While Baldur’s Gate 3 is being widely celebrated by fans and developers alike, some are panicking that this could set new expectations from fans. Good.

    • @sodiumbromley@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      It’s faithful enough to 5e that my partner and I broke out the players handbook to do some long term class planning together. A couple of things are different, like buffs to frenzy barbarian and changes to roleplay feats or spells to have a more mechanical benefit.

      But yes, as a long term DM for 5e, it’s faithful to 5e.

    • @hastati@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      The most significant change I noticed was you can cast any number of leveled spells per turn. That’s a pretty significant shift from 5e’s rule of only one leveled spell (excluding using action surge if you dip into fighter) per turn.

      However it makes the player stronger so I doubt anyone is really complaining about it.

      • @rivingtondown@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        I’ve been playing BG3 and perhaps I’m misunderstanding but you only have one action and one bonus action per turn and you only have so many spell slots per caster. Unless you have a leveled spell as an action and a separate leveled spell as a bonus action and enough spell slots for both you’d be hard pressed to cast more than a single spell per turn per character

        • @LiquorFan@pathfinder.social
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          It’s been a while since I played 5e, but if I remember correctly you could do some fuckery with Haste and/or Sorcery Points if you don’t follow that rule.

        • @hastati@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Plenty of spells cast as a bonus action. With a cleric I can cast Spirt Guardians and Spiritual Weapon on the same turn. Or polymorph and mass cure wounds. It makes a significant difference for bonus action spells.

    • 73rdNemesio
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Larian has been absolutely phenomenal through their process on both of these. Kept with the ‘it’ll release when it’s ready’ model, the exception with the alpha/early release on BG3 which I would say helped improve the quality of the Release product that much more, through testing/reports and cash influx without the ‘pre-order today, get whatever you get tomorrow’ mantra.

  • vlad
    link
    fedilink
    232 years ago

    BG3 is what games used to be and what they should have been like. It bring me back to my KotOR1/2, and Witcher 1 days. It’s great.

  • @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    462 years ago

    Developers? Panicking? Developers will rejoice that they don’t have to build these garbage mechanics. Publishers and game studio execs? Yeah they’ll panic

    • @50MYT@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      In similar fashion, EA/Dice woukd have desperately tried to ignore battlebit.

      4 devs made a game that is better in nearly every way than any of the last few battlefield games in their spare time.

      I hope AAA studios clear house and find a new formula that doesn’t ruin good IP.

      • 50gp
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        dice is the perfect example of a studio with the worst kind of incompetent people in charge of game direction

        they released a great game in battlefield 1 and went to shit after that chasing trends and monetisation strategies over everything else

        (shoutout to the guys who worked on base gameplay of BFV, they got fucked over by dumb decisions from higher up)

        • @Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Battlefield 1 is still good. God it’s fun to play. Though they left balance kinda weird on the last update. I wish standard issue rifles were better than the theoretical automatics that most soldiers didn’t have, or the ones that were invented in the last week of the war.

    • Jordan Lund
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      Or Hogwarts Legacy, which did the Ubi formula without the nonsense.

  • Space Sloth
    link
    fedilink
    342 years ago

    Honestly I hope this does indeed set a new gold standard. Probably not with the whole early access thing, though. It’s a thing that needs to go away.

    • Pixel
      link
      fedilink
      382 years ago

      EA is an immensely useful tool for game devs, the issue is EA as an excuse to ship unpolished games or to leave games unfinished forever. Neither of which are problems intrinsic to early access, they’re just bad business practice that should be shunned like any other

      • @soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        122 years ago

        As a gamedev: Early Access was useful for devs, back when it was real Early Access. Think: Kerbal Space Program (the first, not the second).

        Nowadays it’s mostly a marketing tool, that allows to generate the hype for launch twice… Publishers and players expect “Early Access” games to be feature complete and polished before the “Early Access” launch…

          • stopthatgirl7OP
            link
            fedilink
            72 years ago

            As did Supergiant, with Hades. When Early Access is used properly, it can help make a great game.

        • @Maultasche@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          I liked what Daemon X Machina did, where they released a demo, sent out questionnaires to everyone who downloaded it, published a video about the results save how they were planning to act on it, and a few months later released a new demo with a new questionnaire.

          • @Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            Ubisoft did (does?) it to a degree with their Rainbow 6 TTS (beta) servers to test the sandbox and did so for a few technical alpha/beta releases acting as selected pewviews to see how the game is received and where bugs are.

