I actually jumped into the Imperium server recently and finally duo boxed. The real probably is that the down time that could be filled getting to know other players in your level range is slim.
I admit I’ve been having a lot of fun with New World following the first expansion. The artifact gear you can grind usually has a 6 minute timer (some are dungeon locked, and one spawn every 90 minutes according to server day/night schedule) and it’s made me nostalgic. The mob has nothing to do but chat, and it’s been really enjoyable so far.
That’s my ramble done, but anything EQ related gets me nostalgic.
Thanks to fan projects, it’s still possible to play EverQuest as it used to be. The latest fan-run classic EverQuest server, Project Quarm, launched on October 1. Like other unofficial fan servers the Al’Kabor Project and Project 1999 before it, Quarm strives to present the game as it existed back in the first couple years of the game’s life—warts and all. Unlike Project 99, however, this server will progress through the classic era all the way through the 2002 Planes of Power expansion, seen by many to be the peak of the EQ experience.
Always cool to see fan projects like this. I know there are a few out there but I’m struggling to remember the names of them.
I thought there was one for Ultima Online I saw but that might have just been an article about its official online mode.
The article really seems to be for people who played EverQuest or similar MMOs a while back and are nostalgic about them though
UO has a super robust eco system of private shards and server software. It’s kind of amazing. Pretty active development on things like ServUO or ModernUO servers. The client has been fully rewritten and actively developed with improvements on ClassicUO. All of these are open source as well.
For servers you have places that function entirely as different eras of UO like the Renaissance shard, or even entirely new content like what’s in Outlands.
There’s honestly a lot to be found out there and it’s really neat.
Does it still present the classic UO experience where as soon as you walk five steps into the wilderness, PKs descend on you, kill you in a few hits, and take all your stuff?
how unexpected! personally I thought cs2 would launch with brand new features and improve on existing ones from the previous title! who could’ve guessed!
I’m very surprised as well, was looking forward to this game but now I will naturally wait and see what gamers say. It’s also going to have performance issues, so I expect we end up with reviews being Mixed fairly quickly…
Honestly, and this game hasn’t earned much leeway by releasing with the performance issues stated, but I think it’s appealing to a different crowd. Cities skylines was always a bit too goofy, whereas 2 has a bunch of new features that focus on actual city management but those often get overlooked by the lack of charm.
I almost gave up on Starfield because the main quest is just chasing MacGuffins around the universe, apparently? But I started doing the Ryujin Industries side quests and those are kinda fun I guess.
The side quests really make the game. My issue came down to after that first playthrough I did all the quests… So in ng+ what do I do, different choices?
I remember seeing those articles. It was just tough putting together a life and stacked character and complete quests to throw it away for my experience which was another normal boring one (clarify, only boring because it was all exactly the same, I liked my first playthrough).
I like the game, it has a strong message behind it. It’s tough rebuilding your mantis ship decked with other quest ship materials and your alignments when you get a not crazy NG+
While I know they just wanted to shit on Starfield, but at least I like how they’ve put Oblivion & Morrowind at the top, because I agree those two are by far the best on this list.
As for Starfield, It’s basically Skyrim in space. To me most of the criticisms Starfield gets outside of the -to me- irrelevant technicalities (loading screens, performance) apply to Skyrim as well. I played Skyrim at release and I was super disappointed, now playing Starfield felt largely the same, but a wee bit better. I don’t think the whole RPG progression system makes sense in a scifi rpg shooter, so that part is worse than Skyrim obviously, but at the same time the planets & various biomes make open world exploration more fun to me, though the main story is equally bad & there are a lot of immersion breaking things that make no sense “in space”. For example I love the digipick minigame, but it’s immersion breaking as f. (and then there is that part where I just joined a serious intergalactic organization & after like 1-2 missions they sent me on a diplomatic quest to decide the fate of the galaxy, basically)
I’m just glad Daggerfall got some appreciation. It is horribly outdated now, but back then it was the first game that really let me explore an open world and role-play as whoever I wanted to be (within the limitation of the game of course). I could do anything I wanted, go anywhere I pleased.
I don’t think I ever got far in the plot, but I spend months exploring every other nook and cranny. I still remember the vibrant online community it created in the form of webrings where people shared tips or showed off their screenshots in self-made geocities websites.
Yeah, I’ve spent hundreds of hours in Daggerfall and never got far with the story, but I did figure out how to fly in the void outside the dungeons and shoot the really hard monsters with arrows! Daggerfall is so ridiculously big it probably has hundreds of towns that have only ever been visited by one obsessive kid who made a point to click on them all.
The wording of this is so stupid for a lot of reasons. Specifically with how ambiguous “AI” is. The ghosts in pacman are AI.
If they’re talking about generating code bases, that’s just not going to happen.
If they mean LLMs being used by programmers in code editors as a useful tool, like GitHub Copilot, then that’s awesome and an increase in productivity.
Artists can use generative AI art for quick textures like repeating grass textures. An AI will not be able to match an art style or theme, it has a limited scope and can’t be hand crafted like what’s required in game with poly budgets.
Devs obviously love better tools. These save time and increase productivity.
I think you’re on the money, but I have to disagree with one point: AI will absolutely be able to match an existing art style, if not now then very soon.
Weird that the author includes ESO. That’s an outsource game using Bethesda’s IP. They might as well include Fallout NV (which would of course top the list if it were included)
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.
pcgamer.com
Gorące