No the point is it is not 'just' a linear story. It is a playground for physics and combat as well. That is the key line through all their games. Those who enjoy ruleset games enjoy exploring the different route paths combat can take through those rulesets and the classes within them. That is the point.
That's not untrue. But I never really said it WAS just the story. The point is that the story is the core feature of the game. That's what's for sale. Playing the game is fun, but experiencing the story is the design objective of the game and everything else serves that point.
Crafting, dialogue, all the mechanics of the game are there to serve the objective of the game, which is to tell a story. I mean, it's D&D. At it's core, that's what D&D is. Have you ever reran the same module with friends? I have, and even years apart and despite all the other things I enjoyed, I still had to constantly hold myself back because I already knew the module.
Absolutely, IMO, Red is first a gamer that writes opinions not so much straight news.
Pretty much it. Writing these, especially when I have to travel (though that doesn't happen as much atm), actually costs me. I do it because I enjoy it... and maybe because I get to claim video games on my taxes as a business expense. lol
But I don't really have much of an objective beyond supporting studios and projects that I like, and just enjoying being semi-creative for a couple hours a week.
I basically write about the stuff I want to write about, which is going to be the stuff I play. I'm not a journalist by any means. Actually just passed on an article this week after getting some inside info on something. Just not interested in that sort of stuff, so not going to write about it.
I don't want to be too hard on Red. I think (and hope) he can take some criticism. I have much respect for him as a fellow gamer and vet. My criticisms don't come from a mean or condemning perspective. I love to read his articles and enjoy arguing with him from time to time. I tend to be on the same page more often than not, but sometimes we see things differently. Forum messages can sometimes sound harsher than intended so I hope it isn't received that way because I'm not feeling angry or hostile, just strongly in disagreement (I think lol).
You can't hurt my feelings, so don't worry about it.
Besides, engaging someone and trying to force them to prove their points, in my opinion, is one of the most legitimate forms of respect you can show. I don't expect a moron to defend their position, but someone I think is intelligent and wrong?
...okay, maybe not always wrong. Sometimes I'm just a jerk and like to mess with people, too. lol
Meh, maybe many of us are tired of everything having to be, kickstart, crowdfund, loot box, early access, pre-order, day one dlc, whatever happened to here's a completed game! all done, have fun.
Whatever happened to it? Here you go and see for yourself
...and man do I hate it. Editor asked me not to write an article about that one last week, and boy am I glad I dodged that one. I bought it and fully planned to write about it, but I just hated it. Not that I couldn't find good things to write about... It's me... but I wouldn't have given it a recommendation.
I think a lot of our disagreement revolves around many of us seeing changes to how games are funded as inherently dangerous. Mendel Summed up what could happen better than I did.
Other posters have a studio led approach, questionable funding gets a pass if the studio has a good reputation. Indeed some go further than that, it is not questionable because this is Larian. I just cannot see that at all, the history of gaming means I lost that level of faith way back.
The fact is we know early access has and will be abused, sure this is not the best game to highlight concerns, but it is high time the gaming industry started talking about this rather than pretending it is fine.
I can really appreciate what you are saying here because I share the same concerns about the changes in monetization in the gaming industry.
However, there was no reason to bring the pitch forks out on one of the good guys. These kind of alternate funding avenues are the only reason Larian is even still around. There would be no Divinity OS/ OS2 without them.
Its just bizarre that the author and some posters have focused so much on kind of scaremongering about EA in this particular case. I could totally understand a rant about most of the crowdfunded mmos or some title that has been in EA for years with no real improvement, but to attack a company that has an outstanding track record on using EA to deliver amazing games just kind of blew my mind.
I am not sure you can compare the funding of early access RPG's with crowd funded MMORPG's, they are simply not being developed the same way. I cannot see why being critical of one funding method means you must be critical of another. Should everyone who has concerns about F2P also have concerns about about casino gameplay?
Why now? Why not call Early Access out earlier? Well I think some people are just waking up to this, which is quite natural really. Or maybe Red changed his mind, if politicians can do that I guess even gaming journalists should be allowed to?
To borrow a phrase from our mate Lahnmir we are talking about a "fan favourite studio" here and I think that's why people are defending this. I find it hard to understand why posters cannot separate the issue from the studio, if this were an Electronic Arts game would you all be coming on here to defend the early access?
Talking of which I hope posters realise that soon nearly every AAA game will have an early access stage. Just like they all have pre-order, special editions and so on. Gaming is an industry that has shown that every new form of dubious funding spreads to most gaming companies within a couple of years.
