Didn’t click the link but this is the true order whether the link agrees or not. ESO/76 doesn’t even make my list and I’m behind on SF, haven’t played it yet, so it is left off as a “TBD.”
I know this is mostly posturing at this point but:
“AI” has been in big budget games for decades. Hell, the big deal with Oblivion was that they had magic technology to procedurally place trees according to various heuristics. And I think that also added a resource management system to NPCs so that we could DB Apple them?
Same with coding and art and sound and so forth.
All that cool magic wand and fancy ass filter shit in photoshop? Those are increasingly “AI” tools that will analyze the image and extrapolate what should or should not be “behind” something and so forth.
Coding? if you AREN’T using a tool to generate stubs and even tests at this point then you are wasting your own time.
Audio? Again, the same “AI” filters already exist. Same with tools to detect pauses or to split up dialogue and so forth.
The reality is just using it effectively. Oblivion was boring as hell because the entire overworld was empty and lifeless. Same with BOTW. Whereas Ubi, for all their actual gameplay flaws, are spectacular at adding POIs and “events” in strategic locations so that you find something while you are hiking across a forest to get to an objective.
Same with art and even CGI. You aren’t going to get a good outcome if you ask dall-e to make your art for you. But you are going to get good results if you start with a solid base and then procedurally add rust or spatter to it. You aren’t going to get a good result if you have your actors on a studio lit stage talking to nothing (Hi Prequel Trilogy). You are if you add lighting relative to the scene (The Volume) and use placeholders they can act off of.
And… same with writing. Ask ChatGPT to write your screenplay? It is going to be bad. Use the proper prompts to get the “voice” of a character right or to generate some background dialogue that you won’t even correctly hear because the mics are focused on Meg Ryan faking an orgasm? Suddenly you have a better “product” than everyone else who just tells extras to wing it or putty around. Same with having a Black Scottish Chick sound like she isn’t written by some white dude.
Your point about the screenplay reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves with armchair commenters on AI these days.
Yeah, if you hop on ChatGPT, use the free version, and just ask it to write a story, you’re getting crap. But using that anecdotal experience to extrapolate what the SotA can do in production is a massive mistake.
Do professional writers just sit down at a computer and write out page after page into a final draft?
No. They start with a treatment, build out character arcs, write summaries of scenes, etc. Eventually they have a first draft which goes out to readers and changes are made.
To have an effective generative AI screenplay writer you need to replicate multiple stages and processes.
And you likely wouldn’t be using a chat-instruct fine tuned model, but rather individually fine tuned models for each process.
Video game writing is going to move more into writing pipelines for content generation than it is going to be writing final copy. And my guess is that most writers are going to be very happy when they see the results of what that can achieve, as they’ll be able to create storytelling experiences that are currently regarded as impossible, like where character choices really matter to outcomes and aren’t simply the illusion of choice to prevent fractalizing dialogue trees too much early on.
People are just freaking out thinking the tech is coming to replace them rather than realizing that headcounts are going to remain the same long term but with the technology enhancing their efforts they’ll be creating products beyond what they’ve even imagined.
Like, I really don’t think the average person - possibly even the average person in the industry - really has a grasp of what a game like BG3 with the same sized writing staff is going to look like with the generative AI tech available in just about 2-3 years, even if the current LLM baseline doesn’t advance at all between now and then.
A world where every NPC feels like a fleshed out dynamic individual with backstory, goals, and relationships. Where stories uniquely evolve with the player. These are things that have previously been technically impossible given resource constraints and attempts to even superficially resemble them ate up significant portions of AAA budgets (i.e. RDR2). And by the end of the next console generation, they will have become as normative as things like ray tracing or voiced lines are today.
While I generally agree (and that applies to almost all “an LLM can’t do that” discussions):
Head counts are not going to remain the same. Well, it might in writing, but there is a reason the WGA went on strike.
If you can apply effective filters/transforms to a base texture, you can now do the same work that would have taken you weeks in a day or two. If you aren’t “wasting time” writing unit tests or making utility functions, you no longer need junior developers to punt the Charlie Work to. And so forth.
In some fields? Being able to do more with less means you do a LOT more.
But, generally speaking, that means you need fewer people and you pay fewer people.
This is one of many many reasons that we need to have been exploring UBI decades ago. Because we are increasingly going to see a decrease in employment as technology is more and more able to “get the job done”. And unlike with farm work and factory work… there isn’t really anything on the horizon for all the “creative” workers to do.
They largely are going to remain the same. Specific roles may shift around as specific workloads become obsolete, and you will have a handful of companies chasing quarterly returns at the cost of long term returns by trying to downsize keeping the product the same and reducing headcount.
