A game that looks good in early access, and they actually make something with the feedback deserves all the praise people can get them. The others develoers should LEARN from them. It's that simple
Thank you for proving our point dude. An underdeveloped game is 7/10 but when its a FULL FEATURE RELEASE its suddenly a 9.7/10. The problem is AAA games are released in the state bg3 was while it was early access.
@@ruinmaniac1411 I personally disagree, Act 3 is hella more chaotic and messy, but the quality of the content is still top tier, it's just too crowded.
Devs probably dont want pressure from the higher ups and stockholders to want more shit that they cant deliver with minimal pay unless it's made to make profits. Hence why we get battlepasses, cosmetics, and unkept promises.
Game devs when a game releases unfinished, with exploitative microtransactions and season passes: deafening silence. Game devs when a game is praised for being good and complete at launch: THIS INJUSTICE MUST NOT STAND !
Splattercat is a really good video game reviewer that almost exclusively does first impression reviews on early access indie titles. He's very clear about the fact that he's doing first impressions and not a full-on review and doesn't assign a numerical grade. He also always gives constructive feedback on what he thinks could benefit the game based on his history with doing first impressions on Indy titles and the things that he likes to see in games versus what's on offer. Overall very enjoyable and informative.
Splat rarely do first impressions. Just watch the last 10 videos and try to count how many of them don't have the ''After 3-5 hours with the game, i think i have a good idea of what the devs are trying to make''. This is why i like Splat. Almost all indie game reviewers do a first impression, where they try to figure out the game as they play a record the footage, which doesn't really help paint a accurate picture of what the game is about. They upload like 3 ''reviews'' a day that are closer to a ''lets play''. Splat starts with ''i'm gonna give you all you need in order to make an informed decision when you buy this game'', and the man delivers. He goes from playing the game hours before recording the video, going into Steam in order to get the general feeling of the community, to directly talking to the dev team in order to clarify things.
@@showdowns1917what you mentioned is a reason I like splat. He actually learns how to play the game. I used to watch Z1 but grew frustrated watching him struggle to play simple games because he kept skipping the fucking tutorial boxes and not reading context on screen. After watching him miss a lot of stuff in Planet crafter due to not reading and apparently just not having a fundamental understating of how to play video games, I unsubscribed.
I really think the main point by the dev was missed. He was not directy mad about IGN giving BG3 a mediocre Early Access score, and that they then jumped on the bandwaggon praising it giving it a "re-review" 10/10 (including huge praise for early access). But he was mad that this something they didnt do for his game (which now i am keen to find out what that is), and moreover for all games coming from small dev studios who rely even more on early access. So the small studios need the tool, but they get effed by IGN becuase they review the early access give it a 5/10 and then thats that. This is where his emotions came from. but correct me if i am wrong. the whole discussion about terminology was by the way the most pointless one i have heard in a very very long time.
People here are too mad to think rationally. Every time they hear BG3 their brain goes haha AAA bad, even if this is entirely missing the point being made.
As someone who played early access, this game is VASTLY different from that one. It was great back then, so many things you could do though the story was no where near as complete or rather, they didn’t want to show it. This game was amazing then but it’s far and above better now. There were bugs, sure. There’s some bugs that exist even now. Hasn’t stopped me from pooping 80 hours into it. For other games, early access is a paycheck. For larian it was a true testing ground with very fine tuning and complete over hauls to cause this masterpiece of a final product. Massive respect.
I'm totally happy for a company going on early access and improving their game. I think reviews of early access is something that maybe should be held off on but I do think the devs need to communicate.
@@barcster2003reviewing some in EA is fine. You just need to make sure to re review it once it launches. Imo steam should give EA games a "EA review" score that locks in when it hits 1.0, and then reset all the reviews so only ones made after it launches count towards the score.
I find two new bugs every single day that I play but I have still played every day since launch. I heavily prefer Act 1 over the other acts but I still think every Act is better than any current AAA game, even with the current bugs.
Even in early access, it was CLEAR what BG3 was trying to accomplish. Yes they made changes and fixed little things, but the bones of the game, what the game was meant to be, the evolution of the CRPG genre that fans have been waiting for was right there in early access.
Bg3 isn't really an evolution og CRPGs. Its more of an ultimate refinement. Nothing that BG3 does really pushes the genre forward in any real sense, rather, it takes the best things CRPGs have to offer and polishes them as close to perfection as possible.
@@thewingedserpent5823 As much as I think most people praise BG3 for things that most CRPGs do, because most of these people (like Asmon) never played a CRPG before... BG3 did evolve the genre on one front; the flexibility in what you can do. CRPGs traditionally are limited in gameplay actions, typically to basic combat actions based around class structure. BG3 (and D:OS1, D:OS2) give you environmental effects, which includes barrels, traps, etc, that are definitely an advancement in tech compared to other CRPGs. Plus it's one of the few that allows you to shank NPCs whenever, no matter how important, without dialogue. You can just shank them. (IMO I think Pathfinder Kingmaker + PoE1 does story and class structure better than BG3 and are way more polished in those areas, although part of that is the fault of 5E as a system)
I was actually just typing out a whole thing about the flexibility and way you interact with the environment but you beat me to it lol. I'll also add traversal as well. The way you can use different spells and abilitities to access areas of the map that traditional crpg's didn't allow. There's a freedom here in BG3 that is absolutely an evolution of the genre @@tenesenka
I think games going digital has really influenced dev behavior as well. Before digital, there were consequences for a bad game due the amount of money spent on production (game cartridges, packaging material, etc.). Because the barrier to entry is so accessible now, its easy for companies to put out unfinished products.
Yeah I don’t know why 7/10 is being seen as a bad thing. That’s pretty good. Especially for an early access. Usually the way rating goes (or should go) is 10/10 is Perfect, 9/10 is Excellent, 8/10 is Great, 7/10 is good and so on and so forth.
I mean why should we be talking about rating on a numerical scale for a game that's not even being released? Like... what we need from a review is "What's the current direction, what's the pace at which they're going, are they capable of reaching that" and from that people should answer to themselves "Do I want that". Nowhere in that does a number fit in, which is why IGN's system is wrong here.
@@PopeDuwangIt is bad if people look for reviews and the reviewer never went back to update the score once the game is actually released. Not about the score, more so about the inaccuracy of the finished game based off of a purposefully/publicly unfished game.
7/10 is not typically the feedback loop that investors or administration wants. Game sequels have been entirely cancelled because of "only" receiving a 7.1, in conjunction with "only JUST meeting sales targets, but not exceeding them." Like if the goal was 1 million copies, and they sell 1,000,189. Staff have literally been LET GO and potentially good IP's have disappeared, while getting these VERY confusing numbers. (leaving us like "Uh you hit all your goals so what the fuck?" )
Asmon takes a 6 minute video and adds 30 minutes of input. XQC takes a 6 minute video, runs it at 1.5 speed, walks away to get his Uber Eats McDonalds and adds a minute on input where he barely intelligible.
@nfortin24 So I'm not saying you shouldn't judge the product but let's not act like you don't know what your signing up for when taking part in Early Access(real EA like BG3 not Diablo 4 paid week of content). There's a difference between buying an EA game and buying a full game. One is meant to support the development AND buy a product. The other is just to simply buy a product.
The funny thing was the 60$ for baldurs gate early access was actually a good deal. You got to make a character and play act 1. A lot of people put like 30-60 hours in it and it was fun. Some people on my friend list had like 100+ hours in early access. And the steam reviews for bg3 were like 90% positive when it was in ea.
There are people who think Early Access is immediately a reason to expect nothing because there were enough high profile failures and enough trashy people abusing the system for people to see a pattern. Most Early Access games are indie anyway so they don't get talked about that much if they're just OK or solid but niche. Honestly a lot of, "put out now and fix later" releases are effectively Early Access without the title. Since Early Access stopped being something people actively complain about it's rarely brought up at all so that's basically the last impression a lot of people have.
A lot of these devs in their mind think they are making the best game based on their own vision and also expect a large number of players to like it too. When the game actually when EA and didn't meet the expected crowd, they lose motivation and decide to bail out of the project. This is just one of the issue, there are tons of problem in a development cycle that might affect why they stop.
Omg YES... because ur allies will never follow u if the jump gives fall dmg... Very helpful knowing when to use featherfall or when to split ur party (usually I do this before jumping somewhere because I want to check for traps before everyone kamikazes into me)
to be fair in DND you can ask a DM how far down you drop and formula for calculating damage is known. And BG3 actually doesn't provide the full info (more likely avg damage instead of range like attacks show), because I've had situations when I saw the damage amount and got double of that when landed.
Yet another thing that didn't exist 2 years ago (as videos of people playing the early access showed) but was added due to players actually being listened to. I actually saw a comment from someone on a recent Let's Play of BG3 claiming to be one of the people who suggested Paladins should spawn with their tennants in their inventory during the EA.
This guys real gripe is that his title got a low score from IGN on early access launch and wasn't afforded a redemption review when it went full release.
@@kieran2k917 they arent wrong, he uses it as evidence at the start of the video asmon is watching. He says his game was in early access and got a 5/10, baldurs gate got a 7/10 in early access, then ign re-reviewed baldurs gate but didnt re-review his game when it came out, and baldurs gate re-review when it came out was a 9.7/10 so. Their point fits.
@@Vordt_His game has not been released yet so that’s not true. In the video he said that he hopes to get a new review once it’s actually released. He just wants reviewers to re-review smaller studios games as well so that the treatment isn’t exclusive to more famous games
I mean, isn't it only fair that if you test an incomplete product and attach a numerical value to it, that you retest it once released? I feel this should be mandatory when reviewing early access titles, I completely agree with the guy in the vid.
I'm tired of these AAA companies bringing up the years of early access and player feedback, while they have games that have been out for years with plenty of player feedback and they just choose not to listen. The sad truth is that most companies just pump out garbage games, battle passes, and 50 dollar cosmetics, rather then community feedback.
What's the bet they don't actually do any work and just hire contractors to do it for them. Kind of like those Twitter employees. Happens everywhere else in the tech industry. Why not the incestuous gaming industry?
