The barriers to entry in gaming are falling left and right, bringing some unfortunate side effects with them
Is the future of artificial intelligence in video games playing out in a cyberpunk ramen bar? Tech companies would like you to think so, but game writers aren't so sure.
From witnessing countless ai generated articles and content it's clear ai is not very creative and often produces nothing but word soup so I'd like to keep ai away from storyline or side quests as much as possible
Where does ai have a place I think ai can be used effectively in upscaling technology or the remastering process for older games touching up assert etc however it must be done with human supervision ala GTA trilogy where it was used but clearly not vetted before being included in the game
I mean the core issue with AI is exactly what it's substituting. Generating visual art is a perfect example of this. Currently, if you want to use AI to generate anything short of a background, you are going to deal with numerous drawbacks. From anatomy issues in humans and animals to completely broken fonts for logos and visibly recycled styles.
But when it comes to writing, things are a bit messy. There are indeed extremely talented writers out there working on video games. But there are also a lot of them who really aren't, and we all know it. Take games like the recent Suicide Squad or Starfield; those game scripts could very well have been done by AI.
Another issue with AI writers that is often pointed out is the ludonarrative issue. Basically, AI, by its very nature, wouldn't be able to write within the context of the game mechanics and scenarios, which would lead to a lot of ludonarrative problems and break immersion. However, against that argument, one need not look further than The Last of Us Part II. That game is a embodiment of ludonarrative issues and is still considered by many as one of the best games and game stories out there, so it's clear that for the majority of the market, that would not be an issue.
So AI, with all its limitations right now, probably wouldn't hurt game stories as much as the writers would like gamers to believe. I doubt that it would improve what we have now, but given what we have now, I also doubt that it would be measurably worse.
As it stands right now, AI is really good at taking existing concepts that a human imagines and then organizing them into a coherent story. You still need creativity, but I think having a "room of writers" is probably no longer necessary. So in that regard AI is taking jobs. For instance, let's say I provide AI with a number of characters and what their personalities are. I might say, (if making a murder mystery) the Butler who seems like the protagonist is actually the killer. If you try this, AI will do a pretty fantastic job of writing dialogue between characters that would lead you, as the reader, not to suspect who the killer is. Normally a writer works with other writers and breaks a story down into parts where the characters motives start as unclear and then progressively become revealed. AI does a really nice job with foreshadowing also. You can also tell AI to incorporates symbolism, and misdirection. TLDR; I'll never not use AI when writing a story. It's just a tool that when used properly will make good writing great.
The release of more high-flyers like Palworld and Helldivers 2 could save game spending from dropping to 10% in 2024, predicts an analyst.
"gamescom latam 2024 is getting closer. The Latin American edition of the biggest games event in the world will have a grand opening show, gamescom latam countdown 2024." - gamescom latam.
Good article. I'm a big business buff too. One thing you did not mention is the possibility that all this has led to a new gamer market without cannibalizing the core or traditional gamer market. In other words, I would argue that there is no danger whatsoever to the traditional market despite the cheaper entry level for development... which is questionable because the tools were never really the big expense to begin with. The expensive part is the salaries and marketing. Equipment barely costs between 1% to 5% of total cost on most commercial games.
What availability does do however, is make it harder to compete at the lower level. This is why Zynga is failing and should have their executives replaced immediately before all their money is gone. But the small guys will never be able to compete at the upper end of development which means that that market is still the realm of the professional studios.
I also think that the idea of cannibalization between game platforms and pay styles is overstated. I am sure there is some cross over especially when it comes to MMO's and competitive games like DOTA, however if we actually look at the numbers, overall, nothing has really changed except that we have a new classes of gamers that did not exist before. The old class of gamers however, have grown rapidly as well but they are being ignored in favor of what seemingly is easier money (casual games, and F2P models). In other words, I dont think that the market really shifted except in the eyes of the business executives who just want more money and easier money. What we really did the last 10 years, was grow a new breed of gamers that would have never been "traditional core" gamers to begin with. Skyrim is a perfect example of well the traditional core has grown and its a bit funny that there is so little competition in that particular genre of gaming (open world, rpg, single player).
Love the website too by the way. I have it bookmarked.