4 ms·

Game companies already collect heaps of data about players, which mechanics they interact with, which mechanics they don't, retention, play time, etc. I don't

Game companies already collect heaps of data about players, which mechanics they interact with, which mechanics they don't, retention, play time, etc. I don't think it's much of a stretch to take this data over multiple games, versions, and genres, and train a model to take in a set of mechanics, stats, or even video and audio to rate the different aspects of a game prototype. I wouldn't even be surprised if I heard this is already being done somewhere.

sbarre 1y ago
Yeah there's no way Microsoft isn't already using all their aggregate metrics (trillions of data points I'm sure) from their first-party studios and making a "What good looks like" training set.. Whether that set is actually useful is a separate issue but someone is trying this over there for sure.
tialaramex 1y ago
Ah yes, the huge game companies, definitely outfits I would associate with producing fun games I haven't seen before and not churning out Existing Franchise N+1 every year with barely perceptible differences and higher prices each iteration.
- yonatan8070 1y ago
  Maybe "fun" isn't the right word, "engaging" or "addicting" is probably what they use internally.
uncircle 1y ago
> Game companies already collect heaps of data about players, which mechanics they interact with, which mechanics they don't, retention, play time, etc. Yes, that's how games like Concord get made. Very successful approach to create art based on data about what's popular and focus groups.
- georgeecollins 1y ago
  I think you are saying data is no substitute for vision in design. Completely agree! At Playdom (Disney) they tried to build a game once from the ground up based on A/B testing. Do you know what that game was? No you don't because it was never released and terrible. I think what the previous comment meant was that there is data on how player play, and that tends to be varied but more predictable.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    Yah. I think an AI playtester that could go "hey... this itch that lots of players seem to have doesn't get scratched often in your main gameplay loop" or "there's a valley 1/3rd of the way into the game where progression slows way down" or "that third boss is way too hard". AI/fuzzers can't get far enough in games, yet, without a lot of help. But I think that's because we don't have models really well suited for them.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Isn't Concord massively unpopular? I'd think that's a terrible example Edit: yup, it shut down nearly a year ago
  - SpecialistK 1y ago
    I think it was a sarcastic example - in other words, all the data and metrics and trend-chasing in the world is not a replacement for human vision, creativity, and risk-taking.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      Was Concord made the way it was because of data? I got the impression that the designers were chasing misguided trends with the art direction, and on top of that the game part was just mediocre.
      - SpecialistK 1y ago
georgeecollins 1y ago
We did that on a game I worked on over ten years ago. It was a mobile game and we knew that it was very important to player retention (and interest in multiplayer) to have the first multiplayer interaction be "fun". So we would simulate the first person you played against as though they were another human. Based on play data of other humans. Because you only played them once you didn't think you were playing a bot. Where we used AI (machine learning, not LLM) was in terms trying to figure out what kind of human you would want to play with. We also used machine learning to try figure out what cohort of players you were in so we could tweak engagement. Where LLMs could really shine, in my opinion: Gamers love to play people, not AI (now). People are unpredictable, they communicate, they play well but in ways a human could (like they don't have superhuman reflexes or speed). You can play all kinds of games against AI (StarCraft, Civilization, training of all kinds of FPS) but it isn't fun for long because you see the robotic patterns. However, an LLM might be able to mix it up like humans, talk to you, and you could probably make it have imperfect reaction time, coordination, etc. That would really help a lot of games that have lulls in human player activity, or too much toxicity. I would be shocked if some games aren't doing this now. It seems like it still be hard to make a bot seem human, and it probably only works if you sprinkle it in.
- ryoshu 1y ago
  Humans prefer humans over bots in multiplayer. Even if you dumb down LLM-powered-bots, there's no sense of accomplishment on beating a bot that can be dialed up-or-down. And the social aspect... maybe some amount of gamers want to talk to bots instead of humans in a pvp match. Curious on the numbers there.
- Mouvelie 1y ago
  Could never prove it, but would bet money that Marvel Snap for example is doing it right now. Edit : oh yeah. A quick google search proved it : https://marvelsnapzone.com/bots/ https://marvelsnapzone.com/bots/

sbarre 1y ago

Yeah there's no way Microsoft isn't already using all their aggregate metrics (trillions of data points I'm sure) from their first-party studios and making a "What good looks like" training set.. Whether that set is actually useful is a separate issue but someone is trying this over there for sure.

