>>3877208
As you can probably guess, maintaining an actual fucking high-rise building with hundreds of employees to make a product capped by the childish whims of entitled gamers at 'No more than 60$' ( But they'll pay 1,000$ for WoW and Battle Passes ) in a world where 2 guys can sell their flashy new indie sensation for 20$ is actually not a very sound business decision, and extremely unprofitable. Even if you "Make a GOOD game!!", you're spending far more for success that you could've attained for far less making a tiny 'good' game, because gamers have decided that a 1GB game can get 10/10 ratings and GOTY irrespectively of its scope compared to a 150GB game, there is now very little incentive to make the latter at all.

"But what about all the GOOD open-world RPG's I've played lately", you might ask? The conditions outlined above have put the industry in a rather peculiar and unstable trajectory where legacy WRPG companies are no longer aiming for market competitiveness and are driven by roughly three forces, which should also explain quite a lot about the troubled releases and controversies of many open-world RPG's in recent years:

1. Charity - This is the only place where 'Good RPG's' emerge from anymore, and it is literally driven by nothing else than a practically altruistic, charity-based relief effort for all the ungrateful fucks out there, almost invariably helmed by enthusiastic 'Gamer CEOs' who are just developing the game for themselves and 'for the love of the game' ( No pun intended ) at that point, a-la Larian Studios, CD Projekt Red which is a bunch of nerds that love Witcher and Cyberpunk setting, Owlcat which is a bunch of oligarch autists who love Pathfinder and Warhammer, and you can see the pattern. Career CEO's and Publisher bigshots are more or less out of the picture.

(Cont.)

>>3877210
2. Inertia - The source of slop and flops, these are the once mighty companies of yesteryear who made a name out of open-world RPG's while it was still exciting and lucrative and don't really know how to do anything else, currently churning out one rushed project, remaster, and uninspired bland clone after another, firing employees and having closures left and right, trying to regain some profitability with microtransactions or other tricks that they might eventually have to roll back due to popular outrage, and the rest is history

3. Activism - A sub-section of the Inertia Companies which resembles the Charity Orgs a bit more in the sense that they have a personal interest in seeing their games pushes through, but in order to push certain agendas as much as possible and 'sacrificing' what is basically a non-existent profit margin for these type of games in the first place.

Now here's the deal, the charity organizations masquerading as companies that you all rely on are no joke, they really are operating like charities. Swen Vincke isn't getting that much richer off making BG3 with the whole team and the goddamn voice actors to boot than 3 people divide among themselves from Silksong and a lot less than Notch gets for Minecraft. Whenever these last remaining oases can no longer sustain their passion with as many people or decide to quit there's gonna be an even bigger problem than there is now. And while BG3 is a 'good' game by the standards that we've been accustomed to from the past, it's not really a very innovative or groundbreaking experience for what we all wanted RPG's to be like in the future 10 years ago, and you'd be hard-pressed to get *that* from charity.

(Cont.)

>>3877211
The devs who wrote the op-end about not getting used to BG3 quality RPG's had a point, the companies riddling your games with in-game currencies and live service payments have a point. If the open-world RPG is to survive, you'd better find a way to financially compensate hundreds of employees in a way that indie games *aren't* by a proportional ratio of 100x or so, and fast. Or watch it fade into stasis and obscurity, maybe until A.I starts generating games from scratch in a quantum computer.

>>3877208
That's a lot of text for someone that doesn't understand all this.

Big open world RPGs are very expensive and typically not very proftiable. It's only Elder Scrolls and Fallout that got popular enough.
What big companies want is
>huge returns. not % based returns, but actually making noticeable impact on their earnings reports. it doesn't matter if you made 150% back of the budget or even 200% back. if your game cost 1000$ to make and made a 500% return that would only be 5000$ and wouldn't be worth it for companies
>consistent and regular predictalbe income, which is why live service games are so appealing. one successful live service game can keep the money stream going for years
Look no further than companies like EA that has killed IPs and studios for this very reason. It doesn't matter if they were profitable if they didn't make a metric fuckton of money.