I DO change my mind. I did on Star Citizen, for instance.
That's not it here, though. I'm... a little less enamored with crowdfunding that I had been at start. I thought it was a really cool way for indie studios to get some runway, but it's been coopted and turned into a marketing tool by larger companies. I still back projects, but not really like I did early on.
Another thing I've changed my mind on is open development. I felt like giving players direct access to the development process would be a great way for the consumers to learn about how games are made, but that didn't really happen. There are still a lot of advantages to that system, but I think in the balance, the disadvantages sort of weigh it in the other direction.
w/r to EA specifically, I actually don't object to the idea for the most part. That's the part of the game that I enjoy exploring the most, so typically I support it. It's really this specific genre because of where the value in these specific games is defined that I object.
Like I said elsewhere, it's like getting re-released book where the author is still editing for content and adding/removing chapters while you're reading it. Once you've spoiled the core story, it's done. You can't really get that back.
It's all good. I bought Dark and Light and it's been complete trash for most of its life. I reinstalled recently and it's been pretty good so far. It's like fantasy ARK without the pointless pooping. It does feel a lot like an ARK reskin but with more interesting skill progression and a less clunky self-run and single player server experience.
I also bought Pixark which is a buggy mess, but still enjoy it more than ARK to be honest.
Maybe I'm less critical of people buying what some consider "dumb games" because I like to experiment sometimes and buy some real questionable stuff just for the experience.
Pooping is pretty dumb, imo. Who's their target demographic, 9 year-olds?
Dark and Light has improved ? Now that is news. I really thought that game had faded into obscurity. I did like how they game looked. I must see how much it has changed. Thanks for mentioning it.
I do want to play Ark Survival but the strain I might inflict on my computer on single player has kept me from trying. I bought it when it was dirt cheap during an offer but coupled with insane installation size and prospect of burdening my computer unduly on single play I have not even tried it.
I have considered playing on those private servers but they all seem to be slightly nefarious in that a couple even changed from PvE to PvP so it frightened me off. On the other hand playing alone is so lonely.
Stood up an ARK server for my niece the other day. Played it with her a bit. Optimization was terrible and there were so many problems. It's a cool idea, and I don't regret giving them some cash, but Conan Exiles is just way better, imo. I know some feel otherwise, but I think New World will be the jump from CE that CE was from ARK.
I've got Dark and Light and played it a bit. Haven't in a while. May have to give that one a look if it's better, then.
The point of this game for you is the story. Based on your comments on RPGs in general for you they are about story. We have different ideas about that which is fine. I play them for their freedom, systems and combat. This game is not being made just for it's story. What is for sale is their track record of creating interesting encounters within the framework of an interesting environment this time with the 5e ruleset within the Dungeons and Dragons world with the banner of Baldur's Gate above it. Did you enjoy the story of Divinity Original Sin? Many fans of the game did not. Yet it was still incredibly well received. It was also made for things beyond story as well. Many RPG games are made like that. This title is no exception. We will have to agree to disagree because we apparently play RPGs for entirely different things.
lol Honestly? What I liked about Divinity was the game mechanics. I found them really interesting and innovative. Just a lot of stuff about the game that I liked... and no, I can't really remember the story so I don't think that was a big part of it for me.
I'm not saying folks can't like the game for other reasons. I'm not even saying people can't go buy it. I'll even go so far as to say that I'd recommend the game in a heartbeat if BG3 didn't have that EA tag on it. I think it's a good game and I think they did everything right.... except, releasing Early Access.
I absolutely think folks will enjoy things other than the the story, but it's not just that the story if important to me. I think that's a little where this has gone sideways. That wasn't a subjective statement, it was an objective statement. The fundamental aspect of an RPG IS the story. Sure, some people will enjoy other things, but that foundational element doesn't change. Otherwise, it'd be another genre.
Just to reiterate, I'm not saying it's a bad game or that I don't like it as it is right now, or even that I wouldn't buy a release version of it this minute. I'm saying that "Early Access" is a get-out-of-jail-free card that RPGs don't get to play by virtue of what their core value to the general audience is. AND, I'm saying that core value can be proven through data, as I noted in another comment, when you look at concurrency and persistence overtime between genres.
FPSs, RTSs, MMOs, they all have a basic pattern to those stats that will be similar.
RPGs do not, because there is a finite conclusion to them. You might continue to play and find value in other areas, but there is a core game with a specific story that's finite.
