Early Access: A Panacea for Game Balance?
Reflections on Early Access Strategies and Game Balancing
Josh Sawyer, the director behind Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire, recently shared his thoughts on whether an early access model, akin to Baldur's Gate 3, would have significantly altered Deadfire's development trajectory. He suggested that such an approach might not have resolved the core balancing issues, particularly those that emerge in the game's later stages. Sawyer pointed out that as a game progresses, the accumulation of various in-game systems and mechanics can magnify balance discrepancies, making them more pronounced towards the end. He drew a parallel with Baldur's Gate 3, noting that even with extensive early access and testing, its third act initially faced criticism for balance problems, which were subsequently addressed. This highlights a common challenge in game development: even with prolonged testing, certain issues can elude detection until the game is widely played.
The Strategic Allocation of Development Resources
Sawyer further elaborated that the effectiveness of early access largely depends on how feedback is prioritized and where development time is subsequently invested. He stressed that a director's strategic vision and the practical realities of production dictate how resources are allocated to address player input. He contrasted Deadfire with Obsidian's other title, Grounded, to illustrate this point. Grounded, being a more gameplay-centric experience with a less intricate narrative, benefited from a clearer focus for player feedback. Its developers could primarily concentrate on refining core gameplay mechanics. In contrast, extensive RPGs like Deadfire and Baldur's Gate 3 encompass a vast array of elements, including story, dialogue, voice acting, and balance, making the feedback loop far more complex and multifaceted.
The Intricacies of Feedback and Game Scope
The director emphasized that the scope of a game heavily influences the nature and utility of early access feedback. For a game with a dense narrative and complex choice-and-consequence systems like Deadfire, player feedback can span a broad spectrum, from minor balance tweaks to major story revisions. This wide scope means that development teams must carefully filter and prioritize feedback to make the most impactful changes within production constraints. Conversely, games with a tighter focus on gameplay offer a more streamlined feedback process, allowing developers to concentrate their efforts on specific, core mechanics. This distinction is crucial for understanding why an early access strategy that works for one type of game might not be as effective for another, particularly in the realm of sprawling RPGs.
Celebrating Deadfire's Enduring Quality
Ultimately, Sawyer's reflections suggest that Deadfire's inherent qualities and design choices meant that a different early access model might not have dramatically altered its outcome. Despite any perceived balancing issues, the game remains highly regarded by many. The article concludes by affirming Deadfire's excellence, implying that its strengths far outweigh any minor imperfections. This reinforces the idea that some games, by virtue of their design and artistic vision, are already exceptional, and extensive early access might not necessarily lead to a "better" product, but rather a different one shaped by a distinct development pathway.