>its the customers' fault that devs keep trying to make huge games and fill them with completely monotonous, dumbed down shit
lol
>heres a list of stuff that has nothing to do with the customer actually, but is infact random suppositions and assumptions the devs make to gamble on how to make more money
lmao

>>3877212
>financially compensate hundreds of employees
None of this has to do with employee salaries. That's a drop in the ocean. It's just a nice sounding like execs love to pull out as they give themselves 30-80 million dollar bonuses.

show less
unsubscribe

>>3877215
This is exactly what the text says. You can spend more or less next to nothing making Megabonk or Silksong and sell them for tens of millions of dollars, arguably you have an even *wider* audience than the Open-world RPG's do thanks to all the wageslaves and 'gamer dads' and 'party game' players who already lost interest and have to get back to work by the time they get halfway through character creation, and just want something to click away at absent-mindedly for a while.

Meanwhile you can make your 'Skyrim-killer' giant 3D map with your quests, side-activities, NPC life routines, animations, combat skill trees, diverging paths, all the shit that requires 20 subdivisions in a company, and pray you get as much even in *total* as the former game.

It's indeed very expensive and not very profitable unless there was suddenly a large demographic willing to pay the same prices you pay at a 3 Michelin star restaurant for the experience.

>>3877208
More like, maybe, just maybe
>game scope shouldn't balloon up to every NPC having a "schedule" the way it does
>Excessive graphics
>Mediocre marvel plots
It's entirely a developer taste problem that they have to trend chase, somehow Rockstar manages to make BILLIONS and yet bethesda, arguably who made better IPs than GTA pre GTA5, cant?
It's a pure skill issue, don't pretend otherwise

>>3877224
Studios simply don't have the soul needed to make those types of games man, they're committee made games made for no one in particular and it should be no wonder that they're all fucking terribly made pseudo-dogshit. Elden Ring sold like 20 million copyroos and why? Because it wasn't dogshit, it was made for Souls players primarily, and it had actual tasteful overview for developer vision. Games can really just be "good" but no, developer and corporate greed requires that a game crashes and burns pushing the deadline for content that everyone needs to see, no bugfixing, no playtesting, and worse of all there's absolute zero tardwrangling happening for these business execs, shareholders, or project leads anymore

>>3877238
>Games can really just be "good" but no, developer and corporate greed requires that a game crashes and burns pushing the deadline for content that everyone needs to see, no bugfixing, no playtesting, and worse of all there's absolute zero tardwrangling happening for these business execs, shareholders, or project leads anymore
It really do be like that tho

>>3877239
Yeah it do be but a game nowadays that's just "Good" like megabonk can be a huge hit if it's good and earnet. Corporate made games cannot be earnest though

File: 1241818352572.gif (194 KB, 300x300)

194 KB GIF

>>3877208
>And how would you react if I told you that (You), the customer, had a hand in killing it?

>>3877238
Compare it to the movie industry - You can still get movie tickets and DVD's for cheap even though they have hundreds of millions worth in production costs, right? But that's because almost everyone on the planet watches them AND, more importantly, the differential between those who watch Triple A studios and 'indie movies' is astronomical. It's like 10,000 to 100,000,000.

You know what would happen to Hollywood though if 100,000,000 people were also willing to watch any short amateur smartphone camera film I made in my garage for only 1/3 the price? You would never see another big budget film or any special effects ever again in your life, the whole industry will grind to a halt.

Elden Ring is still riding the wave of the Asian market which has a shit-ton of buyers that, unlike western gamers, don't really give that much of a fuck about 'indie gems' and are autistic and nerdy enough to invest thousands of hours into their games. But even that is a once in a blue moon occurrence and they're not exactly 'RPG's' in the full sense of the word that we're used to - No dialogue choices, merely inferred narrative, no factions, etc. It's elaborate ARPG.

Either way, you can't make western audiences boycott small games and small studios nor should you want to, but if the demographic of players who purchase open-world RPG's consistently all decided and rose to the socioeconomic status that enables them to value those kind of games at 200$ for example, you'd finally see fierce competition between *dozens* of cutting-edge open world RPG's with each one striving to have more grandiose interactivity and never before seen features than the next rather than waiting with crossed fingers for years until some medium-sized charity studio puts out a 'labor of love' that is simply on par with the RPG's of the past.

>>3877224
No, you're blaming players when companies are at fault. I'm not talking the dev studios themselves, but the ones that own them.
And no big publisher wants a Silksong or Megabonk, they want a CoD, Fortnite, Roblox, etc. The former are abnormally popular for a smaller game, but wouldn't even register in terms of profit for these larger companies, which is the only thing they care about.

