The point I’m trying to make in saying it isn’t post launch support is that I feel as if the game was released to the public in a state that I hesitate to call a proper launch for a AAA game.
Given the state of recent AAA games... It's actually about average. Even Elden Ring, a game I think is amazing... Still had missing questlines that were patched in post-launch and bugs a plenty that were patched out (Such as the gamebreaking 13k DPS doggos)
Now, as gamers we should try and push for better. Being satisfied with slop is what got us into the mess regading MTX, Live Services and copy/paste IP's (Like CoD or, Ubisoft's entire library)... However, we also have to acknowledge what expectations we should have.
We should expect even AAA games to have some rough edges (Due to many factors), and assuming any developers to go above and beyond our expectations is unreasonable.
Originally Posted by HenryDoughnut
I feel like it would be hypocritical of the community to praise larian for speaking out against greed in the industry that has brought about microtransactions and the decline in the quality of todays games, but then not criticize them for outright releasing an incomplete product to earn as much publicity as possible before the imminent release of a major title from a known company that would compete with them (Starfield). The expected Larian approach given their track record would be “sorry guys the game just isn’t ready yet and we need to further delay it to give you the best experience we can”.
It's not really the same thing.
Since, the nature of video game development is something that inherently has hurdles.
Video games don't make money until they release and sell. That means for the entire time a game is being developed, you have to pay everyone who's working on the game money. But you don't earn the money until after everyone's finished working on it. Thus, the catch 22 situation and the reason why publishers are so prevalent in the industry. As the publisher will pay for the development of the game, in return for a large share of the profits of the actual product. But for self publishing studios, they don't have this. They need to have money before selling their game, to develop their game, to get money from selling the game.
As such, there are often deadlines in order to release a game to earn money. For self published titles, this would be when they start to run out of money for development. For developers under a publisher, it's whenever the publisher states they want to start earning money (Normally to look good on their quarterly earnings reports to please investors and stockholders).
So while the ideal situation is "We just delay the game until it's ready", in reality this simply isn't feasible. (Well, actually... Major publishers literally can do this... They just opt not to because corporate greed > all)
Originally Posted by HenryDoughnut
I’m curious as to what you would say your general opinion of BG3 is if you could sum it up.
It's okay. Nothing amazing, but not awful.
In general it has the major flaw of being caught between 2 systems. It's too much of a DnD game to be a good Larian title and too much of a Larian game to be a good DnD title.
With wonky writing that reeks of developmental flip-flopping rather than deeply developed narratives and characters (Not to say that some of it isn't decent. Just other parts feel hastily written and poorly planned out)
