Baldur’s Gate 3 and Good (Important) Games

originally published on 04/01/2024

There are some games out there that are good. Then there are other games out there, and they are also good, but not good like those previously mentioned games. Lastly, there are also bad games, but those are not that valuable to this discussion.

This distinction between good and good games - which I will henceforth display by using GOOD to refer to the former and good to the latter - is very tricky and difficult to successfully make. There are good games that can mislead folks into thinking that they are GOOD games, and then there are also GOOD games that can mislead folks into thinking they are good games.

Whether a game is such or not is not determined exclusively by the game, but also by something else, something external to that game. What I'm talking about here is its influence and its importance, when those extend to other games and gaming as a medium.

As an example, I'll present Diablo. That was a GOOD game, and it is still a GOOD game… But why? Because it was incredibly influential - it could be argued that Diablo led to the existence of the aRPG genre of games (such as Path of Exile, Torchlight, Grim Dawn, etc.), it could also be argued that Diablo is one of the reasons that combat in games is not predominantly turn-based, and it could even be argued that Diablo is the reason Blizzard Entertainment became what it is now (whatever that means).

That game was influential - monstrously so, and its influence still resonates through what can be described as “gaming culture”. At the same time, it was an important game. It took what games were, what gaming could do as a medium, and then pushed it forward. Diablo provides the Player with an experience that is unlike anything previously showcased in a video game. What, exactly, that experience is is not too valuable for the discussion at hand, but it could be argued that it provided an adrenaline filled, tension ridden struggle for survival through a mysterious and nearly hopeless world.

The fact that the experience was there is what matters. The fact that the experience was enough to remain within the mind of the Players long after they had concluded their encounter with the game, or the fact that the Players simply could not get enough of the game and continued playing the game over and over again, hoping and waiting for a sequel - those, regardless of the experience itself, are the result of the experience, and those are why the game is important.

Those indicate that the game did something. That thing the game did was, if we allow ourselves to equate games to art, that it wound up being a masterpiece. However, if we do not want to do that, then we can rely on Karl Popper's idea of the basic statement - in which case we must look at making games as a science. Through the introduction of Diablo, the basic statement(s) that were present prior to that introduction was rejected and a new basic statement needed to be reached.

And, reaching a basic statement requires the agreement of those involved in the science that is affected by it. This means that these games - important ones, GOOD ones, are recognized as such by those involved with their creation.

An alternative would be that it can be examined through the prism of paradigms. A game like Diablo shifts the paradigm, ala Thomas Kuhn, it changes, entirely, how the science (of games) works. Sure, things that were present previously can remain, but the expansion that follows alters it entirely.

Those are the GOOD games, and they come very, very rarely. However, at the same time, they can come very regularly - thanks to the many branches of the genre tree. There are certain types of games, which require different approaches. There are strategy games, then there are action games, then there are role-playing games - as a number of examples - and each of those is different from the others. As a result, the science of making that certain type of game is related to the overall science of making a game, but the making of that type of game features its own particulars.

So there can be paradigm shifts that occur in the field of strategy games, which shifts do not affect gaming as a whole. The basic statements can change, and the conventions are also altered…

This is where the importance of GOOD games lies. It pushes the medium forward, it forces it to improve in some capacity. This is also where good games become problematic, especially due to the fact that they can mislead people into thinking they are GOOD games. Then there are other problems - such as the fact that those making games don't have a proper community, unlike the scientific community (for which these scientific paradigms are applicable), whilst there is also a problem with games as a medium - mainly due to their age.

First - video games are new. New things are always difficult to deal with, when it comes to putting them in the slots that already exist, because those slots are not meant for these new things. Thus, a lot of effort is required to either expand the slots or to crush the new thing into something that fits in the slot. A lot of effort… As well as time and money, because society's current state of being is heavily dependent on those.

Fortunately, our current advancements in technology allow us to kill a lot of the time needed. Information travels almost instantly, communities are connected whilst featuring members all over the world - that means it is far easier to work on coming to an agreement and that it is easier to establish conventions… But, again, money and effort come in and make things messy.

