Rumours and Speculations

[Snowflakez]

BioWare was only really particularly special during the KOTOR days, in my opinion. It wasn't a "classic RPG" but it was a good narrative experience based on PnP mechanics. Dragon Age: Origins was the last game I played from them that I really enjoyed.

And of course, Bethesda has absolutely no relation to EA whatsoever. Thank god for that. Hate their games all you want, they aren't EA, and they're still committed to making enjoyable singleplayer experiences.

As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard and Rockstar has already lost their spots as "the best developers in the world." Bethesda is still in the top 3 for me, and CDPR is at #2. Obsidian is probably #1. Lots of indie devs deserve consideration, as well, but they don't have enough of a track record for me to include them one way or the other.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I haven't been getting anything of potent out of Bethesda's games in years, there's tons and tons of potential, but their principles of everything for everyone and not letting the player be responsible of anything (not narrative choices, not character builds, not world behavior, nothing) and not wanting anyone to miss anything makes their games horribly stale as every single action reeks of meaninglessness. Their games are like themeparks where you know everything is designed to be servile to the players whims and he answers for nothing. Morrowind had that too, but it still required something of the player.

Rockstar on the other hand makes interactive movies by the book. They have big prop worlds to marvel the visual simulation in, but between the scripted mission sequences there's not worthwhile to do there beyond occasional free-of-responsibility rampages to see how long you can survive the cops, and watching the AI goof around when you park a car in the middle of the road. Big empty worlds with no interactivity to speak of.

Those are all problems I would love to see CDPR address in CP2077 since those are apparently the market they aim for.

I've been a broken record about this and a good bunch of ther things for around five years now.... yay for presistence.

 

[Snowflakez]

I haven't been getting anything of potent out of Bethesda's games in years, there's tons and tons of potential, but their principles of everything for everyone and not letting the player be responsible of anything (not narrative choices, not character builds, not world behavior, nothing) and not wanting anyone to miss anything makes their games horribly stale as every single action reeks of meaninglessness. Their games are like themeparks where you know everything is designed to be servile to the players whims and he answers for nothing. Morrowind had that too, but it still required something of the player.

Rockstar on the other hand makes interactive movies by the book. They have big prop worlds to marvel the visual simulation in, but between the scripted mission sequences there's not worthwhile to do there beyond occasional free-of-responsibility rampages to see how long you can survive the cops, and watching the AI goof around when you park a car in the middle of the road. Big empty worlds with no interactivity to speak of.

Those are all problems I would love to see CDPR address in CP2077 since those seem to be the ballparks they aim for.

I've been a broken record about this and a good bunch of ther things for around five years now.... yay for presistence.

Hopefully you keep doing it for five more. This stuff needs to be discussed or CDPR will never have any reason to shake things up.

I agree with you about Bethesda games. But I think it comes down to your expectations. I don't buy Bethesda games because I expect reactivity. I buy them for immersion and blank-slate roleplay. Similarly, I wouldn't buy KCD or Pillars of Eternity or Baldur's Gate if I expected Skyrim levels of freedom and a lack of consequences to actions.

I also don't think Bethesda ever tries to be anything other than what they are, which can be good or bad depending on your preferences. They aren't really trying to make great "RPGs," they're just trying to make great (if not super polished) "games." Skyrim offered enough of a different experience to Oblivion for me to enjoy and play it for roughly 1200 hours now, but I didn't go into it looking for a Pillars of Eternity or Baldur's Gate-esque experience. I consider it one of the best games I've ever played, but not one of the best RPGs I've ever played, if that makes sense.

Look at Bethesda games as sandbox, action-adventure titles with roleplaying elements and you'll probably find something to enjoy. If not, hey, that's fine too. Everyone has their preferences.

One of the things I really wonder about with 2077 is these supposed "sandbox" elements. Does that mean GTA V or Skyrim? Does it just mean freedom of movement (fly and go anywhere)? Really curious about that. Hoping the first gameplay video elaborates.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I also don't think Bethesda ever tries to be anything other than what they are

They certainly are consistent in that regard and with what they do and how. For better or worse.

I don't buy Bethesda games because I expect reactivity. I buy them for immersion and blank-slate roleplay.

