Bethesda DID put a lot of work and a lot of love into the game. Bethesda had a larger team and more resources...but then again Baldur's Gate is a much smaller game. (Honestly, in many ways, BG3 is even small compared to the originals.)

In my view both Bethesda and Larian have the same issue. They both suffer from the same thing. There is no real fundamental difference between them that makes one company good at making games and another bad at making games (because I don't buy that premise to begin with.) The simple fundamental answer for why *no game* seems to be able to release in a complete state is this: We *do not have institutions capable of creating games that want to be as ambitious as Starfield or BG3 on release.* They simply *do not exist.* The cost and challenge of making games this complex has simply not been mastered *by anyone*. Nobody has a good roadmap for creating games like this. So companies frequently stumble on release and find themselves patching things in as the game goes along. It's why the best purchasing strategy may be to evaluate a game 6 months to a year after its initial release. By then, you can probably better evaluate its potential. For better or worse, some projects are so ambitious that the first year of release essentially acts as an extended EA period for them. Of course companies don't like my conclusion, because they would rather tons of people buy the game when it drops for the hype.

But I think this isn't simply a problem that throwing more people and more resources at a game can solve. It's the sort of thing that can only be mitigated by accumulated institutional knowledge and experience.

DOS2 had a fundamental problem with the "class system" that was essentially unfixable which made the game less fun the higher your level. This has been endlessly covered and Larian knows its was an issue. I expect if they do go back to Divinity they will revisit this system and re-build it from the ground up so you are not replacing all your gear every level and so changing classes can't just be done by wearing different clothes.

They tried a few band aids but there was just no fix - as the bone structure of the game was flawed.



Hard disagree.

1) Bethesda doesn't listen to player feedback at all and it shows - Larian has shown multiple documented instances of doing just that.

2) Larian and Bethesda have totally different marketing approaches - (Larian spent way less but was much more effective - it's actually a fascinating study of what good marketing looks like.) - Bethesda is going for a full brute-force approach, dominate every platform and control the message - very expensive, doesn't work that well because social media dominance is weak and outdated as a marketing approach.

3) Larian's game isn't complete, but it's amazing. Starfield is a complete game, it's just bad.

4) Bethesda is relying on modders to improve the game. Larian modders are adding additional content to the extent they currently can.

5) Larian has a very consistent and clear philosophy that is informed by a history and love of gaming - with a dude (Swen)that walks around in plate armor, he is a nerd. Todd Howard is like the most milquetoast, vanilla dude, possibly the unholy union of Ron Howard and a glass of Plain Milk (kidding) - but he is very much a Sales Guy Happy Dude.

6) Bethesda is VERY corporate with a LOT of hierarchies and are answerable to the market. Larian has a far more horizontal structure and is the company is primarily held by Swen and his Wife, and are not answerable to wall street.

7) Bethesda never fixes bugs. They leave it to the community to do it. Larian has a great track record of squashing bugs, even years after the game has come out.



Outside of Larian, Fromsoftware killed it with Elden Ring, and the last 5 -6 games they made. They have a solid process that results in works of genius.

What this hyperbole tells me is that you are angry about the state of BG3, and I don't blame you. it's frustrating to run into bugs, and incomplete stuff, and systems that are a bit broken surrounded by incredible VA, story, and character development.

However, everything wrong with Bg3 is ultimately fixable given time. You can't fix the core problems of Starfield with mods and Bethesda sure as shit isn't going to do it.

Go to www.google.com

Type "Starfield Budget"

Read.

Then type "Baldur's Gate 3 Budget"

Read

Or I could just tell you that Starfield cost $415 Million with 500 devs and Bg3 cost 100 Million with 300 staff , not sure how many actual Devs, clearly a lot less.

I will send you a bill for my consulting work.

I haven't played Elden Ring, but Dark Souls and Bloodborne have been some of my favorite games. I love them. But here's the thing: They aren't actually all that ambitious. They're beautifully crafted setpieces, and while Elden Ring might have been their largest one to date, that was really what it remained. There's no need to worry about implementing the various options for completing a quest, like Larian does - the purview of that series is making interesting level design for their fights (and that, they are not even consistent at - the level design of later entries in the series was much criticised in comparison to DS1) and making them look good. They have a relatively uncomplicated niche that they specialize in and exploit well - and even THEN the games are far from bug-free on release! They have relatively small ambitions, gameplay wise, and a very conservative approach, and even with gigantic budgets EVEN THEY still have problems. While I love From for what they do, I doubt we'd be very satisfied if every company was as conservative as they were when it came to game making.