But most labor is supply constrained not demand constrained, and the only way reduced headcounts would remain the status quo across companies is if all companies reduce headcounts without redirecting improved productivity back into the product.
You think a 7x reduction in texturing labor is going to result in the same amount of assets in game but 1/7th the billable hours?
No, that’s not where this is going. Again, a handful of large studios will try to get away with that initially, but as soon as competitors that didn’t go the downsizing route are releasing games with scene complexity and variety that puts their products to shame that’s going to bounce back.
If the market was up to executives, they’d have a single programmer re-releasing Pong for $79 a pop. But the market is not up to executives, it’s up to the people buying the products. And while AI will allow smaller development teams to produce games in line with today’s AAA scale products, tomorrow’s AAA scale products are not going to be possible with significantly reduced headcounts, as they are definitely not going to be the same scale and scope as today’s leading games.
A 10 or even 100 fold increase in worker productivity only means a similar cut in the number of workers as long as the product has hit diminishing returns on productivity investment, and if anything the current state of games development is more dependent on labor resources than ever before, so it doesn’t seem we’ve hit that inflection point or will anytime soon.
Edit: The one and only place I can foresee a significant headcount drop because of AI in game dev is QA. They’re screwed in a few years.
How do you train AI to notice bugs humans notice? Kinda seems like thats the softwares exact weakness, is creating odd edge cases that make sense for the algorithym but not to the human eye
One of the big mistakes I see people make in trying to estimate capabilities is thinking of all in one models.
You’ll have one model that plays the game in ways that try a wider range of inputs and approaches to reach goals than what humans would produce (similar to the existing research like OpenAI training models to play Minecraft and mine diamonds off a handful of videos with input data and then a lot of YouTube videos).
Then the outputs generated by that model would be passed though another process that looks specifically for things ranging from sequence breaks to clipping. Some of those like sequence breaks aren’t even detections that need AI, and depending on just what data is generated by the ‘player’ AIs, a fair bit of other issues can be similarly detected with dumb approaches. The bugs that would be difficult for an AI to detect would be things like “I threw item A down 45 minutes ago but this NPC just had dialogue thanking me for bringing it back.” But even things like this are going to be well within the capabilities of multimodal AI within a few years as long as hardware continues to scale such that it doesn’t become cost prohibitive.
The way it’s going to start is that 3rd party companies dedicated to QA start feeding their own data and play tests into models to replicate and extend the behaviors, offering synthetic play testing as a cheap additional service to find low hanging fruit and cut down on human tester hours needed, and over time it will shift more and more towards synthetic testing.
You’ll still have human play testers around broader quality things like “is this fun” - but the QA that’s already being outsourced for bugs is going to almost certainly go the way of AI replacing humans entirely, or just nearly so.
Do you think that same result would have happened if horses had other skills outside of the specific skill set that was automated?
If horses happened to be really good at pulling carts AND really good at driving, for instance, might we not instead have even more horses than we did at the turn of the 19th century, just having shifted from pulling carts to driving them?
I’m not sure the inability of horses to adapt to changing industrialization is the best proxy for what’s going to happen to humans.
You jest, but yeah, there very likely will be, especially given that there’s already full self-driving cars today on roads. The difference will just be that in ~10 years (by the end of the next console generation) that there will be better full self-driving cars on the road.
How is that awful? The deep dive videos are all we need to understand generally what the new things are, and why we should be looking forward to it. Isn’t that all marketing can do?
I mean what were you expecting a month from release besides like maybe one additional trailer? The original trailer exists and I’m sure they’re paying to run that somewhere. And once someone sees it they can go watch the dev videos.
If they cared about peaking hype they wouldn’t have told us about the performance problems. But frankly they don’t need to hype CS2 or even sell big at release and they’re well aware of it. Games like the latest annual COD have to sell as much as possible at release because they need players to fill the servers, they need to have an established player base to sell the battle passes to after a month, and the game has a maximum shelf life of a year, before it’s abandoned for the next game. But CS on the other hand doesn’t need to do any of that. It has virtually zero competition so it has a captive audience of everyone who likes modern city builder games, and it doesn’t matter when you buy it, because they aren’t making another one for 5-8 years. They know exactly how much money they’re going to make from this game and they’ll get yours too, whether it’s at release or a year from now.
To put it in perspective, COD games are made fast, and have to sell fast. Since CS1 released, there have been TEN Call of Duty games. In that same timespan were about to get ONE new Cities game.
It could be interesting for procedurally generated games. Imagine a world with no fixed map, settlements where every person is completely unique and will talk to you about any subject you want to talk to them about (instead of the same canned phrase or two), a completely different roster of baddies to fight every time, maybe even the storyline itself never plays the same each time, or the style of play changes from game to game. I’m hopeful we’ll start to see some truly unique games with AI helping out, though I’m guessing we’ll get a mountain of shovelware that just uses AI to generate shitty non-sensical art assets and meaningless dialogue.
