The release of the long awaited CRPG Baldur's Gate 3 by Larian Studios is on the horizon - on August 3rd people playing on PC can dive into the world Faerun once more. And probably grander and more cinematic than we've seen in a long time. Larian announced a staggering amount of in game cinematics: 174 hours was the exact number. It promises a game world and story very reactive to your choices as a player (and thus a very high replayability factor as well).
Before we even get our hands on the game to see if it can deliver on all it promises to be, this announced greatness has sparked a response from various game studios. I will leave a link to a news article here as a reference, because it contains a collection of tweets I want to respond to: https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/07/12/baldurs-gate-3-new-standard-for-rpg-genre-opinions
Basicly, some game developers are concerned that Baldur's Gate 3 will raise player expectations for upcoming RPG's so high that smaller studios can't fulfill it. They say that the conditions of Baldur's Gate 3's development were so abnormal that they shouldn't be considered the standard. One developers says this:
He contributes the following factors why Larian's special situation allowed them to tackle such an ambitious game:
Elements of this list are the main topics I want to respond to:
1. Two massive games worth of tech and institutional knowledge to draw from
Yes, that's defintely a big factor that helps the development of Baldur's Gate 3. It's engine is the same used for the Divinity games, an engine that suits the design Larian likes to go for with their CRPGs. One that was specifically developed and refined over the years to support their development. And yes, having produced two large CRPGs recently certainly gave Larian a well of experience to draw upon for the massive undertaking that is Baldur's Gate 3.
But especially the point of the two massive games confuse me about the conditions of Baldur's Gate 3 being such an anomaly. It's just Larian's style. That's what they have always aimed for. Even when they were a much smaller studio than they are today. Is it really that much of an anomaly if they repeatedly pull it off at various levels of experience and growth as a studio. This point attributes their ability to go for a project of this size to the experience they gained developing other games of massive size. They gained the knowledge because they decided to make games of this size. And they gained the tech because they developed it themselves and continuously improved upon it.
And what is so special and abnormal about this scenario? Most game studios have multiple games and sequels under their belt and they all should have experiences and a technical foundation to build upon. Learning from your experiences and building upon what you've done before is a common process to improve in literally anything. Is building the experiences of previous development processes and the technical foundation of your previous creation such an atypical situation in game development that you have to emphasize it as so special in the case of Baldur's Gate 3?
If anything that's an approach many other studios can learn from. How far it gets you if you understand your style, principle and strengths of your studio and continue to expand upon this basis. If your intention is to grow as a company and as an artist, that's a good mindset to have.
2. Super successful Early Access period providing crucial community feedback, bug hunting and cash flow.
Yes, all of these factors allowed to Larian to develop Baldur's Gate 3 the way they did. Early access and the cash flow from charging full price for it allowed for both such a long dev cycle and paired with the success of Divinity Original Sin 2 (and probably funding from Wizards of the Coast) brought Larian in a situation that made it possible to increase their team to over 400 people during the time. However, neither of this factors started with the development Baldur's Gate 3.
Ever since Divinity Original Sin, Larian used an Early Access model for their games. It was a design choice they made to get player feedback and give their player's something to play while they wait for the game to release. It also produced content (e. g. people playing and streaming the game) that served as organic marketing for the games. And it was this choice that massively contributed to Larian's reputation as a game developer that values player feedback. And them successfully launching two successful, popular games that way built the trust of their consumer base in Larian's method. I was frequently in the steam discussions about Baldur's Gate 3 and there were countless threads about people questioning why people would pay full price for an Early Access (which isn't entirely correct, as it was more like a pre-order with an Early Access on top). And they answer was every time that they trusted Larian to deliver a great game that way, because they did before.
The direct feedback on the content you are developing and the collection of data and bug reports are major advantages on an Early Access system. That's not specific to Larian or Baldur's Gate 3, but the basic concept of Early Access. Larian just uses this system nearly perfectly in their development to make sure the end product is something the players will like. And they know that, because they get direct feedback and data from consumers who actually play the content. This almost surely prevents you from developing a game that doesn't meet player expectations if you listen and act on the feedback you collect. If you make use of Early Access, scenarios like Cyberpunk 2077 - where player's expected something a lot different from what they got, are very unlikely to happen. It's also based on common economical principles. You sell the most if you make what you customers want to buy. So the more you know what your customers want, the more likely you will make a successful and popular product.
To expand on the topic of cash flow, having a method to pre-fund the development is something Larian also did long before Baldur's Gate 3. In fact, it's something they had to do, because they don't have a publisher that helps with funding. Since Divinity Original Sin Larian used Crowd Funding in combination with the Early Access to fund the development, so they don't rely on pre- or after sales alone.
Overall, I fail to see how this scenario is such an anomaly that it can't be used by other, smaller studios. Afterall Larian successfully used these methods since they were a small studio on the verge of bankruptcy. It might be an anomaly in the sense that this approach isn't commonly used by game developers. But it's an approach that should be perfectly doable for most studios if they'd decide to go for it.
3. Over 400 developers
Yes, a team this size is necessary to create a game as large, ambitious and challenging as Baldur's Gate 3 or you will fail. And while it's true that a team that large is not feasible for a lot of game studios, it is not like Larian just started out with that. Even in the dev cycle of Baldur's Gate 3 they started with approx. 150 employees, expanding as they realized what was necessary to make the game they wanted to make. And contrary to most studios, they decided to scale their team up to meet the requirements instead of scaling down the game and cutting content. Is this a decision possible for most studios? No, unlikely. But they can start to figure out what they have to do to get into a position that allows them to do so. Larian started their current developing approach with Divinity Original Sin, not with Baldur's Gate 3.