Also, let me be clear: I think BG3 has good characters, the VAs are great, the gameplay in the first act is fun and well-polished....but I don't think it really ever has "incredible" story or character development. I think Larian's *character* writing has improved over the years...although maybe I'm wrong about that. Perhaps it's simply the fact that the companions have great VAs in BG3 that adds to their personality and makes them seem better than the companions in DOS2. But either way, I consider Larian's writing to be mediocre at best to subpar, and nothing about BG3 actually changed that. And you say Larian "listens", well, that is certainly their image, but I think it's reasonable to question at this point: *do they actually*? Because I can tell you, this is not the first time they've been criticized for dropping the ball on the second half of a game. Or the second time. If they were listening, do you think they might stop making the same mistakes over and over again?

This isn't hyperbole; indeed what seems hyperbolic to me is declaring that Starfield is a "failure" less than a week after launch on the basis of little to no evidence. What it seems like to me is that people WANT Baldur's Gate 3 to represent something good and they WANT Starfield to represent something bad. So they're projecting hopes and praise onto BG3 that frankly, the game does not deserve. And I mean, don't get me wrong, because I do think the game deserves praise for what it pulled off, especially in the first half, but as far as I can see, the whole product...? It's not really anything genre-defining, or a challenge to the larger companies. It is broken enough that after one playthrough I have no desire to play it in its current state again. I'll probably put it down and see how patches and updates fix it. In the end, I'll probably end up relying on modders to fix some things. Imo BG3 actually compares *quite disfavorably* to games that came out 10-15 years ago, Dragon Age: Origins in particular. In its best moments, BG3 outshines that game, but DA:O is far more complete and consistent. I mean, to be frank, if I had sixty dollars and you said to me, "You have to, with no other knowledge, choose to spend your 60 dollars on a game made either by Larian or by Bethesda", I would choose Bethesda every time and it wouldn't even be close. They are simply just far more consistent, even though Larian tends to actually operate in the genre that I actively enjoy more. I actually have far more faith that whatever issues there are with Starfield will be fixed, than I have faith that Larian will fix some of the deep fundamental problems with BG3. I suspect that the end state of both games, based on previous experience, will be thus: The Bethesda game I could play through the whole way and enjoy unmodded, but I would want to use mods to make it more fun. The Larian game I would have grand fun with part of it, but finishing the game would be a chore that I wouldn't want to do without mods.

I mean, if you want to be a dick about it, you are the one that is making the argument, so YOU can post the citation.

Also, its "Star Citizen" that cost $415 million (according to google). Starfield clocks in at $200 million. Still larger than BG3, but the correct comparison is a lot less dramatic.

Too late for CP2077, and I don't really think that Starfield is THAT much better than, say, Forspoken (seems to be a very linear experience with very little player agency).

Problem maybe Zelda and Hogwarts Legacy.

Actually, there appear to be many different estimates for the cost of Starfield on my first page of google hits. This is why I asked for a citation in the first place, since you seemed to have some sort of insider knowledge based on your heated bloviation on this point.

The starting budget was $200 million, but I've read that the final estimated budget was much higher, at $400 million.

Here's a random link discussing: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/star...l-estimate-at-400m-and-500-devs.1660457/

*

That being the production budget, to my understanding. If film is any comparison, that's not including the marketing budget, which for Starfield is likely enormous.

Whereas Larian achieved great success with minimal marketing dollars.

Reverse marketing budget actually - handing out EA that was so much fun to play that people were throwing money at the production of the game. A total win-win for everyone and I hope the next game from Larian Studios will follow the same path.

I'm in. I mean: consider the next game bought now, if necessary I can deposit 240 Euros for the 4 copies of the next game I will buy anyway right now.

(2 for me - PC and PS5, 1 for gf, 1 for some random stranger on the Steam forums who wins my favor. As I did with BG3 so far.)

In all honesty, I was playing the lottery with like 10 Euros for once, because BIG jackpot, and the first three things I would have done if I had won would have been:

a) Buy a Tesla Model X Plaid with custom two colour paint and full sealing (so you don't need the screen wipes anymore)
b) Make a trip all across Africa and take pictures of EVERY wild species there and try all the local food
c) Invest a few million Euros into Larian Studios with the condition that I can do the full consultancy on inventory UX (haha)

As others have pointed out the $400 million is more or less correct for Starfield - including the marketing costs - and the number of Devs at 500 is also correct. What a waste of resources.

You can't be serious. No bloody way, mate.

1) Bethesda doesn't listen to player feedback at all and it shows - Larian has shown multiple documented instances of doing just that.
You must be referring to the ingenious BG3 features like Jump / Shove, projectiles and bottles that hit even when they miss, the ability to throw bottles twice as far as the arrow from Longbow can fly, and countless others. All of them having an overwhelming support from the community.

2) Larian and Bethesda have totally different marketing approaches - (Larian spent way less but was much more effective - it's actually a fascinating study of what good marketing looks like.) - Bethesda is going for a full brute-force approach, dominate every platform and control the message - very expensive, doesn't work that well because social media dominance is weak and outdated as a marketing approach.
You are completely (and possibly deliberately) missing the point here. Bethesda had no choice but to apply a borderline brainwashing amount of marketing because their new game introduces a completely new IP. Larian had an exact opposite of that - they piggybacked on a legendary, decades-old IP which they had nothing to do with when it was first introduced.