I will grant you that with games like Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, and others, it's a little blurry. I think my position breaks down on those games because they sort of stray to the fringe of the genre a bit. A good point holds true against all tests, so games like that do leave room for me to be wrong, I think.
Well, regardless of what we think. The majority of people actually in EA really like being in it (reddit, youtube).
Biggest gripes are bugs, performance, no exp for resolving encounters without killing everything (in combat)... leading to underpowered characters, and lack of healing.
Some have completed the first Act in 5 hours, others in 20.
loving the game so far. I've been skipping cutscenes and rolled a race and class i would never select as my main. This will help the game feel fresh on release.
i'm ok with spoilers here and there but all in all. If you invest in early access its to get a sneek peek and help the devs improve their game.
I think a lot of our disagreement revolves around many of us seeing changes to how games are funded as inherently dangerous. Mendel Summed up what could happen better than I did.
Other posters have a studio led approach, questionable funding gets a pass if the studio has a good reputation. Indeed some go further than that, it is not questionable because this is Larian. I just cannot see that at all, the history of gaming means I lost that level of faith way back.
The fact is we know early access has and will be abused, sure this is not the best game to highlight concerns, but it is high time the gaming industry started talking about this rather than pretending it is fine.
I can really appreciate what you are saying here because I share the same concerns about the changes in monetization in the gaming industry.
However, there was no reason to bring the pitch forks out on one of the good guys. These kind of alternate funding avenues are the only reason Larian is even still around. There would be no Divinity OS/ OS2 without them.
Its just bizarre that the author and some posters have focused so much on kind of scaremongering about EA in this particular case. I could totally understand a rant about most of the crowdfunded mmos or some title that has been in EA for years with no real improvement, but to attack a company that has an outstanding track record on using EA to deliver amazing games just kind of blew my mind.
Context does matter.
I agree another game would have been a far better choice, but I don't think Red can so easily pick and choose here. For him the problems about EA only surface in story games, so he needed a big story game for this to be an issue. For me any game with EA is questionable, but even I would have looked for a big name, doing an article about some game hardly anyone has heard of is rather self defeating.
We are not bringing the "pitchforks out on the good guys", is there anyone out there who does not think Divinity OS 1 And 2 are among the finest isometric rpg's to date? Those you think are "scaremongering" here believe they will be applauding another fine release when BG3 launches, this is not about the studio.
Context does matter, can you tell us a better story game to have brought this issue up in? There are always going to be fans who think "their" studio should have not have been picked for an article about dodgy funding models.
I think a lot of our disagreement revolves around many of us seeing changes to how games are funded as inherently dangerous. Mendel Summed up what could happen better than I did.
Other posters have a studio led approach, questionable funding gets a pass if the studio has a good reputation. Indeed some go further than that, it is not questionable because this is Larian. I just cannot see that at all, the history of gaming means I lost that level of faith way back.
The fact is we know early access has and will be abused, sure this is not the best game to highlight concerns, but it is high time the gaming industry started talking about this rather than pretending it is fine.
I can really appreciate what you are saying here because I share the same concerns about the changes in monetization in the gaming industry.
However, there was no reason to bring the pitch forks out on one of the good guys. These kind of alternate funding avenues are the only reason Larian is even still around. There would be no Divinity OS/ OS2 without them.
Its just bizarre that the author and some posters have focused so much on kind of scaremongering about EA in this particular case. I could totally understand a rant about most of the crowdfunded mmos or some title that has been in EA for years with no real improvement, but to attack a company that has an outstanding track record on using EA to deliver amazing games just kind of blew my mind.
Context does matter.
I agree another game would have been a far better choice, but I don't think Red can so easily pick and choose here. For him the problems about EA only surface in story games, so he needed a big story game for this to be an issue. For me any game with EA is questionable, but even I would have looked for a big name, doing an article about some game hardly anyone has heard of is rather self defeating.
We are not bringing the "pitchforks out on the good guys", is there anyone out there who does not think Divinity OS 1 And 2 are among the finest isometric rpg's to date? Those you think are "scaremongering" here believe they will be applauding another fine release when BG3 launches, this is not about the studio.
Context does matter, can you tell us a better story game to have brought this issue up in? There are always going to be fans who think "their" studio should have not have been picked for an article about dodgy funding models.
Again, who says its a funding model and not a way to give players an early piece of the pie? We already know they’ll finish the game and we also know that if one studio will be able to deliver an amazing game this is the one. Why does the funding narrative keeps being pushed? Are people that jaded that they can’t see any other reason for this move? Pleasing fans, good advertisement, creating hype, all more plausible reasons then “dodgy funding practice.” In this case that is, plenty of actual crap going on out there, people should stop overgeneralizing so much.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It all boils down to one quality in the end and that is patience.
