How do people feel about this company using generative AI? That was a concern of mine around The Finals; they’ve defended the decision on voice acting and it made me wonder where else they’re using it.
EDIT: Learned some new things from the responses, certainly an interesting situation. I’ll consider them.
Embark released blog posts about how they’re integrating AI into their development workflow back in 2019/2020. The entire studio was founded by former Dice devs bc they were burned out with game development and had quit, then realized they could build tools and pipelines that allowed them to focus on the fun parts of game development, and got together to form Embark and do exactly that. Their vision preceded the vast majority of the public’s awareness of AI, and was not influenced by the current wave of LLMs and generative ai.
If you want to hate feel free that’s your prerogative, but be aware that anything Embark makes is going to be built on tools and pipelines that deeply integrate some form of AI/ML, and just stay away from anything the studio makes. It’s your loss really because their games are the first in a long time (in their genres) that I can feel the love the devs poured in seeping from every single aspect of the game, but again it’s your prerogative.
To defend the voice acting in The Finals - they obtained the consent for all the voice actors they use, and they pay them a commission for each new line they generate. It’s believed that one of the reasons they made that decision was to have things like improvised dialogue possible by the announcers (Scotty and June), for example.
They definitely aren’t cheating people out of money, fortunately.
I just picked it up to play with a couple buds, and it’s GOOD. $39.99 good? No, just good. The vibe is great, the gunplay feels good, the extraction is forgiving. Definitely worth the price in my opinion.
Fair, but what I’m saying is that it’s not only worth the price but I’d pay more having played it. 60 bucks? Probably not because I know I’m not that into extraction shooters, but it doesn’t feel like a discount game. Also, I was in my cups when I typed that.
Microsoft is maximizing subscription revenue this year. It’s all about increasing that y/y revenue while burning cash on AI that will explode in their face revenue wise, unless the subscription price hikes land.
What you on about, there’s always been crappy game releases. There’s a reason “can it run crisis” became a meme. That game is a lot older than 10 years old and it was a unoptimized mess when it was released.
To be fair, Crytek said it wasn’t unoptimized, but graphically over tuned on purpose, so that even years after release new hardware could finally play the game to its full potential and keep it a relevant graphical benchmark. That on launch only a fraction of gaming PCs would come even close to playing it on max settings with high fps was intended.
If that was a stupid idea in hind sight is another matter 👀.
I heard nothing in CryEngine 2 was multithreaded because they bet on processors getting better single core performance instead of getting more cores (which is what happened). Not sure about the gpu load though
I feel like there have always been buggy releases. But I do feel they have gotten more frequent and have become the actual norm, with people being impressed when AAA releases don’t have deal breaking bugs on release
I see a lot of folks trying to blame this on Unreal, but that makes no sense in light of other Unreal games being smooth for the visual fidelity, and Gearbox having worked with Unreal for literally forever.
This is all on Gearbox, and their CEO/devs throwing gas in the fire via Twitter.
It’s honestly insane. There is clearly internal dysfunction at Gearbox, yet their CEO and leads are allowed to damage their brand to their hearts content with… no repercussions? WTF is Embracer (their parent) even doing to miss that?
UE5 by default uses a lot of flashy tech that is supposed to improve performance, but a lot of it only does so in scenarios that are already extremely unoptimized. Using more traditional methods tends to achieve the same fidelity at a fraction of the performance cost. But there’s no time for optimization, and these fancy options “just work”, so there ya go.
The end result is a poorly running blurry mess of a game, but at least it’s out on schedule I guess.
I looked up some videos from YouTube sleuths on why so many UE5 games suck. For any studio previously using UE3 or 4, they had to relearn/recreate nearly their entire workflow again. 5 very much changed damn near everything. But also that 5 has all this tech that everyone assumes works in all scenarios and is a miracle, when in reality it’s still software tech and has very real limitations and best use cases that studios ignore. Larger studios “should” be able to trial and error while burning through $ to figure it out, but usually management doesn’t give them enough time. Smaller studios can’t afford to have many many months of downtime learning to re-adapt everything. It’s just so damn complex that very few have had time and $ to just trial and error figure out its limitations and to work within them.
It SHOULD get better and better as time goes on, though. The tech pieces in 5 keep getting improvements, and theoretically people should eventually start to adapt to it correctly, and the knowledge should spread as devs move to different studios for new work.
Woof. I want to play BL4, I’ve always been a huge fan of the series, but like…I distinctly remember BL3 and watching Claptrap do that stupid Vanna White thing across the screen for ages after every update. I kind of want that time back.
Supposedly that's why it does things this way, right? Instead of the very long compile up front they do a smaller one up front and then run it in the background.
They seem to imply that because the game is heavy by default this is what's causing people's performance issues. I don't know that I agree, but there's probably part of it.