I just never could wrap my head around how it is "immersive" that the player is not accountable of anything, nothing's required of the character and the world doesn't care about anything. I can see the appeal in the free form simulation for a short period of time, but does it not just turn into a busywork simulation after a while, once the novelty of the world simulation (the nature parts) wears off. I think Bethesda's games are at their best when there are no NPC around... There's nothing to do that way but run around aimlessly (as if there were anything else to do otherwise either...), but at least the feel of the gameworld stays intact from "human touch" and interaction which is the one that normally ruins Bethie games (for reasons I stated earlier). Like a compressed and less tiresome version of No Man's Sky's finding and scavenging of planets.

I think the problem in Bethesda's "freedom" and "blank slate" characters is that it means nothing and leads nowhere. I guess you could say it "too" free, so free that it actually starts to bite itself in the ass, as what worth does freedom have if there's nothing to compare it to, no restrictions, no consequences, nothing against what the freedom exists. Just "go do everything".... If you catch my drift.

I like blank slate characters and semi-defined ones (like in Fallout 2) more than strictly defined ones (Geralt, Jensen, Shepard...), but if being that blank slate and having all that freedom stands for nothing, what value does it really have in the end?

Spoiler: This is immersion. This is what Fallout was made for.

Look at Bethesda games as sandbox, action-adventure titles with roleplaying elements and you'll probably find something to enjoy.

I tried. But at best it's just running around looking at stuff and being an errand boy. It can be fun in short durations, but once you take note that it's all just repetition despite of what you're doing, the illusion is hard to maintain.

One of the things I really wonder about with 2077 is these supposed "sandbox" elements. Does that mean GTA V or Skyrim? Does it just mean freedom of movement (fly and go anywhere)? Really curious about that. Hoping the first gameplay video elaborates.

It would be interesting to know, yes. I do hope, though, that it's not as shallow as GTA V or Skyrim.

 

[sv3672]

I agree with you about Bethesda games. But I think it comes down to your expectations. I don't buy Bethesda games because I expect reactivity. I buy them for immersion and blank-slate roleplay. Similarly, I wouldn't buy KCD or Pillars of Eternity or Baldur's Gate if I expected Skyrim levels of freedom and a lack of consequences to actions.

I do not entirely agree with the lack of reactivity, at least when it comes to their Fallout titles. Maybe there is not as much as one would want to have, but I think it has more to do with the lack of man power and resources relative to the scope of the project than some kind of intentional dumbing down. In Fallout 4, the player's character does not become the leader of all factions at once, faction related decisions do matter, sometimes even between the base game and DLCs (e.g. Acadia in Far Harbor can be destroyed by the Institute or the Brotherhood of Steel if they find out about it). Character stats can affect quest paths or the fates of named characters, quests can have more than one outcome, certain companions can die or become hostile to the player's character if you make bad decisions. Perhaps these kinds of things are not frequent enough, but they are there, even if there is an over-abundance of simple fetch and kill quests.

There are consequences also in Skyrim if you are looking for them, even though player freedom is obviously a major selling point. In the case of Elder Scrolls, it may also be a factor that the developers want all possible outcomes to be compatible with an eventual sequel, and without using a save import system like in BioWare or CDPR games. The Fallout series used the practice of making only one path valid in the sequel even before Bethesda took over it. Thus, the outcomes can be rather different, but also become somewhat pointless once the next game is released.

It may also be that it is just rather difficult and expensive to implement a large degree of reactivity and player agency in a fully 3D and voice acted AAA open world title. In the case of The Witcher 3, I think the game benefits a lot from having a fixed protagonist, as it can focus on a relatively narrow range of possibilities and implementing them well, while a lot of things are just not possible in the game but that is not seen as a problem because they would be out of character for Geralt. We will see how Cyberpunk 2077 handles the challenge, if any of the goals the game would need to accomplish in the ideal case need to be sacrificed, then which ones and to what extent.

As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard and Rockstar has already lost their spots as "the best developers in the world." Bethesda is still in the top 3 for me, and CDPR is at #2. Obsidian is probably #1. Lots of indie devs deserve consideration, as well, but they don't have enough of a track record for me to include them one way or the other.