@@Nyakomata But his argument is unfounded because he's comparing this game to your 'typical' early access game, where you have a base product with no features, a roadmap, and then a slow release of content until they get to the magical "1.0" release where they then advertise it's a full release. However, everyone had access to the content as it was implemented. BG3 gave you a small portion of the game, and that's it. The full release was the remaining 90% of the game. There was no slow roll-out of features over time. It was a full game release. This guy is confusing a demo with early access. BG3 gave you a demo. That's it. This dude is being a whiny baby already from a point of bad faith.
@@wayfa13 Agreed. Too many react channels are just people sitting there while someone else's content plays and they occasionally say "that's cool" or "I agree" or something else that adds zero value.
I really hope he doesn't and all of these fanboys keep crying.. to me, BG3 look's like a boring game to watch. Turn based combat is so dull. Not to mention the amount of super annoying backseat gamers it brings.
One of the first things this guy said is that the IGN piece said the game is "perfect and has no bugs". I don't think that was ever said and seems to me like he's just being salty because his early access game didn't see the same success. Man literally opened with misinformation lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They kinda did say that, not with these exact terms but they did. And what he is saying is why is it OK for Baldur's Gate to have a 7/10 review, then get reviewed again when it launches fully and for smaller games to be forced to stick with the lower score they get while they are still in Early Acess.
Yep! A developer that actually *listens* to feedback and utilizes it should deserve their accomplishments! While in the other hand: Some developers says, “We hear you! We’ve listened!” But they rarely or hardly deliver a half-assed update or update.
If someone says "We hear you, We've listened" and they DO NOT follow that up with a list of ACTIONS they are going to, and are actively taking in order to address those issues: They HAVE NOT heard you, they have NOT listened.
The pathetic thing is they disrupted the industry by going back to the quality of the 1990's games industry. BG3 is buggy as hell too, even worse than the 90's, and insane bugs that never even shouldve existed too. But the games industry is so rotten and greedy for the past 20 years, a buggy 1990's tier release with modern graphics is considered revolutionary. It's fucking pathetic, but that's how much capitalist rot has destroyed the entire industry. Children Gambling Addiction Simulators are embarrassed a real game came out.
@cartergabriel5949 it is not the result of free market capitalism, which is good... it is the reault of distopian cronie capitalism... corporations have become the mafia
@@nowayjosedaniel you're absolutely right on the bug department...but you gotta consider the ramifications of some choices in the game and the attention to detail on some aspects that are also above and beyond 90's quality products. The game isn't perfect but it damn well deserves the praise its getting aswell.
dude doesnt know what he's talking about. It's just the funny, cool thing to do rn to hate on blizzard. Dude was just trying to get that most liked comment.@@CityBelowtheSea
@BlackMeraBun PotC and Frozen Throne were both concieved in the early 2000's both releasing in 2003, to say one ripped off the other is an interesting take, could also say they both ripped off Religious idea's from thousands of years ago...
Yeah, see back in the day we didn't call it early access... it was called alpha/beta testing. It was also free and you signed up for it. You also filled out regular surveys with feedback and pointed out bugs and problems. See what happens when a proper test is done and left to cook as long as needed. The game goes from 7 to 9.7.
@@cryxbaby2250 because Beta nowadays is just a server test, or showing off game to everyone, rather than acttual beta where the feedback is taken seriously. All Betas are like so close to launch nowadays, what is even the point of beta if you encounter a game breaking thing, but they cannot fix it before launch, because its so close to the launch.
Today they launch it, sell it, advertise it and when game is full of bugs and non playable they say yeah its beta we will fix it in 2-3 years patches, if game doesnt die till then
@@cryxbaby2250 Because betas these days aren't true betas. They are quick pre-launch server load tests, or previews, for like a week/weekend. I remember Elder Scrolls Online Beta was like a just over a year and had regular invite intervals and forms when you completed shit that would pop up.
Early access is just a way to get players to have to pay to do alpha and beta testing. If a team can't afford what they are aiming for then don't aim so high.
Hades had early access because it is a smaller studio. I loved their previous games, so I bought earlier access to support their vision. Early access was only the first area, and very different from the final game. So many changes, and improvements. This is what most good smaller studios use early access for.
TIP: When buying an early access game, check these two things: 1. When was the last patch? Was it recent? 2. How often does it update in general? If the game is actually actively being devved, it MIGHT be worth looking into further. If it's been forever since a patch, the game may be dead, use caution.
I like to equate buying into an EA game like buying into stocks and bonds. You can't just throw it into any pot, you actually have to pay attention to trends and dips. With EA games you NEED to know what you're getting into and it feels like a number of gamers just lack to ability to see how that works.
@SirFenV Their reputation as well as many others, I'm sure they come to mind immediately, have been so burned after so many repeated failures. I'm at the point where I won't even entertain the idea of playing a game until gamer reviews come out. Mass gamer reviews.
@@Shteven I will say, the last time I invested in an EA game against the whims of reviews was BG3. Back during EA the game was in a VERY MUCH unplayable state with a ton of game-breaking bugs that neutered the experience and alot of reviews made it known that you shouldn't buy it until release reviews drop and if you have try and refund, and the last patch EA got was almost a year from before release. But I think we can unilaterally agree with was worth it. And then there's one of my personal favorite EA titles... Traveler's Rest. Can't wait for the game to come out in 2060 so my grandkids can experience it. "Because it's definitely coming out... r-r-right...? 😥"
If the company's motives are sound, early access is a win for everyone. During early access Larian didn't even really need feedback from the players because the game was constantly sending them feedback automatically. They were able to adjust the game without the players knowing they were contributing every time they played. Everything from where players were dying the most so they can adjust the difficulty / balancing, who players were picking as races overall so they could add features to the other races to make them more attractive to people, etc. And then when the game is fully released they continue to do that and constantly patch the game to make it a better experience. Also, I think a studio can release a game into early access much too early. sure they want some funding. They want feedback. They want to get the name out there. Etc. But baldur's Gate 3 had an extremely well developed act 1 when it was released into early access. Yes there were a lot of bugs. A lot of things needed to be changed. Entire characters were rewritten. But overall, people knew the game was going to be extremely good because it played well. It was fun and entertaining and it looked great. Some developers release games into early access and it looks like they have about 100 lines of code invested. Obviously that's an exaggeration but my point is, early access is not a Kickstarter. You know going in that people do not like to change their opinions and there's a good chance people might not review it twice. So the developers need to make sure the game's foundation is very sound before putting it out there for people to grab it on early access. Anyway, just my dumb opinion on it. Btw, BG3 was in early access for like 3 years and it turned out (in my opinion) to be the greatest game ever made and second place isn't even really close.
I recall an excellent point soviet wobble said about Day Z that in the world of quality assurance, you can only have 1 first impression. No ammount of screaming early access, no ammout of warnings will prevent everyone from forgiving you proverbial shitting the bed, especially if you charge retail price.
This is the thing that most gamers do not even know, how developers has information on the game they play even on single player games. They just can not understand.
The game Chet is talking about is his own game, The Anacrusis, on steam. He is now a co-owner/CEO of a game development company called, "Stray Bombay".
The problem lies on both sides when it comes to early access. Buyers not being bright enough to read what early access is suppose to be about before buying. And some bad game companies taking advantage of the system to get a quick buck with unfulfilled duties on improving or completing the game. Asmon is quite right on this one
@@sy-cho_boy1238 your getting the full game though🤦 My problem is the extra time your spending reporting bugs which a player should be compensated for.
I'm so glad Asmon exists. Not for the comedy, not for the gameplay, not for the reactions, but because gamers listen to him, and he's not afraid to say "You guys are stupid, here's why", like he did around 35:00, talking about people doing mental gymnastics. Please continue to yell at us Asmon, we need it.
(warhammer 3) immortal empires also got early access and guess what. The difference between the game when it was released and now is almost unnoticeable, 90% of the problems the game had are still there. The only thing that will change is the price. And we can probably be happy because if it continues like this we will also pay for the air we breathe while playing.
The price for IE is the least expensive in the TWW Franchise. You only need to own the 3rd game for access and the price for TW3 has never changed. IE wont be complete for at least 3 more years just like TW2's ME campaign took years to complete.
Another difference between bg3 early access compared to other games is that Larian only allowed players to play the first act. It was closer to a large demo that progressively got updates based on player feedback up till full release. Where other games u can usually play the full game while it gets progressive updates
I think larians thing is way better but it's also a very ambitious title in the first place. With alot of games you wouldnt have all that much in early access.
@@k1nk1neI played the game in early access. I beat the “beta” 3 times during the development of it. To name a decent amount of these changes (some of this is spoilers): nudity, hag’s ability score +1 addition (was always planned but it didn’t work), children (goblins and what not), Nautiloid, act 2 and 3 (massive charges/ large sections of the game was added/ more than half), dark urge origin, more comps, oath-breaker, more classes, dragon born and other races, massive change in ui (main menu/ character creation),soundtrack seems different, areas was edited in beginning zones, performance changes, bugs fixes (tails and what not for tieflings and the like), devil cutscene (first / usually happens at the camp but can happen randomly it seems like in open world now), cutscene bugs/ freezes and what not, timer for tutorial area, massive change in mind flayer powers (eat/ unlock powers in brain), etc… That being said. The fund of the game was there. And the game has easily 30-60+ (maybe even 100 for multiple characters) hours in early access. The full game has more (80-100+). A lot more for multiple campaigns.
I love changing my opinion. I usually avoid both turn based games and games where you have to manage more than one player character, but I gave this a shot and I am absolutely obsessed. Baldur's Gate is closer to what I wanted out of Diablo 4 than Diablo 4 was. I think I am discovering that I don't really like ARPGs. I would if they were more souls-like, but this fruit-loops fueled light show while you mow through everything in sight is not my cup of tea. I love the slower-paced, deliberate combat. I love watching the world unfold around me as I explore. I love the progression. I love the discovery and the choices I make that impact the way the world and the story progresses.
To be fair diablo 4 is fucking terrible. Like that's not a good game to judge arpg's off of. I despise that game, the devs, and the fanboys. Just the worst gaming has go offer in every aspect.