          • @soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            Yep, that’s probably the most helpful thing for devs. This sadly often conflicts with publishers’ announcement schedules. There are, however, companies that do NDA-protected play-tests, where you get the same kind of information, without publicly announcing the game.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I don’t think Early Access should go away as it’s not inherently bad in and of itself.

      What’s bad about it is when it’s used to sell a totally unfinished piece of shit that stays an unfinished piece of shit indefinitely.

    • @TauriWarrior@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      38
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Early access worked well for them, part of the start of the game was able to be play tested, the community got to give feedback, and they actually listened, its how it should be done

      • @Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Yeah but not how the remaining whole industry treats it.
        I saw literally no outcry regarding BG3 and early game bugs. Comparing it to CP2077 it was a stellar release in terms of PR.

        • @Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          162 years ago

          CP2077 didn’t have early access tho? How is this an argument against early access

  • wrath-sedan
    link
    fedilink
    872 years ago

    “Oh no fans might demand good games at release! The horror!”

  • circuitfarmer
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    The expectations have been set for a long time. BG3 isn’t the first good game. It’s just the first in a while, after mountains of AAA garbage ultimately driven by shareholders and MBAs.

    The sad thing is: those people are so clueless that they dont see they’d make more money by just not getting in the way of a good dev team.

    • JustEnoughDucks
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      The problem with your second statement is that it is patently untrue.

      That is why rocketed has been milking GTA microtransactions. The GachaGaming reddit tracks a series of microtransaction-heavy mobile games. They make hundreds of millions (as much as an entire AAA very hyped game release) quarterly through microtransactions.

      Companies have come out and said that microtransactions are more profitable than making new games which is why they are shoehorned into every damn piece of game possible by AAA studios.

      I hate microtransactions and I wish it wasn’t the case, but stupid kids with daddy’s credit card and stupid gamers and whales make bad games with microtransactions very profitable.

  • Jordan Lund
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 years ago

    Making bad developers panic maybe?

    I can’t imagine something like this makes the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

    Actually Redfall likely doesn’t make the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

    • Sparky678348
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      Such a shame, I was immensely sold on the initial trailer. I did not even end up playing it

      • Pigeon
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        For what it’s worth, I thought it’d be horrible from the reviews and ended up trying it anyway, and I actually really enjoyed it. shrug Rather feels like I played a different game than everyone else.

        I’m sure it’s partly the difference between starting with rock bottom expectations vs starting with Prey/Dishonored expectations, but I think even without that I’d like it.

        Also, it has no micro transactions! Zero. Not even for cosmetics - those are just unlockables. Credit where credit is due.

        Anyway if you liked the look of the trailer and you have gamepass, it’s worth at least trying, imo.

    • @sandriver@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      Wasn’t the whole thing with Redfall that it was Bethesda mismanagement? I’m not going to put that on the Redfall team. Does make me completely disinterested in buying any Bethesda games that aren’t mainline TES though.

        • That’s just part of the mismanagement.

          What worries me is that one of the leakers who was leaking shit about Redfall prior to release who was 100% correct about everything, also said he saw Starfield and it was in worse shape than Redfall was. It’s obviously coming out later, but not that much later.

          • Jordan Lund
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            Starfield is a Bethesda game proper and it’s wise to have appropriate expectations. :)

            https://youtu.be/ITOrKb5HP6s

            I forget, on launch wasn’t Fallout COMPLETELY broken for Nvidia cards? Or was it AMD? I can’t remember, it was one or the other…

            • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              While true, the state of Redfall was far worse than the expectation for a mainline Bethesda RPG (comparatively), even as bad as they have been in the past. So saying Starfield was in worse shape still has some hefty weight to it, if the leak is true. It will have at least had more time in the oven for things to be fixed up a bit more in line with normal expectations. And that’s my hope.

              • stopthatgirl7OP
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                Plus, Microsoft needs a win, especially after Redfall. They need this one to be hit outside the park.

          • stopthatgirl7OP
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            That’s upsetting. I was never going to play Starfield, but I want games coming out to be good. We don’t need another dumpster fire like the CP2077 launch was.

  • @CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    572 years ago

    If you have to panic because a competitor makes a good game maybe you should reconsider why you’re a game developer in the first place. If it’s not to make the best games you can make, you shouldn’t be a game developer. I’m guessing the developers panicking aren’t the ones who pour their heart and soul into every game they make.

      • stopthatgirl7OP
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        My counter to that is the last 2.5 BioWare games - I say 2.5 because Dreadwolf has been in development for ten years total now and still isn’t out. Andromeda was in development for 5 years. Anthem had money galore thrown at it until it came out. Too many devs, not just BioWare, are wasting years of development time because they haven’t got a clue what they can feasibly make then rush to get things out the door.