>>3877238
Has nothing to do with the dev studios. I don't think you realize how heavily fucked over studios are by the suits above them.

>>3877253
send you off to the loony bin to treat your dark triad schizo victim blaming behaviour, personally, but seeing as our whole world is based on that now you would probably get a promotion and lead a marketing division

The live service bubble is what did in the open world RPG. Every company wants a magic bullet live service, so they're putting out nothing but live services that have to compete with other live services, so players pick one and shun the rest. There's no room for more, but they keep making them, not once considering the fact that customers are tired of them.
Once again, greed is what did them in.

>>3877208
>And how would you react if I told you that (You), the customer, had a hand in killing it?
At least one good thing customers did. I wish they would kill more genres already.

File: capsule_616x353.jpg (101 KB, 616x353)

101 KB JPG

>>3877208
Look at this board, the few devs that release open world RPGs get shat on like Obsidian or completely overlooked like the Atomfall game. They clearly don't want open world RPGs, they just want Bethesda slop.

grok, can you summarise this tldr boring as fuck thread into a single paragraph?

>>3877261
> You know what would happen to Hollywood though if 100,000,000 people were also willing to watch any short amateur smartphone camera film I made in my garage for only 1/3 the price?

Maybe they would stop making capeshit?

>>3877261
28 Years Later was shot on iphones. youre quite literally now just saying random shit and assuming its true.

Vidya business is too big for it's own good. I'm all for nuking the giants and leaving more breathing space for AA and indie releases. Generational change, so to speak.

>>3877557
Nigga even this 'Literally who' exceptional movie had a production budget of 60 million dollars ( And made 150mil back ), is your reading comprehension this fucking bad? There's a difference between 'First-person shaky camera POV' horror and actions films and ones that *I* am making in a fucking garage and the woods outside my home with a bunch of friends that I assigned roles to.

Meanwhile the cost of making Silksong was however many hundreds of dollars they paid for the soundtrack.

>Successful indie games are money printing machines (and unsuccessful indie games are money shredders, but who knows about those)
>Therefore we can't make solid AAA titles
Yeah no. If bethesda simply makes skyrim2 with current tech, roughly similar quality (not that there wasn't much to be improved about skyrim) and (IMPORTANT POINT) good modding support, they are 100% guaranteed to make a profit.

>>3877644
What if Bethesda can’t even match what it did 15 years ago? What if it’s all pajeets now?

>>3877644
Why would they do that? Bethesda is an inertia-driven company, their client pool is mostly comprised not of /v/irgins but of people who just buy their name due to brand recognition, that's why Starfield still 'made a profit'.

Skyrim was pretty much a fluke which came out in an era where indie games had much less prominence too and everyone was looking forward to that shit, it's consider arguably one of the most famous PC gams of all time, no other Bethesda game of similar quality has ever came close to its revenue nor will it likely ever will, which is also to the detriment of new game development because plenty of people just stick to modded Skyrim anyway.

Fallout 76 and Starfield have netted roughly similar profits to any other Bethesda title save for Skyrim, ESO ( Which is even more profitable than Skyrim ) and a slightly bigger gap compared to Fallout 4.

Making a 'Skyrim 2' in 2025 is probably going to yield the same results as Fallout 4 at best. Churning out special editions and anniversary editions costs a lot less and offers a lot more, or making some new live service game, or letting junior uninspired staff make another Starfield quality clone every few years like the Call of Duty model.

Either way, I don't want a 'Skyrim 2', I want games to technologically progress like they used to and that can't happen when fighting for scraps.

>>3877753
>I want games to technologically progress like they used to and that can't happen when fighting for scraps.
I don't think that's possible right now, software and hardware have been stagnating more or less for the past decade or so. My wishful thinking is that in about five to ten years someone will manage to incorporate AI on a game engine and make a sandbox open world rpg tgat's 100% reactive to the players actions and decisions.

>>3877816
>sandbox open world rpg tgat's 100% reactive to the players actions and decisions.
Reactivity has been possible, question is what kinds of reactivity is worth it for a fun and interesting game

>>3877210
>making a good game is a charity.
nigger.