I'd say that 90% of the hype around Baldur's Gate 3 is other people similarly discovering the CRPG genre for the first time. IMO there are better CRPG examples out there with a lot more depth, like Pathfinder for example. BG3 just does well thanks to the mainstream appeal of good graphics, good cutscenes, fully voice acted, etc. The surface level appeal brought a much larger audience in for it. I'd highly recommend trying out some other games in the genre, even stuff like Dragon Age Origins from years ago is a fantastic game but it never got the mainstream hit like BG3 has. Shadowrun is probably my favorite CRPG series and it has some pretty good games out there too, that started as Kickstarters on fan motivation just like BG3 did. (Also, yes, I know, these other games are very highly rated, even higher than BG3 is, but my point is that BG3 is a more successful game purely on the factors that brought it more attention being in the streaming age, having a less clunky/less "nerdy" appearance that let people overlook the fact that it's still just a CRPG, etc)
@@yoji-_ this game and both divinity games really shouldn't be compared to pathfinder. I feel like pathfinder is dog shit in comparison. The game is popular because it's the best games to come out since probably elden ring. It's not complicated.
@@yoji-_ I think you are correct, but also the enjoyability of the minute to minute gameplay is hugely important to the accessibility of the game. A very in depth game with amazing story isn't going to do as well with the majority of gamers if it doesn't feel good to play in between these moments.
One thing I believe would be good for Early Access games is if people could give reviews, but not a rating or a score. This would provide the devs with valuable feedback, while preventing people who fail to understand that Early Access games are works in progress from giving the game a low score.
One thing that people also tend to do naturally is that if a necessary nerf happens to peoples' characters after release, every one of those characters experiencing said nerf will forever remember that the game isn't as good because something was nerfed. They didn't see all of the other nerfs and buffs that happened prior to the release version.
Guaranteed most of those are contractors paid pennies to do the work the actual employees were suppose to do but were too busy attending their second company yoga class of the day.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755blizz has a terrible external worker policy they are only allowed to work 18 months on a project. It's a horrible approach to games because every 18 months an entire new team comes in and has no idea what they are looking at.
@@kindls8345 9,167 people MobyGames, a database that chronicles the names and roles of game developers over multiple disciplines, revealed (via Exputer) that Diablo 4's credits
5:45 there's the general early access and then there's the way Larian did it. It was much more similar to a beta or demo than what most early access games are. Most early access games are the full game and then they just never leave early access because they're essentially live service games where new content is occasionally added. That's why early access isn't necessarily a good thing. But Larian having their game in open beta was a good choice.
I will never understand why IGN doesn't have versioning with their ratings. It wouldn't be so difficult to have a rating for when it was pre-release and a rating on release and a rating for an expansion
I understand what you're saying, however, what would the point of that be if the older version of the game isn't accessible anymore? I don't think you can downgrade BG3 to the version that they gave 7/10 to, correct?
I don't think it's right to have a review of something for new versions, tbh. Video games being a form of art, can not be continually rejudged as a changing mass solely because of live updates. If a game was improperly judged because it was prerelease, this is the fault of the reviewer. I don't want a "monthly review of the game because a new patch came out". Reviewing a patch by itself is one thing, but basic numerical review systems are already insincere to a complex opinion.
People seem to ignore the fact that on BG3 early access steam store page, the devs literally put in a message saying something like "you may as well wait for release now as the current version is so many months old" meaning they don't want the version you experience to ruin your perspective of the full game.
Early access is a corporate term for understanding that gamers are stupid enough to pay the developers to test their game instead of having to pay actual game testers.
For me the biggest keys when it comes to early access is 1. Is there good communication from the development team? Are they good at communicating what their though processes are when it comes to a game mechanic or are they able to express their vision going forward and 2. Progress that comes from that communication. Are they able to adapt? Are they willing to accept feedback and make changes for the better? Having a good relationship with the community who has bought into your early access is important.
When they attach review scores to early access games, they're actually giving people the impression they're fully finished products. It's actually contributing to the problem with EA games not being treated like they're EARLY ACCESS. EA should be a great way for curious people to experience the game early, and help give feedback, but not be treated like a final product.
I mean reading a simple note on a product that cleary states early access cant be that hard of a task for an average consumer to read and comprehent. if the consumer things early access means a finished product then its not on the media outlets who give early review scores. i mean where are we if we cant even read a simple note on a product.
@@nfortin24Early Access for the longest time has always been for player testing and crowdfunding. If the game is going to shit you can opt out of early access and get a refund. He's right most people have a fucked up view of what early access is as you are potraying such.
@@nfortin24dude what are you talking about, there are people who want to support the devs while knowing the game isn't finished. Have you heard about crowd funding? They ask for money while not actually having delievered anything yet. The world isn't as simple as you want it to be. For every EA game there is a huge disclaimer, informing you about what you're paying for and the possible risks. You can't just shut down your brain and use that as an excuse.
@@nfortin24 Look up Larian studio size and here we are. Just because theyre a big studio doesnt mean they dont need extra money. Projects can easily go overbudget especially when they dream big. As i said, if you dont like the direction a early access game is going simply refund it. Bad actors that abuses Early Access shouldnt go unpunished. Its not that hard to understand heck why am i schooling the public what the fuck early access is. EA youre literally paying to be part of an active development by providing feedback.
I have not seen a review not including an Early Access tag to their reviews. Some people are illiterate or does not know what it means.... Steam has a definition of what it means on every game store page that is in Early Access above the Buy button.
IGN was the same way about the dragon quest games, saying people dont really want to play turn based rpgs anymore. Yet Pokemon still out sells almost any game there is.
I can see his point. TLDW: his early access game got reviewed by a IGN, a big game reviewing channel, listened to the critique and from what he said in the video it seems he improved the game. However, since IGN didn't review the completed game the people who watch their video are going to come out with a view of only the early access and not the completed game.
EA being a 7/10 was fairly accurate IMO. It was an above average, but buggy work in progress. Full release improved upon EA’s issues substantially, to where it deserves being a 9 or 10/10
I would say that to have a successful early access you have to either let the player know that there will be more of the game once it release (what BG3 did) or your game has to have enough of an interesting gameplay loop to make people want to go back to it (what Phasmophobia is doing).
I think that the best option is that they DON’T review early access automatically, but instead the dev submits the game to be reviewed. However, the dev only gets 1 ea review, and it doesn’t get re-reviewed until 1.0 release. That way the dev can say “hey we know this is work in progress but we think it’s still worth your money” and also the reviewer doesn’t get deluged with “hey we updated to 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 review it again”
i want alot of re-reveiws of games. after we get so many broken games at luanch that come out with major patches i want to know if the games is fixed but its so hard to find. i waited a few months for starwars survivors and my playthrough was a glitchy mess.
@@elliottb7009 Yeah that would be useful. Digital Foundry are basically the only ones who _sometimes_ do that. But they're typically only concerned with performance and bugs related specifically to performance, not so much the more gameplay related bugs.
@@GeraltofRivia22 But why not? If it in general lvl up the game industery as a whole why it should not be a free pass for the developers. Most of the time the early access is cheaper then the full game + most of the time you can submit your ideas on how to improve the game. It comes with the fee but you can be part of the project. If you want to treat it as a finished game I bet you, that 99% of developers do not want you as their early access customer.
I don't see why early access games shouldn't get a review. They're charging money for a product, people deserve to know what it's like before buying it.
These are your opinions, many players has enjoyed the game through and through. I am still on Act 1 but I game less and play many games at any given time too. I only binge hours on a few games now.
reviewers inflate their score, they use a 5/10 to a 9/10 range, so here is what they mean: 5/10 = 1/5 6/10 = 2/5 7/10 = 3/5 8/10 = 4/5 9/10 = 5/5 10/10 = 5/5
Difference is between other Early Access and Baldur's Gate 3 is it was extremely clear in BG3's early access that you are playing 1 act out of 3 acts, a fraction of the game. Other early access games are the full game with maybe some features that will be included later down the line.
I think the real problem with early access is that alot of games charge 20 to 40 dollars and the amount of games that dont get finished or simply are abandonded is far greater than he ones that do become complete games so now when I look at a game I have to judge if its even going to get completed.
This is not a problem as you are told beforehand that the game is in early access and is in an incomplete state. Now, if the game never manages to be fully completed, a score should be attributed and mentioning the fact it'll never get a full release.
this is exactly what happened to super people 2. The game was really good for being EARLY ACCESS! the devs pulled off so much stuff in a few months and I really hope they will be able to keep developing the game and we will get our hands on a finished version sooner or later
A big problem is how arbitrary the numbers are on IGN. Entire review stating how simple, boring, and flawed the game is will get a 7/10 but then another will state how innovative, creative, and stable a game is and gives a 7/10.
They could just label any early access reviews as previews instead but do everything the same. This way the preview score doesn't count towards the metacritic review score later on.
The most amazing part of all this for me is that all of the whinging is coming from _other developers_ who don't want to compete with Larian. Whenever someone tries to wax poetic about the "gaming community" think back to this time when someone achieved the impossible and released a masterpiece -- how they were treated by their contemporaries, by their "peers".
Larian asked people to not buy early access unless they specifically wanted to provide feedback for the game. I do not think that had a major material effect but should be standard practice for all early access titles. The issue as I see it is that you can give early access games a pass with reviews and wait for the full release but then Devs have a monetary incentive to sit in EA to cash in as much as possible before abandoning the title on release. In my opinion EA was actually protected in reviews and then Devs abused EA and that lead to where we are now. I do not see an easy solution except for reviews to try to stay on top of updating thier reviews, preferably they would have the support staff to be able to communicate quickly even with the smallest Devs so that games dont get missed when they release.
The inherent problem of early access is something we know about for many years. You actually need a solid product at least up to a point, to be able to release it to the public, otherwise you simply risk hugely for the game's and by extent company's future reputation. Its just how things are. People will rate your game once its public you can't force people to "not rate it". Its unfortunate indeed, but it marks you with a stamp. And its literally like a permanent scar you need to proudly wear afterwards. That's why you need to release it once its decent enough and not from super early with countless bugs and very bad design and/or content. Yes you want feedback to improve it, but nobody will actually test your game and give you good feedback unless its already good enough to attract them to play it and be passionate about it. I'm a dev myself, and even though I don't like seeing ratings on early access titles, at the same time I know there is nothing that can be done to prevent that. In short, early access is super tricky and it needs great timing and an already decent product or at the very least a company with a good name behind it to be successful. If its badly handed, it will end up looking like a scam and nothing more. In my opinion depending on how finished and decent a product is that wants to go to early access, the price should accommodate that. Full game price is kinda unacceptable for a product with huge problems even though the problem is not inherently just that, but more that they rushed to release it sooner than they should have. Reputation is important sadly and rushing only hurts it.