        Instead of making excuses for why gave dev is the way it is now - a way that isn’t working - maybe look at what Larian did right and ask why more studios aren’t doing that. Early Access is normal used by indies with overinflated budgets? Well, why aren’t larger studios taking advantage of it or using systems like it?

        The new normal for a have to be developed is turning into 5+ years, and there’s no excuse for the hot messes that have been coming out lately.

      • @CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I’d like to ask…why are publishers even required anymore? Games don’t need physical releases anymore. You don’t need a publisher to host a zip file on a web server. Storefronts let indie developers self-publish so why do the big names still fall for the publishers who exist only to enshittify gaming anymore? They bring negative value to the industry.

        • ampersandrew
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          They bring funding when you have none. Also marketing. How likely are we to have heard of The Plucky Squire without it being featured alongside several other Devolver games?

        • @theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          Because all those things make it possible to release independently, it’s still not easy. Marketing and getting exposure is hard, it’s a totally different skill. With a publisher, you don’t have to worry about any of that - you might even get funding up front.

          Personally, I still think it’s worth doing - I’m in that position, and although I’m having a lot of trouble getting off the ground, at least I’m free to follow my visions

          But I get why people would do it. A slice of a big pie is worth more than all of a tiny one.

          It’s also stressful if it’s not in your skillset - I’ve started using chat gpt to rewrite my announcements and such. Before I’d stress trying to put them together and focused on being clear and honest, but no one was reading them. I find it worse than public speaking, at least when I get on stage I’m too busy to feel self conscious.

          The stuff I come up with using chat-gpt is a bit cringe, but at least people read them - sadly corpo speak draws people in

    • @worfamerryman@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      172 years ago

      Maybe release 1 good game every year or two instead of 10 mediocre games a year to make as much cash as possible.

      I don’t have a convenient way to play this game at the moment, but I’ll pick it up as soon as I get a steam deck.

  • manager123321
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    Exploring Go High Level:

    1. What’s the Enthusiasm About?
      Hello there! Are you familiar with Go High Level? If not, let’s break it down. Imagine managing multiple apps for marketing. Sounds busy. That’s where Go High Level comes in. It’s like that friend who has a solution for everything. Whether you are working on creating an outstanding sales funnel or sending out an email campaign, this platform has your back. The best part? They let you test drive everything with a 14-day free trial. It’s like trying out a new car but for your business. And if you ever need assistance, their support team is just a click away. Pretty exciting, huh?

    2. So, How Much Does It Cost?
      Alright, let’s talk about the financial side. Go High Level offers 3 main plans. The Agency Starter Plan is perfect if you’re just starting or have a small business. It’s loaded with all the essential tools, and it’s quite cost-effective. But if you’re looking to scale up, the Agency Unlimited Plan is your best choice. It’s like the VIP pass at a concert, giving you access to everything without any limitations. Not sure about committing? Remember that 14-day free trial I mentioned? It’s a great way to give it a try without any obligations. Lastly, they offer a Pro plan that includes “SaaS mode,” where you can white label the product under your brand. Fantastic!

    3. Why Everyone’s Raving About It:
      In a world full of sophisticated digital tools, Go High Level is like that all-in-one Swiss Army knife. There’s no need to switch between apps because it has everything under one roof. Whether you’re a newcomer or an experienced marketer, it’s super user-friendly. It’s not just about launching impressive campaigns; they ensure you understand their performance with top-notch analytics. There’s even a white-label feature for marketing agencies, so you can add your brand and impress your clients.

    Here is a link to their 14-day free trial:
    https://www.gohighlevel.com/?fp_ref=get-started-now.

  • raccoona_nongrata
    link
    fedilink
    492 years ago

    I think this is also part of why there’s been such weirdly resilient misrepresentation of games like Star Citizen, from its very inception to this day – publishers know that if these kinds of projects succeed, it raises the bar.

    Raising the bar is great to the devs themselves who love doing new stuff, implementing new ideas and changing formulas etc. when they are given the time and resources to do that. Publishers hate it because it means you can’t just pump out the same old tired, formulaic reskins of games and expect everyone to pay a premium.

  • @WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    222 years ago

    How does it cost millions of dollars to make a current AAA game, and they’re rarely worth it?

    If you have 5,000 people on your payroll for a game what the hell are they doing? Every game should be fantastic.

    I love indie and AA games. Smaller teams. More focus. More fun. Usually more quality content.