Even if Larian turns out to be disgracefully deceitful about this early access (past record be damned) and turns out a game that is far short of their previous release and fulfills every single nasty theory about them, what is to prevent you from not buying their game now or later.
All the people who feel that Larian is a bad company that is taking advantage of their fans and should not be releasing a game that has a very extensive story (that will be spoiled because reasons...) need only do one thing and that is to NOT buy the game.
None of you have the fortitude to do that though. You're complaining because you want everyone else to pick up the pitchfork and march along with you so that companies only release games when they are good and ready. Well good luck on that because it isn't going to happen that ship has sailed long ago and Larian isn't the hill you pick to die on.
I for one will reward a company based on their previous performances and Larian has proven by releasing amazing enhanced editions at no extra costs and continued to work on their games even after they were fully released. This is the absolute worst example you have picked to try out your theory that this company is a good for nothing cheat that is going to lose the desire to work now that they have your money (cue in Mutley snicker by Swen Vincke).
As for the complaint that it utterly ruins the story and early access shouldn't be used for a game that is of this nature the answer is to simply avoid the spoilers and to exercise some personal restraint and wait till the game is released. What other people do with their choices and choosing to play now isn't any of your business.
They're not going to be deceitful. I don't know anyone in the company personally, but they've been around a long time and have a good reputation.
My suspicions are they ran short on budget and investors insisted on Early Access rather than shelling out a little more to wrap the project up. I don't want to see this become an option for RPGs. That's why I think we need to push back on it now, no matter how much we personally like this specific game at this specific point.
Any other genre. Not as big of a deal, but RPGs are the one genre where I don't think that should be an option.
They're not going to be deceitful. I don't know anyone in the company personally, but they've been around a long time and have a good reputation.
My suspicions are they ran short on budget and investors insisted on Early Access rather than shelling out a little more to wrap the project up. I don't want to see this become an option for RPGs. That's why I think we need to push back on it now, no matter how much we personally like this specific game at this specific point.
Any other genre. Not as big of a deal, but RPGs are the one genre where I don't think that should be an option.
There's the rub isn't it you cannot close the barn door after the horses have bolted. You cannot introduce qualifications to early access to one type of game when you have generally accepted that in other games.
They're not going to be deceitful. I don't know anyone in the company personally, but they've been around a long time and have a good reputation.
My suspicions are they ran short on budget and investors insisted on Early Access rather than shelling out a little more to wrap the project up. I don't want to see this become an option for RPGs. That's why I think we need to push back on it now, no matter how much we personally like this specific game at this specific point.
Any other genre. Not as big of a deal, but RPGs are the one genre where I don't think that should be an option.
Sure, but you do realize that we would not have the Divinity OS series or Larian developing BG3 without EA right? There goes two of the best rpgs ever made, and what's shaping up to be a third, plus the end of one of the greatest small studios of our time.
If you have a problem with rpgs in EA because it ruins the story the answer is simple: don't buy in EA. The fact that you didn't have the self control to do that despite how passionately you seem to feel about the issue is kind of sad.
They're not going to be deceitful. I don't know anyone in the company personally, but they've been around a long time and have a good reputation.
My suspicions are they ran short on budget and investors insisted on Early Access rather than shelling out a little more to wrap the project up. I don't want to see this become an option for RPGs. That's why I think we need to push back on it now, no matter how much we personally like this specific game at this specific point.
Any other genre. Not as big of a deal, but RPGs are the one genre where I don't think that should be an option.
Sure, but you do realize that we would not have the Divinity OS series or Larian developing BG3 without EA right? There goes two of the best rpgs ever made, and what's shaping up to be a third, plus the end of one of the greatest small studios of our time.
If you have a problem with rpgs in EA because it ruins the story the answer is simple: don't buy in EA. The fact that you didn't have the self control to do that despite how passionately you seem to feel about the issue is kind of sad.
That's a bold statement to make, I understand both Divinity OS were crowd funded? So it is debatable that they needed EA to make the games. After making so much from their previous games I have to put even a bigger question mark over them needing an EA for BG3.
YashaX, even "one of the greatest small studios of our time" needs to be queried when its financial model is questionable. And once again this is about the practice of early access not the studio.
There's the rub isn't it you cannot close the barn door after the horses have bolted. You cannot introduce qualifications to early access to one type of game when you have generally accepted that in other games.