Don’t charge full price for EA, charge half and half again when it’s released. But they won’t because they know the majority of EA players won’t come back and play the full game. So it needs to be rated as a finished product.
I strongly agree with the guy who claimed it was a verbiage issue. Nothing about the term 'Early Access' implies incompletion in the way the term Alpha does. If you go to a movie premiere, you are getting early access to the movie. It doesn't mean the movie isnt finished. People overlook the term early access because of big games that use the term so loosely such as Fortnite, a live service game that had early access on the loading screen for years while being the biggest game in the world. Early Access can effectively mean whatever the dev decides it means in their case, whereas the term Alpha is much more specific. Asmon's counter argument to the guy's claim is that it shouldn't matter because the steam page alerts you that the game is incomplete and that you should be aware that is what you are buying, but how is this anything but manipulation to fit his agenda when earlier in the video he stated that people ignore the disclaimers anyway? The terms used in the games title are much more likely to get through to a player than a warning screen that they will most likely skip past regardless. I still completely agree with the man in the video that games marketed as unfinished should not be scrutinized or given objective reviews, but if we are trying to come up with a solution I think using different verbiage could strongly reduce the frequency of this being an issue.
exactly the most recent big example is diablo 4 in which you paid more for the privilege of early access to a complete game and not an alpha or beta unfinished mess... oh wait my bad but you get the idea
Game reviews for early access game should already treat the game bad or needs improvement as a default. Instead of assigning a score at the end of the review, make a list of things that the early access games need to improve on, like responsiveness of controls, smoothness in movement, bugs, etc.
Early Access games shouldn't get a number value assigned to it rating wise, but phrases like "promising" or "needs more work" with proper motivation. I think the way Larian handled their Early Access very well, listening to feedback, improving where necessary and adding/removing when needed. If you don't do this, ignore it or just post platitudes, you'll indeed end up in a Kira video. It should also be cleR from the start what kind of game you'll be making. Just my two cents here...
Anyone saying Star Citizen is a bad game is just ignorant. It is incredibly fun to play as a technical alpha and gets better every year. It has very transparent development, it has no launch date, but you can play it as it evolves and grows and contribute to the games evolution along the way. Yes, it has bugs, yes it is taking now over 10 years for Chris Roberts to build a 1,100 person game studio (CIG) and build the bleeding edge server IP, engine modifications, and creative assets, but what does one expect when the game is pushing the limits of what has ever been possible for a MMO?
I feel for this guy because a single number really doesn't communicate where an early access title is at in it's development. I'd rather support a game that has really interesting ideas and has more potential than a game that is more complete but boring. Even if sometimes the game's potential doesn't come to fruition.
I love how one single game with no micro transactions no live service gave all these devs with billions in funding and thousands of employees an existential crisis lol
This is exactly why I don’t play early access games anymore. I don’t want to buy in to a game where the dev team just wants an early paycheck, or if it’s a good early access game then I don’t want to be spoiled on the finished product. Highly recommend this to others
I don't get early access reviews since these games are still work in progress builds. They should give previews and not reviews for early access games and have a conclusion whether you should jump in or wait for 1.0.
He aint wrong. Early access been out for awhile now. I invested into early access and never regretted. They even responded to the bugs at places ingame i mentioned. One of them was the bibberbang shrooms explosions causes a crash 😂 they patch dat up almost immediately
Asmon’s idea of omitting a score from early access reviews is great. This is better than adjusting the score for early access as it prevent games from trying to cheat their score by staying in perpetual early access.
It's 20 dollars for early access. It looks ok. I don't think his review score is going to improve as much as he wants on re-review. He sure does know how to cry about it though.
Early acess worked for Larian in DOS1 +2 BG3 because people had faith the end games would be good and that the early acess served the purpose of actually making the good. They' ve been building that reputation for like 15 years.
All the games I love the most were an early access games when I first bought them. An the best part was that these game were exploration survival games. And every update added something new to the map and I wanted to explore it. And in the end the game that was 20 hours playtime I had 250 hours playtime into it.
I doesn't matter how long a game was in development or if it was EA or not. The result counts: Is it a good game or not? And in the case of BG3 it's pretty clear, even if someone doesn't like the genre and won't play it. That guy is right however, that IGN has a journalistic / ethical obligation to review the final release if they did review an EA version. Even when it's only a small game and studio.
Who are all these tiny developers coming out and acting like the gaming community is picking on them? We're not mad at 4 man studios making indie games, we're pissed at massive studios pushing crap on us and then charging us £70 for it. These tiny studios playing victim in this argument are just pissing me off at this point
I lost my 30hrs of progress because of a bug in BG3, normally I would rage and be toxic, but my next 30hrs were quite different than the last, which made me appreciate the effort and freedom they put on their game. It's not a 10/10 masterpiece due to game breaking bugs on later chapters (or even some in act1) but they clearly nailed the concept of a "fun" game, which is in my book is the most important element for gaming.
@@McN4styFilth You’re one of the only people to report such a thing exists so I guess this is primarily a you problem? Submit a ticket and stop crying - or better yet, I guarantee they already know about it and are working on it for a patch.
A game being sold to the public, should be open to reviews. There's no obligation they have to review it once its out of early access, if you're worried about that, make sure your early access leavea a good impression. Especially if you can maintain a player base throughout early access.
A game that looks good in early access, and they actually make something with the feedback deserves all the praise people can get them. The others develoers should LEARN from them. It's that simple
Right, player feedback is only good for ignoring as far as these big publishers are concerned.
and we can ignore the early access aspect because developers get feedback regardless of if they have an early access lrelease
They removed features, ignored player feedback, and kicked off a hornet's nest.
The consumer is cattle to the game industry. It's the giants that are scared about any kind of change of that.
the problem is the people dont give them second chances
Thank you for proving our point dude. An underdeveloped game is 7/10 but when its a FULL FEATURE RELEASE its suddenly a 9.7/10. The problem is AAA games are released in the state bg3 was while it was early access.
Tbf it really shows once you get to the content that wasn't tested. Act 3 game quality falls off a cliff.
and then they sell you the completed game in 3 more DLC's for 19.99 each
@@ruinmaniac1411 I personally disagree, Act 3 is hella more chaotic and messy, but the quality of the content is still top tier, it's just too crowded.
Its because they’re using live service as an excuse to push an unfinished product when really they’re doing an early access route.
@@moridahan hell nah, it has bugs up it's fucking ass. Like major bugs. Still good, but half as good as the rest of the game.
This Baulder's Gate 3 drama just goes to show the massive disconnect between devs / studios and customers / players.
Isn’t it great?
Devs probably dont want pressure from the higher ups and stockholders to want more shit that they cant deliver with minimal pay unless it's made to make profits. Hence why we get battlepasses, cosmetics, and unkept promises.
Game devs when a game releases unfinished, with exploitative microtransactions and season passes: deafening silence.
Game devs when a game is praised for being good and complete at launch: THIS INJUSTICE MUST NOT STAND !
@@RDV333 It is not complete. The second and third acts are buggy.
Devs are scrambling to not get fired from the studio that thinks their working 😂
Watching Asmongold having to dance around just flat out calling his audience "stupid animals" is the best.
but most are lol
hahaha yea! more or like MAN-KID@@MB-go6uy
His audience does seem to be a lot of the bitter incel MMO addicts
Splattercat is a really good video game reviewer that almost exclusively does first impression reviews on early access indie titles. He's very clear about the fact that he's doing first impressions and not a full-on review and doesn't assign a numerical grade. He also always gives constructive feedback on what he thinks could benefit the game based on his history with doing first impressions on Indy titles and the things that he likes to see in games versus what's on offer. Overall very enjoyable and informative.
Agreed. It's also a plus that he plays a lot of different styles of games. I've tried so many indie games solely because of his videos.
Yeah I've found a few great games through Splat. Underrated channel.
Splat rarely do first impressions. Just watch the last 10 videos and try to count how many of them don't have the ''After 3-5 hours with the game, i think i have a good idea of what the devs are trying to make''.
This is why i like Splat. Almost all indie game reviewers do a first impression, where they try to figure out the game as they play a record the footage, which doesn't really help paint a accurate picture of what the game is about. They upload like 3 ''reviews'' a day that are closer to a ''lets play''.
Splat starts with ''i'm gonna give you all you need in order to make an informed decision when you buy this game'', and the man delivers. He goes from playing the game hours before recording the video, going into Steam in order to get the general feeling of the community, to directly talking to the dev team in order to clarify things.
@@showdowns1917what you mentioned is a reason I like splat. He actually learns how to play the game. I used to watch Z1 but grew frustrated watching him struggle to play simple games because he kept skipping the fucking tutorial boxes and not reading context on screen. After watching him miss a lot of stuff in Planet crafter due to not reading and apparently just not having a fundamental understating of how to play video games, I unsubscribed.
Thank to him, Angry Joe, as well as both the late TotalBiscuit and inControl I was able to discover the Warhammer 40K franchise!
I really think the main point by the dev was missed. He was not directy mad about IGN giving BG3 a mediocre Early Access score, and that they then jumped on the bandwaggon praising it giving it a "re-review" 10/10 (including huge praise for early access). But he was mad that this something they didnt do for his game (which now i am keen to find out what that is), and moreover for all games coming from small dev studios who rely even more on early access. So the small studios need the tool, but they get effed by IGN becuase they review the early access give it a 5/10 and then thats that. This is where his emotions came from.
but correct me if i am wrong.
the whole discussion about terminology was by the way the most pointless one i have heard in a very very long time.
I took it that way as well. And also, give way more leeway to devs and I think a lot of the problem lies with the management.
People here are too mad to think rationally. Every time they hear BG3 their brain goes haha AAA bad, even if this is entirely missing the point being made.
Sort of he doesn’t want them to assign them numbers to early access games his game isn’t released yet and he isn’t asking for a second review
This is exactly what I was hearing. Asmon should have let him cook a bit longer at a time.
His name is chet falasak, the owner of stray bombay. His game is the anacrusis
Overwatch 2 was in early access for like 9 months. How much feedback did they listen to?
so fucking true lmaoo, I’m the biggest overwatch fan in history and the game was literal garbage on day 1 and has been for months
@@Swizz9for real tho
They made it worse
That would imply that Blizzard is capable of listening to player feedback
they didn't need it to be in early access to get feedback lol
As someone who played early access, this game is VASTLY different from that one. It was great back then, so many things you could do though the story was no where near as complete or rather, they didn’t want to show it. This game was amazing then but it’s far and above better now. There were bugs, sure. There’s some bugs that exist even now. Hasn’t stopped me from pooping 80 hours into it. For other games, early access is a paycheck. For larian it was a true testing ground with very fine tuning and complete over hauls to cause this masterpiece of a final product. Massive respect.
