Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]

[pcchen]

I hope there’s a shift in the industry to handling common issues. Maybe DF will get us there. I do also remember tons of games with terrible performance and problems since I started gaming on pc in the early 90s. I think people are overstating the general quality of older games. I do think the complexity of modern games is a reason and not an excuse.

Completely agree. Back in the days of Voodoo Graphics and RIVA 128... many games were very low FPS and stuttering at the same time. Heck, there wouldn't be need for VRR if games were all smooth all the time.
Stuttering is a big problem, of course, especially when you can't solve it by buying better hardwares (when you still have stuttering with a 7950X3D and 4090, you are having a huge problem). But maybe we need to manage our expectation of the scale of games at the same time. Sometimes it may be better to have smaller and shorter games, instead of every games having to be a hundred million dollar production with the expectation of 5 years longevity.

 

[Seanspeed]

Richard makes an amusing comparison earlier in that segment, where imagine if you were watching Star Wars and the entire film paused for 4 frames when a light saber was turned on for the first time. Audiences would wonder wtf, and if anything it's more disruptive to an interactive medium.

If you're sensitive to it, maybe. But many aren't. In my experience, most gamers are not that bothered by technical issues in games and tend to just accept them unless it's a genuine game breaking bug or crash or something. Goes back to a post I made some days ago talking about how DF are very much the 'elitists' of the gaming world and dont represent how the normal person feels about games at all, especially if they dont actually follow DF coverage, meaning how they make up their own mind about these things without external influence.

I'm not using this to excuse away any real problems, just that we perhaps shouldn't overstate the seriousness of these issues, either. Alex had real problems with Dead Space's stutters with doors and everything, while I'd bet 99.9% of people who played and loved the game didn't care one bit, for instance. Heck even I watched the coverage without playing the game and didn't think it really felt that egregious or damaging at all.

And yes, this will probably play into developer priorities as well. DF does great work highlighting problems so developers can improve them, but sometimes developer priorities are simply going to mean that certain technical issues get thrown to the bottom of the list cuz they know better that most gamers wont care. That's not laziness or incompetence, just a matter of priorities.

 

[trinibwoy]

In my experience, most gamers are not that bothered by technical issues in games and tend to just accept them unless it's a genuine game breaking bug or crash or something.

Yeah can’t think of a single time these hiccups stopped me from playing a game except for cases when the game just refused to run. That’s why it’s doubly important for outlets like DF to shine a light on these issues especially when they’re rampant in the industry. Individual gamers won’t care or be bothered enough to make a difference.

 

[Davros]

I recently got into a discussion with someone in another thread and according to them if a game doesnt work it's your fault

 

[Remij]

More like most gamers just accept them because they're constantly told that either the issues are their own fault, or that the problem is just too complex and they don't understand.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

If you're sensitive to it, maybe. But many aren't. In my experience, most gamers are not that bothered by technical issues in games and tend to just accept them unless it's a genuine game breaking bug or crash or something.

This is assuming 'most' gamers even experiencing what many of us are complaining about, as the consoles suffer from some of these issues far less - especially such as shader stuttering, which is basically nonexistent - I mean cripes, if shader stuttering didn't exist on the PC I may not even find that much reason have an account here. The hashtag #stuttergate only exists because of the quality of PC ports. They have their own set of issues, different perhaps in bottlenecks but similar to what budget PC hardware can have, but the degree of actual stuttering, both in title frequency and severity compared to PC titles, is usually far less. Like if Sackboy shipped on the PS5 with the same stutter it initially did on the PC, you really don't think it wouldn't have been covered in mainstream outlets?

Again, this isn't just about the blanket category of 'substandard performance', this is about situations where gameplay frequently halts. As someone who's been gaming for decades, the frequency of these specific types of performance faults are definitely unique. I am comfortable enough in assuming, and sure that's what it is, an assumption - the theatre patrons would actually complain if they're watching a sci-fi epic and it froze for several frames every time a new effect came on screen.

We can spar back and forth with anecdotal evidence of what 'most' gamers are actually bothered by, but if we need to always temper our feelings on technical imperfections against what the 'general' gaming populace thinks - especially in a thread about a technical gaming channel in a technical forum, I guess we might as well shut it down here.

(Funny enough, in terms of actual gaming impact these days, I'm probably experiencing 'less' shader stutter than your average PC gamer, because I'm obsessed with it enough to do things like install Linux/DXVK just to reduce it. My thoughts are when seeing a game with massive stutter OOTB is "Damn this sucks for people who have a life").

Most gamers have no desire to read about the shit we discuss on this site, I think that goes without saying. But I don't need, or care to convince 80% of the gaming public that stuttering should not be accepted for it to be addressed by publishers - there just has to be enough media attention given to it where it's a potential threat to the games bottom line. Regardless of how critical you feel DF's existence is to the overall enjoyment the average gamer gets from a game, I think it's clear enough their coverage has definitely had an influence and has at least spurned the release of expedient patches to help some games run far better, regardless if the average gamer understands why or not.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

I recently got into a discussion with someone in another thread and according to them if a game doesnt work it's your fault

That's every Steam thread. "Works great on my machine" (after 3 playthroughs).