4. The license, brand and world of one of largest entertainment IP's (D&D)
Yes, being the first AAA D&D 5E title together with D&D being more popular than ever before and being the long hoped for continuation of a beloved series created a lot of hype for the game. But it leaves some important factors out of the equation:
First, Larian is not the first studio that had this advantage. There have been many D&D games over the years (including the original Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 3) and not all of them were popular. D&D is notoriously hard to translate into a video game, because the freedom and reactivity of an collaborative improv game is difficult to replicate with the limitations of a pre-programmed and pre-written product. Few games were able to capture what D&D fans love about the IP, so attempting that comes with a lot of pressure and challenges. It's more of a double-edged sword than a automatically positive factor.
Also, a lot of people were disappointed with Baldur's Gate 3 being a purely turn-based RPG, because the previous title in the series were not. Larian was criticized my a lot of player's for using their own style instead of one more alike to the Baldur's Gate games before, some even saying it's nothing more than a Divinity title pretending to be Baldur's Gate.
Second, why did Larian the one to get the Baldur's Gate license after decades? They asked for it and were denied before. So what changed? They developed a highly successful award-winning CRPG with a surprising large mainstream appeal in a genre that's normally more of a niche. It was the success of Divinity Original Sin 2 and thus Larian's approach to tackling RPG's that earned them the license. They didn't need a big license before to create a massive, ambitious CRPG that pushed the genre standard. They got the license because they are so good at what they are doing and the players like it.
Final Thoughts
On one hand I understand why the game game developers tried to remind people that Baldur's Gate 3 is special and shouldn't be considered the norm for RPG's. It is a huge and incredibly ambitious undertaking, purposefully designed to be far beyond the scope most games are aiming for. If Baldur's Gate 3 delivers on all it promises, it might be a strong contender for the best RPG of all time. A game that exceeds everything most people thought possible in a CRPG by far. But just like a Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant in basketball shouldn't be considered the standard for every NBA player, players can't expect every RPG to be as grand as Baldur's Gate 3. But it will and should raise the bar for what it take to be considered to be one of the best RPG's.
On the other hand, I don't like how those dev tweets portray the circumstances behind Baldur's Gate 3 as something that unattainable for most, almost out of control. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as Larian rose from a small studio one step before bankruptcy to a AAA RPG developer, every studio can achieve that if they are willing to work towards it. Portraying it as an anomaly makes it seem as striving for this isn't realistic or doable. But it's not something that happened just because the stars aligned, but a direct result what Larian has been doing over the last decade. If you don't want to aim for the stars, that's perfectly fine. But you could if you really decided to take the necessary steps, no matter how small you are now. In the risk of repeating myself: Larian themselves did it, why shouldn't you be able to do it too?
The tweets reminds me of someone starting out coming to be best in their craft saying: "I will never be at your level, I lack the talent you have". They look at where Larian is now, compare it with their smaller studios are and just point out of the differences. Ignoring the steps Larian actively took to get to this point.
Instead of covering their base like that, studios should look at what Larian is doing and see if there is something they could use for their own development process. In my opinion, Larian is simply ahead of their time and has a better understanding of what their customers want than a lot of other studios. Instead of pointing out what an anomaly Baldur's Gate 3 supposedly is, the developers should take note about what makes this game what is and what Larian is doing what they are not.
A few key points that differentiates Larian from a lot of other developers in my view:
- They understand better than most how important it is to develop what your player base wants to play. It should be self explanatory, but a game that gives players what they want will always sell better and be more popular than a game doesn't. A lot of the disaster game releases (Cyberpunk 2077, Anthem to name a few) were partly because of executives not understanding what their customers really want and what's important to them.
- They understand how important it is to listen to your customers. Larian understands that best way to find out what their players want is to let them play a development build. You can test ideas directly with your audience and get direct feedback what works and what doesn't. If you listen to player feedback in that stage, you can improve and change elements of game that would otherwise negatively impact the reception of the game before it even releases. It's an arrangement from which both the studio and the players benefit. The studio gets funding ahead and information how to make a game their players want to buy and the players get a game tailored to what they like. Early access should definitely become a standard in game development.
- They continuously improve and refine their processes and style based on feedback. In Baldur's Gate 3, all aspects they have used in previous development cycles have been improved. They listed even more to player feedback during Early Access and the whole development and they (based on content creator impressions) have improved major criticisms of previous titles (e. g. lackluster later acts in Divinity Original Sin 2). This approach builds a lot trust in your customers and shows them that you are truly interested in their opinion.
- They are always aiming to improve and create better games. From being the first to fully voice their massive CRPG's to creating an insane amount of in game cutscenes, Larian always looks for ways to improve their craft in a way that also benefits the players. They don't shy away from the challenge, but look for ways to make it work. That results in constantly baffling their players with what they are able to do, leading to being seen as one of the best developers in their genre.
- They understand that creating a great game people want to play will also lead to economical success. If you understand that customers want and give it to them in great quality, you ensure that you always have people who trust you and buy your games. A lot of executives focus on the financial aspects above everything, gambling away their companies reputation by releasing games in an unfinished state or not meeting what players want. That might work in the short term, but it's very risky and over time it will lead to player's stopping to buy your products.
I personally hope that Baldur's Gate 3 will be everything it promises to be and that it will lead to developers rethinking their approach. Larian's approach works for games of any size as the core of their process is to find out what player's like and don't like about the game as they make it and then adjust the development process accordingly. If this approach catches on in the industry, I am convinced that both companies and players will benefit from it. Companies will sell more and have good reputations and the players have more great games to play.