Since the original quote is from a CEO, it is not clear how much the "top three developers" is about who is making the best games (which is subjective and it is easy to overlook small indie studios), or if it is more about commercial and/or critical success, or a mix of these like receiving awards and high review scores but also selling well.

 

[Snowflakez]

They certainly are consistent in that regard and with what they do and how. For better or worse.



I just never could wrap my head around how it is "immersive" that the player is not accountable of anything, nothing's required of the character and the world doesn't care about anything.

It would be interesting to know, yes. I do hope, though, that it's not as shallow as GTA V or Skyrim.

Yep, all great points. Immersion takes many forms, but for me, it was the world's aesthetics, the open wilderness and the fact that NPCs do have schedules, tasks and jobs they perform. Some people enjoy the games purely for that reason alone. They like RPing as somebody within a fairly believable world.

It's actually hard to nail down specifically what it is about Bethesda's games that kept me hooked for so long beyond immersion. Fallout 4 bored me to tears but Oblivion, Morrowind and Skyrim all grabbed my attention for well over 1000 hours each. I really have no idea what it is, beyond the immersion I explained before. The combat isn't all that fun. The stealth is... OK, but usually pretty bad. The magic is usually where the games shined prior to Skyrim, but even that is nothing terribly special. *shrug* Dunno. It is something, though, and I'll keep buying their games for whatever that mysterious reason is.

For me personally, I don't think my enjoyment of Bethesda RPGs in any way detracts from my enjoyment of other RPGs, so I'm glad they keep making them. Their games represent a different style and a different audience, which understandably doesn't jive with you. I love both Pillars of Eternity and Skyrim, and I even used to love Rockstar's games prior to GTA V.

And god, yeah, I think we can all agree we don't want another GTA V or Skyrim here. Whatever they mean, I'm hoping CDPR takes the better elements of both games' sandboxes -- GTA V's freedom of movement and Skyrim's freedom of choice, but with consequences and maybe less "kill everyone in the city" -- and add several improvements of their own as far as reactivity goes.

I do not entirely agree with the lack of reactivity, at least when it comes to their Fallout titles.

Since the original quote is from a CEO, it is not clear how much the "top three developers" is about who is making the best games (which is subjective and it is easy to overlook small indie studios), or if it is more about commercial and/or critical success, or a mix of these like receiving awards and high review scores but also selling well.

I don't disagree with any of this. I mean, all of Bethesda's games do have some level of reactivity. No denying that. And you're right, it's really just that they don't have as much as some would like.

But, I look at a game like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which had a much, much smaller budget than the likes of CDPR or Bethesda, and I have my mind blown. So, it is possible to create a giant open world RPG with fun, complex mechanics and heightened reactivity. What the heck are the big guys doing, then? (That's a rhetorical question, of course - KCD doesn't have the same level of freedom a Bethesda RPG does, and you play a fixed-ish protagonist, so already much less $ spent on genders and races. Plus, Bethesda pumps a lot more cash into art and marketing.)

Sure, it has its problems. Bugs, glitches, a bit of animation wonkiness. But them I'm reminded that it was an indie studio, and it's their first game ever. Again, mind blown.

Anyway, in the end, I don't fully buy the excuse that it's too expensive to do something like that in a AAA RPG. Quite simply, it's a stylistic choice. Bethesda has found their (rather big) niche and they will continue to cater to them, with small improvements over time.

I see nothing wrong with that, though. Again, I do not play Bethesda games for an experience I expect from a game like KCD or Fallout 2. Different audiences, different styles. I don't go over to GTA V's devs and demand they make me an RPG.

 

[Shavod]

Sure, it has its problems. Bugs, glitches, a bit of animation wonkiness. But them I'm reminded that it was an indie studio, and it's their first game ever. Again, mind blown.

Daniel Vavra was game director of Mafia 1 and 2, the other founder Martin Klima worked at Codemasters and Altar Games, so while it's the first game of that studio, it's developers did had a lot of experience behind their backs.

 

[SigilFey]

This is a great discussion! I love this discussion! I've had this discussion sooo many times, and I'm still not tired of this discussion!