Fuck pitchford and all that. But this is an increasing problem that most games have. Shaders are getting more and more expensive and compiling them on the fly… when it works it works and when it doesn’t it is horrible. But having a mandatory “sit and watch this load screen for three minutes” starts you off with a HORRIBLE first impression during the period where it is easiest to get a refund.
It is why MS are setting up their convoluted, and destined to fail, system to add those to the downloads. Since people have increasingly been realizing that Proton/Linux weirdly have an advantage in this… that again mostly manifests during the first 30-40 minutes of benchmarking while writing a blog post.
I honestly feel like it would be better if Steam would compile the shaders in the background after the download finishes and before it tells me that the game is ready to play. That seems like a thing they could totally do.
They could even precompile shaders for known setups (the Steam Deck, the last three generations of Nvidia and AMD, that sort of thing) and just add that to the download for people with those devices. It would improve the experience for a lot of people.
I mean, they do (for most games) on Linux. “Allow background processing of vulkan shaders” in Downloads.
The issue is that they can only do so much without support of the games themselves. My, very limited, understanding is they distribute “good enough” shaders with games and then the background processing is optimizing those for the user’s computer. But getting those “good enough” shaders is already a mess.
Yes, there are issues with updates and cached shaders… I mean, look at the topic of the thread. But the vast majority of the time there are zero issues and, again, this has been one of the biggest causes of a lot of the “This game runs better on Linux than Windows!!!” because the fly by night org just rushed into a single scene and took very few samples.
Maybe they could add a setting to automatically start up the game in the background after an update. Since shader compilation happens right at startup, that could get the job done.
Hey, say what you will, but I do think the solution is technological. MS at least has an approach. About time, too. I don't want to overplay it, because a lot of these arguments is very... terminally online, but it's nuts that the DX12/UE5 combo of tech that has now been a thing for ages is still so poorly understood and unadressed on a wider scale.
Also crazy that dev teams don't have enough systems engineers bitchy enough to insist on figuring this out.
I think for BL4 specifically the problem is the game is just... heavy. Not chuggy or stuttery on good enough hardware, but good enough starts kinda high here.
And yeah, it looks better than previous games, but it's a stylized look and it's taking shortcuts meant for photorealism into a space where a lot of stylization is going to cut into the extra bits of indirect lighting or vegetation or environmental detail you're getting out of it.
Blend the confusing shader issues with the disproportionately high frame budget even when things are working fine and you get this stuff. But I'll say that I was shocked at how playable the game is on higher end hardware given what the Internet was saying.
Maybe if there were any variation at all in the dance. Or a cycle of two or three different dances he goes through. Maybe give him a hat at random intervals. But no, just the same nonsense, over and over, for five minutes every time you start the game.
I played BL2 at launch and don’t regret it. But I only just picked BL3 up again over the last couple of months. It wasn’t only the loading screen, but I will say I don’t think the writing shines quite as much as it did in BL2.
Yeah, in the 15 minutes it takes to see if changing the setting caused any performance issues, I can easily just boot up Maze Mice and get through roughly 2 rounds with zero complications whatsoever. No need to change any settings from default or wait absurd lengths of time just to play a game without stuttering and other performance issues.
Also, your game is piss poorly optimized if you can’t get shader compiling working properly without tanking your experience in game.
I’ve played a handful of games that precompile shaders at boot up without it taking 15 minutes, and they try to hide at least some of it behind the splash screens and such. This is absurd. If pre-compilation or caching is needed, just fucking do it.
On top of what you said, that any company with the funds of Gearbox has no excuse for not being able to optimize it to happen during runtime without tanking FPS.
When you launch a game, and… your drivers have changed, or there’s been a substantial update to the game… it just tells you its compiling shaders before properly launching the game.
15 full minutes is pretty terrible though.
I think my worst ever is around 5 to 10, and that is when I am intentionally fucking about with mods and different versions of Proton and changing up Proton/Wine prefixes with new attempts at finding a working Windows component/requirement for some nonsense that by all rights should not work at all, lol.
I don’t understand exactly why but they’re not storing the computed shaders so you constantly have to redo it. But it also shouldn’t be taking that long anyway. It takes the new battlefield maybe 30 seconds to do this, so something weird is going on in the background.
Here, pick from various amounts of these 3 options, these have been the explanations for basically every ass-tier AAA game in the past couple of years:
UE5 is very flashy, ‘developer friendly’ garbage that explodes in complexity when you try to do any serious modification/customization of the engine or render pipeline
None of these AAA devs that are supposed to be experts in UE5 actually are
Management is beyond incompetent and tells devs to do things that are actively bad/harmful/destructive/broken.
ign.com
Aktywne