I'm totally happy for a company going on early access and improving their game.
I think reviews of early access is something that maybe should be held off on but I do think the devs need to communicate.
Pooping?
@@barcster2003reviewing some in EA is fine. You just need to make sure to re review it once it launches. Imo steam should give EA games a "EA review" score that locks in when it hits 1.0, and then reset all the reviews so only ones made after it launches count towards the score.
What? When BG3 first came out it was trash and the community was very vocal about it.
I find two new bugs every single day that I play but I have still played every day since launch. I heavily prefer Act 1 over the other acts but I still think every Act is better than any current AAA game, even with the current bugs.
Even in early access, it was CLEAR what BG3 was trying to accomplish. Yes they made changes and fixed little things, but the bones of the game, what the game was meant to be, the evolution of the CRPG genre that fans have been waiting for was right there in early access.
Correct.
100%
Bg3 isn't really an evolution og CRPGs. Its more of an ultimate refinement. Nothing that BG3 does really pushes the genre forward in any real sense, rather, it takes the best things CRPGs have to offer and polishes them as close to perfection as possible.
@@thewingedserpent5823 As much as I think most people praise BG3 for things that most CRPGs do, because most of these people (like Asmon) never played a CRPG before...
BG3 did evolve the genre on one front; the flexibility in what you can do. CRPGs traditionally are limited in gameplay actions, typically to basic combat actions based around class structure. BG3 (and D:OS1, D:OS2) give you environmental effects, which includes barrels, traps, etc, that are definitely an advancement in tech compared to other CRPGs. Plus it's one of the few that allows you to shank NPCs whenever, no matter how important, without dialogue. You can just shank them.
(IMO I think Pathfinder Kingmaker + PoE1 does story and class structure better than BG3 and are way more polished in those areas, although part of that is the fault of 5E as a system)
I was actually just typing out a whole thing about the flexibility and way you interact with the environment but you beat me to it lol. I'll also add traversal as well. The way you can use different spells and abilitities to access areas of the map that traditional crpg's didn't allow. There's a freedom here in BG3 that is absolutely an evolution of the genre @@tenesenka
I think games going digital has really influenced dev behavior as well. Before digital, there were consequences for a bad game due the amount of money spent on production (game cartridges, packaging material, etc.).
Because the barrier to entry is so accessible now, its easy for companies to put out unfinished products.
7/10 for what is essentially a beta version, is pretty good score.
Yeah I don’t know why 7/10 is being seen as a bad thing. That’s pretty good. Especially for an early access.
Usually the way rating goes (or should go) is 10/10 is Perfect, 9/10 is Excellent, 8/10 is Great, 7/10 is good and so on and so forth.
I mean why should we be talking about rating on a numerical scale for a game that's not even being released? Like... what we need from a review is "What's the current direction, what's the pace at which they're going, are they capable of reaching that" and from that people should answer to themselves "Do I want that". Nowhere in that does a number fit in, which is why IGN's system is wrong here.
IGN's 7/10 is the famous "The game is average/bad, but please! Don't stop giving us review copies"
@@PopeDuwangIt is bad if people look for reviews and the reviewer never went back to update the score once the game is actually released. Not about the score, more so about the inaccuracy of the finished game based off of a purposefully/publicly unfished game.
7/10 is not typically the feedback loop that investors or administration wants. Game sequels have been entirely cancelled because of "only" receiving a 7.1, in conjunction with "only JUST meeting sales targets, but not exceeding them." Like if the goal was 1 million copies, and they sell 1,000,189. Staff have literally been LET GO and potentially good IP's have disappeared, while getting these VERY confusing numbers. (leaving us like "Uh you hit all your goals so what the fuck?" )
i'm just impressed how he can manage to stretch a 6 minute video to 35 minutes of his own input on the topic
That's the difference between a react Channel and Asmon's channel
Content king.
Asmon takes a 6 minute video and adds 30 minutes of input. XQC takes a 6 minute video, runs it at 1.5 speed, walks away to get his Uber Eats McDonalds and adds a minute on input where he barely intelligible.
this is what react streamers should be bruh
@@kgoodrum49 This made me laugh way harder than it should have lol, thank you :D
No reviewer should be making a scored review for early access. It should be only on full release.
Oh shit what's up dude love your channel
No reviewer should use scored reviews in general.
@nfortin24 So I'm not saying you shouldn't judge the product but let's not act like you don't know what your signing up for when taking part in Early Access(real EA like BG3 not Diablo 4 paid week of content).
There's a difference between buying an EA game and buying a full game. One is meant to support the development AND buy a product. The other is just to simply buy a product.
@@Wizardbeard91 Sup dood
@@Shizlgizl lol it says Early Access my guy, not rocket science
The funny thing was the 60$ for baldurs gate early access was actually a good deal. You got to make a character and play act 1. A lot of people put like 30-60 hours in it and it was fun. Some people on my friend list had like 100+ hours in early access. And the steam reviews for bg3 were like 90% positive when it was in ea.
Yea I had somewhere around 140 hours before release lol
the problem is devs abuse early access too. A lot of times it feels like an easy way to not actually finish their game
Early access games are as finished as any full release game is these days. At least if it's early access you know they're still working on it.
Early Access is just a pre-order that you can play along the way.
There are people who think Early Access is immediately a reason to expect nothing because there were enough high profile failures and enough trashy people abusing the system for people to see a pattern. Most Early Access games are indie anyway so they don't get talked about that much if they're just OK or solid but niche. Honestly a lot of, "put out now and fix later" releases are effectively Early Access without the title. Since Early Access stopped being something people actively complain about it's rarely brought up at all so that's basically the last impression a lot of people have.
A lot of these devs in their mind think they are making the best game based on their own vision and also expect a large number of players to like it too. When the game actually when EA and didn't meet the expected crowd, they lose motivation and decide to bail out of the project. This is just one of the issue, there are tons of problem in a development cycle that might affect why they stop.
Scam Citizen
One of my favorite details is how the game lets you know exactly how much fall damage you’ll take
Omg YES... because ur allies will never follow u if the jump gives fall dmg...
Very helpful knowing when to use featherfall or when to split ur party (usually I do this before jumping somewhere because I want to check for traps before everyone kamikazes into me)
@@jaybee8862If you have the featherfall boots you never have to decide, being able to cast featherfall for free with no cd is pretty ok
to be fair in DND you can ask a DM how far down you drop and formula for calculating damage is known. And BG3 actually doesn't provide the full info (more likely avg damage instead of range like attacks show), because I've had situations when I saw the damage amount and got double of that when landed.
Yet another thing that didn't exist 2 years ago (as videos of people playing the early access showed) but was added due to players actually being listened to. I actually saw a comment from someone on a recent Let's Play of BG3 claiming to be one of the people who suggested Paladins should spawn with their tennants in their inventory during the EA.
@@conspiracypanda1200 Nice, I recently saw a comment from the Dev that worked on the "Sphincter" doors, he said he appreciated the Fart joke.
This guys real gripe is that his title got a low score from IGN on early access launch and wasn't afforded a redemption review when it went full release.
Do you people actually bother watching the videos lmfao
@@kieran2k917 they arent wrong, he uses it as evidence at the start of the video asmon is watching. He says his game was in early access and got a 5/10, baldurs gate got a 7/10 in early access, then ign re-reviewed baldurs gate but didnt re-review his game when it came out, and baldurs gate re-review when it came out was a 9.7/10 so. Their point fits.
@@Vordt_His game has not been released yet so that’s not true. In the video he said that he hopes to get a new review once it’s actually released.
He just wants reviewers to re-review smaller studios games as well so that the treatment isn’t exclusive to more famous games
I mean, isn't it only fair that if you test an incomplete product and attach a numerical value to it, that you retest it once released? I feel this should be mandatory when reviewing early access titles, I completely agree with the guy in the vid.
@@franklinnartz1381the only issue with that is the fact is game never had a full release yet, so i don't know what he expects from IGN
I'm tired of these AAA companies bringing up the years of early access and player feedback, while they have games that have been out for years with plenty of player feedback and they just choose not to listen. The sad truth is that most companies just pump out garbage games, battle passes, and 50 dollar cosmetics, rather then community feedback.
"They have spend years to develop the game?! how dare they not spit out the same game every year!"
What's the bet they don't actually do any work and just hire contractors to do it for them. Kind of like those Twitter employees. Happens everywhere else in the tech industry. Why not the incestuous gaming industry?
Honestly this is a totally different argument of IGN not treating early access games the same. He didn’t even mention anything about raising the bar.
@@Nyakomata But his argument is unfounded because he's comparing this game to your 'typical' early access game, where you have a base product with no features, a roadmap, and then a slow release of content until they get to the magical "1.0" release where they then advertise it's a full release. However, everyone had access to the content as it was implemented.
BG3 gave you a small portion of the game, and that's it. The full release was the remaining 90% of the game. There was no slow roll-out of features over time. It was a full game release.
This guy is confusing a demo with early access. BG3 gave you a demo. That's it. This dude is being a whiny baby already from a point of bad faith.
@@Greg-if8es BG3 ea was like a 3rd of the game. It was more then a Demo. 7/10 is pretty good. i would only rank it 8/10
only Asmongold can take a 7 minute video and turn it into 50 minute react...
and that's the way a react is meant to be done, I don't see a problem here. transformative react content.
@@wayfa13 Agreed. Too many react channels are just people sitting there while someone else's content plays and they occasionally say "that's cool" or "I agree" or something else that adds zero value.
matpat
Darksydephil
I'd rather watch his 50hour react than most of the react vids outhere that just stares at the screen throughout the video.
This is like your English teacher grading your final book report based off of your rough drafts they made you turn in.
No, its more like, "Heres the grade Id give you if this is what you turned in."
I really hope Asmongold plays the game one day, then make a reaction to his own playthrough reactions.
I really hope he doesn't and all of these fanboys keep crying.. to me, BG3 look's like a boring game to watch. Turn based combat is so dull. Not to mention the amount of super annoying backseat gamers it brings.