Responding to all of the above from Snowflakez, kofeiiniturpa, and sv3672. All really good points, and I largely agree. Especially with Bethesda's contributions to gaming in general, I've always prayed that I'd finally be given a Beth game that didn't rely on a predetermined story arc. An Elder Scrolls in which, if I played a thief, I could sneak through the game and steal something that would result in an endgame resolution. If I played a mage, the Fighter's Guild would tell me to take a hike when I showed up to apply for membership. If I insisted they test me, they would put me in a ring and wipe the floor with my robe-wearing bum, then tell me to go take a hike. If I was the Grandmaster of the Blades -- whether I supported the Empire, the Thalmor, the Stormcloaks, or decided to try to seize power directly would be up to me...not the script.

Again, however, I think that such exclusive options would greatly impact the length of a single playthrough. I could easily foresee such devotion to player agency creating a "main quest" that would only take ~10-20 hours to complete. I still think it would be a hit in the end, though, because I would probably still be itching to play the game after that. I could play indefinitely in my "endgame world", but I would also be inspired to create a completely different character, play through the game a completely different way, have a completely different experience, and come to a completely different resolution. Then, I could do it again. And again. And again...

I wish devs would not focus so much on "length". To be honest, I prefer shorter games. I've rarely encountered a game that held my attention from beginning to end. I've never once managed to get all the way through a Beth title (except Skyrim) without growing tired of it and playing something else for a while. For the ones that I did play all the way through to conclusion "without interruption", it had nothing to do with how long they were -- it had to do with formula, the mechanics, the aesthetics that just happened to tickle my fancy. Ultima VII. The original XCOM: UFO Defense. Descent: Freespace. Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight and Jedi Outcast (not JKII, though). The original Call of Duty and CoD: Modern Warfare. The original Fable. And most recently, TW3. Length doesn't matter one whit to me. (I'm happy to play through Modern Warfare three times in a row until I've gotten my fix, since it only takes ~5 hours to clock the entire campaign.)

When it comes to Bethesda's "anything, everything, and two kitchen sinks in every single playthrough"...it may be fun, but it always winds up killing the energy and leaving me rolling my eyes. It's disappointing. I may come back and finish later, but it usually takes me 2 or 3 attempts at starting and stopping to find a character that works within the linear confines of the story. It requires me to know ahead of time what will be forced on my character in order to create one that I can immerse in. I feel really, really bad for Fallout 4, as it did something I've been calling for since Morrowind -- the factions were the pathway to the endgame. They weren't just things I did on the side, they were forces of resolution within the story arc itself. (But...then FO4 was marred by a host of other issues, and I hope Beth maintains the "your faction = your endgame" system.) In the end, though, I never feel as if I fully identify with a Beth-style character. They're generally just a costume I wear while I run around a Beth world and do...whatever I want. By comparison, a character I build in Mount and Blade tends to stand out in my mind. I distinctly remember my trader that rose to prominence, becoming a vassal of Swadia and building three booming towns before rising to kingship. I also remember the tournament champion that took to raiding villages, becoming so infamous that his own employer became hostile toward him, but so wealthy and powerful he repeatedly fought off their army and "died" defending a castle he had stolen and held for months. Yep, the graphics might not be as good as Skyrim, and some of the systems are a bit "bare bones", but the sense of player agency and development of character is through the roof.

But, I look at a game like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which had a much, much smaller budget than the likes of CDPR or Bethesda, and I have my mind blown. So, it is possible to create a giant open world RPG with fun, complex mechanics and heightened reactivity. What the heck are the big guys doing, then?

And this is so true. Haven't tried it yet (I'm waiting for the patches to come and go), however I think this game is living proof that a big budget may help but is not what makes the difference. I've watched the first 6 hours of gameplay, and I definitely hear the complaints, but the execution is fantastic. (The attack on the town was so well handled. It felt like a scene from Game of Thrones. So balanced and impactful.)

I can easily imagine a scenario where millions of additional dollars were poured into it...the engine getting overly-complicated...more features being introduced than could reasonably be included in a meaningful way...and the game coming out as a disjointed mess that left players completely baffled and disappointed.

