Honestly mate? Buy it. This isn’t a AAA game; this is a AA game made completely independently, without microtransactions or lootboxes or any of the many bullshit practices of modern gaming. The studio deserves your support.
It does have a multiplayer component, but it’s co-op. The game can be played in its entirety either way, and indeed, the single player experience is fantastic. So’s the multiplayer experience. The former is similar to Dragon Age Origins, and the latter is literally Dungeons and Dragons. Both are fantastic, and both are worth playing.
Don’t skip it. This is a deeply special game, and if you’re sick of the AAA bullshit, a great way to show the greater industry is by supporting it. Vote with your wallet.
FWIW, AAA is not typically defined by budget, but instead by the presence of a publisher and methods of release. If you go by standard definitions, as a completely independent developer who crowdfunded the game at the start, Larian’s actually indie.
There is no consistent definition for AA or AAA. It’s just an implied level of production value. This game’s got the equivalent modern day production value of a AAA game from 15 years ago, but the production value of AAA games like Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption these days has soared to levels unattainable to most.
Sure you could. The Witcher 3 has better production value by a meaningful amount with tons of scenes to shoot and permutations of those scenes. People said you couldn’t meaningfully do better than the likes of the Kickstarter CRPGs ten years ago because of how much work would go into voice acting and animating all of those scenes, but BG3 is the better production value version of that.
Frankly I think that’s laughable. The Witcher 3 is fine production quality wise, but it’s not even sort of competitive with BG3. The main quest line vs BG3 side quests, maybe, but there’s a huge step down to the animation quality of anything else.
I’m still working my way through BG2, but even watching main story quests in BG3 in the footage that’s coming out around launch, the thought frequently enters my mind that the Witcher 3 looks better, like it got better touch-ups beyond what the engine automates for them.
A lot of the storytelling is through 2D scenes giving the illusion of being animated by moving pieces around (which does the job perfectly fine), and a lot of the side quest stuff is just plopping one character without any impressive animation in one spot just dropped in the world.
In BG3, there are a bunch of minor side quests where there are several characters interacting with each other in the 3D world, and your decision making branches branch harder. Just the sheer number of otherwise “minor” interactions with fully animated, voiced, and narrated actions is crazy.
Honestly mate? Buy it. This isn’t a AAA game; this is a AA game made completely independently, without microtransactions or lootboxes or any of the many bullshit practices of modern gaming. The studio deserves your support.
It does have a multiplayer component, but it’s co-op. The game can be played in its entirety either way, and indeed, the single player experience is fantastic. So’s the multiplayer experience. The former is similar to Dragon Age Origins, and the latter is literally Dungeons and Dragons. Both are fantastic, and both are worth playing.
Don’t skip it. This is a deeply special game, and if you’re sick of the AAA bullshit, a great way to show the greater industry is by supporting it. Vote with your wallet.
It doesn’t have the gross monetization games are trending to, but it’s most definitely a AAA game.
You can’t match the scope and production quality at a AA budget.
FWIW, AAA is not typically defined by budget, but instead by the presence of a publisher and methods of release. If you go by standard definitions, as a completely independent developer who crowdfunded the game at the start, Larian’s actually indie.
There is no consistent definition for AA or AAA. It’s just an implied level of production value. This game’s got the equivalent modern day production value of a AAA game from 15 years ago, but the production value of AAA games like Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption these days has soared to levels unattainable to most.
Only shot for shot.
Those studios with those budgets couldn’t do meaningfully better with hundreds of hours of scenes to shoot.
Sure you could. The Witcher 3 has better production value by a meaningful amount with tons of scenes to shoot and permutations of those scenes. People said you couldn’t meaningfully do better than the likes of the Kickstarter CRPGs ten years ago because of how much work would go into voice acting and animating all of those scenes, but BG3 is the better production value version of that.
Frankly I think that’s laughable. The Witcher 3 is fine production quality wise, but it’s not even sort of competitive with BG3. The main quest line vs BG3 side quests, maybe, but there’s a huge step down to the animation quality of anything else.
I’m still working my way through BG2, but even watching main story quests in BG3 in the footage that’s coming out around launch, the thought frequently enters my mind that the Witcher 3 looks better, like it got better touch-ups beyond what the engine automates for them.
A lot of the storytelling is through 2D scenes giving the illusion of being animated by moving pieces around (which does the job perfectly fine), and a lot of the side quest stuff is just plopping one character without any impressive animation in one spot just dropped in the world.
In BG3, there are a bunch of minor side quests where there are several characters interacting with each other in the 3D world, and your decision making branches branch harder. Just the sheer number of otherwise “minor” interactions with fully animated, voiced, and narrated actions is crazy.