 

[DavidGraham]

I urge everyone to watch this video from the creator of Fallout and the Outer Worlds, in which he describes how bureaucracy has infested the culture of game development, he gave a good example where he wanted to implement a quick AI loop for NPCs, that he coded 3 times already in a few hours, but his lead programmer asked for 4 weeks to do it! Then when pressured took it down to two weeks!!

He goes on to describe how doing anything requires asking permission from too many people and requires doing too many meetings.

The video has substantial insight into game development, it needs to be watched in full.

 

[Frenetic Pony]

I urge everyone to watch this video from the creator of Fallout and the Outer Worlds, in which he describes how bureaucracy has infested the culture of game development, he gave a good example where he wanted to implement a quick AI loop for NPCs, that he coded 3 times already in a few hours, but his lead programmer asked for 4 weeks to do it! Then when pressured took it down to two weeks!!

He goes on to describe how doing anything requires asking permission from too many people and requires doing too many meetings.

The video has substantial insight into game development, it needs to be watched in full.

This seems to be, from the description, a classic example of why more people != more productivity. It's not just game dev, this happens gradually to every team, everywhere.

The more people you have working together, the less they can communicate with each other. Which means you need more standards, and more rigorous standards, which take longer to comply with, to make sure everything works together. Which takes more time, and needs more people to help ensure the standards are logical, and...

Your productivity per person goes down exponentially as your big team gets bigger and bigger, at some crossing point your productivity actually goes down altogether by adding more people.

It's one of the reasons I rant everywhere about needing to move game budgets (and team sizes) back to something practical. You're not making much "bigger", and certainly not better, games by just throwing ever more people and money at games and saying "We need more As! Triple A isn't enough, We need Quadruple A!!"

 

[Davros]

That's every Steam thread. "Works great on my machine" (after 3 playthroughs).

Of course if they ever post about a faulty product, bug or poor performance I will take great pleasure in reminding them that it's their fault and that they should take personal responsibility

 

[trinibwoy]

It's one of the reasons I rant everywhere about needing to move game budgets (and team sizes) back to something practical. You're not making much "bigger", and certainly not better, games by just throwing ever more people and money at games and saying "We need more As! Triple A isn't enough, We need Quadruple A!!"

I’ve seen a few references to consumers demanding “bigger” games which is leading to an explosion in content. I’m certainly not in that camp. I don’t need 300 hours of playtime with 5000 inane fetch quests. Publishers seem to think they need these massive games to justify ever increasing prices. Maybe they should focus on smaller, more refined experiences that respect players time instead. It might just work.

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Maybe they should focus on smaller, more refined experiences that respect players time instead. It might just work.

But it's not like we don't have those... they are just from smaller/indy studios now. I do think it's a bit of a disservice that people focus entirely on what they consider "AAA" in these tech discussions, then complain that everyone is trying to make giant, bleeding edge games. And be assured that whenever a "big" studio releases a smaller experience - no matter how much they make it clear in advance - they still invariably take flak for it not being a huge ongoing live service. See Star Wars: Squadrons.

I personally play a lot of smaller games these days. The best way you can cast your vote for smaller more polished experiences of course is to buy them and play them

 

[Scott_Arm]

This seems to be, from the description, a classic example of why more people != more productivity. It's not just game dev, this happens gradually to every team, everywhere.

The more people you have working together, the less they can communicate with each other. Which means you need more standards, and more rigorous standards, which take longer to comply with, to make sure everything works together. Which takes more time, and needs more people to help ensure the standards are logical, and...

Your productivity per person goes down exponentially as your big team gets bigger and bigger, at some crossing point your productivity actually goes down altogether by adding more people.

It's one of the reasons I rant everywhere about needing to move game budgets (and team sizes) back to something practical. You're not making much "bigger", and certainly not better, games by just throwing ever more people and money at games and saying "We need more As! Triple A isn't enough, We need Quadruple A!!"

 

[Scott_Arm]

But it's not like we don't have those... they are just from smaller/indy studios now. I do think it's a bit of a disservice that people focus entirely on what they consider "AAA" in these tech discussions, then complain that everyone is trying to make giant, bleeding edge games. And be assured that whenever a "big" studio releases a smaller experience - no matter how much they make it clear in advance - they still invariably take flak for it not being a huge ongoing live service. See Star Wars: Squadrons.

I personally play a lot of smaller games these days. The best way you can cast your vote for smaller more polished experiences of course is to buy them and play them

User review: There's not enough content. Played for 1000 hours, so I know what I'm talking about. 1/10.

 

[trinibwoy]

And be assured that whenever a "big" studio releases a smaller experience - no matter how much they make it clear in advance - they still invariably take flak for it not being a huge ongoing live service. See Star Wars: Squadrons.

There are also well received examples like God of War, Ratchet & Clank, Plague Tale, Hi-Fi Rush, Resident Evil etc.

I’m not complaining about some games being too big. To your point I can just choose to not play them. I’m saying that the big studios who are struggling to make a buck from massive AAA games should try making smaller AAA games.