Of course you can. The market does it all the time. For instance, the market is far more accepting of bugs with survival games than it is FPSs, which is why you see games like Conan Exiles hit Early Access way earlier in the dev cycle than you would a game like Battlefield.
When you can quantify the core value of a game and show how early access diminishes the value of that product, there's only one obvious answer. BG3 might have slipped through because all the stuff that matters is there, but the next game might not. I'd rather push back now than to watch a potentially good product bite the dust because their publisher didn't understand that line.
Sure, but you do realize that we would not have the Divinity OS series or Larian developing BG3 without EA right? There goes two of the best rpgs ever made, and what's shaping up to be a third, plus the end of one of the greatest small studios of our time.
If you have a problem with rpgs in EA because it ruins the story the answer is simple: don't buy in EA. The fact that you didn't have the self control to do that despite how passionately you seem to feel about the issue is kind of sad.
I'd submit that's not true. BG3 is clearly on the cusp of being complete. They literally could have called this release and I'd have dinged them for a few bugs and wimpy score, but otherwise recommended the game.
Sure, but you do realize that we would not have the Divinity OS series or Larian developing BG3 without EA right? There goes two of the best rpgs ever made, and what's shaping up to be a third, plus the end of one of the greatest small studios of our time.
If you have a problem with rpgs in EA because it ruins the story the answer is simple: don't buy in EA. The fact that you didn't have the self control to do that despite how passionately you seem to feel about the issue is kind of sad.
I'd submit that's not true. BG3 is clearly on the cusp of being complete. They literally could have called this release and I'd have dinged them for a few bugs and wimpy score, but otherwise recommended the game.
I don't know if they need EA to fund BG3, but your gripe is that EA is detrimental to rpgs because it spoils the story. Obviously that can be completely sidestepped by waiting till the game is out of EA before playing.
In terms of funding, DO:S was a make or break game for them and without EA it probably wouldn't have been released, or been the success it was- therefore no DO:S, DO:SII, or BG3.
Comments
Crafting, dialogue, all the mechanics of the game are there to serve the objective of the game, which is to tell a story. I mean, it's D&D. At it's core, that's what D&D is. Have you ever reran the same module with friends? I have, and even years apart and despite all the other things I enjoyed, I still had to constantly hold myself back because I already knew the module.
But I don't really have much of an objective beyond supporting studios and projects that I like, and just enjoying being semi-creative for a couple hours a week.
I basically write about the stuff I want to write about, which is going to be the stuff I play. I'm not a journalist by any means. Actually just passed on an article this week after getting some inside info on something. Just not interested in that sort of stuff, so not going to write about it.
Besides, engaging someone and trying to force them to prove their points, in my opinion, is one of the most legitimate forms of respect you can show. I don't expect a moron to defend their position, but someone I think is intelligent and wrong?
...okay, maybe not always wrong. Sometimes I'm just a jerk and like to mess with people, too. lol
I can really appreciate what you are saying here because I share the same concerns about the changes in monetization in the gaming industry.
However, there was no reason to bring the pitch forks out on one of the good guys. These kind of alternate funding avenues are the only reason Larian is even still around. There would be no Divinity OS/ OS2 without them.
Its just bizarre that the author and some posters have focused so much on kind of scaremongering about EA in this particular case. I could totally understand a rant about most of the crowdfunded mmos or some title that has been in EA for years with no real improvement, but to attack a company that has an outstanding track record on using EA to deliver amazing games just kind of blew my mind.
Context does matter.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
That's not it here, though. I'm... a little less enamored with crowdfunding that I had been at start. I thought it was a really cool way for indie studios to get some runway, but it's been coopted and turned into a marketing tool by larger companies. I still back projects, but not really like I did early on.
Another thing I've changed my mind on is open development. I felt like giving players direct access to the development process would be a great way for the consumers to learn about how games are made, but that didn't really happen. There are still a lot of advantages to that system, but I think in the balance, the disadvantages sort of weigh it in the other direction.
w/r to EA specifically, I actually don't object to the idea for the most part. That's the part of the game that I enjoy exploring the most, so typically I support it. It's really this specific genre because of where the value in these specific games is defined that I object.
Like I said elsewhere, it's like getting re-released book where the author is still editing for content and adding/removing chapters while you're reading it. Once you've spoiled the core story, it's done. You can't really get that back.
I've got Dark and Light and played it a bit. Haven't in a while. May have to give that one a look if it's better, then.