tialaramex 1y ago

Ah yes, the huge game companies, definitely outfits I would associate with producing fun games I haven't seen before and not churning out Existing Franchise N+1 every year with barely perceptible differences and higher prices each iteration.

yonatan8070 1y ago
Maybe "fun" isn't the right word, "engaging" or "addicting" is probably what they use internally.

uncircle 1y ago

> Game companies already collect heaps of data about players, which mechanics they interact with, which mechanics they don't, retention, play time, etc. Yes, that's how games like Concord get made. Very successful approach to create art based on data about what's popular and focus groups.

georgeecollins 1y ago
I think you are saying data is no substitute for vision in design. Completely agree! At Playdom (Disney) they tried to build a game once from the ground up based on A/B testing. Do you know what that game was? No you don't because it was never released and terrible. I think what the previous comment meant was that there is data on how player play, and that tends to be varied but more predictable.
- mlyle 1y ago
  Yah. I think an AI playtester that could go "hey... this itch that lots of players seem to have doesn't get scratched often in your main gameplay loop" or "there's a valley 1/3rd of the way into the game where progression slows way down" or "that third boss is way too hard". AI/fuzzers can't get far enough in games, yet, without a lot of help. But I think that's because we don't have models really well suited for them.
MangoToupe 1y ago
Isn't Concord massively unpopular? I'd think that's a terrible example Edit: yup, it shut down nearly a year ago
- SpecialistK 1y ago
  I think it was a sarcastic example - in other words, all the data and metrics and trend-chasing in the world is not a replacement for human vision, creativity, and risk-taking.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    Was Concord made the way it was because of data? I got the impression that the designers were chasing misguided trends with the art direction, and on top of that the game part was just mediocre.
    - SpecialistK 1y ago

georgeecollins 1y ago

We did that on a game I worked on over ten years ago. It was a mobile game and we knew that it was very important to player retention (and interest in multiplayer) to have the first multiplayer interaction be "fun". So we would simulate the first person you played against as though they were another human. Based on play data of other humans. Because you only played them once you didn't think you were playing a bot. Where we used AI (machine learning, not LLM) was in terms trying to figure out what kind of human you would want to play with. We also used machine learning to try figure out what cohort of players you were in so we could tweak engagement. Where LLMs could really shine, in my opinion: Gamers love to play people, not AI (now). People are unpredictable, they communicate, they play well but in ways a human could (like they don't have superhuman reflexes or speed). You can play all kinds of games against AI (StarCraft, Civilization, training of all kinds of FPS) but it isn't fun for long because you see the robotic patterns. However, an LLM might be able to mix it up like humans, talk to you, and you could probably make it have imperfect reaction time, coordination, etc. That would really help a lot of games that have lulls in human player activity, or too much toxicity. I would be shocked if some games aren't doing this now. It seems like it still be hard to make a bot seem human, and it probably only works if you sprinkle it in.

ryoshu 1y ago
Humans prefer humans over bots in multiplayer. Even if you dumb down LLM-powered-bots, there's no sense of accomplishment on beating a bot that can be dialed up-or-down. And the social aspect... maybe some amount of gamers want to talk to bots instead of humans in a pvp match. Curious on the numbers there.
Mouvelie 1y ago
Could never prove it, but would bet money that Marvel Snap for example is doing it right now. Edit : oh yeah. A quick google search proved it : https://marvelsnapzone.com/bots/ https://marvelsnapzone.com/bots/