Instead, you know what I remember? An interview with the creator where he expressed how frustrated and crushed he was when he realized they could not include Henry's dog, and had to make the decision to cut it from the game. Not, We couldn't afford it. But rather, We arrived at the conclusion that we could not implement it in a meaningful way, and putting it in the way we can do it would detract from the overall experience. So, we had to let it go.

Yes. YES. Yes-yes-yes-yes-yes. That's the way you put an experience together and decide how a game will work. Money can't help that, but it can create the illusion of potential where there really isn't any. Less is more.

 

[sv3672]

But, I look at a game like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which had a much, much smaller budget than the likes of CDPR or Bethesda, and I have my mind blown. So, it is possible to create a giant open world RPG with fun, complex mechanics and heightened reactivity. What the heck are the big guys doing, then? (That's a rhetorical question, of course - KCD doesn't have the same level of freedom a Bethesda RPG does, and you play a fixed-ish protagonist, so already much less $ spent on genders and races. Plus, Bethesda pumps a lot more cash into art and marketing.)

I did not play or buy KCD yet (better wait until those bugs are fixed), so I do not know much about the game. The developer is not that small, though, they seem to have about 80 employees, which if I recall correctly is comparable to the size of CDPR when they made Assassins of Kings. Licensing CryEngine and related tools may also have helped somewhat, it is cheaper than developing RED engine from scratch, and perhaps it does not have some limitations of the admittedly dated technology used in BGS titles. But again, I know very little about the actual content in the game, the world, quests, the total amount of voice acting, etc.

Less is more.

An important point indeed, it is better to succeed at few goals than to fail at many.

 

[Sardukhar]

The developer is not that small, though, they seem to have about 80 employees, .

Yeah, not sure where that came from, but according to Wikipedia as of 2014, the backers for KCD raised about 2 million USD.

2 million US is not a lot of money. I read a non-referenced sample that suggested with private backer funding they might have had access to as much as 15 million USD. Still not a lot of money.

It is also Warhorse's first game.

My eldest son , playing it and also cursing the bugs while having a fun time, was wondering repeatedly why we -don't- see more examples of design cleverness like your stolen items becoming unstolen over time, like guards not magically knowing you've murdered someone, like getting knocked off your horse by a low hung branch or stone arch, like covering your face reducing your charisma - same thing for muddy clothes.

It's a good question. I told him I think it's risk. I hope CDPR is not averse to risk, but you know in many ways KCD reminds me of another, brilliant new ideas game. One where you had to pick a side and neither was a great choice. Where combat was kind of weird but also new. Where failure was...interesting.

Not Witcher 3. Witcher 1. Still in some ways my favourite Witcher and favourite fantasy game.

So yeah. I dunno. I guess we'll see how bold they've been with Cyberpunk.

 

[SigilFey]

My eldest son , playing it and also cursing the bugs while having a fun time, was wondering repeatedly why we -don't- see more examples of design cleverness like your stolen items becoming unstolen over time, like guards not magically knowing you've murdered someone, like getting knocked off your horse by a low hung branch or stone arch, like covering your face reducing your charisma - same thing for muddy clothes.

"Because these are unproven mechanics -- no high-grossing games that we can draw comparisons to on the present market include anything like this." (Breaths in sharply through his teeth. Puts away his checkbook. Looks hesitantly at the other investors.) "I think we'll have to pass. Sorry, but best of luck with your project!" (Pulls out his iPhone. Considers the two games he owns; decides on Candy Crush over Angry Birds. Quickly grows bored and considers, not for the first time, that "gaming" really isn't his thing. The next team of developers enters...)

 

[Suhiira]

My eldest son , playing it and also cursing the bugs while having a fun time, was wondering repeatedly why we -don't- see more examples of design cleverness like your stolen items becoming unstolen over time, like guards not magically knowing you've murdered someone, like getting knocked off your horse by a low hung branch or stone arch, like covering your face reducing your charisma - same thing for muddy clothes.

It's a good question. I told him I think it's risk. I hope CDPR is not averse to risk, but you know in many ways KCD reminds me of another, brilliant new ideas game. One where you had to pick a side and neither was a great choice. Where combat was kind of weird but also new. Where failure was...interesting.

Not Witcher 3. Witcher 1. Still in some ways my favourite Witcher and favourite fantasy game.