4) Bethesda is relying on modders to improve the game. Larian modders are adding additional content to the extent they currently can.
"Additional content" - as in, new locations / quests / dialogues? Or more magick items, as if we don't have them enough?
So far, one of the most requested mods (on this forum, at least) is the "No Larian Homebrew" one.

5) Larian has a very consistent and clear philosophy that is informed by a history and love of gaming - with a dude (Swen)that walks around in plate armor, he is a nerd. Todd Howard is like the most milquetoast, vanilla dude, possibly the unholy union of Ron Howard and a glass of Plain Milk (kidding) - but he is very much a Sales Guy Happy Dude.
Can't really say anything about this Todd Howard, but you appear to be having a very peculiar definition of "nerd". Ned Kelly was also wearing a plate armour, but I wouldn't call him a nerd by any stretch. Rather, "psycho" is the term that comes to my mind. Let's agree to disagree, since he can easily be both.

6) Bethesda is VERY corporate with a LOT of hierarchies and are answerable to the market. Larian has a far more horizontal structure and is the company is primarily held by Swen and his Wife, and are not answerable to wall street.
Oh, dear... While you are not wrong about Bethesda, I don't know what makes you to say that Larian has a horizontal structure. The company has somewhere between 300 and 450+ employees, depending on whom you ask. That's twice or thrice too much for an efficient horizontal structure. Ever heard about the Dunbar's number, or "Law of 150"?
Not to mention... when Swen postulated that "Shadowheart shalt hath the box", it resulted in immense cost overruns for company, but nobody around was brave enough to question / challenge his idea.
Horizontal structure, my arse... W. L. Gore & Associates has horizontal (or rather, lattice) structure - and it works great for them. At Larian, however? Looks more like "a tyranny of one" to me.

7) Bethesda never fixes bugs. They leave it to the community to do it. Larian has a great track record of squashing bugs, even years after the game has come out.
Yet you admit in the very same post, a bit above, that:
While Larian's willingness to fix bugs is laudable, some of them are parts of the game's architecture. This is a failure on design level, and in case of Larian specifically, I suspect it has something to do with #6 in your list.

People have an odd way of thinking that "listening" means "agreeing."

Plenty of folks like the things you list here.

See this is an example of hyperbole. "They didn't do this one thing I wanted so they never listen to player feedback". For the record, I also wanted shove as an action - it didn't happen - but it doesn't change the fact that larian HAS responded to player feedback and made changes on a ton of occasions.


I mean, I think calling Starfield a "new" IP is pretty laughable. What? How is it a new IP? What new concepts is it introducing? Factions in future space humans and exploration? Totally derivative. Those guys spent at least a hundred million on a totally ineffective marketing campaign.

Ha, the opening story is just a "dollar store" version of Mass Effect. Magical MacGuffin with ancient knowledge that imparts knowledge - except they managed to make it an issue for which I had zero sense of urgency, nor care about because it wasn't tied to any crisis. *golf clap*. Starfield is like if they turned the color beige into a game. It's so bland and inoffensive that it swings all the way around to being offensive.


Yeah, the point is that modders for BG3 are not being leaned on to fix bugs. I am not sure what argument you are making here. A "No homebrew" or "core rules" mod would be "additional content" - that's not a bug.




Larian Studios has 400+ employees at 6 locations.

Bethesda Softworks has 1,178 employees at 4 locations.

Both companies have a President that has ultimate say in decisions. The difference between Horizontal and Vertical is the layers of management between that president.

Again, I don't even know what argument you are making? Are you saying Bethesda is run by a democratic council of Elders? A unified hive mind? A sentient squirrel? No, I am pretty sure it's run by the "Human Milk Dud" called Todd Howard :P


Yeah, I don't know what point you are making, it's a design flaw rooted in how the class system works - not a bug. It doesn't invalidate my point. Make better arguments.

this thread... yikes.

tribalism is just a really sad state of affairs

You know if you took a minute to actually read anything you would see that even the people who love BG3 are perfectly capable of leveling criticism at it. This isn't the Rick and Morty subreddit.

Although this thread isn't about Larian, and the issues with bg3, despite a half dozen people who keep trying to make it about that. There are lots of threads that cover that, so go to one of those.

This thread is about why Starfield is such a huge disappointment and where it failed despite a massive budget and an army of devs and 7 years and what that means for gaming.

Buddy, YOU made this thread, and you invited discussion about the issues with BG3 and Larian the moment you said that BG3 was going to get GOTY and that Bethesda needed to "learn lessons" from BG3. (In fact, now that I think of it, you came to this conclusion after Starfield had been out for all of, what, 3 days?) YOU are the number one person responsible for Larian and BG3 being discussed in this thread. YOU put those subjects *in the title!*