File: what-what-took-you-so-long.gif (2.37 MB, 640x266)

2.37 MB GIF

>>3877208
OP this is the case for the entire fucking creative industry. Passion motivates these people. Any dev working on anything that isn't outright gambling would stand to make more by switching to enterprise software, that includes EA, Ubisoft, and Activision.

>>3877215
>Big open world RPGs are very expensive and typically not very proftiable. It's only Elder Scrolls and Fallout that got popular enough.
That's because of content generation. They're expensive to populate with a lot of content, and that expense has dramatically risen due to the expectation of art asset quality and density - on top of the other kinds of content like creatures and quests and dialogue. And the way content scales with the area of the game, so there's already an exponent on the scaling factor.

Old open world games like Morrowind were possible because Morrowind is fucking TINY and relatively empty. Go back and play it and you can do everything and see everything in literally 60 hours of gameplay. Skyrim was a miracle because even though it's sparsely populated, the world is decently large and there's a lot of dialogue. That's just not the sort of thing that's possible with modern art assets and density expectations for the kinds of budgets that players are willing to pay for a single-player offline experience.
The reason WoW and FF14 are possible is the subscription-to-play + cash shop business model. And you fundamentally cannot convince players to pay for that model in a single-player game.

So.... single player offline RPGs are just not financially reasonable with the expectations of modern art asset quality and content density in combination with world size expectations. MMOs are where RPGs are headed next... assuming the genre survives its current stagnation and monopoly between WoW (dying) and FF14 (which is evolving to become Second Life more than an RPG). Fantasy life simulators with procedurally generated (AI) content is the future for RPGs, and that's only possible with game-as-service business model.

>>3877821
This is pretty much up to the developer's taste to develop fun reactivity without ballooning the budget but some developers just don't like the word fun for some reason

@yotsuba please summarize this kusosure

Nah you can do indie open world games because if it looks like Morrowind that's OK

>>3877261
>Compare it to the movie industry
The same industry that's been facing a similar crisis ever since COVID (and even earlier)? DVDs went the way of dodo, old man.

>>3877210
Big studios are cheap fucks who don't want to pay a few extra millions on dev teams, than expect to rake in billions anyways, maybe if they put in those extra few millions for actual programmers, then even the lower percentage of profit would be more overall, than what they get with higher percentage of profit right now. Also the companies whom gain hundreds of millions of profit, complain about the indie companies whom earn a few hundred thousand dollars of profit... Guess what, you want more profit, hire those indie guys as well, to help with your big project, you greedy pieces of shit.

Games would sell more if they would have less diversity, and every character would be white, and every character would be attractive, males would be masculine, women would be feminine (and support characters mostly). Can't stand the fucking multi-racial, multi-species distopia in Todd games, especially if I can't slay everyone different on first sight in them.

>>3877211
Also don't put faggotry in your games, because if you do, than normal people won't buy it. BG3 is known as the faggot game, and noone with a conscience will buy it, because of that one bear scene (because everyone assume the rest of the game is like that too). Faggots should not get any representation, trannies especially not, the tolerance reaches it's limits with attractive lesbians, and even them it's highly dependant on their attitude.

If companies want to be profitable, fire ALL the diversity from their company, and only hire tall, straight white males, with blue eyes (attractive people, not spiteful mutants full of resentment).

>not spiteful mutants full of resentment
Excludes you then

>>3878167
>Skyrim was a miracle because even though it's sparsely populated, the world is decently large and there's a lot of dialogue.
I wouldn't call Skyrim sparsely populated. For me it hit the sweet spot between giving the player breathing room and throw something at them to deal with. Compared to similar games I've played in recent years:
>Cyberpunk 2077
Huge but empty, you can count the buildings and npcs you can interact with outside of quest with your hands' fingers.
>Fallout 4
Too crammed, almost no breathing space. Doesn't make exploration more interesting if you're jumping from fighting supermutants to gunners to raiders... it just keeps you busy, wether you want it at that moment or not. And fuck whomever thought that Preston giving you quests without you initiating dialoge was a good idea.
>Kingdom Come Deliverance I
Even though it's on my all-time top five favourite games, tgat one is really sparcely populated. Apart from a handful of spawning points that only trigger half the time, there's not much going on anywhere outside -and inside- towns most of the time.
As much hate Skyrim gets in this board, I feel like Bethesda caught lighting in a bottle. Somehow everything in it clicks.

