Well, obviously not. It’s amazing. I’ve played for dozens of hours in the starting area alone. I’ve restarted three times just to try different flavors of Warlock (my favorite so far is the Halfling Dark Urge. Half my dialogue options are “I’m going to gut you and dance in the viscera.” The other half is, “Aw shucks, let’s all have a second breakfast and calm down. You can’t be mad with a belly full of potatoes!” So that settles it. Game good. Thanks for reading!

Except, the question isn’t really about whether Baldur’s Gate III is a good game. It’s about if it’s a new gold standard in gaming that all other developers should be held up to. So let’s dive in.

So Why Is Everyone Mad?

Just a bit before Baldur’s Gate III’s release, we began to hear from various developers lamenting the growing buzz around the project. They bemoan that studios will now be expected to produce longer games with more content. 

And they have a point.

Resentment is rife from both Indie developers and game consumers. AAA developers are releasing bigger games with gameplay that feels flat. Assassin’s Creed, Cyberpunk 2077, and the recent Fallout sequels…all games with substantial open worlds that feel like exercises in little more than copy-pasted busywork. 

Indie studios, conversely, don’t have the resources to attempt those games in the first place, so they focus on tight narratives or innovative gameplay to catch your attention. The games are short, but they make a great impression. 

Then Larian Stumbles Into The Conversation. 

An Indie developer with a reputation for delivering feature-deep and story-rich games with narratives and challenges that don’t feel like they are just stalling to pad their playtime. 

And they took their time. When the game wasn’t shaping up, they delayed it in Early Access to ensure they shipped a finished product. Something others in the industry could undoubtedly learn from. 

The game is also free of microtransactions, and while it spent a long time in early access, they continued to work on and improve the game up to its full release. They used the funds from the early sales to actually improve it. And those efforts are apparent in the final product.

So Then Larian Is a Good Guy, and Thus Baldur’s Gate III is Also Good?

Well, maybe. But there are signs of concern. 

Larian’s CEO, Sven Vincke, once said, “Crunch is not sustainable in the long run.” In an industry where forcing employees to work overtime to meet deadlines is the expected baseline, that’s refreshing. But it’s important to remember that implicit in that statement is that they still utilize the practice. He went on to say, “We don’t plan for any crunch. Hopefully, the only crunch we see is because if something is wrong or something that we can’t foresee.”

Ultimately, like any company, we don’t know what happens at Larian. Employees who fear being fired or sued if they speak out will publicly say the same things as employees who love their jobs. But given the state of the industry and regulation, it would not surprise me in the least to find that there is abuse there. It’s baked into the system. Capitalism rewards that sort of bad behavior, so it is everywhere.

So whether or not Larian is “bad,” we must consider that any game with this much complexity and depth, requiring this many people over this much time, will likely involve some shady practices. 

Then Yes? Baldur’s Gate III Actually is Bad!? But Karlach Needs Me!

My prurient interest in a computerized woman aside, even assuming all the above is correct, I’m still of two minds.

To be very clear, the business practices at Larian and any other major studio, or indeed workplace of any kind, should be monitored and subject to regulation to maintain fairness. But can we really hold that against any specific studio? 

Whether or not Larian’s masterpiece positively affects the market is anyone’s guess. I have boundless confidence in the AAA industry to learn the wrong lessons. But there is an opportunity here. 

We must understand that while we can and should hold the AAA studios to a higher standard, we need to allow Indie games to be what they are. AAA studios should play to their strengths. They have the money, and that money can buy time. If an Indie studio like Larian can manage it, imagine the results if a large studio like Ubisoft took the time and invested in getting their games right. 

In Conclusion…

A CRPG topping the charts in 2023 shows a hunger for quality games well crafted. The length and depth may be an anomaly, and indie studios should not be expected to be able to meet these sorts of heights. But AAA studios must step up and start working for our coin.

And while they are at it, it would be great if they started to treat their employees better. But that burden is not something we can place directly or solely on Larian’s shoulders. And we shouldn’t expect other indie developers to meet these standards. There will always be sprawling games with tons of content and others that are shorter and tighter with more focus. Both have their place.

Thanks so much for reading! If you enjoyed this write-up, please check out my review of The Bookwalker, another indie RPG that might not have the same scope as Baldur’s Gate III but certainly has some big ambitions. Or if for some inexplicable reason, you want to check out something I didn’t write, you can check out this opinion piece on Final Fantasy XIV. I’ve not played it, but I’m sure you’d enjoy another turn-based RPG that…wait, sorry, I’m being told it’s not turn-based. Oh well!  

Also, stay tuned for our upcoming review of Baldur’s Gate III!

The post Is Baldur’s Gate III a (DISCOURSE!) Bad Thing? appeared first on Lords of Gaming.