I personally play a lot of smaller games these days. The best way you can cast your vote for smaller more polished experiences of course is to buy them and play them

100%.

 

[Davros]

they still invariably take flak for it not being a huge ongoing live service.

Hell no I hate live service with a passion

ps:
STAR WARS™: Squadrons £1.74 (-95%)

Save 95% on STAR WARS™: Squadrons on Steam

Master the art of starfighter combat in the authentic piloting experience STAR WARS™: Squadrons. Feel the adrenaline of first-person multiplayer space dogfights alongside your squadron, and buckle up in a thrilling STAR WARS™ story.

store.steampowered.com

 

[vjPiedPiper]

I like the complexity of software vs complexity of a modern airliner comparison, and I would like to further extend the metaphor.

Basically, physical engineering has been going on for 200+ years, or even more.
but the processes behind designing things like houses, cars, and airplanes has been around for a LONG time.

Software engineering is what at absolute best 50 years?
And game design by more than single person, 40 years if that.

My point being, is that not only are we trying to create some of the most complicated software ever written, were ALSO trying to figure out the best process for doing that task.
Software engineering as a discipline is still very young, as is the testing, and all the surrounding jobs.

Put that on top of limited availability of highly skilled and talented people to do it,
lack of best practices to teach upcoming students,
and oh dont forget it's also an artistic medium so we need to cater for a bunch of non-technical people in the build process.

It's honestly not that surprising everything doesn't work 100% all of the time.

 

[pcchen]

I like the complexity of software vs complexity of a modern airliner comparison, and I would like to further extend the metaphor.

Basically, physical engineering has been going on for 200+ years, or even more.
but the processes behind designing things like houses, cars, and airplanes has been around for a LONG time.

Software engineering is what at absolute best 50 years?
And game design by more than single person, 40 years if that.

My point being, is that not only are we trying to create some of the most complicated software ever written, were ALSO trying to figure out the best process for doing that task.
Software engineering as a discipline is still very young, as is the testing, and all the surrounding jobs.

Put that on top of limited availability of highly skilled and talented people to do it,
lack of best practices to teach upcoming students,
and oh dont forget it's also an artistic medium so we need to cater for a bunch of non-technical people in the build process.

It's honestly not that surprising everything doesn't work 100% all of the time.

Yes. IMHO the quality of software engineering actually progressed quite a lot. Compared to early consumer software, today's software generally don't crash, and produce correct result most of the time. We have come a long way.
However, something are still more difficult. For example, in today's software development environments, we generally have unit tests for most backend stuff. It's also relatively easier to make a good unit tests for most backend software. For security minded environments we have fuzzing for randomized tests. I think for most backend stuff the quality are pretty good. But it can be very hard to test frontend (UI) stuff. There are just much more variations and more unexpected interactions, and we still don't have good unit test frameworks for frontend stuff.
Games are probably the ultimate frontend stuff. Their users actually will try the most diverse ways to interact with the software, and there are just almost unlimited ways for things to go wrong.
I think it's reasonable for people to demand games to be crashfree and mostly bugfree, but on the other hand if these are hard requirements games will be with much smaller scales. Personally I don't mind that but I'm sure there are people who prefer larger scale games, and it's not necessarily good for the industry if everyone stopped making larger scale games.

 

[Nesh]

I’ve seen a few references to consumers demanding “bigger” games which is leading to an explosion in content. I’m certainly not in that camp. I don’t need 300 hours of playtime with 5000 inane fetch quests. Publishers seem to think they need these massive games to justify ever increasing prices. Maybe they should focus on smaller, more refined experiences that respect players time instead. It might just work.

Totally this

 

[Seanspeed]

I could never support the idea that game developers deserve special consideration because their jobs are hard. Lots of jobs are hard and making games isn’t a particularly critical job. The idea that someone can think designing planes carrying hundreds of people is a simpler job than making Fortnite is kinda hilarious. There is so much prior art in the games industry that a lot of the hard stuff has already been solved and current devs are standing on the shoulders of giants.

You cant support the idea that perhaps we should give some leniency to developers for not making flawless pieces of insanely complex software?

Passenger planes are actually less complex in many ways. They are basically all being designed to do roughly the same things as others, and the goal is usually not to be on some cutting edge of technology and performance. And a new airplane platform will usually take at least 10-15+ years of design, development and testing, especially if there's new engines and whatnot to go with it, largely because there are such stringent standards in terms of safety and reliability and all that. Nobody dies if a game has some performance issues, and I'm sure that if the average AAA game took 10+ years to make, they could probably iron out most of the technical issues as well. But that's simply not financially feasible, nor would the customers of such products be happy at all about this. Similarly, if games weren't continually trying to be more ambitious, developers would be able to produce games with less issues, but again, the customers demand more.

The idea that the 'hard stuff' in games has already been ironed out really does continue to prove that y'all genuinely do not appreciate the incredible complexity and challenges of making games. Y'all keep saying you do appreciate this, but your reasonings dont seem to support it.