Re: "They Just Have To Be Good"

On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:42:53 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

Zag wrote:

And then there's Larian. There's CDPR. There are single-A companies that
try. We need to be forgiving of them and support them. I bought Cyberpunk
2077 at a discount to keep them honest.
 
It's not dead yet. It's just very badly burned.
>

>
I agree although even those games you mentioned aren't really doing
anything that different but instead doing a type of formula know to work
very well, although in Cyberpunk's case that took a couple of years
until after it had been released.

(I'm sorry, my talent for brevity is a mere figment of my imagination)

Oh that much is true. It's still single-A. They still have to be somewhat
risk averse. This stuff costs real money - and real time without revenue
- and you can't put them out like a bunny makes children just to watch
75% of them die on the vine. That's for indie moon shots, not this sort
of effort.

But we haven't had a 5e implementation outside BG3. Larian worked their
butts off. They're still working; they're getting ready to introduce new
2014 subclasses. And it's interesting content too, not horse armor. And I
think it won't be DLC. Win.

Hasbro even started modeling their "monetization" schemes off of the
success of BG3. That's how good it was. The 50th anniversary 2024 Monster
Manual cover looks like box art for BG3.

Sure, it's top-down isometric turn-based CRPG and similar to the
Divinity:OS series. It's nothing we haven't seen before. But the
storytelling and setting are unique in gaming rn. The 5e implementation
is impeccable. This is what single-A can do. Single-A shops can stick a
few toes in, or even go waist deep, in the turbulent waters of risk.

Same goes for Cyberpunk 2077. When was the last time you saw a title set
in Night City? Ruiner perhaps? They could have done Witcher 4, but they
did this instead. A bit more than a toe in the turbulent waters of risk.
This time it didn't fully pay off, so they put in *more* work and
recovered, because they had to. A larger shop would have just written it
off as a loss and a data point for the accountants proving that risk
isn't worth it. Single-A goes under if they don't make good.

Go back a little further, and I greatly enjoyed Wasteland 2.
Post-apocalyptic turn-based RPG? Yes please. I bought Wasteland 3. It's
in my backlog. Because of that, and others, I might get Wasteland 4.

IMHO, the only way for niche games to get made is for me to put my money
where my mouth is. It's more useful to simply _not buy EA_, for instance,
than it is to slag them off.*

They don't do what I want. So what? They have a license to print money,
but it isn't mine. They are making bank. I don't begrudge them that. I
support what I like and ignore what I don't. It's no use lamenting that
the mass-market, AAA audience will eat what I think is sh!t and like it.

So Activision/Bliz and EA can suck eggs. Ubi can lie dead in a ditch for
all I care. I just don't buy from any of them. I have lots of friends who
do, but it isn't a zero sum game. I have money too.

I just have to prove there's money in what *I* want. I have to be a
market for these developers.

You are too. I can tell.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

* This is not a subtle dig at you, Spalls. Carry on, sir.