After Genshin
@@hhaste Fun to watch than mmorpg
Well, speak for yourself, it is a great Game and the many decisions make it a long term treat to see how he acts and reacts @@hhaste
its not for everyone to me its amazing and i love it,sucks you dont feel the same way have a great day@@hhaste
One of the first things this guy said is that the IGN piece said the game is "perfect and has no bugs". I don't think that was ever said and seems to me like he's just being salty because his early access game didn't see the same success. Man literally opened with misinformation lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This guy helped make the left for deads, portals and hl2...
@@kieran2k917 ok yeah but hes not talking about them and hes mad about it
@@kieran2k917 And? He's talking about The Anacrusis which is his current game.
They kinda did say that, not with these exact terms but they did. And what he is saying is why is it OK for Baldur's Gate to have a 7/10 review, then get reviewed again when it launches fully and for smaller games to be forced to stick with the lower score they get while they are still in Early Acess.
@@kieran2k917 irrelevant
Yep! A developer that actually *listens* to feedback and utilizes it should deserve their accomplishments! While in the other hand: Some developers says, “We hear you! We’ve listened!” But they rarely or hardly deliver a half-assed update or update.
If someone says "We hear you, We've listened" and they DO NOT follow that up with a list of ACTIONS they are going to, and are actively taking in order to address those issues: They HAVE NOT heard you, they have NOT listened.
Its really simple,
early access = pro/con chart to help devs focus on what needs work.
Full release = number rating
Sadly that's not how most of review sites work.
Its good to have a disruptor like Larian turn over the apple cart, I am loving this.
The pathetic thing is they disrupted the industry by going back to the quality of the 1990's games industry. BG3 is buggy as hell too, even worse than the 90's, and insane bugs that never even shouldve existed too.
But the games industry is so rotten and greedy for the past 20 years, a buggy 1990's tier release with modern graphics is considered revolutionary. It's fucking pathetic, but that's how much capitalist rot has destroyed the entire industry. Children Gambling Addiction Simulators are embarrassed a real game came out.
or the Cabbage cart as one reference they made to a certain beloved cartoon.
@cartergabriel5949 it is not the result of free market capitalism, which is good... it is the reault of distopian cronie capitalism... corporations have become the mafia
@@nowayjosedaniel you're absolutely right on the bug department...but you gotta consider the ramifications of some choices in the game and the attention to detail on some aspects that are also above and beyond 90's quality products. The game isn't perfect but it damn well deserves the praise its getting aswell.
Baldur's Gate buggy early access was better than anything Blizzard did in the last 20 years.
Sc2 , Wrath of the Lich King ?
20? Are you dense?
dude doesnt know what he's talking about. It's just the funny, cool thing to do rn to hate on blizzard. Dude was just trying to get that most liked comment.@@CityBelowtheSea
@@mariusevander2214 meh
@BlackMeraBun PotC and Frozen Throne were both concieved in the early 2000's both releasing in 2003, to say one ripped off the other is an interesting take, could also say they both ripped off Religious idea's from thousands of years ago...
Yeah, see back in the day we didn't call it early access... it was called alpha/beta testing. It was also free and you signed up for it. You also filled out regular surveys with feedback and pointed out bugs and problems. See what happens when a proper test is done and left to cook as long as needed. The game goes from 7 to 9.7.
Yeah but when games come out now as beta people get pissed and say the game sucks because it's not done. People are stupid these days.
@@cryxbaby2250 because Beta nowadays is just a server test, or showing off game to everyone, rather than acttual beta where the feedback is taken seriously. All Betas are like so close to launch nowadays, what is even the point of beta if you encounter a game breaking thing, but they cannot fix it before launch, because its so close to the launch.
Today they launch it, sell it, advertise it and when game is full of bugs and non playable they say yeah its beta we will fix it in 2-3 years patches, if game doesnt die till then
@@cryxbaby2250 Because betas these days aren't true betas. They are quick pre-launch server load tests, or previews, for like a week/weekend. I remember Elder Scrolls Online Beta was like a just over a year and had regular invite intervals and forms when you completed shit that would pop up.
Early access is just a way to get players to have to pay to do alpha and beta testing. If a team can't afford what they are aiming for then don't aim so high.
Hades had early access because it is a smaller studio. I loved their previous games, so I bought earlier access to support their vision. Early access was only the first area, and very different from the final game. So many changes, and improvements. This is what most good smaller studios use early access for.
TIP: When buying an early access game, check these two things:
1. When was the last patch? Was it recent?
2. How often does it update in general?
If the game is actually actively being devved, it MIGHT be worth looking into further. If it's been forever since a patch, the game may be dead, use caution.
I like to equate buying into an EA game like buying into stocks and bonds. You can't just throw it into any pot, you actually have to pay attention to trends and dips. With EA games you NEED to know what you're getting into and it feels like a number of gamers just lack to ability to see how that works.
@SirFenV Their reputation as well as many others, I'm sure they come to mind immediately, have been so burned after so many repeated failures. I'm at the point where I won't even entertain the idea of playing a game until gamer reviews come out. Mass gamer reviews.
@@Shteven I will say, the last time I invested in an EA game against the whims of reviews was BG3. Back during EA the game was in a VERY MUCH unplayable state with a ton of game-breaking bugs that neutered the experience and alot of reviews made it known that you shouldn't buy it until release reviews drop and if you have try and refund, and the last patch EA got was almost a year from before release. But I think we can unilaterally agree with was worth it.
And then there's one of my personal favorite EA titles... Traveler's Rest. Can't wait for the game to come out in 2060 so my grandkids can experience it. "Because it's definitely coming out... r-r-right...? 😥"
If the company's motives are sound, early access is a win for everyone.
During early access Larian didn't even really need feedback from the players because the game was constantly sending them feedback automatically. They were able to adjust the game without the players knowing they were contributing every time they played. Everything from where players were dying the most so they can adjust the difficulty / balancing, who players were picking as races overall so they could add features to the other races to make them more attractive to people, etc. And then when the game is fully released they continue to do that and constantly patch the game to make it a better experience.
Also, I think a studio can release a game into early access much too early. sure they want some funding. They want feedback. They want to get the name out there. Etc. But baldur's Gate 3 had an extremely well developed act 1 when it was released into early access. Yes there were a lot of bugs. A lot of things needed to be changed. Entire characters were rewritten. But overall, people knew the game was going to be extremely good because it played well. It was fun and entertaining and it looked great. Some developers release games into early access and it looks like they have about 100 lines of code invested. Obviously that's an exaggeration but my point is, early access is not a Kickstarter.
You know going in that people do not like to change their opinions and there's a good chance people might not review it twice. So the developers need to make sure the game's foundation is very sound before putting it out there for people to grab it on early access.
Anyway, just my dumb opinion on it. Btw, BG3 was in early access for like 3 years and it turned out (in my opinion) to be the greatest game ever made and second place isn't even really close.
I recall an excellent point soviet wobble said about Day Z that in the world of quality assurance, you can only have 1 first impression. No ammount of screaming early access, no ammout of warnings will prevent everyone from forgiving you proverbial shitting the bed, especially if you charge retail price.
This is the thing that most gamers do not even know, how developers has information on the game they play even on single player games. They just can not understand.
The game Chet is talking about is his own game, The Anacrusis, on steam. He is now a co-owner/CEO of a game development company called, "Stray Bombay".
The problem lies on both sides when it comes to early access. Buyers not being bright enough to read what early access is suppose to be about before buying. And some bad game companies taking advantage of the system to get a quick buck with unfulfilled duties on improving or completing the game. Asmon is quite right on this one
hate early access, no way in hell am I going to be a free beta tester.
@@JackCrossSama oh no, no, no… you arent a free beta tester, you’ll be paying them to beta test lmao
@@JackCrossSama Then don't. Nobody's forcing you to play the game in Early Access. Just wait for it to be fully released.
@@TheMultiTasker3 Which I Don't, I ain't paying these suckers my money just so they can get a free beta tester.
@@sy-cho_boy1238 your getting the full game though🤦 My problem is the extra time your spending reporting bugs which a player should be compensated for.
I swear we are living in the twilight realm when it comes to game development. BG3 is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Yes!
dunno they still underpay their workers, its good it worked out but its another red dead redemption overworked employee issue
@@VeritankyHow do you know that the developers are underpaid?
You say this, knowing most gamers wouldn't tolerate Early Access for most AAA games.
Sometimes I feel like we’re the alternate universe lol
I'm so glad Asmon exists. Not for the comedy, not for the gameplay, not for the reactions, but because gamers listen to him, and he's not afraid to say "You guys are stupid, here's why", like he did around 35:00, talking about people doing mental gymnastics. Please continue to yell at us Asmon, we need it.
lol all the while he´s doing fucking mental backflips. He´s projecting so hard. He does everything he accuses others of doing.
(warhammer 3) immortal empires also got early access and guess what. The difference between the game when it was released and now is almost unnoticeable, 90% of the problems the game had are still there. The only thing that will change is the price. And we can probably be happy because if it continues like this we will also pay for the air we breathe while playing.
The price for IE is the least expensive in the TWW Franchise. You only need to own the 3rd game for access and the price for TW3 has never changed. IE wont be complete for at least 3 more years just like TW2's ME campaign took years to complete.
Another difference between bg3 early access compared to other games is that Larian only allowed players to play the first act. It was closer to a large demo that progressively got updates based on player feedback up till full release. Where other games u can usually play the full game while it gets progressive updates
Yeah. If it's a FULL game in EA why hype and come back for release? What's the difference between version 0.99 and 1.0?
Not only that but they changed ALOT from EA
I think larians thing is way better but it's also a very ambitious title in the first place.
With alot of games you wouldnt have all that much in early access.
@@k1nk1neI played the game in early access. I beat the “beta” 3 times during the development of it. To name a decent amount of these changes (some of this is spoilers): nudity, hag’s ability score +1 addition (was always planned but it didn’t work), children (goblins and what not), Nautiloid, act 2 and 3 (massive charges/ large sections of the game was added/ more than half), dark urge origin, more comps, oath-breaker, more classes, dragon born and other races, massive change in ui (main menu/ character creation),soundtrack seems different, areas was edited in beginning zones, performance changes, bugs fixes (tails and what not for tieflings and the like), devil cutscene (first / usually happens at the camp but can happen randomly it seems like in open world now), cutscene bugs/ freezes and what not, timer for tutorial area, massive change in mind flayer powers (eat/ unlock powers in brain), etc…
That being said. The fund of the game was there. And the game has easily 30-60+ (maybe even 100 for multiple characters) hours in early access. The full game has more (80-100+). A lot more for multiple campaigns.