So yeah. I dunno. I guess we'll see how bold they've been with Cyberpunk.

Most of the "Powers that Be" that run the gaming development companies strictly as a "for profit" business are VERY risk adverse. They really think that because game X sold well they can make a clone and sell almost as many copies. So any concept that's not "proven" and pre-existing in another game is shunned like a leper.

 

[Shavod]

2 million US is not a lot of money. I read a non-referenced sample that suggested with private backer funding they might have had access to as much as 15 million USD. Still not a lot of money.

Since it's Czech studio, just like CDPR, they do pay a lower wages then western studios, so it certainly help with the budget management. For comparison, 15 million dollars is nearly a half of Witcher 3 development budget together with the costs of developing their own engine and different technological tools, which I assume is more expensive then licensing different engine (I heard the costs of licensing CryEngine are around one million dollars). What I'm saying is for a studio like that 15 millions is quite a lot of dough.

 

[sv3672]

Yeah, not sure where that came from

I found the number here.

"Because these are unproven mechanics -- no high-grossing games that we can draw comparisons to on the present market include anything like this." (Breaths in sharply through his teeth. Puts away his checkbook. Looks hesitantly at the other investors.) "I think we'll have to pass. Sorry, but best of luck with your project!" (Pulls out his iPhone. Considers the two games he owns; decides on Candy Crush over Angry Birds. Quickly grows bored and considers, not for the first time, that "gaming" really isn't his thing. The next team of developers enters...)

There are many mechanics like that that are actually not hard to implement, but tend to be missing from AAA titles, perhaps because developers think there is not enough demand for them, and they can make QA more difficult (i.e. more potential for bugs and glitches). Larger studios prefer a polished and generally predictable experience. They might have a point, though, since for example The Witcher 3 receives little to no criticism for the relative lack of interactivity features, while if a game is buggy or unpolished, it has a noticeable impact on its review scores.

Since it's Czech studio, just like CDPR, they do pay a lower wages then western studios, so it certainly help with the budget management. For comparison, 15 million dollars is nearly a half of Witcher 3 development budget together with the costs of developing their own engine and different technological tools, which I assume is more expensive then licensing different engine (I heard the costs of licensing CryEngine are around one million dollars). What I'm saying is for a studio like that 15 millions is quite a lot of dough.

I remember a figure of about $10 million for The Witcher 2, which may be the more comparable game (perhaps KCD is larger, but I doubt it would be comparable to Wild Hunt). Not sure if that includes marketing costs.

Most of the "Powers that Be" that run the gaming development companies strictly as a "for profit" business are VERY risk adverse. They really think that because game X sold well they can make a clone and sell almost as many copies. So any concept that's not "proven" and pre-existing in another game is shunned like a leper.

A new IP by a smaller developer is at some level of advantage here, compared to the Nth sequel to some established large franchise. The game can be made however way the developers want it, with any tools that suit the task the best, they can focus on interesting new ideas, rather than fulfilling expectations. If something does not work well within the context of the game (like the dog companion mentioned earlier), it can simply be cut without upsetting anyone. Cyberpunk 2077 has part of that advantage being "new" as a 3D game, although it is based on an existing PnP and still has to be an AAA title.

 

[Snowflakez]

"Because these are unproven mechanics -- no high-grossing games that we can draw comparisons to on the present market include anything like this." (Breaths in sharply through his teeth. Puts away his checkbook. Looks hesitantly at the other investors.) "I think we'll have to pass. Sorry, but best of luck with your project!" (Pulls out his iPhone. Considers the two games he owns; decides on Candy Crush over Angry Birds. Quickly grows bored and considers, not for the first time, that "gaming" really isn't his thing. The next team of developers enters...)

OMG... I got a kick out of this... It's so true, at least in my opinion. Fortunately, I don't see CDPR as this sort of company. Yay for creative/financial independence, for the most part (Stockholders aside).

A new IP by a smaller developer is at some level of advantage here, compared to the Nth sequel to some established large franchise. The game can be made however way the developers want it, with any tools that suit the task the best, they can focus on interesting new ideas, rather than fulfilling expectations. If something does not work well within the context of the game (like the dog companion mentioned earlier), it can simply be cut without upsetting anyone. Cyberpunk 2077 has part of that advantage being "new" as a 3D game, although it is based on an existing PnP and still has to be an AAA title.

