I’m not in software dev but 8 years seems a long time to make a game like this. I love the game and play it daily, but it’s not that deep. It’s has 5 maps and 20 guns and 2 kinds of enemies. That doesn’t doesn’t seem like an 8 year dev time.
Likely a lot of time was spent iterating and experimenting with different ideas, testing out concepts, tweaking, etc. Haven’t played the game but I do work as a software developer.
No, just the opposite. It’s a ton of work for not a lot of results. It’d be like saying it took you 3 days to make a sandwich. That’s wayyyyyy longer than I’d expect it to take, with the caveat, I’m not a professional sandwich maker.
Why do people always feel like their inexperience on a topic is relevant?
Because this feels unusual but I’m not an expert and I can’t say whether that amount of time is truly usual or not. I’m in manufacturing and when people say what I said, then it’s usually as an invitation to discuss the topic.
I’m going to provide a different reply than the others.
Yes, I would consider 8 years a long time to make a game like Helldivers 2.
But all that means is that a studio in a good position to make that type of game would likely be able to do it in a much shorter amount of time.
In this case, we have a studio that was, in hindsight, too small and trying to be too ambitious in the game they were trying to make. So, trying to grow a studio at the same time you are trying to build an overly ambitious piece of software is going to have multiplying affects on how long said project will take.
I’m guessing they went back to the drawing board several times - probably because they felt their sequel wasn’t really as evolved or as fun as what they had hoped it would be, so they shifted I’m guessing from their overhead view to the behind the player 3rd person style game we know now at some point after churning at it for a couple years at least…
Like you know that Doom 2016 was the 3rd complete from scratch redo from what they originally started working on after Doom 3, right?
This sort of thing sometimes happens in creative projects; like when you hear a movie took like 7 years to make, it’s not necessarily that they literally shot scenes every week for the same film that whole time. It’s that the project was shelved, or they changed directors, or the studio lost interest for a while or they got a new script or something.
Here’s a video showing everything iD worked on related to what was referred to as “DOOM 4” from like 2007 to 2013 before scrapping a huge part of it and coming out with the critically acclaimed 2016 version (which was only shown starting around 2015 at QuakeCon and E3).
Note that not EVERYTHING was scrapped, as you can see things like the super-shotgun model are close to the final release - as well as what you can tell were early slower iterations of the execution-style animations the game became famous for doing, but a lot of what is shown in that trailer was never to be seen again outside of these old videos people have attempted to archive.
Pretty sure the maps have static meshes but their placement is randomized. So the maps may be similar with handmade pieces, but those pieces are randomly placed to generate the map.
You’re leaving out Joel completely. They had to make that system for him to GM us, and I like how we choose what new weapons and stuff we unlock with our actions.
The level of detail in Helldivers 2 is insane for the type of game and company size.
Deformable terrain and buildings, enemy animations when you shoot off different limbs and they keep moving towards you, your cape burns off more and more as you use your jetpack, etc.
Call of Duty has 3,000 devs working on their titles.
Arrowhead has around 100 employees total.
I very much believe this game took that long with a team that size, and it shows and is a large part of why it’s been so successful.
But… AI is stupid. I mean it really is dumb. And on top of that, it’s just an amalgamation of things fed to it which in itself is nothing bad, but it limits itself massively when combining things.
AI is the new procedural generation, in that it will be touted as making the games more real and immersive but really only makes them boring and repetitive, thus stressing the importance of genuine creative handcrafting. I’m looking forward to smaller studios selling their games with a “no AI” pitch in a few years.
I disagree that procedural generation makes games more boring and repetitive. I think it depends on the game and how the procedural generation is implemented. Look at Noita for example - uses lots of procedural generation, mixed with some handcrafted elements, and it’s really fun! Terraria, another similar formula.
Not my cup of tea, but a lot of people love No Man’s Sky for that reason - it’s fun to explore the crazy combinations.
The original Elite was procedurally generated IIRC, and from what I understand it was super fun (before my time though).
If the game is good I’ll buy it, if it’s shit I won’t. I don’t see how these NPC’s will make the game good and I haven’t personally bought an Ubisoft game in several years.
I’ve always said it with “you” but that makes sense.
I was only curious because of the “an” before ubisoft in the comment I replied to. If it was the “you” sound it wouldn’t feel right to say out loud and it confused me lol
It’s actually pronounced like the word Hue more or less (slightly shorter,the first half) it’s pronouced as such " hue - bee - soft "and the you sound is very much present in our language, for exemple baillou or caillou.
I just meant to say that it wasn’t typically a sound used for just the letter U, but fair enough! I stand corrected. I’ll gladly learn a lesson at the hands of a native lol
For basic behaviour and pathfinding, yes. But aesthetics, outfits, dialogue, backgrounds, etc etc was all made by humans. The reason why NPC’s can feel so immersive and part of the worlds they exist in is because they’re made and written by the same people that made the rest of the game.
NPC’s with awkward AI-gen voicelines spouting hallucinated nonsense that has nothing to do with the game or the player’s actions is going to be an absolute dumpster fire.
Pathfinding was an absolute dumpster fire for a long time. Remember dreading any gameplay where you had to lead an NPC somewhere? Things take time to get better. Gotta start somewhere.
Then start it in experimental games. There’s no reason to have garbage AI in production games in order to improve it. Make it functional, then deploy it…
There’s a place for AI in NPCs but developers will have to know how to implement it correctly or it will be a disaster.
LLMs can be trained on specific characters and backstories, or even “types” of characters. If they are trained correctly they will stay in character as well as be reactive in more ways than any scripted character could ever do. But if the Devs are lazy and just hook it up to ChatGPT with a simple prompt telling it to “pretend” to be some character, then it’s going to be terrible like you say.
Now, this won’t work very well for games where you’re trying to tell a story like Baldur’s Gate… instead this is better for more open world games where the player is interacting with random characters that don’t need to follow specific scripts.
Even then it won’t be everything. Just because an LLM can say something “in-character” doesn’t mean it will line up with its in-game actions. So additional work will need to be made to help tie actions to the proper kind of responses.
If a studio is able to do it right, this has game changing potential… but I’m sure we’ll see a lot of rushed work done before anyone pulls it off well.
I think the issue is that games are games; an example that springs to mind is Caves of Qud’s Markov-chain generated books. I don’t mind them, but once I realized what they were, I stopped reading them. Unless it’s written by a developer, it doesn’t matter. They might as well be empty, unopenable items, like books from Dwarf Fortress where they get a description of what is inside but not any text from the passage.
Even random dialogue is interesting in games not only to “immerse” the player, but to receive messages and information from the developers; if they are randomly generated, they have no purpose. The game would only be improved by their absence.
Those are not my ONLY issues, no. They’re the most egregious for a videogame right now, but the entire concept is just … Fluff for no reason other than to list “AI NPCs” on the box.
Paying for more writers is simply better all around.
I don’t get it. Actually well working AI NPCs sound fucking amazing. To have an actual conversation about anything in the game by typing your questions? That’s like the wet dream of an RPG.
Have writers write the background info, some lore stuff, “books” about stuff in the game etc.
I want to have a conversation with all the NPCs and choose from four premade questions about a quest I am on.
And yes, obviously they have to work well or they’re extremely awkward and anti-immersive.
@sugar_in_your_tea proposed this theory the other day, and I think it makes a lot of sense. A lot of journalists are feeling threatened by the onslaught of LLMs so I would expect to see a lot more news attempting to shine a negative light on LLMs in any way possible.
No. Just. No. One is just a complex logic gate with a bunch of if, the other is a generative ia. Those are two VERY different things. It’s like comparing a rc car with a cargo baot, they are simply nothing alike.
Ah yes now that you made a fool of yourself you start acting like one to play it cool. You really out did yourself on the personal development today didn’t you ? :)
I understand them both well enough to implement them in my projects. I don’t see why people are anything other than excited about the implementation of more capable AI in games. Are these initial implementations garbage? Probably, but that’s just growing pains, So what is it about gen AI that actually bothers people?
So what is it about gen AI that actually bothers people?
It’s being used corporate suits to replace talented artists, writers, programmers, and voice actors and make their shareholders happy. Although this is Ubisoft, so they already making substandard products anyway. I mean, how do you fuck up the login system for your online table top games as much as they did?
So I work in a creative industry (video production), and have for like three decades. If A.I. can do a lot of the work I do just as well, no part of me wants to continue to do that work. Most of what I get paid for is not “art” in the sense that it expresses some fundamental drive in me. But I do love collaborating with A.I.s to create things that I would’ve never been able to do on my own (and that A.I. would have never been able to do without me). This is where things are going, and I totally grant that greedy corpos doing greedy corpo shit is not to be lauded. But that’s an Ubisoft problem, not a gen AI problem. People are the issue with A.I.
pcgamer.com
Gorące