>>3878299
>Nah you can do indie open world games because if it looks like Morrowind that's OK
I don't think so
Making it look bad takes the same effort, so that's just stupid

>>3878167
>>3878340
No. Nuisance animals are way too frequent in Skyrim. Also Skyrim's map is too small, and it's settlements are too close. You can't find anywhere on the map, where you could run a minute without reaching an other location, and even your short time travelling, you get interupted by nuisance animals constantly, not a minute without them. You never have the time to just enjoy the scenery, unless you actually stop and stay idle, but than you feel like you are wasting time. It wasn't fun during the first playthrough to slay random nuisance animals, it didn't get any less annoying in later replays. Literally making the player do an annoying thing for the sake of it, just to waste time, as a filler. It's immersion breaking to have a random carnivore attack every few meters. Also everything is too damn close to each other, more bandits than citizens, every hole in the ground is filled with monsters, more tomb space than space for the living, tombs more complex, and spacious than the homes of jarls.

That's a lot of words for "running around in real middle-earth is impossible expensive to make and the compromise we are handed sucks". What the fuck even is your point? What false belief do you intend to correct?

>>3878383
First anon was wrong about calling Skyrim sparsely populated. Second anon was wrong about Skyrim hitting the sweet spot.

>>3878340
>Huge but empty, you can count the buildings and npcs you can interact with outside of quest with your hands' fingers.

Kinda disingenuous as there’s like ~300 quests in the game.

>>3878411
Most of the quests aren't even good and the city feels lifeless and boring. Even to this day it has clearly copypasted NPCs that walk around like braindead drones.
Cyberpunk is a glorified mediocre shooter. Only reason to play it is if you really like the setting (not the actual game world, since it sucks) and really like the writing. The leveling, loot, gunplay, actual roleplaying, combat, level design all ranges from bad to mediocre.
You'd be better off playing the Deus Ex games instead.

>>3877325
>The live service bubble is what did in the open world RPG. Every company wants a magic bullet live service

It's not really that, it's that large corporations and investors are driven by the new hip thing. The new hot cash cow.
>music games during the guitar hero days
>mmos
>mobas
>battle royales
>nfts
>extraction shooters
>ai
>etc
They're driven by trying to create a new huge slamdunk game that will noticeably increase the stock value of the company. They don't care about games making a profit, unless that profit is a huge sum of money. A game that cost peanuts to make made a 500% return? They don't care.

>>3878437
>and really like the writing
Didn't finish it but the main quest, at least up to where I got, was pretty good. The rest felt like zero effort filler.
Agreed on everything else.

>>3878437
What game, especially on the scale of cyberpunk, does not have copypasted npcs? I’m not saying it’s not a valid criticism, albeit nitpicky, it just seems like you’re singling it out if that’s a major problem you’ve got with it.

> Cyberpunk is a glorified mediocre shooter.

Cyberpunk is a glorified middling RPG and a very solid shooter. Which puts it in the top ten AAA studio first person rpgs easy.

None of what you listed is “bad”. The level design is good, some levels are designed to cater to a specific play style, some are designed to be compatible with several different play styles, which is how it should be.

>>3878472
Cyberpunk is a glorified middling RPG
NTA but at some point midway through development, the devs themselves stopped calling it an RPG and started calling it action-adventure. It’s clear that they set out to make an RPG, but along the way most of those elements were cut, leaving only vestiges. The classes were reduced to sets of clothing, for fucks sake.

>>3878485
I’m not defending cyberpunks status as a purists RPG. But its efforts as an RPG are on par if not ahead of AAA games that seem to have gotten grandfathered into the RPG genre like tears of the kingdom and elden ring and your typical Bethesda affair. I realize for all I know you and the person I’m replying to may also consider those games terrible RPGs, I’m not saying you’re contradicting yourselves, I’m more addressing the general consensus amongst “purists” who are not consistent

>>3878492
I think it’s fair to call cyberpunk RPG-adjacent. I have pretty mixed feelings about it. Played and finished it at launch, was disappointed, played it again after all the patches and the expansion, it’s alright. Really depends how you look at it. If you look at it for what it is, it can be a fun game. If you look at it relative to the game we were expecting (and by that I mean “a deep cyberpunk RPG”, and not the strawman of “stupid unrealistic fans wanted the ultimate best game ever lifesim that they’d play for six gorillion hours”), it was and still is disappointing. They’ve added shit, but I dispute that “they fixed it” since its core flaws remain, and imo it feels buggier now than it did at launch. Despite all that, I got my moneys worth of fun out of it, and despite the shitty writing, the story can hit square in the feels at times.
In conclusion, cyberpunk is a land of contrasts.