"They might have a point, though, since for example The Witcher 3 receives little to no criticism for the relative lack of interactivity features, while if a game is buggy or unpolished, it has a noticeable impact on its review scores."

I mean... Yeah, because nobody (As in, the mainstream gaming audience) had experienced that sort of thing in previous Witcher titles and didn't expect to see it there. Plus, very few (if any, aside from KCD and smaller indie titles) modern RPGs have any reactivity at all, so it's not something people are exposed to. They won't criticize a game for not having something when they've never had that thing to begin with.

Having played KCD, I'm absolutely going to criticize future RPGs for not implementing any of its successful reactive elements. Because, in my mind, it's set a new standard in that regard. Whether or not companies cater to my specific desires is another story - they almost certainly will not. But when I'm given something that is (subjectively) better than what I've been given previously, I'm going to hold a company with millions of dollars worth of budget (And 300 team members) to a similar standard, because they should be held to that standard. CDPR is not a small little indie studio with 10 members anymore. They're big, and they have the resources, talent and passion to make something phenomenal.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to have every element I want... as long as it's a good game free of BS and has most of the basic things I want, I'll play it. High reactivity isn't really a "Basic" thing for me, as yes it does require quite a bit of extra thought and effort to work out.

Also, as Sard said, ~$2 million ain't that much. 80 team members ain't that much. What they have accomplished is nothing sort of amazing to me. I'm going to be referencing their work for years to come. It doesn't need to be perfect or bug-free (again, small team, limited budget, and even now they're actively listening to the community and patching bugs and adding features). In fact, most AAA titles aren't, so I'm not sure where you got the "larger studios prefer a polished and generally predictable experience" thing from.

Bethesda, as much as I love them, releases their games in a horribly broken state. EA is no exception bug-wise. Nor is Warner Brothers or Ubisoft. These companies do not release polished experiences, they release "AAA" experiences, for all the good that does them.

No hostility intended, FWIW! Just discussing and adding my thoughts on the issue.

 

[Shavod]

I remember a figure of about $10 million for The Witcher 2, which may be the more comparable game (perhaps KCD is larger, but I doubt it would be comparable to Wild Hunt). Not sure if that includes marketing costs.

I was about to bring Witcher 2, but since both Kingdom Come and Witcher 3 were open world games I assumed it just made more sense to compare their respective budgets (but how they compare in size, I don't know yet). With marketing I assume this is a similar case as with Witcher 3 marketing costs, which were mostly covered by publishers, plus in case of KC marketing campaign was quite small in comparison to the one Witcher had, but the game still managed to be relatively successfull.

 

[SigilFey]

Most of the "Powers that Be" that run the gaming development companies strictly as a "for profit" business are VERY risk adverse. They really think that because game X sold well they can make a clone and sell almost as many copies. So any concept that's not "proven" and pre-existing in another game is shunned like a leper.

My post above has waaay more scathing sarcasm dripping off of every letter. But, yeah. One of my least favorite aspects of any industry. (Also a pet peeve...in case anyone missed that. )

Since it's Czech studio, just like CDPR, they do pay a lower wages then western studios, so it certainly help with the budget management. For comparison, 15 million dollars is nearly a half of Witcher 3 development budget together with the costs of developing their own engine and different technological tools, which I assume is more expensive then licensing different engine (I heard the costs of licensing CryEngine are around one million dollars). What I'm saying is for a studio like that 15 millions is quite a lot of dough.

Which is magic in its own right. Money throughout the gaming industry is largely wasted. As in, there are plenty of methods that could be used to do things much more cheaply and efficiently, but producers will just keep spending exorbitant amounts of money doing things the way they're "used to". (We have the same problems in the Theatre. And schools. Most film productions. A lot of restaurants [...I just realized I know a lot chefs... Hm.] Everyone's always afraid of doing something new, and a large number of the people responsible for making the final decision of where the money will be spent have no grounded understanding of what it takes to actually do the job in question. They've never actually done it themselves.)