I'm not saying folks can't like the game for other reasons. I'm not even saying people can't go buy it. I'll even go so far as to say that I'd recommend the game in a heartbeat if BG3 didn't have that EA tag on it. I think it's a good game and I think they did everything right.... except, releasing Early Access.
I absolutely think folks will enjoy things other than the the story, but it's not just that the story if important to me. I think that's a little where this has gone sideways. That wasn't a subjective statement, it was an objective statement. The fundamental aspect of an RPG IS the story. Sure, some people will enjoy other things, but that foundational element doesn't change. Otherwise, it'd be another genre.
Just to reiterate, I'm not saying it's a bad game or that I don't like it as it is right now, or even that I wouldn't buy a release version of it this minute. I'm saying that "Early Access" is a get-out-of-jail-free card that RPGs don't get to play by virtue of what their core value to the general audience is. AND, I'm saying that core value can be proven through data, as I noted in another comment, when you look at concurrency and persistence overtime between genres.
FPSs, RTSs, MMOs, they all have a basic pattern to those stats that will be similar.
RPGs do not, because there is a finite conclusion to them. You might continue to play and find value in other areas, but there is a core game with a specific story that's finite.
I will grant you that with games like Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, and others, it's a little blurry. I think my position breaks down on those games because they sort of stray to the fringe of the genre a bit. A good point holds true against all tests, so games like that do leave room for me to be wrong, I think.
Biggest gripes are bugs, performance, no exp for resolving encounters without killing everything (in combat)... leading to underpowered characters, and lack of healing.
Some have completed the first Act in 5 hours, others in 20.
i'm ok with spoilers here and there but all in all. If you invest in early access its to get a sneek peek and help the devs improve their game.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
We are not bringing the "pitchforks out on the good guys", is there anyone out there who does not think Divinity OS 1 And 2 are among the finest isometric rpg's to date? Those you think are "scaremongering" here believe they will be applauding another fine release when BG3 launches, this is not about the studio.
Context does matter, can you tell us a better story game to have brought this issue up in? There are always going to be fans who think "their" studio should have not have been picked for an article about dodgy funding models.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Even if Larian turns out to be disgracefully deceitful about this early access (past record be damned) and turns out a game that is far short of their previous release and fulfills every single nasty theory about them, what is to prevent you from not buying their game now or later.
All the people who feel that Larian is a bad company that is taking advantage of their fans and should not be releasing a game that has a very extensive story (that will be spoiled because reasons...) need only do one thing and that is to NOT buy the game.
None of you have the fortitude to do that though. You're complaining because you want everyone else to pick up the pitchfork and march along with you so that companies only release games when they are good and ready. Well good luck on that because it isn't going to happen that ship has sailed long ago and Larian isn't the hill you pick to die on.
I for one will reward a company based on their previous performances and Larian has proven by releasing amazing enhanced editions at no extra costs and continued to work on their games even after they were fully released. This is the absolute worst example you have picked to try out your theory that this company is a good for nothing cheat that is going to lose the desire to work now that they have your money (cue in Mutley snicker by Swen Vincke).
As for the complaint that it utterly ruins the story and early access shouldn't be used for a game that is of this nature the answer is to simply avoid the spoilers and to exercise some personal restraint and wait till the game is released. What other people do with their choices and choosing to play now isn't any of your business.
My suspicions are they ran short on budget and investors insisted on Early Access rather than shelling out a little more to wrap the project up. I don't want to see this become an option for RPGs. That's why I think we need to push back on it now, no matter how much we personally like this specific game at this specific point.
Any other genre. Not as big of a deal, but RPGs are the one genre where I don't think that should be an option.
If you have a problem with rpgs in EA because it ruins the story the answer is simple: don't buy in EA. The fact that you didn't have the self control to do that despite how passionately you seem to feel about the issue is kind of sad.
YashaX, even "one of the greatest small studios of our time" needs to be queried when its financial model is questionable. And once again this is about the practice of early access not the studio.
When you can quantify the core value of a game and show how early access diminishes the value of that product, there's only one obvious answer. BG3 might have slipped through because all the stuff that matters is there, but the next game might not. I'd rather push back now than to watch a potentially good product bite the dust because their publisher didn't understand that line.
I don't know if they need EA to fund BG3, but your gripe is that EA is detrimental to rpgs because it spoils the story. Obviously that can be completely sidestepped by waiting till the game is out of EA before playing.
In terms of funding, DO:S was a make or break game for them and without EA it probably wouldn't have been released, or been the success it was- therefore no DO:S, DO:SII, or BG3.