I love changing my opinion. I usually avoid both turn based games and games where you have to manage more than one player character, but I gave this a shot and I am absolutely obsessed. Baldur's Gate is closer to what I wanted out of Diablo 4 than Diablo 4 was. I think I am discovering that I don't really like ARPGs. I would if they were more souls-like, but this fruit-loops fueled light show while you mow through everything in sight is not my cup of tea. I love the slower-paced, deliberate combat. I love watching the world unfold around me as I explore. I love the progression. I love the discovery and the choices I make that impact the way the world and the story progresses.
being willing to explore beyond what's familiar is a beatiful thing, especially when it comes to videogames/music etc.
To be fair diablo 4 is fucking terrible. Like that's not a good game to judge arpg's off of. I despise that game, the devs, and the fanboys. Just the worst gaming has go offer in every aspect.
I'd say that 90% of the hype around Baldur's Gate 3 is other people similarly discovering the CRPG genre for the first time. IMO there are better CRPG examples out there with a lot more depth, like Pathfinder for example. BG3 just does well thanks to the mainstream appeal of good graphics, good cutscenes, fully voice acted, etc. The surface level appeal brought a much larger audience in for it. I'd highly recommend trying out some other games in the genre, even stuff like Dragon Age Origins from years ago is a fantastic game but it never got the mainstream hit like BG3 has. Shadowrun is probably my favorite CRPG series and it has some pretty good games out there too, that started as Kickstarters on fan motivation just like BG3 did. (Also, yes, I know, these other games are very highly rated, even higher than BG3 is, but my point is that BG3 is a more successful game purely on the factors that brought it more attention being in the streaming age, having a less clunky/less "nerdy" appearance that let people overlook the fact that it's still just a CRPG, etc)
@@yoji-_ this game and both divinity games really shouldn't be compared to pathfinder. I feel like pathfinder is dog shit in comparison. The game is popular because it's the best games to come out since probably elden ring. It's not complicated.
@@yoji-_ I think you are correct, but also the enjoyability of the minute to minute gameplay is hugely important to the accessibility of the game. A very in depth game with amazing story isn't going to do as well with the majority of gamers if it doesn't feel good to play in between these moments.
One thing I believe would be good for Early Access games is if people could give reviews, but not a rating or a score. This would provide the devs with valuable feedback, while preventing people who fail to understand that Early Access games are works in progress from giving the game a low score.
One thing that people also tend to do naturally is that if a necessary nerf happens to peoples' characters after release, every one of those characters experiencing said nerf will forever remember that the game isn't as good because something was nerfed. They didn't see all of the other nerfs and buffs that happened prior to the release version.
Blizzard had 22. 5X the amount of staff on D4 compared to Larion.
Early access or not 1 Larian person = 22 blizzard employees is madness.
450 vs 9000
Well, you need the Assistant to the Regional Manager.
Guaranteed most of those are contractors paid pennies to do the work the actual employees were suppose to do but were too busy attending their second company yoga class of the day.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755blizz has a terrible external worker policy they are only allowed to work 18 months on a project.
It's a horrible approach to games because every 18 months an entire new team comes in and has no idea what they are looking at.
9000 people didnt develop Diablo 4 dude....
@@kindls8345 9,167 people
MobyGames, a database that chronicles the names and roles of game developers over multiple disciplines, revealed (via Exputer) that Diablo 4's credits
5:45 there's the general early access and then there's the way Larian did it. It was much more similar to a beta or demo than what most early access games are. Most early access games are the full game and then they just never leave early access because they're essentially live service games where new content is occasionally added. That's why early access isn't necessarily a good thing. But Larian having their game in open beta was a good choice.
I will never understand why IGN doesn't have versioning with their ratings. It wouldn't be so difficult to have a rating for when it was pre-release and a rating on release and a rating for an expansion
Hear thy words, for thou hast the answer. Incompetence.
I understand what you're saying, however, what would the point of that be if the older version of the game isn't accessible anymore? I don't think you can downgrade BG3 to the version that they gave 7/10 to, correct?
I don't think it's right to have a review of something for new versions, tbh. Video games being a form of art, can not be continually rejudged as a changing mass solely because of live updates. If a game was improperly judged because it was prerelease, this is the fault of the reviewer.
I don't want a "monthly review of the game because a new patch came out". Reviewing a patch by itself is one thing, but basic numerical review systems are already insincere to a complex opinion.
People seem to ignore the fact that on BG3 early access steam store page, the devs literally put in a message saying something like "you may as well wait for release now as the current version is so many months old" meaning they don't want the version you experience to ruin your perspective of the full game.
Early access is a corporate term for understanding that gamers are stupid enough to pay the developers to test their game instead of having to pay actual game testers.
For me the biggest keys when it comes to early access is 1. Is there good communication from the development team? Are they good at communicating what their though processes are when it comes to a game mechanic or are they able to express their vision going forward and 2. Progress that comes from that communication. Are they able to adapt? Are they willing to accept feedback and make changes for the better? Having a good relationship with the community who has bought into your early access is important.
When they attach review scores to early access games, they're actually giving people the impression they're fully finished products. It's actually contributing to the problem with EA games not being treated like they're EARLY ACCESS. EA should be a great way for curious people to experience the game early, and help give feedback, but not be treated like a final product.
I mean reading a simple note on a product that cleary states early access cant be that hard of a task for an average consumer to read and comprehent. if the consumer things early access means a finished product then its not on the media outlets who give early review scores. i mean where are we if we cant even read a simple note on a product.
@@nfortin24Early Access for the longest time has always been for player testing and crowdfunding. If the game is going to shit you can opt out of early access and get a refund. He's right most people have a fucked up view of what early access is as you are potraying such.
@@nfortin24dude what are you talking about, there are people who want to support the devs while knowing the game isn't finished. Have you heard about crowd funding? They ask for money while not actually having delievered anything yet. The world isn't as simple as you want it to be.
For every EA game there is a huge disclaimer, informing you about what you're paying for and the possible risks. You can't just shut down your brain and use that as an excuse.
@@nfortin24 Look up Larian studio size and here we are. Just because theyre a big studio doesnt mean they dont need extra money. Projects can easily go overbudget especially when they dream big. As i said, if you dont like the direction a early access game is going simply refund it. Bad actors that abuses Early Access shouldnt go unpunished. Its not that hard to understand heck why am i schooling the public what the fuck early access is. EA youre literally paying to be part of an active development by providing feedback.
I have not seen a review not including an Early Access tag to their reviews. Some people are illiterate or does not know what it means.... Steam has a definition of what it means on every game store page that is in Early Access above the Buy button.
IGN was the same way about the dragon quest games, saying people dont really want to play turn based rpgs anymore. Yet Pokemon still out sells almost any game there is.
Final fantasy too. Actually almost every big turn based combat rpg games are always the most popular. Games jlurnalist just can't stop lieing
I can see his point.
TLDW: his early access game got reviewed by a IGN, a big game reviewing channel, listened to the critique and from what he said in the video it seems he improved the game. However, since IGN didn't review the completed game the people who watch their video are going to come out with a view of only the early access and not the completed game.
Except their game isn't complete... it is still in early access. Meaning, by his logic, he shouldn't get his game re-reviewed until then.
I think these hit jobs on IGN forget the fact the early access of BG3 had no where near the content that the full release has
Not to mention that act 1 has more content, than some AAA games
EA being a 7/10 was fairly accurate IMO. It was an above average, but buggy work in progress. Full release improved upon EA’s issues substantially, to where it deserves being a 9 or 10/10
@@dracco2956 Facts, act one took me a bit more than 30 hours
Let's be real, Baldur's Gate 3 is Asmon's new Amber Heard trials. I'm here for it.
I would say that to have a successful early access you have to either let the player know that there will be more of the game once it release (what BG3 did) or your game has to have enough of an interesting gameplay loop to make people want to go back to it (what Phasmophobia is doing).
I think that the best option is that they DON’T review early access automatically, but instead the dev submits the game to be reviewed.
However, the dev only gets 1 ea review, and it doesn’t get re-reviewed until 1.0 release.
That way the dev can say “hey we know this is work in progress but we think it’s still worth your money” and also the reviewer doesn’t get deluged with “hey we updated to 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 review it again”
i want alot of re-reveiws of games. after we get so many broken games at luanch that come out with major patches i want to know if the games is fixed but its so hard to find. i waited a few months for starwars survivors and my playthrough was a glitchy mess.
@@elliottb7009 Yeah that would be useful. Digital Foundry are basically the only ones who _sometimes_ do that. But they're typically only concerned with performance and bugs related specifically to performance, not so much the more gameplay related bugs.
Why not? Sorry, if you're charging money for a product, it should get reviewed. Early access isn't a free pass.
@@GeraltofRivia22 But why not? If it in general lvl up the game industery as a whole why it should not be a free pass for the developers.
Most of the time the early access is cheaper then the full game + most of the time you can submit your ideas on how to improve the game. It comes with the fee but you can be part of the project.
If you want to treat it as a finished game I bet you, that 99% of developers do not want you as their early access customer.
How about you sell a good game or dont sell games.
I don't see why early access games shouldn't get a review. They're charging money for a product, people deserve to know what it's like before buying it.
This dude just proving a point we all make. Make your game, fix bugs then fully release it when it's ready.
I like how the drama isnt about all the main bad points of the game like cut story lines and ending but compleetly irrlevant thing
These are your opinions, many players has enjoyed the game through and through. I am still on Act 1 but I game less and play many games at any given time too. I only binge hours on a few games now.
If your game is in early access and you have an active cash shop, your game isn't actually in early access.
I never said that it was “perfect” in my video. I just said “feature complete”
My Video also calls out that the game was in early access to get fan feedback. But this video claims it does not.
reviewers inflate their score, they use a 5/10 to a 9/10 range, so here is what they mean:
5/10 = 1/5
6/10 = 2/5
7/10 = 3/5
8/10 = 4/5
9/10 = 5/5
10/10 = 5/5
So glad ACG is getting love. Such an amazing reviewer.