There is no great forum for game developers out there (and those few exceptions, such as GDC, are thoroughly marred by bureaucratic meddling and corporate interests). There are no great efforts done by universities or academies to foster a gaming community… Well, there are some attempts, but they only extend to alumni of said university. In addition to that, there is an incredible effort to maintain some sort of exclusivity. Companies hire massive groups of developers and demand that nondisclosure agreements be signed, whilst fostering a culture that encourages only one type of feedback - positive feedback.

That, in turn, leads to game developers having limited access to other game developers - and when I say game developers I mean those who are so deep in it that it is as a science to them - aside from those who work in the same company. From that comes the fact that eco-chambers form, supported by the aforementioned presence of positive feedback, which result in something akin to the inbreeding of ideas.

Examples of positive feedback, unhealthy for the science of game development, can be presented in vast quantities. One of those would have to be the use of a game, such as Assassin's Creed Odyssey, as an example for good game design, only because the lecturer using it as an example had ties to that particular game. Another example would be the claims of Timothy Cain regarding the culture in game studios.

Overall, having an aversion to critique, due to the fact that it is often something that points out flaws and mistakes, is problematic. However, having no critique, or not taking critique seriously due to the impression that anyone saying anything bad about a product is a troll or a hater, which indicates that said person is being disingenuous, means that there is no room for improvement. A type of dogma takes hold and dismisses any attempt at change, slowly allowing a mindset of totalitarian absolutism to set in… Ultimately leading to the conclusion that there is no other way of making games, thus removing any opportunity for the creation of a new GOOD game that causes a paradigm shift.

This is where Baldur's Gate 3 comes in, and shortly before it - Elden Ring. However, whereas Elden Ring was easily discernible as a good game, rather than a GOOD game, because it was simply perfecting the formula presented in Dark Souls and even Demon Souls before it (with the former of those being the GOOD game, according to yours truly), Baldur's Gate 3 is harder to dissect.

Elden Ring was momentarily confused for a GOOD game, one that would bring about a paradigm shift, one that would force the entire gaming industry to change, one that would bring conventions crashing down and one that would cause great discomfort for the rigid structures of the behemoth companies currently busy with making games via molds (think Ubisoft, Activision, Electronic Arts). As a result of that, it is easy to tell that such an event would be very troublesome and perhaps even dangerous for the folks working in said companies…

That fear, coupled with illiteracy and a profound lack of theory relating to games, leads into preemptive assaults. Elden Ring, feared to be a GOOD game, was assaulted in such a manner - developers tied to these rigid behemoths lashed out and tried to demean and diminish the accomplishment of the people working at FromSoftware. However, it was short-lived, as Elden Ring proved that it was just another layer of polish added to a pre-existing paradigm - the one brought about by Dark Souls.

Baldur's Gate 3, on the other hand, is not that clear cut. That is such, due to the fact that it is a massive game, whilst also being very unconventional when compared to most other popular releases at its financing level. Not only that, but there has not been enough time for the aftermath of Baldur's Gate 3 to be properly felt.

Even so, the outcry surrounding it was far louder than what was heard when Elden Ring appeared. Regardless, I would not say that Baldur's Gate 3 is a GOOD game. I would argue that it is only a good game, for I do not think that it has done anything particularly groundbreaking, nor has it shattered the foundations of anything. What it did do was feature great amounts of effort, which is very rare when one considers the amount of effort that goes into filling out a ready-made mold.

The main takeaway is that there are people who fear the appearance of the next GOOD game. They do not fear it because of the quality or because of the good it will do for the medium of gaming - which is currently very stagnant, with the last GOOD game (and that is putting it very lightly) being Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, bringing forth the idea of the Battle Royale.

What developers fear is the loss of their livelihood and the potential to perform poorly. They have no certainty in the current jobs market - because that's just how things work - and so performing poorly can easily result in them being fired. And when one needs to do new things, they are far more likely to perform poorly. On top of that, companies are far less willing to invest into a project that wants to try something new, seeing as that is risky. In addition to that, remember that layoffs in the games industry are as common as game releases themselves.

So I find it very unlikely that we will see a GOOD game anytime soon, even if I want that to happen with all my heart. Alas, the only realm where such things might happen is that of independent games, made by small teams taking risks or pursuing their passions. So I'd say support those independent developers… That might mean something good for the medium of games.