“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.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s the advantage, too, that quickly made games can be adapted to suit current trends, avoiding the pain of, say, launching a live-service shooter years after the genre has been saturated.

    Ah yes we need quick money trend slop.

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          All that to say that adapting to trends creates genres and results in honing in on better versions of the original idea. There will be bad versions along the way, but it’s good to get that much iteration. We used to get that much iteration.

          • vane@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t think corporate is able to follow the idea. It’s politics. If they follow the idea the idea must come from their boss. It’s just buzzwords to me.

            • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Fortnite is a still-very-visible version of this exact concept. They were able to iterate quickly. Mostly because they just adapted their dud of a horde mode game into a completely new genre using the same mechanics, but they still did it quickly and found that success. We’re also seeing it in the likes of Getting Over It, Lethal Company, Vampire Survivors, and plenty of other games that spawned imitators.

              • vane@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Sorry but my brain is shutting down after iterate quickly. To much corporate bullshit, you can repeat those words 1000 times and they don’t mean anything because with all respect you’re saying some bullshit. Trends don’t make money. Shaping trends make money. Actually shaping trends and exposure but despite the huge exposure look how hard is to shape trends. With AI they can shape shit somebody already created and nobody likes to see same shit 1000 times.

                • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  “Iterate quickly” isn’t corporate bullshit. It’s just English. There are always those that tag along to something successful and find success themselves, like Terraria and Starbound to Minecraft; or Apex Legends and Fortnite to PUBG. But if you spend 4 years chasing an idea that came out in 2017, you end up with Hyperscape or Concord, unless there’s truly such an insatiable appetite that customers can’t get enough. In a world of live service games, they look to retain those players for years. Decades ago, they didn’t. We had so many first person shooters coming out every year, single and multiplayer, that it would be a full time job to count them all. Most of them brought new ideas to the table, and across many releases it would take years of iteration trying things that are slightly different than the last idea that would eventually lead to things like aim down sights becoming a fairly standard feature of the genre.

                  • vane@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    So you’re saying people can change ? Stop chasing ideas ? I don’t believe. Nobody can change people ego. Not on this planet. It’s PR bullshit and then they go to business as usual. It takes generations of people to change mindset. Look at history, when I was born there was war on middle east and it will be there when I will die, because there is always war there since like 2000-5000 years, and you’re expecting miracles.