- cross-posted to:
- games
- cross-posted to:
- games
You must log in or register to comment.
The devs over there were able to create an engaging and fun game on a constrained budget, using a combination of various unity assets, in house design and modelling and a lot of attention to detail (especially with animations), which ran exceptionally well for an early access release.
An AAA studio with the same limitations applied would likely not have made anything close
AA studio with the same limitations
well of course, theyre missing the mOsT iMpOrTaNt PaRt of a company - massively overpaid executives!
And design by committee
in house design and modeling
Actually, I think they outsourced design and modeling to Satoshi Tajiri
Ok but hear me out. What about AAAA games?
A small studio with three games in eternal early access. The usual.
If Palworld isn’t a AAA game. Then I don’t know what is
AAA is the budget, not a review of the game.
Being an indie developer, they didn’t pump a whole lot of money into this game.
TIL. It makes a little more sense why Ubisoft just declared a game as AAAA - they spent a lot of money on it. It didn’t mean we as gamers get a better experience
Well, it’s a bit of a catch 22 in that case. Because so much money is being spent on developing the game, there’s an expectation of high quality in order to get a return on that investment. And charging more for a game, well, we as consumers expect a better game than a standard $60 game.
The problem with Ubisoft’s case is they spent the “AAAA” budget for a mediocre game. Had the game been awesome, we’d probably be cheering on the idea of a AAAA game.
Palworld still ended up costing millions of dollars, although not tens of millions.
