Thesis seems to be that small developers are unfairly compared to successful AAA games, but that dynamic has existed forever.

Maybe it’s a good thing that Baldur’s Gate prevents the creation of a dozen bad copies. Indie devs should be looking to innovate and if you’re being compared to BG3 maybe it’s not actually innovative.

I strongly dislike the point being made by Ismail here. The quality of any art- game, movie, visual art, music, etc.- should never be intentionally handicapped for the sake of “keeping the bar lower”. We as humans should strive to create the best art possible, even if it has consequences like making it harder for other artists to one-up your work.

There is no reasonable alternative here. Does anybody expect Larian Studios to intentionally not give their project their best effort? The games industry is already an oversaturated one, and while I understand developers have to earn a living, the risks were clear prior to choosing that career path. There is always a chance indie devs won’t get the funding they need to make their idea a reality. It’s a gamble- it always has been and always will be.

I think people know when to distinguish indie games from AAA games. The ideas are fresher with indie games, and the ideas are different. Take Slay the Spire for instance. The developers may not have created the flashiest graphics, but they made a concept that’s unique and fun, and people respected the game for what it is.

In addition to Slay the Spire, many developers are able to take lower-end graphics (compared to AAA games) and do wonders with it. Undertale, while I haven’t played it, is a success despite being very basic visually.

Generally, if an indie dev tries something unique that isn’t a carbon copy of something successful, they won’t be blatantly compared to it or other AAA games.