>>3878494
question for you, if you will humor a bit of a tangent

but the 8/16 bit classic rpgs, from ultima to phantasy star to dragon quest/FF and everything in between. These seem to be considered good RPGs but I think pretty much every rpg mechanic in there is in modern AAA slopgs. Obviously for lack of technology not effort but still. Are they retroactively considered bag RPGs? If not that would seem to imply any modern AAA slopg with similar or perhaps expanded rp mechanics is as good if not better of a role playing game. What do you think? Bc it seems to me once a good rpg, always a good rpg.

>>3878512
>Obviously for lack of technology not effort but still.
I think you touched on one of the big points: technological limitations necessitated games having more soul, while as technological sophistication, it allowed devs coast on production values. For a related concept, see how slow CPUs and limited memory required tight, precise, efficient code and creative solutions, while faster CPUs and more memory just allow bloated jeetcode, and despite tremendous increases in hardware, software feels stagnant or even declining and slower and worse to use than decades ago.

There’s also the problem of as the industry grew, software became more complex, and budgets and teams became larger, games necessarily became more of a corporate profit-seeking product than a work of art or a passion project borne of love. The peak was probably the early 3D era of the late 90s early 2000s. You’ll just never see something like Counterstrike being made in a dorm room by two guys happening again on modern engines. And modern corporations are pressured by (((ESG dollars))) and DEI practices to hamfistedly shoehorn modern political narratives into games. I’m a former lefty, I can immediately sense it and I know exactly what they’re doing and why, and it’s shit.
>Are they retroactively considered bag RPGs?
I don’t think so, I look at them as products of their time. They are what they are. Especially since you mentioned several jrpg series, they’re always kinda been in their own category and I don’t think they’re really comparable to cRPGs.

>>3878512
>Are they retroactively considered bag RPGs?
I for one am bored of the double standards and mental gymnastics

>>3878512
>Are they retroactively considered bag RPGs?
For one, unlike Cyberpunk, Elden Ring, Skyrim and whatever else, they're not action games.

File: Di9lja5.jpg (374 KB, 2560x1440)

374 KB JPG

>>3878472
>What game, especially on the scale of cyberpunk, does not have copypasted npcs?
We' talking copypasting identical NPCs walking around in groups of 3 or more on-screen. It instantly breaks any immersion.
It's bad enough with just this, but cyperpunk NPCs tend to have flashy distinct looks which makes the problem even worse.
The game is littered with issues like this and worse, which individually might not seem "that bad", but together they form a constant barrage of minor annoyances and immersion breaking stuff which just makes the game world feel fake, bad and jarring.

Then there's all the other issues, like how non interactible the world is, which makes it just feel like pointless empty set dressing. The game world is one of the worst in any AAA open world game I've seen in the last 15 years.

>>3878472
>Cyberpunk is a glorified middling RPG and a very solid shooter.
No, the gunplay and guns are bad in Cyberpunk. The loot is worse than in a looter shooter by a mile, with tons of inpercetible minor % differences which just causes needless bloat.

>The level design is good
Not at all, even one of the leads on the project I know and have talked to was severely dissapointed with it. When I talked about all the failings of the level design he just nodded and agreed. To be fair, some of it is tied to management forcing crunch and bad deadlines on them, but a lot of it is simply not good design. Which isn't really that surprising since they didn't have that kind of level design experience and came from Witcher 3, not a shooter or traditional form of LD background.
It's really bad and if you just played something like Deus Ex: MD or something, it's downright jarringly awful.

>>3878604
Anyone that likes Cyberjunk 2021. I feel sad for them.

Anyone that dislikes ES because the cities aren't just 99 rows of identical boxes with no way to enter them and the handful of NPCs are actual non-procedurally-generated characters who carry out actual schedules. I simply loathe because Buthesdeada seems to be listening them.

CD Project Red are frauds, not even because they Lie, but due to the endless horde of shills that carry their message for them.

>>3878604
>We' talking copypasting identical NPCs walking around in groups of 3 or more on-screen.
I've noticed the same thing with cars. Sometimes the same few models would spawn over and over. The longer my play session lasts the more seem to get added to the pool.

>>3879213
At least at launch, there was an arbitrary threshold in the distance where you'd see far-off sprites of tail lights and headlights. Inside of that clipping radius, the sprites would disappear, and you'd see like 1/10th the amount of cars actually modeled and driving around. It was super jarring out in the badland highways at night.

>>3879217
Last time I checked it's still the case.

On release I would do 360 with my camera while driving and cars would spawn/respawn right next to me. Idk if that's still the case.
Personally I think cars in general are the worst offender of cyberpunk's technical state.

>>3879236
I get a ridiculous bug in current builds of the game where like 50% of the time when summoning my car, it spawns way up in midair and then crashes to the ground. I personally never encountered that in the launch game. Feels like it was intentionally added at some point as a meme reference to Roach in W3 (which also never felt that buggy to me, either)

>>3878317
>no one with a conscience
I have a conscience, what a retarded thing to say, I even hate leftists and wokeshit and exactly the kind of multiracial dystopia shit that you hate. BG3 is just simply a good game which is good enough to carry some wokeshit.

Agree with all the posters here about the emptiness of most open world slop otherwise, really makes me appreciate things like Trials of Mana remake and FF1 which have great pacing and density. Ironically the Larian production values and passion and especially the level of interaction also makes empty AAA look like shit by comparison, which led to all the industry pre-emptively trying to pretend it "wasn't allowed to raise the bar" or some bullshit the heavy duty woke + corpo slop companies and devs were whining about.

Hate wokeshit all you want, in fact I encourage the hating of wokeshit, but pretending BG3 didn't raise the bar makes you look as bad as your run of the mill DEI EA dev.

AI post complaining about thing AI will fix.

>>3878167
>Swen Vincke isn't getting that much richer off making BG3 with the whole team and the goddamn voice actors to boot than 3 people divide among themselves from Silksong and a lot less than Notch gets for Minecraft. Whenever these last remaining oases can no longer sustain their passion with as many people or decide to quit there's gonna be an even bigger problem than there is now. And while BG3 is a 'good' game by the standards that we've been accustomed to from the past, it's not really a very innovative or groundbreaking experience for what we all wanted RPG's to be like in the future 10 years ago, and you'd be hard-pressed to get *that* from charity.

I agree with your premise to an extent. I don't think Larian could have paid all those people with "charity" much less done it three times from DOS1 to BG3, and even more if we want to count the entire Rivendell history.

I don't like some of the conclusions you've drawing seeing as how you leap from "no return on expensive assets and complex development" to "only MMOs are the future"
Dude, what, MMO takes 100 times the resource and personnel overhead a singleplayer game takes, feels like just your wishful thinking that MMOs would stop sucking.

AI is going to be the way forward for sure, but what stops it from making single player RPGs cheap to produce first?
"live service" is just a fancy name for content patches and constant DLC now anyway for many games. This also applies to many single player games these days.

>>3877208
How much did Morrowind cost to produce you ginormous faggot?

That's what we want
Not all the other bullshit YOU think we want

>>3877215
>Big open world RPGs are very expensive and typically not very proftiable.

The fuck are you talking about
Skyrim made billions
Witcher 3 made billions
Fallout 3/NV/4 made hundreds of millions
Baldur's Gate 3 made a billion
Cyberpunk 2077 made almost a billion

if done well these games print money for 20 years

>>3884878
If someone made a new game with no NPC schedules, no item/ragdoll physics, and a small world overall, most people would not be interested. You can see that with how people react to Obsidian's games from this year.

>>3884888
Good job listing the exceptions that prove the norm and the games listed don't even fall into being "done well", especially Cyberpunk.
It's like saying
>hey mmos are totally not really expensive to make and most mmos released were super profitable and totally not dead as shit, just look at world of warcraft! if you do it well you will print money!

>>3883588
>AI is going to be the way forward for sure

It's not. It's only what clueless higher ups or what AI bros trying to sell the service tell people. When devs actually try to use AI the results are half fucked so someone needs to come in and spend a ton of time fixing it, costing even more time and money for worse result. Or the AI simply can't do it.
The thing with AI is that it shows well, so it's easy to sell in or trick people into buying it.

