• SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    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.