The Real Cost of Success

 

There's a saying: "Success rides on the back of failures" which I just made up right now in order to attempt to illustrate some sort of point. Do you think it worked? I'm lukewarm on it. The point is that no one makes it anywhere without someone else falling flat on their face first- because we can't live in a world where one man's success is everyone's victory. Somewhere along the line the cosmic scales must tip in a way that knocks someone else off the board, and in some fields the greater that success is, the more dire the consequences of failure for the others involved. Which for the Games Industry, typically means loss of money and jobs, a grim and unfortunate reality of game development. So in many ways the 'real' cost of success is never paid by the successful at all, but rather by those they, intentionally or otherwise, step on in order to get where they are.

Immortals of Aveum (I think it's called) was quite the big marketing deal when it was announced. Hailing from a studio with few credits to their name as a brand new IP, the team had to invest heavily in trailers and showcases in order to get their name out there in way that might make the heavy development costs worth it. In steps Publisher EA with their handy-dandy big marketing bucks to make sure the game gets in front of everyone's eyes at least once during the lead-up to launch and from that point the only obstacles are the idea itself and the game behind it. Now if we're being honest with ourselves, the first problems may have begun here. Was Immortals of Aveum really a strong enough concept to justify a AAA budget with marketing? I know all about 'believing in your concept', but isn't that why artists hang around with pragmatists? To tether them back to reality in times of fanciful whimsy?

Telltale developers went through hell trying to keep that company's output matching the insane degree of capital they were losing licencing everything under the sun trying to replicate the run-away successes of The Walking Dead Seasons 1 and 2- and Ascendant Studios was supposed to be the way out for all those that lost their jobs with the dissolution of Telltale as a brand. (Before it's revival not so long ago.) Aveum would be a totally different style of game, focusing on high quality true-to-life assets modelled off of real actors and motion captured, first-person high octane action that prioritised a twist on the FPS model people were used to, and a unique magic-system quirk where magical users fought not using staffs and wands, but with fanciful flicks of their wris- hang on, did they accidentally make the exact same magic system as Forspoken? That's just unfortunate. What company to keep.

What is surprising to me is learning of the Telltale background for this studio, given that Telltale produced exclusively games that relied on the strength of an intriguing and well-crafted narrative to deliver their value to the audience. Immortals of Aveum, on the otherhand, has about as bland and cookie-cutter of a narrative as possible, following an upstart wizard 'Immortal' in some sort of big bad wizard war against and mean looking evil... >snore<... There's no apparent level of depth and intrigue anywhere to be seen in the marketing. (And reportedly not in the game itself either.) Which is kind of problem given that a lot of people usually expect their AAA games to be the triple-threat. Good looking, fun to play and well written. If you can't boast all three of those at equal measure, then you need to hope to be exceptional at one of those other two to make up the deficit. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't be planning a AAA budgeted title.

However according to the studio lead, fresh from the disastrous launch which saw the game drop interest in less than a weak and resulting in 40 employees losing their jobs, there is another cause of blame for the game slipping out of the limelight- and he's not entirely wrong. You see, part of the reason why you can't remember 'Immortals of Arkansas' is because it came out on August 22nd, whereas Baldur's Gate 3 came out on August 3rd. I'd imagine that even in the best case scenario, taking into account the beloved nature of Larian and the Baldur's Gate brand, Ascendant likely thought the hype of that release would only suck up the air of the room for about a week and a half. But as the founder and CEO Bret Robbins attests- "No one anticipated" Baldur's Gate 3 to be that popular.

Baldur's Gate fought hard and risked so much to get the success it did, and that success became huge profit in terms of money, market value and praise. Baldur's Gate 3 was a masterful achievement that made many around it look amateurish in comparison. It looked fantastic, played wonderfully and told a solid and heavily malleable narrative that people loved to go through. As such a middle-road average game like Immortals, not quite rich enough to shell out for the VR support the concept probably deserved, or funded enough to match the level of insanity that Larian Studios were looking for, got stamped down into the same league as some of this year's worst, which it honestly does not deserve. When it comes to the year's disappointments and games like Gollum are sharing breathing space with Immortals, you know something has gone topsy-turvy in the quantum continuum somewhere.

Let me be clear- 'Incandescents of Argyle' was never in it's life going to be a heavy hitter that knocked lesser titles off their tall thrones to grovel at it's feet- the setting was bland, the characters were cookie-cutter and the gameplay lacked serious enough depth to keep a player hooked- (colour coded spells really takes the oomph out of spell casting.) but we used to live in a world were middle of the road games like that could come out to some success. They are supposed to be the building blocks from which truly exceptional titles are made. Would Larian have gotten to where they are today without 'Beyond Divinity'- the worst game they've ever made by a landslide? What about Divinity 2- an objectively bad, but oddly charming action follow-up? No one starts at the top of their game. And for a first release of a studio, I think Ascendant actually laid the groundworks of a 'fantastic' career- provided they can survive the colossal failure of Immortals.

So I ask you- what is success but a bed built on the bones of failures? As though the very passion by which Baldur's Gate 3 willed itself to exist resulted in sucking the life directly out of all those unfortunate enough to be in it's vicinity. And in a way, Baldur's Gate was so ahead of the curve it spoiled everyone around it. Why put up with a dim-witted plot when you can enjoy a intricately woven tapestry? Why endure the average when you can dine on the exceptional? And in a world where most are average, that means the larger community will often go starving more often than they'll be fed. It seems that the way the world of gaming has trended, and in fact the world at large more recently, we're coming increasingly closer to the day when one can say with totally honesty and without a tincture of irony slathered on top: "This town ain't big enough for the both of us."