I like CDPR's approach to CP 2077 because, yes, it is more expensive to initially build all in-house tools and engines (not to mention figuring out the tricks and techniques to get things done efficiently with brand new tools and engines!), but once it's done, the crew will have an intimate understanding of how everything works. That should save a lot of money in the long run...unless something goes horribly awry. From the looks of it, TW3 was quite a learning experience, and it still came together beautifully in the end! I also like how they're being very quiet and private during these early development stages. While I would like a peek just like everyone else, there's a certain level of extreme wisdom in just shutting the doors and focusing on fulfilling their vision. No distractions. No comparisons. No doubts being thrown at their heads from 500,000 people a day on social media. Just buckling down and moving forward. (No producers banging on the door and ringing the phone off the hook with "suggestions", "new requirements", and "requests for updates".)

 

[Snowflakez]

My post above has waaay more scathing sarcasm dripping off of every letter. But, yeah. One of my least favorite aspects of any industry. (Also a pet peeve...in case anyone missed that. )




Which is magic in its own right. Money throughout the gaming industry is largely wasted. As in, there are plenty of methods that could be used to do things much more cheaply and efficiently, but producers will just keep spending exorbitant amounts of money doing things the way they're "used to". (We have the same problems in the Theatre. And schools. Most film productions. A lot of restaurants [...I just realized I know a lotchefs... Hm.] Everyone's always afraid of doing something new, and a large number of the people responsible for making the final decision of where the money will be spent have no grounded understanding of what it takes to actually do the job in question. They've never actually done it themselves.)

I like CDPR's approach to CP 2077 because, yes, it is more expensive to initially build all in-house tools and engines (not to mention figuring out the tricks and techniques to get things done efficiently with brand new tools and engines!), but once it's done, the crew will have an intimate understanding of how everything works. That should save a lot of money in the long run...unless something goes horribly awry. From the looks of it, TW3 was quite a learning experience, and it still came together beautifully in the end! I also like how they're being very quiet and private during these early development stages. While I would like a peek just like everyone else, there's a certain level of extreme wisdom in just shutting the doors and focusing on fulfilling their vision. No distractions. No comparisons. No doubts being thrown at their heads from 500,000 people a day on social media. Just buckling down and moving forward. (No producers banging on the door and ringing the phone off the hook with "suggestions", "new requirements", and "requests for updates".)

Yup, I'm with you. I respect the hell out of CDPR's approach to development, even if I get frustrated with them from time to time.

The only thing that bothers me is not knowing even the most basic of the game's concepts. I don't need weekly, monthly or even yearly progress updates.

But, for example, it'd be a bit of an unpleasant surprise to only learn that the game doesn't have character creation once at E3, or that it's actually not an "RPG" at all but more of a first person shooter with a skill tree. These are the sorts of things even the most secretive of companies (Taleworlds, anyone?) give details on initially, even if the intricacies of these systems are subject to change. These should be the things that are (Relatively) set in stone, the core fundamentals of the game.

If these core fundamentals change, that should be disclosed, because it sets the stage for the entirety of the rest of the game. Character creation (or the lack thereof) dictates the sort of game they're making.

 

[Kuboniusz]

I spend about 15 hours in KCD And while its reactivity and nonlinearity in terms of gameplay are superb and deserve a huge round of applause, the game seems to be quite linear in terms of choices and consequences (something in which TW series, especially AoK, shines). As it has been mentioned before, every additional branch means more testing, more bugs, more effort, more money. Now the thing is, could CDPR connect those two things in CP without making a buggy unplayable mess because suddenly one quest has 10 different outcomes that need to be thoroughly polished.

 

[Sardukhar]

I found the number here.

Yeah I saw that but I went to the link and it had nothing about company size. There was a video link but it was a 30 minute gameplay beta...sooo?

I dunno.

I've fought both sides of this argument. That big studios can make good, even great games. GTA IV for example was great.

CDPR made a great game when they were a "big" studio. They seem pretty determined to do it again and without a big budget and crew, I'm not sure if a game can really hit the kind of scale for world building that I think we need to get both RPG mechanics and 1st/3rd person, at least not without seeing the invisible walls, as it were. [COLOR=inherit !important]


[/COLOR]