Have you played/seen Vaudeville? It’s a detective game where every character had their own LLM and TTS trained for a specific personality.
It’s super janky and I never finished it because I kept getting conflicting info from characters but…it’s a really great use case for it. The massive caveat being that it requires an Internet connection.
AI-generated maps and NPCs might be ok. Ditto fights, though there would have to be playtesters whose job it is to make sure the result is something winnable and acceptably fair.
The main issue there would be that there IS no continual certainty of that. You'd have to either be able to rerolled entire encounters — which would be jarring — or force the AI to DM what happens when you lose an impossible battle — far more rewarding, provided it doesn't keep doing it. But it may keep doing it. This would be impossible to ever test adequately. Every game on the market may be a hard mode Bethesda game.
I personally really don't think I'd enjoy something with a randomly generated cast/main story for the same reason I wouldn't be interested in owning one singular book whose writing changes every time you read it. I don't play to kill time; I play for the stories and I get attached like hell to the good ones. I replay them ad nauseam because I miss the characters.
I think it would be an intensely entertaining idea either as a New Game+ or for those games to have a wildcard setting that you could turn on and off. That way, there's no lack of devs who get to tell the tale they wanted and players can mix it up when they're bored. Otherwise, you've downgraded the job of the entire company to filling the AI in on background lore and nothing else.
Other aspects:
• for those that do get attached and wanna re-experience it, you'd need a way to save the information behind the game you just played. That file might be fairly gigantic?
• Would also lead to a weird market for other peoples' saves. The way modders already make quests, but for an entire plot.
• NPCs and party members that all look like randomized sims.
I love the first one so much that I’ll buy this thing regardless so I don’t really care if it sucks at launch or not I’m going to enjoy it for a number of years
I stopped playing ESO years ago after around 10,000 hours of playtime. It’s nice (or perhaps unsurprising) to hear that they still haven’t addressed how badly they messed up the story structure and pacing. Rather than have the expansions be an accessory to the main story and tutorial - they acted as replacements. A game design choice I’m 99.9% sure was made by management and not by any actual dev team. It was a confusing, convoluted mess with only a few expansions but I can’t imagine how bad it is now with even more.
To be fair, ESO shouldn’t really be on this list. ESO was developed by Zenimax Online, not Bethesda Game Studios (Todd Howard’s team). It’s as close to Fallout or Starfield as Prey or Doom are (same publisher, different devs).
I’m kind of used to devs releasing apologies for their games after a bad release and the following review bombing. It’s almost guaranteed to happen for any modern AAA game, it’s the sorry state of the industry. But now, we’ve reached a point where devs apologize for their games before they’re even released. This shit is hilarious.
What’s next? “We’re going to release a game four years from now. You should temper your expectations, it’s probably going to suck.”
I mean, kudos to them for warning the potential customers, instead of lying to them or luring them in with nice trailers and trying to silence journalists by prohibiting them from showing game footage (I think I remember someone doing that…). Although I’m not sure how I should thank them. Should I buy the game because they were honest? Or should I not buy it, because, well, they were honest? I’m confused.
I mean, I think it just demonstrates that the problem is not on a development level, but rather on a project management and (particularly) an executive level.
Crunch and unreasonable deadlines in the gaming industry are the norm, and there’s too much pressure from higher up to deliver a product as soon as possible, even if it isn’t 100% ready.
Unfortunately, there’s no real good answer for this as a consumer… If the game does well, the execs who set the deadlines pocket the profits. If it does poorly, the developers who worked on it bear the brunt of it by either getting insufficient raises, an even higher level of pressure on the next game, or at worst, get laid off.
The real answer would be widespread industry unionization. Efforts to do this are ever-so-slowly being made, but it’s not even remotely close to being a reality. I’d say that if the game appeals to you and you don’t mind performance issues at launch, buy it, but if not, then don’t.
problem is not on a development level, but rather on a project management and (particularly) an executive level.
In any industry as time progresses the production becomes more and more capital intensive and that needs more and bigger investors and all that capital means that there is a bigger risk and that is mitigated by the investors by requiring “their guys” to staff the management and these people are unusually really bad for the technical and actual value side of the business on the long run, because they are usually people with financial or marketing backgrounds. They fundamentally work by the logic of profit maximization and there are always easier and more surefire ways toi achieve that than with supplying a good product. It’s even worse when the end product is something that could be considered “art”. In AAA it all eventually leads into pushing bland installments under rushed deadlines for the same once successful franchise out one after another, just because that is where the risks are lowest and money is still being made.
