Baldur’s Gate 3 was also developed by a studio that had almost exclusively done RPGs before, was self published which cuts out a lot of problems, had the DND branding which almost always gives a sales bump over generic RPGs, and it was insanely horny. All of this boosted sales and visibility. I doubt a ton of people were buying it and saying “finally a game with crunchy system mechanics!”
If that was the case Age Of Decadence would have made a billion dollars.
Age Of Decadence (one of my favourite RPGs, I love the world-building and lore) is also not your typical involved, classical-style cRPG. While it has some of the mechanics/tropes of classical cRPGs (mandatory specialization, focus on multiple playthroughs. difficulty), it really is it’s own thing.
Combat is unforgiving even with late game characters, it never gets easy. This is IMO a major issue both by modern standards and at the time of release (2015).
The rather old Torque3D engine wasn’t exactly good looking by 2015.
Low fantasy-settings are also typically less popular (in general, not just in RPGs) than high fantasy fare with dwarfs, elves and magic galore.
My point, not getting too wrapped up in the specifics of the example counterpoint, is that I don’t think Baldur’s Gate 3 did well because it was “crunchy”. It was a “crunchy” (if we are calling 5e crunchy) game that did well. There is a difference that I think the author is pretending not to notice because it helps their point.
The article author also seems like they are drawing a line between “crunchy RPG” and “action RPG” without really defining their terms. They bemoan the actionification of RPGs then they turn around and praise The Outer Worlds as falling on the crunchy side. I’d say if it counts as crunchy, then surely Skyrim and Fallout do as well, and that derails the entire idea studios don’t make AAA crunchy RPGs. I think what the writer is getting at is “I want studios to make RPGs that precisely cater to my sensibilities.” And sure, who doesn’t? I’m not sure that truism is worth an article.
Again this is all in service of an opinion piece that feels theoretically aimed at developers or publishers as if that carries any weight, when pointing at the audience and saying “If you like crunchy games, here are some you should check them out so those devs make more.” would be a lot more actionable.
Maybe not Age of Decadence itself, but it launched in the middle of a time where crunchy CRPGs were having a moment, and that moment has a direct path to trace forward to Baldur’s Gate 3. Regardless of D&D branding, Divinity: Original Sin 2 was already a multimillion seller that scored in the 90s on Open Critic; in a lot of ways, BG3’s success was preordained, which is why they were confident enough to increase the budget so much over their last games.
Baldur’s Gate 3 was also developed by a studio that had almost exclusively done RPGs before, was self published which cuts out a lot of problems, had the DND branding which almost always gives a sales bump over generic RPGs, and it was insanely horny. All of this boosted sales and visibility. I doubt a ton of people were buying it and saying “finally a game with crunchy system mechanics!”
If that was the case Age Of Decadence would have made a billion dollars.
Age Of Decadence (one of my favourite RPGs, I love the world-building and lore) is also not your typical involved, classical-style cRPG. While it has some of the mechanics/tropes of classical cRPGs (mandatory specialization, focus on multiple playthroughs. difficulty), it really is it’s own thing.
Combat is unforgiving even with late game characters, it never gets easy. This is IMO a major issue both by modern standards and at the time of release (2015).
The rather old Torque3D engine wasn’t exactly good looking by 2015.
Low fantasy-settings are also typically less popular (in general, not just in RPGs) than high fantasy fare with dwarfs, elves and magic galore.
My point, not getting too wrapped up in the specifics of the example counterpoint, is that I don’t think Baldur’s Gate 3 did well because it was “crunchy”. It was a “crunchy” (if we are calling 5e crunchy) game that did well. There is a difference that I think the author is pretending not to notice because it helps their point.
The article author also seems like they are drawing a line between “crunchy RPG” and “action RPG” without really defining their terms. They bemoan the actionification of RPGs then they turn around and praise The Outer Worlds as falling on the crunchy side. I’d say if it counts as crunchy, then surely Skyrim and Fallout do as well, and that derails the entire idea studios don’t make AAA crunchy RPGs. I think what the writer is getting at is “I want studios to make RPGs that precisely cater to my sensibilities.” And sure, who doesn’t? I’m not sure that truism is worth an article.
Again this is all in service of an opinion piece that feels theoretically aimed at developers or publishers as if that carries any weight, when pointing at the audience and saying “If you like crunchy games, here are some you should check them out so those devs make more.” would be a lot more actionable.
Maybe not Age of Decadence itself, but it launched in the middle of a time where crunchy CRPGs were having a moment, and that moment has a direct path to trace forward to Baldur’s Gate 3. Regardless of D&D branding, Divinity: Original Sin 2 was already a multimillion seller that scored in the 90s on Open Critic; in a lot of ways, BG3’s success was preordained, which is why they were confident enough to increase the budget so much over their last games.