    • AMuscelid
      link
      fedilink
      272 years ago

      It’s an issue of time and scalability. Going from 100 employees to 200 employees wont make the game in half the time. And corporate accounting would rather have 2 mediocre games per year than 1 extremely good game every 2 years, even if it sold 4 times as well since revenue is analyzed within fiscal years and financing isn’t free. Capitalism sucks.

      • @Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        Capitalism sucks.

        All the greatest games ever made were created in capitalistic economies so i cannot see how that is a determining factor. I don’t know what games your thinking of. Tetris?

        • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          Without capitalism Tetris would have remained an obscure piece of shareware probably vaguely known outside of ex-soviet nations. It’s only the desire to monitise the IP that saw it on every platform under the sun and packaged with every Gameboy.

            • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Yeah, the creator didn’t profit at the time because of communism and their belief that his creation belonged to the state. If he had been in a capitalist country at the time he could have copyrighted his game asap and exploited it for profit himself.

                • @NuPNuA@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  At the very least a smart creator in the US can go to a solicitor and make sure he isn’t being mugged off before they sign a deal, you didn’t have that that with the Soviet Government.

                  Yes lots of creators have been screwed by the people that worked for, notably in the comics field. But a lot of the time it’s because they signed a contract having no inkling how big the work would be.

          • bmaxv
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            @acastcandream @Murvel

            Trust me, I get it and I agree, #capitalism sucks. Mostly.

            But that’s not how it works.

            You can’t just take an arbitrary event and claim it came to be despite the circumstances, not because of them.

            Like, that’s not how causality works.

            Besides, It’s a way stronger argument to point at the overwhelming amount of bad games and bad features and say those got produced under capitalism and that’s why it’s bad full stop.

          • ampersandrew
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            Counter point: Baldur’s Gate is selling well within capitalism because it satisfies what the customer wants, which capitalism rewards in an environment with lots of competition, and video games have lots of competition. As big publishers like Ubisoft, EA, Activision-Blizzard, and Take Two have scaled back their offerings of lots of different types of games, including the type of RPG that Larian makes, it’s no surprise that the likes of Larian are rewarded for making that type of game. It’s why companies like Embracer, Anna Purna, Devolver, and Paradox are going to be growing a ton over the next decade.

        • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          92 years ago

          I think there is a difference between “capitalism” and “capitalism”.

          I think a more nuanced argument is that better games come from companies that are not primarily driven by the quarterly revenue cycle of Wall Street, that is defined as “capitalism”.

          I think it’s more of a hit-and-miss, and good corporate leadership is the kind that people forget it’s there when good games come out. I mean CDPR had a CEO both when Witcher 3 was the thing, and also when Cyberpunk 2077 was the thing that flopped. Obviously, people were more interested in the beancounters’ influence in the latter case.

        • @irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          112 years ago

          I think you’re missing the point. They’re just saying the incentive structure of capitalism doesn’t necessarily encourage the best types of games. We see this with borked EA launches, predatory MTX, loot boxes, battle passes, etc

        • @SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          We don’t exactly have many non-capitalistic economies.

          But we have games that people made outside of the incentives of capitalism. i.e., because they wanted to make the game they wanted to make. This is what has created the absolute best games in existence. Not the incentive of money.

          Was terraria made for the purposes of money? Was outer wilds? No. They were passion projects. Of course they had to earn money, because you need to earn money to survive, but that wasn’t their primary goals. Contrary to games such as call of duty or whatever. Which are just incredibly bland in comparison.

          I mean see how much microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Is ruining the atmosphere of games and exploiting the hell out of people and kids. Don’t tell me devs are putting that in because that is what their dream game would contain. No, they put it in purely because of capitalistic incentives. Would you argue that that is good?

          • ampersandrew
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Making a good product is an incentive of capitalism too. Microtransactions, battle passes, loot boxes, and other “live service” trappings dilute once-good products because people are often too attached to brands. As people tire of bad products, good ones can come along and thrive, which is what Battlebit appears to be doing for Battlefield fans, what Baldur’s Gate 3 appears to be doing for RPGs, and what Elden Ring and the last two Zelda games are doing for open world games; what Cities: Skylines did for SimCity fans and maybe what Life By You could do for Sims fans. There’s money to be made for making a good version of something that the reigning champs screwed up, abandoned, couldn’t think of, or didn’t bother to bring to market; that’s capitalism.

            • Do you think those games wouldn’t have been made without capitalism?

              All of those examples are driven by people wanting to make a good game because that is their passion.

              If they were given infinite resources to make a game, and would gain nothing else beyond just a decent standard of living or whatever, do you think they wouldn’t made them? Because I think they would.