You're failing to take Paradox's lifecycles into account. Even though they're only the publisher, keep in mind that they're used to supporting games for 8-10 years after launch. Cities: Skylines came out in 2015 and has seen continual development ever since. Its performance was also abysmal at a point, but people kept playing and the devs kept improving it to the point where nobody even fully remembers why we cared about SimCity going to shit when Cities: Skylines was right there.
Given that Paradox has near decade-long lifecycles for their games the launch window is utterly meaningless. Hell, Europa Universalis IV had an expansion released earlier this year and it was released in 2013.
That game had the unfortunate timing of being released when everyone knew CK3 was around the corner. It ended up being seen as a stopgap release and that just got worse when CK3 came out. It got a couple of DLCs but the players just weren't there anymore. It has some good ideas.
Of singleplayer games, it may be Quake. This one was created before the recent remaster and compatible with different engines.
In honor of Quake’s 20th anniversary, MachineGames, an internal development studio of ZeniMax Media, who are the current owners of the Quake IP, released online a new expansion pack for free, called Episode 5: Dimension of the Past.
Episode 6: Dimension of the Machine was released in 2021. Quake was released in 1996, making it 25 years.
I have a feeling there's probably some obscure-ass Nethack clone that's been getting regular updates since the creator first programmed it on a PDP/11 but outside of that I can't think of any actual commercial products that have received expansions that long after.
Yeah, guess, Doom and Quake are the earliest non-arcade games that are still accessible to current generations of players making it somehow relevant. I feel like only Sega could do something, like releasing one of their classics updated with some new content, but it won’t be the same as original cartridge releases and obviously incompatible with them.
Sure. But if you know your product is going to be trash, why not jump ahead of the curve and victimize yourself to start with? It’s not difficult to do these days, and why wouldn’t you do it? Altruism? At this point, not assuming this happens is just naive.
the game will be optimized eventually. if you want to wait until then, do so. me, I just want to play this. I don’t care I’ve been waiting a long time for this game, and I have a very powerful desktop PC so I don’t really care.
I am upset they do not have a native Linux build this time around, however. And I don’t care that proton has gotten good, a game like this needs to run natively to get the full experience. The first one did and Unity makes it trivially simple to export builds to other operating systems.
I’m more worried about it being a traffic simulator more than a city builder like the first one without any expansions. I would like to design a city I want to live in. It’s good to be honest about performance at least.
Have you watched any of the feature highlights and accompanying dev talks? Visually speaking, the game looks worse in a lot of really bizarre ways, but the actual city simulation gameplay looks like it’s been much improved. There really wasn’t anything groundbreaking, but they added a lot of the depth that’s been seen in older Sim City titles, as well as what looks like an actually currency based economic model, as opposed to the shallow approximation of an economy that existed in Cities Skylines. They also added the frankly crucial changes to traffic AI that was added to CS1 via mods, into the base game. It looks like as far as the city simulation goes, CS2 will be a solid improvement and there have been a couple well known CS1 YouTubers that seem to confirm that.
That being said, I fully expect this game to look rough and maybe perform even rougher at release, but it does at least look like I definitely wouldn’t recommend anyone buy this at launch unless they pull some big improvements out of their asses which judging by this statement, they don’t plan to, but it is also releasing on gamepass…
Nope, I don’t follow any gaming media other than what I see when browsing all in Lemmy. I just noticed a new Cities Skylines game under Steam’s top seller list so I only know what I saw from the previous game. My main hope is I can make walkable cities.
“You can also create dedicated roads that only allow buses and service vehicles to operate on them, and tram tracks can be built separately bypassing road traffic altogether.”
“Walkable areas in the city can be created using the pedestrian street along with the pedestrian path and bridges. The pedestrian street prohibits all other vehicular traffic except for service vehicles and delivery trucks bringing resources to local businesses.”
AI can be a great tool if used properly to enhance human work but companies seem hell-bent to instead have just AI do all the work, cutting human beings out completely and “saving costs”. Recipe for disaster.
Personally, I think I would prefer they hold the game back and do whatever patches or updates they need to help with performance, rather than release a game they know is buggy. I guess it’s nice that they’re actually telling us before people buy the game, and they will be releasing updates. But frankly to me this feels like they’re going to be fighting an uphill battle when they launch the game. Plenty of people won’t see this message, and just buy the game expecting it to work, then turn sour due to the poor performance. You could end up with people refunding the game and never coming back with stuff like that.
It sucks, on one hand I’d prefer a delay so they can release what they’re happy with - but on the other this is a developer that I know and trust to continue working to make things better for a long time. For many other games this would leave a bitter taste, but for this one it’s a bit of a shrug for me.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne