The lead designer of The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim has discussed the difference in design philosophy between Bethesda games and Larian’s Baldur’s Gate 3.
Without seminal games like Skyrim, you don’t get proper investment in games like BG3.
What are you even trying to say? BG3 wouldn’t exist without Skyrim? did you ever play Diablo 1 or 2? World Of Warcraft during Burning Crusade or Wrath Of The Lich King?
Skyrim didn’t bring anything new. Skyrim is just a drop in the ocean, with no impact on Baldur’s Gate 3, as there were tons of greater and more impactful games before that.
Now we’re talking about money? Do you have the slightest idea of how much of a cash cow WoW have been for Blizzard since 2004? In 2010 WoW had more than 10 millions subscribers. $100m a month, not counting the price of the expansion packs.
What about GTA? 400 millions copies sold.
Skyrim could have failed miserably, you’d still be able to play BG3 in is exact same form as today. Skyrim is no exception. As a matter of fact, Skyrim wouldn’t exist if it was not for previous successful games.
You named two games that are entirely different. Those two made their money on multiplayer. Skyrim is a single player RPG experience that encourages mods. Skyrim’s success as a single player experience enabled games like Dragon Age Inquisition and Witcher 3 and Divinity OS2 to get the funding they needed to become fully realized.
Skyrim is a triple A RPG. I haven’t made one change to my argument. My argument is not even my argument. It’s the “Standing on the shoulders of giants” metaphor. If you like what you see today, then you have to give credit to the works that impacted the current environment.
BG3 has nothing to do with Skyrim. The gameplay has nothing to do with it. The story has nothing to do with it either. BG3 exists because of BG1 and BG2. You would know that if you’ve ever played one of those game. But you didn’t because you are to young to know shit. As a matter of fact, every Larian’s game exists because of Baldur’s gate. The world didn’t begin the day you grab your first controller you know?
Now, if we stop talking about gameplay and talk about money like you did, BG3 never had to wait for Skyrim to be a success, as there were tremendously successful games before Skyrim already.
Keep repeating yourself if you like, it won’t change how wrong you are.
Why is BG3 not BioWare if it evolved on its own merits? You don’t even have a point you’re trying to make. You just want to tell me that I’m wrong. In order for me to be wrong, one of the most influential games ever would have to have zero influence on the development, funding, or reception of Baldur’s Gate 3. You don’t have any argument because I literally can’t be wrong about it.
If Larian tried to make a game that wasn’t Skyrim, it’s still a positive impact that Skyrim had.
If Larian wanted to make one of the best RPGs, then they’d have to make it better than Skyrim. Net impact, good.
If Larian wanted to make a business case for why they deserved $100M to develop, then they pointed to the success that Skyrim had as validation.
If you think that no one in the 6 years of development compared the game to Skyrim in any way whatsoever or any game inspired by Skyrim, then you have an opinion so dumb that it’s not worth talking to you.
Divinity OS2 to get the funding they needed to become fully realized
Divinity
Get the funding they needed
Lol don’t talk out your ass just cuz your point is running out of steam. I don’t wholly disagree that Skyrim wasn’t a massive impact in gaming, but it wasn’t this massive turning point for RPGs to suddenly become popular.
Skyrim was an ambitious project that somehow didn’t bite Bethesda in the ass. It taught tons of valuable lessons including laying the grounds for the great open worlds we have now. Nobody in 2011 was imagining games having the scale of open world we see in shit like Elden Ring, but Skyrim showed a glimpse to the future.
The flip of that being that Skyrim didn’t save RPGs from disappearing and they were already a massively popular genre and to say that future RPGs relied on its success, especially 12 years down the road, is a huge overstatement that reeks of fanboyism.
I think we made some progress in my point, so I just want to try to drive it home. The original argument was “Skyrim was a blight on the games industry.”
The reason I am trying to say that “Skyrim is influential on modern RPGs” is to disagree with the blight comment. I believe there are many ways that modern RPGs benefit from Skyrim’s contribution to the genre.
If Skyrim were truly a blight, we’d have more like the new Assassins Creed where it’s a massive world with little content to discover. To me, the problem with that argument though is that Skyrim and Assassin’s Creed are still pretty fun without the narrative content.
What are you even trying to say? BG3 wouldn’t exist without Skyrim? did you ever play Diablo 1 or 2? World Of Warcraft during Burning Crusade or Wrath Of The Lich King?
Skyrim didn’t bring anything new. Skyrim is just a drop in the ocean, with no impact on Baldur’s Gate 3, as there were tons of greater and more impactful games before that.
In the form it is today? No. You don’t get $100M to develop the game if you don’t have previous titles selling 60M copies.
Now we’re talking about money? Do you have the slightest idea of how much of a cash cow WoW have been for Blizzard since 2004? In 2010 WoW had more than 10 millions subscribers. $100m a month, not counting the price of the expansion packs.
What about GTA? 400 millions copies sold.
Skyrim could have failed miserably, you’d still be able to play BG3 in is exact same form as today. Skyrim is no exception. As a matter of fact, Skyrim wouldn’t exist if it was not for previous successful games.
You are overly and pointlessly focused on Skyrim.
You named two games that are entirely different. Those two made their money on multiplayer. Skyrim is a single player RPG experience that encourages mods. Skyrim’s success as a single player experience enabled games like Dragon Age Inquisition and Witcher 3 and Divinity OS2 to get the funding they needed to become fully realized.
lol
What does Skyrim, a first person realtime 3D game has to do with Baldur’s Gate games? Absolutely nothing.
So what’s the point of even bringing it in the conversation, if by your own words I am not allowed to bring different type of games?
Stop making U-turns every time I tell you things you don’t want to hear.
Skyrim is a triple A RPG. I haven’t made one change to my argument. My argument is not even my argument. It’s the “Standing on the shoulders of giants” metaphor. If you like what you see today, then you have to give credit to the works that impacted the current environment.
I won’t because it’s BS
BG3 has nothing to do with Skyrim. The gameplay has nothing to do with it. The story has nothing to do with it either. BG3 exists because of BG1 and BG2. You would know that if you’ve ever played one of those game. But you didn’t because you are to young to know shit. As a matter of fact, every Larian’s game exists because of Baldur’s gate. The world didn’t begin the day you grab your first controller you know?
Now, if we stop talking about gameplay and talk about money like you did, BG3 never had to wait for Skyrim to be a success, as there were tremendously successful games before Skyrim already.
Keep repeating yourself if you like, it won’t change how wrong you are.
Why is BG3 not BioWare if it evolved on its own merits? You don’t even have a point you’re trying to make. You just want to tell me that I’m wrong. In order for me to be wrong, one of the most influential games ever would have to have zero influence on the development, funding, or reception of Baldur’s Gate 3. You don’t have any argument because I literally can’t be wrong about it.
If you think that no one in the 6 years of development compared the game to Skyrim in any way whatsoever or any game inspired by Skyrim, then you have an opinion so dumb that it’s not worth talking to you.
Skyrim is not the most influential game ever… you’re timeline is broken by your own ignorance.
I don’t have « a point to make » for someone who’s just spitting nonsense.
You keep repeating the same BS.
I gave you facts you keep ignoring.
I gave you historical references that you keep ignoring too.
Not arguments. Facts.
Now live in a fantasy if you want. Why should I care?
Lol don’t talk out your ass just cuz your point is running out of steam. I don’t wholly disagree that Skyrim wasn’t a massive impact in gaming, but it wasn’t this massive turning point for RPGs to suddenly become popular.
Skyrim was an ambitious project that somehow didn’t bite Bethesda in the ass. It taught tons of valuable lessons including laying the grounds for the great open worlds we have now. Nobody in 2011 was imagining games having the scale of open world we see in shit like Elden Ring, but Skyrim showed a glimpse to the future.
The flip of that being that Skyrim didn’t save RPGs from disappearing and they were already a massively popular genre and to say that future RPGs relied on its success, especially 12 years down the road, is a huge overstatement that reeks of fanboyism.
I think we made some progress in my point, so I just want to try to drive it home. The original argument was “Skyrim was a blight on the games industry.”
The reason I am trying to say that “Skyrim is influential on modern RPGs” is to disagree with the blight comment. I believe there are many ways that modern RPGs benefit from Skyrim’s contribution to the genre.
If Skyrim were truly a blight, we’d have more like the new Assassins Creed where it’s a massive world with little content to discover. To me, the problem with that argument though is that Skyrim and Assassin’s Creed are still pretty fun without the narrative content.