“And at least part of that plan involves AI”, reads the subtitle. To be clear, not an endorsement from me. Some of this reads very strangely to me, but this is boots on the ground reporting from Gamescom of developer sentiment.
…having spent the past four days dashing between appointments with CEOs and developers, there is one sentiment that has remained consistent among almost everyone I spoke to. We need to make games quicker.
Amen. Twenty years ago, 3 years was a long dev cycle, and most games were churned out in 12-18 months. It also relied heavily on crunch, but maybe we could get back to 3 year dev cycles that don’t, and that can be considered somewhat “normal”.
Of course, it’s one thing to say you want to make games more quickly, and quite another to actually do it. More to the point, how do you do it?
Well, I, for one, would start with the bloat that made its way into mainstay series. The icon barf of Assassin’s Creed. Turning series open world that have no business doing so. Making a huge game as the first outing in a series instead of seeing if there’s even an appetite for the premise in the first place.
One option is to make games that look worse. Given how super-detailed graphics seem to be far less important to a younger generation raised on Roblox and Minecraft, this would seem like a fair enough strategy. … Yet there seemed to be little appetite for this strategy among the people I spoke to at Gamescom. Perhaps it’s an unwillingness to fly in the face of conventional wisdom in an industry where frame rates are often fetishised. Perhaps it’s more about simple pride in the craft.
So are we refusing to do what’s actually necessary to keep people’s jobs sustainable, or…?
So what’s the alternative? One option is to use AI to speed up the development process. And it’s an option that more and more studios are taking up. … AI is the games industry’s dirty little open secret – the majority of people I spoke to said they were using AI in some form or another.
And this is where I know a lot of people would like to stop reading, but I’d encourage you to continue anyway.
Utilising AI to generate snippets of code was a popular choice.
To date, this is the only use I’ve ever heard, as a programmer, as something that might be useful for my job. Not that I’ve done it. I can still come up with snippets quickly enough just from old fashioned documentation most of the time. But sometimes it’s written so generic that it takes hours of your day or more to actually learn it. And that’s not the most common thing in the world that I run into that.
I do wish the author broke down how much, and which pieces, of this came from developers compared to executives/managers/owners. I’m glad to hear that everyone agrees that shorter dev cycles are a goal worth pursuing. I’m not convinced AI gets us there, and I wonder how many programmers really feel it’s speeding them along in their day-to-day such that it can reduce a development schedule by literal years.
Could you instead make them better? They’re already mostly shit and you wanna pump 'em out faster so quality drops even more? 🤦♂️
Do you think they get better if they take longer to make? These development times are a fairly recent phenomenon.
A problem with AAA games is the development time is longer, the time spent working on the final game is not.
Time and time again when a game as been “in development” for 5/7/10+ years, the game that shipped was only really being worked on for the last year or two, once they finally got the design and gameplay nailed down and worked on the final game. Anthem is one of the more egregious examples in that some of the developers working on the game learned at the E3 presentation a year before launch that the game involved flying.
There’s an iceberg of effort and only a fraction of it gets released.
It’s not a gurantee, but cutting the time down when QA is already paper thin ain’t gonna make shit better and likely won’t even retain the quality it currently has.
Who says the time getting cut is in QA? Maybe the games just scope down.
The use of generative AI tools implies scope isn’t going to change at all.
Probably, which means the developers (or managers) didn’t really identify the problem.
That’s the fear the author raises, yes. I always say people are fluid, and we expand to fit our containers, whether that’s our schedules, filling our homes with junk, or anything else. Hopefully what the industry is coming to realize is that their container is smaller than they think it is, but yes, scope creep is a real threat. I’m rooting for the industry to scope down.
I read this as shortening development time (“quicker”), not necessarily reducing the sheer amount of slop they pile in and call “content.”
This is absolutely c-suites pushing for constant development to be a smoother, faster repetition; lots of DLC, or SaaS.
History and Common Sense.
Games generally, in every budget class, take longer to develop but they are not generally worse.
Doom 2 came out less than a year after Doom.
Does that mean you would prefer sequels to just be glorified map additions to the game you already own? If Doom 1 and 2 were done today, Doom 2 would have been a DLC.
Nah dude, today we have Death of the Outsider, and Blood Dragon, both doesn’t need the base game to run and is standalone, even though they use the same asset and engine from their base game. Not to mention ODST and Reach, both come out within 3 years of Halo 3. All phenomenal, even though they’re using same engine, same asset, with some additional content and new map. The scope is also significantly smaller than the base game. They’re all standalone even though they’re DLC.
Also Tear of the Kingdom use the same map and asset, and it’s considered sequel instead of DLC. same thing goes for Majora’s Mask which they did within a year after Ocarina of Time. It’s totally fine to do that as long as the game is good.
And GTA Vice City was originally planned as an expansion to GTA III, then turned into an independent game and released just a year after GTA III.
Maybe that’s the problem.