              • ampersandrew
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                How hypothetical are we getting here? Somehow we live in a world where everyone has infinite resources? Capitalism just distributes the finite ones we have to things that people buy. A government can do that as well, but we don’t have a great track record of them being able to buck the realities of where those resources need to go. If there’s a UBI, you could end up with more games of the scope of Stardew Valley, or once tools and game engines get to be good enough, you could end up with more games that are feasible to be made by one or two people in a handful of years like that one was. But Baldur’s Gate 3, Elden Ring, Zelda…no, probably not. I can’t predict the future, but they seem to be impossible to be made by small teams even with magical game engines that automate a lot of work that went in to make them.

                Once you get beyond the profit motive, you’re now at this point where you need to hire more people. Anything beyond really small teams are going to have a hard time sticking to someone else’s vision unless one person is the boss calling the shots; otherwise known as the one with capital, paying those other talented people to work toward that goal. Of the 600 people making Baldur’s Gate 3, I’ll bet 550 of them disagreed on lots of directions that it went in, and it just becomes an insurmountable problem to wrangle that many people otherwise and keep them on track. If you don’t need the money and you disagree with what the boss is doing, you’ll just do your own project instead.

                Meanwhile, we just got a Titan Quest II announcement, which I’ll bet is a reaction to the general direction Blizzard has been going in since Diablo Immortal was announced, much like I was saying earlier. There’s also another perspective I’d like to add on here, which proves both of our points. Ryan Clark of Brace Yourself Games, makers of Crypt of the NecroDancer, used to do a YouTube show called Clark Tank, similar to Shark Tank, talking about how to make indie games that make money. Creatives have tons of passion projects they want to make, and you’ll never get through all of them in a lifetime. However, you know types of games that you would like to make, that you can observe are also making money, that you’re confident you can deliver while they’re still popular, so that you can profit, expand, and repeat the cycle. In a sense, passion projects and what the market is asking for via where they’re spending their money.

                • My point was that capitalism and its incentives do not create good games.

                  Capitalism rewards profit at any cost, and nothing more. In the end this allows for cash grabs and terrible working conditions, which the industry is riddled with. Good games would still have gotten made without these incentives.

                  There’s many assumptions in this text, and it ignores great games that were financial flops (or couldn’t get made in the first place), and terrible ones (like gacha games or basically the whole mobile games ecosystem) which are greatly rewarded and successful. There are so many resources wasted on objectively not good things for players such as how to exploit their psyche to spend money which compromises the game design, or resources spent on stuff like marketing just because that’s what pays back, instead of spending those on making a better game.

                  I would argue that capitalism’s incentives hampers the creation of good games if anything. Because now instead of thinking what makes a game good, devs are instead forced or incentivized to think what makes money. And they are very much not the same thing.

    • JohnEdwa
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Usually they don’t. Something like Horizon Forbidden West credits almost 3500 people even though Guerilla Game has less than 500 employees, most of the rest is absolutely massive bloat from different outsourced teams and Sony departments - like the “Head of Opportunity Markets Business Operations Tim Stokes from Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.: Global Business Operations” was undoubtedly very important for the development of the game.

      As for Baldurs Gate 3, Larian Studios currently has 450 employees in 6 different locations, so they are actually around the same size as Guerilla. I wouldn’t be surprised if the credits end up being well above a thousand people (D:OS2 has around 500 credits even though Larian back then had only 130 people).

    • 50gp
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      games are art projects at the end of the day and there are often many non-art people (or just people without the right skills or vision) making executive decisions on direction, deadlines etc.

    • insomniac_lemon
      link
      fedilink
      122 years ago

      I know that’s probably rhetorical, but probably a similar problem to modern movies where (as described in the video Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive) they are going after spectacle (rather than story or other elements) and due to cost they must make a ‘safe’ product to stay profitable, where a bland but universally palatable product will sell more tickets/copies than a stellar niche thing.

      I’d also add that companies know they can usually ride the success of their own name/brand recognition. Even worse here with games because of pre-ordering, early-access as a product, and crowd-funding (which some wildly successful publishers still do–on top of unpaid self-promotion and all the other things–because people still think of them as indie).

      • WagesOf
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        The main problem is they drop $20mil on effects and star faces and fucking spend $20/hr for a fucking committee to write a story in a week that wouldn’t pass a screenwriting 101 course.

        The problem with movies and games these days is where the money goes, not how much of it there is.

      • stopthatgirl7OP
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        Did you intend to link you the video you mentioned? Because I’d like to watch it.