>>3884934
>cyberpunk
>done well
you are a communist, and anti-meritocracy scumbag
product value of production does not equal its quality, quality achieved by having ability to create actual good product.

you are also completely deranged and retarded, your point is just laughable. you are one of those "people" (game journos subhuman animals) which cry how rpgs are dead for fucking decades, then bg3 comes out and absolutely fucking smashes all their crying because it doesnt fucking matter what you think, trends of poorely made games failing does not mean that masterfully crafted piece of art will.

its just that your ride of slop where you can make fallou4 which was awful fucking game and rake in money is over because consumer cattle becase more sophisticated than pig eating animals.

>>3884888
bg3 is not an open world, its a classic crpg in all regards
rest is correct

>>3884888
>>3884934
>>Big open world RPGs are very expensive and typically not very proftiable.
>Good job listing the exceptions that prove the norm
I'm now curious about a list of open world RPGs that weren't profitable.

Were they good?

>>3885040
everyone tried to follow trends so theres considerable amount like greedfall, 2nd game of lotr in mordor with nemesis system from wb, 2 nu dragon age shit games, and some other awful shit
real open world rpg slop tho is ass creed, its pinnacle of slop, it cannot be slopified any further. it even has cas shop for all shit in a single player game. trully repugnant experience. and their last game was about nigger samurai in medieval japan with gay sex to humiliate azian masculinity. it just such a perfect combination of all things disgusting and vile.

>>3883588
>Dude, what, MMO takes 100 times the resource and personnel overhead a singleplayer game takes, feels like just your wishful thinking that MMOs would stop sucking.
vanilla world of warcraft was made by a team of 60 people.
you are completely clueless.

>>3885077
>theres considerable amount like greedfall, 2nd game of lotr in mordor with nemesis system from wb, 2 nu dragon age shit games, and some other awful shit
Were these unprofitable?

>>3885081
>vanilla world of warcraft was made by a team of 60 people.
Incorrect and also irrelevant. What other MMOs would be competing with and be directly compared to would be WoW after years of being out and multiple expansions. A newly launched MMO has zero chance to live up to that, yet that's what players will compare it to.

Same deal with a Bethesda like open world RPG. Even if the devs publically say it won't be on the same scale or whatever, players will still directly compare it to Skyrim or something.
This is precisely what happened with Avowed and The Outer Worlds. Players were upset it wasn't the same scale as a Skyrim.

So for you as a company, is it appealing to you to invest a shitload of money but still most likely falling short in terms of just scale to Skyrim and getting shit for it? Potentially leading to an expensive flop?
Not only that, you would not have the apologist fanbase Bethesda have that forgives the metric fuckton of massive technical issues and broken shit.

>>3885091
>Avowed and The Outer Worlds
Were they open world RPGs?

>>3885093
Yes, but lower scale so it uses zones instead.

>>3885098
A low scale open world with zones RPG

>>3885085
dont think so, to make game unprofitable you have to really try

>>3885091
>What other MMOs would be competing with and be directly compared to would be WoW after years of being out and multiple expansions
which made it much worse and are objectively much shittier product than vanilla wow. see, heres your problem. you see games as a craft instead of art. your base your point on a premise that you can only replicate what already exist. make clones. never make something new like vanilla wow did. never even try to commit to incredible quality like bg3 did.

idk if you familiar with classic for examole which is terrificaly mismanaged experience. And I mean god it was really fucking bad, and still is. No anitcheat, crossrealm, no idea what players want, bugged releases of every content (that in a game which already released mind you) and lots more. Everything about it is terrible compared to pservers which are run by shoestring budget. But those pservers, at least ones which made it are run by people who really love the game. Are you getting it yet?

>This is precisely what happened with Avowed and The Outer Worlds. Players were upset it wasn't the same scale as a Skyrim
exactly same point as before. those are objectively horrificalty bad games. I am not gonna write list of analysis, they just completely inferior experiences. what you should be comparing is f3 to fnv which shows stark differences.

>So for you as a company, is it appealing to you to invest a shitload of money but still most likely falling short in terms of just scale to Skyrim and getting shit for it? Potentially leading to an expensive flop?
if you come to art scene to make slop craft profits, if you have no vision, no talent, no drive, no desire to work your ass out, you are not going to make it. better invest into something more simplistic than that. like gold or silver or nuclear energy.