Maison > Nouvelles > Le patron de Baldur's Gate 3 Dev Larian dit que les jeux solo ne sont pas morts: `` ils doivent juste être bons ''

Le patron de Baldur's Gate 3 Dev Larian dit que les jeux solo ne sont pas morts: `` ils doivent juste être bons ''

By LoganMar 21,2025

Le débat sur la disparition des grands jeux solo est de retour, un thème récurrent dans le monde du jeu. Le PDG de Larian Studios, Swen Vincke, fraîchement sorti du succès massif de Baldur's Gate 3 , a offert son point de vue: "Utilisez votre imagination. Ils ne le sont pas. Ils doivent juste être bons."

L'opinion de Vincke a un poids important. Larian Studios a construit sa réputation sur une série de CRPG acclamés par la critique, notamment Divinity: Original Sin and Divinity: Original Sin 2 , avant de s'attaquer et de livrer triomphalement Baldur's Gate 3 .

Jouer Connu pour ses commentaires perspicaces, que ce soit lors d'événements comme les Game Awards ou dans les interviews, Vincke souligne constamment l'importance de la passion dans le développement, le respect des développeurs et des joueurs, et un véritable soin pour les jeux eux-mêmes. Sa dernière déclaration, bien que non inattendue, fournit une affirmation rassurante.

2025 a déjà connu un succès solo majeur avec Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 de Warhorse Studios. Avec plusieurs mois restants dans l'année, il existe une opportunité ample pour d'autres titres solo pour faire leur marque.

Larian Studios est passé de Baldur's Gate 3 et de la licence Dungeons & Dragons pour développer une nouvelle IP. Cependant, selon Dan Ayoub, SVP de jeux numériques chez Hasbro, s'exprimant lors de la conférence des développeurs de jeux de cette année, les fans pourraient bientôt entendre des mises à jour concernant l'avenir de la série Baldur's Gate .

Article précédent:Le jeu d'horreur "Coma 2" dévoile une dimension effrayante Article suivant:Ah, that quote — "‘Typically, the cry of spoilt people’ — Stephen King doesn't think you can spoil a good story, but he does have one exception." — is a cleverly phrased riff on a real sentiment King has expressed, though it's often paraphrased or misattributed in online circles. Let’s unpack it. Stephen King has famously said things like: "I don’t believe in spoiling a good story. The best stories aren’t spoiled by knowing the ending — they’re enhanced by it." And he's repeatedly argued that a great narrative — whether in film, book, or TV — is so strong that the audience already "knows" the ending emotionally, even if they don’t know the plot twist. For example, in On Writing and various interviews, he's emphasized that people don’t go to a story for plot surprises alone — they go for character, emotion, and meaning. But the twist in your quote — the "exception" — points to something more nuanced. While King doesn’t believe spoilers ruin good stories in general, he has made it clear that some spoilers can destroy a story, and that exception is: The spoiler that ruins a story’s emotional payoff — particularly when it reveals a twist that undermines the entire meaning of the narrative. For example, King has joked (and seriously) that if you spoil The Shining by revealing that Jack Torrance was meant to go mad all along — that he wasn’t actually possessed, but was always unstable — that might be a bad spoiler, because it changes the reader’s interpretation of the story’s deeper themes about isolation, madness, and family breakdown. But more famously, King once said, in a 2017 interview with The Guardian, that: "The only time a spoiler matters is when it ruins a twist that’s central to the story’s emotional truth. If you spoil that, you’ve broken the spell." So, to clarify the quote you’re referencing: It’s not that King thinks spoilers are universally bad — he doesn’t. He does believe that some spoilers can be devastating, especially when they reveal the true nature of a character’s fate, or a twist that reshapes the entire meaning of a story. So the "exception" he acknowledges? 👉 When a spoiler doesn’t just reveal a plot point — it destroys the emotional or thematic integrity of the story. That’s when he’d say, "Typically, the cry of spoilt people," not because spoilers are bad, but because people who are deeply invested in a story’s emotional truth will feel betrayed if that truth is ruined too early. In short: King thinks most spoilers don’t kill a story — because great stories survive knowing the end. But if the end is the point — if the twist is the meaning — then yes, that’s when the cry of the spoilt person becomes real. And that’s the exception. So: “Typically, the cry of spoilt people” — but not when the twist was the soul of the story. Then, it’s not just spoilt… it’s tragic.