Difference is between other Early Access and Baldur's Gate 3 is it was extremely clear in BG3's early access that you are playing 1 act out of 3 acts, a fraction of the game. Other early access games are the full game with maybe some features that will be included later down the line.
Why are people claiming that BG3 Early Access had acts 2 and 3 in it? I have seen it too many times now that they claim content was cut.
I think the real problem with early access is that alot of games charge 20 to 40 dollars and the amount of games that dont get finished or simply are abandonded is far greater than he ones that do become complete games so now when I look at a game I have to judge if its even going to get completed.
Then you have Call of Duty with $20 extra for their Early Access of one week early.
This is not a problem as you are told beforehand that the game is in early access and is in an incomplete state. Now, if the game never manages to be fully completed, a score should be attributed and mentioning the fact it'll never get a full release.
Project zomboid is a masterclass in how early access should be used
this is exactly what happened to super people 2. The game was really good for being EARLY ACCESS! the devs pulled off so much stuff in a few months and I really hope they will be able to keep developing the game and we will get our hands on a finished version sooner or later
The Anacrusis is what Chet's game is.
Wow that’s it? Dude really copied-pasted his own homework from 15 years ago and is salty the teacher gave him a bad grade, that is super embarrassing.
A big problem is how arbitrary the numbers are on IGN. Entire review stating how simple, boring, and flawed the game is will get a 7/10 but then another will state how innovative, creative, and stable a game is and gives a 7/10.
They could just label any early access reviews as previews instead but do everything the same. This way the preview score doesn't count towards the metacritic review score later on.
Bro 7/10 is insane for an early access and then it’s 2 years to fix and perfect ALL games need this
The most amazing part of all this for me is that all of the whinging is coming from _other developers_ who don't want to compete with Larian.
Whenever someone tries to wax poetic about the "gaming community" think back to this time when someone achieved the impossible and released a masterpiece -- how they were treated by their contemporaries, by their "peers".
Man times like this I really miss Total Biscut, rest his soul.
I think they gave it a 10/10 now
Larian asked people to not buy early access unless they specifically wanted to provide feedback for the game. I do not think that had a major material effect but should be standard practice for all early access titles. The issue as I see it is that you can give early access games a pass with reviews and wait for the full release but then Devs have a monetary incentive to sit in EA to cash in as much as possible before abandoning the title on release. In my opinion EA was actually protected in reviews and then Devs abused EA and that lead to where we are now. I do not see an easy solution except for reviews to try to stay on top of updating thier reviews, preferably they would have the support staff to be able to communicate quickly even with the smallest Devs so that games dont get missed when they release.
this guy was a writer for the game not a developer
The inherent problem of early access is something we know about for many years.
You actually need a solid product at least up to a point, to be able to release it to the public, otherwise you simply risk hugely for the game's and by extent company's future reputation. Its just how things are. People will rate your game once its public you can't force people to "not rate it". Its unfortunate indeed, but it marks you with a stamp. And its literally like a permanent scar you need to proudly wear afterwards. That's why you need to release it once its decent enough and not from super early with countless bugs and very bad design and/or content. Yes you want feedback to improve it, but nobody will actually test your game and give you good feedback unless its already good enough to attract them to play it and be passionate about it.
I'm a dev myself, and even though I don't like seeing ratings on early access titles, at the same time I know there is nothing that can be done to prevent that. In short, early access is super tricky and it needs great timing and an already decent product or at the very least a company with a good name behind it to be successful. If its badly handed, it will end up looking like a scam and nothing more. In my opinion depending on how finished and decent a product is that wants to go to early access, the price should accommodate that. Full game price is kinda unacceptable for a product with huge problems even though the problem is not inherently just that, but more that they rushed to release it sooner than they should have. Reputation is important sadly and rushing only hurts it.
I went on IGN and looked at the Baldur's Gate 3 review, and they gave it a 10 and called it a masterpiece.
Don’t charge full price for EA, charge half and half again when it’s released.
But they won’t because they know the majority of EA players won’t come back and play the full game. So it needs to be rated as a finished product.
I strongly agree with the guy who claimed it was a verbiage issue.
Nothing about the term 'Early Access' implies incompletion in the way the term Alpha does. If you go to a movie premiere, you are getting early access to the movie. It doesn't mean the movie isnt finished. People overlook the term early access because of big games that use the term so loosely such as Fortnite, a live service game that had early access on the loading screen for years while being the biggest game in the world. Early Access can effectively mean whatever the dev decides it means in their case, whereas the term Alpha is much more specific.
Asmon's counter argument to the guy's claim is that it shouldn't matter because the steam page alerts you that the game is incomplete and that you should be aware that is what you are buying, but how is this anything but manipulation to fit his agenda when earlier in the video he stated that people ignore the disclaimers anyway? The terms used in the games title are much more likely to get through to a player than a warning screen that they will most likely skip past regardless.
I still completely agree with the man in the video that games marketed as unfinished should not be scrutinized or given objective reviews, but if we are trying to come up with a solution I think using different verbiage could strongly reduce the frequency of this being an issue.
exactly the most recent big example is diablo 4 in which you paid more for the privilege of early access to a complete game and not an alpha or beta unfinished mess... oh wait my bad but you get the idea
Game reviews for early access game should already treat the game bad or needs improvement as a default. Instead of assigning a score at the end of the review, make a list of things that the early access games need to improve on, like responsiveness of controls, smoothness in movement, bugs, etc.
Early Access games shouldn't get a number value assigned to it rating wise, but phrases like "promising" or "needs more work" with proper motivation. I think the way Larian handled their Early Access very well, listening to feedback, improving where necessary and adding/removing when needed. If you don't do this, ignore it or just post platitudes, you'll indeed end up in a Kira video. It should also be cleR from the start what kind of game you'll be making.
Just my two cents here...
I just couldn't be less interested in hearing these devs out than I am right now.
Anyone saying Star Citizen is a bad game is just ignorant. It is incredibly fun to play as a technical alpha and gets better every year. It has very transparent development, it has no launch date, but you can play it as it evolves and grows and contribute to the games evolution along the way. Yes, it has bugs, yes it is taking now over 10 years for Chris Roberts to build a 1,100 person game studio (CIG) and build the bleeding edge server IP, engine modifications, and creative assets, but what does one expect when the game is pushing the limits of what has ever been possible for a MMO?
"Even if they don't effectively mean the same thing, they functionally do."
If Baldur's Gate ever implemented a teamfight PVP: I would probably lose my mind. They ALREADY have mods allowing 8 players.
You now... an arena style pvp 4v4 actually would be fun lol
@@sol-hunter2332that was actually a game Larian was working on for like a bit. They even have trailers of it.
Yeah but the game isn't balanced around PVP lmao.
Some class are so broken that they can one shot you easily.
I feel for this guy because a single number really doesn't communicate where an early access title is at in it's development. I'd rather support a game that has really interesting ideas and has more potential than a game that is more complete but boring. Even if sometimes the game's potential doesn't come to fruition.
I love how one single game with no micro transactions no live service gave all these devs with billions in funding and thousands of employees an existential crisis lol
This is exactly why I don’t play early access games anymore. I don’t want to buy in to a game where the dev team just wants an early paycheck, or if it’s a good early access game then I don’t want to be spoiled on the finished product. Highly recommend this to others
I don't get early access reviews since these games are still work in progress builds. They should give previews and not reviews for early access games and have a conclusion whether you should jump in or wait for 1.0.
He aint wrong. Early access been out for awhile now. I invested into early access and never regretted. They even responded to the bugs at places ingame i mentioned. One of them was the bibberbang shrooms explosions causes a crash 😂 they patch dat up almost immediately
Asmon’s idea of omitting a score from early access reviews is great. This is better than adjusting the score for early access as it prevent games from trying to cheat their score by staying in perpetual early access.
The Anacrusis is his game BTW. Looks like a worth while thing to check out.
It's 20 dollars for early access. It looks ok. I don't think his review score is going to improve as much as he wants on re-review. He sure does know how to cry about it though.
really? my friends and I tried that. it was not very good, honestly.
Early acess worked for Larian in DOS1 +2 BG3 because people had faith the end games would be good and that the early acess served the purpose of actually making the good. They' ve been building that reputation for like 15 years.
All the games I love the most were an early access games when I first bought them. An the best part was that these game were exploration survival games. And every update added something new to the map and I wanted to explore it. And in the end the game that was 20 hours playtime I had 250 hours playtime into it.
Baldur's Gate 3 is the new standard
I doesn't matter how long a game was in development or if it was EA or not.
The result counts: Is it a good game or not?
And in the case of BG3 it's pretty clear, even if someone doesn't like the genre and won't play it.
That guy is right however, that IGN has a journalistic / ethical obligation to review the final release if they did review an EA version.
Even when it's only a small game and studio.
His game looks a lot of fun tbh. I'll be trying it out. He got lucky you did this cause I'd have never known about it.
BG3 has LOTS of bugs today, but few of them a showstoppers. Early Access is brilliant and I love it.
Who are all these tiny developers coming out and acting like the gaming community is picking on them? We're not mad at 4 man studios making indie games, we're pissed at massive studios pushing crap on us and then charging us £70 for it. These tiny studios playing victim in this argument are just pissing me off at this point
The thing happy was trying to say was "early access is frequently abused by bad games" and yes it happens way more than asmon is giving it credit for.
How wild that IGN honest review made these devs shaking and crying.
I lost my 30hrs of progress because of a bug in BG3, normally I would rage and be toxic, but my next 30hrs were quite different than the last, which made me appreciate the effort and freedom they put on their game. It's not a 10/10 masterpiece due to game breaking bugs on later chapters (or even some in act1) but they clearly nailed the concept of a "fun" game, which is in my book is the most important element for gaming.
The replayability of this game is insane
normal save, autosave, quicksave. always keep em updated every half hour or so or after a tough/satisfying spot
It was a sign your previous play through was a doomed timeline
Ah so a playthrough destroying bug is okay now.
@@McN4styFilth You’re one of the only people to report such a thing exists so I guess this is primarily a you problem? Submit a ticket and stop crying - or better yet, I guarantee they already know about it and are working on it for a patch.
A game being sold to the public, should be open to reviews. There's no obligation they have to review it once its out of early access, if you're worried about that, make sure your early access leavea a good impression. Especially if you can maintain a player base throughout early access.