I think there's a difference in how much outrage people will feel if it's between devs trying to sneak AI in and use it as shortcuts (and lie about it), compared to like, a core mechanic of a game openly featuring AI. The concept is obviously an experiment in using AI so it will attract the people who are already interested in that sort of thing, as opposed to attracting everyone and having a number of them get really mad when they realize it's not human-made.
One of the use cases I think would be fine for AI is mouth animation and unique dialog. Basically resolving use cases that were never being done without AI, and that AI is uniquely equipped to solve. AI has the potential to enhance games just like it has medicine, math, and robotics - but the corpos are trying to use it wrong.
This game looks like a perfect use case for AI. I wouldn't play it, but it's the sort of thing that is only possible recently.
What I was talking about would be like: taking bespoke voice acting, and using AI to ensure that the mouth moves correctly for every spoken language. Or modifying voice lines to use player self-insert names. For RPGs, allowing the player to say/ do whatever they want, but each character has a defined personality, memories of you, opinion of you, etc (Obviously this would be a huge undertaking but the first studio to crack it is gonna be the next WoW) - another one not really to my tastes, but objectively a technological marvel.
Anything that was possible to put in games without AI - art, music, gameplay, level design, story, etc - should remain untainted. I think that's a fair line. I don't mind it as a research tool or even an assistant in tools (it's damn near impossible to totally avoid AI use at this point), or as a rubber duck. And I don't mind it in experimental games like this where the AI is the point - again, it would be impossible without AI. Just as long as anything that could be created without AI still is.
Anything that was possible to put in games without AI - art, music, gameplay, level design, story, etc - should remain untainted. I think that's a fair line.
I would be ok with AI usage in those if this would be a smaller indie dev. I don't see the problem here - you can't reliably learn all of that yourself and you aren't going to have budget to outsource everything like that. So if a dev is more technical and they do want to use their technical skill to generate those, I will not judge the fact they use AI, but rather I would judge the outcome - whether they actually put work and effort for that AI to generate his vision or did they quickly generated some slop that looks like any other AI crap.
I can accept AI as a way to overcome budget problems. I can accept use of AI as a technical skill that allows to overcome lack of skill in different area. But I won't accept half-assing things - if you want to use AI, then put some work into it to be used well. Otherwise you are just doing a fancy asset flip.
I want to lean toward agreeing - as a solo indie dev myself, though, and considering the fact that there are multiple successful solo devs who have absolutely learned all of those things - I have to say that I still wouldn't be okay with AI art or music. But I'm absolutely okay with AI assisted things - I remaster my music with AI, for example. And it's unavoidable in the pipeline - you can't even google something without some AI assistance. But things like animation tweens for your own art would be fine at the indie level.
considering the fact that there are multiple successful solo devs who have absolutely learned all of those things - I have to say that I still wouldn't be okay with AI art or music
Isn't that just another type of bootstrap argument? "X were able to, so you also should"? There are people who are more gifted in arts and there are those who aren't. Former will learn this stuff easily and latter won't.
From my POV, AI should be the equalizer - artists often have problem with things like code, QA or algorhitms, while tech-minded people often have issues with decent art. Rarely people can do both well. So it should be good to use technology to help you with things that you aren't that great at - to more effectively put effort and achieve the goal, which is your own game as you envisioned that players can experience.
I think we will need to wait for some time for this to be possible, as current AI is largely taken over by big business. But we already see OSS local models emerge and AI is being used to fuck up the corps - so there are first signs that winter may end. Bubble needs to pop, heads need to cool and people need some time to realize that they have largely vented their frustrations on corps usage of technology on technology itself.
AI art is not an issue, the issue is the fact that bunch of grifters and corps jumped on it as a way to stiffle artists and make more profit. But corps and grifters are inherently incapable of using it well. Corps will always cut corners (resulting in mostly slop being produced) and grifters don't want quality, they want to capitalize on trend while it's stil hot. And those games would go in the way of the same attempts of cheaply catching lighting in the bottle. AI Slop games will simply join their older siblings - shitty movie tie-ins, mas produced shareware capitalizing on trends, games that copied whatever mechanic started to be popular and hasty asset flips.
True, and I agree. But I'm still not gonna play a game with AI slop art. There's a difference between AI assistance and giving it the reins.
There might be a little bootstrap argument. After all, I had to learn everything, so it's only fair if everyone else does too. Maybe bitterness if an AI can churn out a better game than the one I've spent years on. Because of that, I am reluctant to support devs that take such shortcuts - especially because Steam was already filled with indie slop that they churned out to make a quick buck. Now it's even more egregious.
True, and I agree. But I'm still not gonna play a game with AI slop art. There's a difference between AI assistance and giving it the reins.
I don't want to sound like I am forcing you to play or sth, it's just that that difference is already within AI use. There is a difference between prompted slop that gives AI the reins and people who actually put in effort to control the output to a high degree (which isn't less effort than actually doing the art yourself, it's just a different type of effort that people may prefer or be better at it). But you make a fair point - there is no point to play slop, why put effort into playing game that even author did not put effort into?
There might be a little bootstrap argument. After all, I had to learn everything, so it's only fair if everyone else does too.
Did you learn and code in assembler? Did you use physical supplies to make physical art and then worked on digitizing it? Did you create your own engine?
Those were things that indie developers had to learn before - so is it fair that nowadays indie devs use higher level code with compiler, make digital art or use an existing engine?
There is always a point in time where new tech takes away some effort - and devs who are living through that are in a position where they can feel shafted. Because they had to do it hard way and new devs can skip some of that work. It can be frustrating - but would you prefer to also forgo the same advances that happened in the past and code in assembler, build the engine from scratch or digitize hand painted art for assets?
Maybe bitterness if an AI can churn out a better game than the one I've spent years on.
It can't. Period. It's just a tool - one that can to much things, but without human guidance it would only generate some half-assed incoherent slop, an equivalent of cheap asset flip.
Because of that, I am reluctant to support devs that take such shortcuts - especially because Steam was already filled with indie slop that they churned out to make a quick buck. Now it's even more egregious.
I mean, there was always slop games since I can remember. Old cover CDs were packed with questionable quality shareware, nearly every 90s-00s movie had a crappy movie tie-in game in the past, when internet had boomed it was also flooded with crappy games that capitalized on you watching ads on site you downloaded it in and when engines started to allow for selling assets - asset flips started to become a flood.
Same happens with AI - because there are always humans who want a quick buck with low effort. It's just new, so most are still deluding themselves that lot of people will buy a generic slop, despite it never working like that before.
Honestly, we need time for this hype to die down before AI use in development can be more civilized - because I do see the state of gamedev right now. But give it some time, let corps burn themselves on shafting artists and wait for thing to calm down.
I think that current problems will result in better gamedev in the future. When people no longer see AI as this new tech that is there to replace them, but rather see the potential that they can use by supplementing things they aren't good at - that's when we wil have another indie boom.
Which will be needed, because AAA development is dying for good reasons - and it would be great if indie and smaller dev studios take their place, using AI workloads to reach AA, if not AAA quality.
24
u/totallyrealname 1d ago
I think there's a difference in how much outrage people will feel if it's between devs trying to sneak AI in and use it as shortcuts (and lie about it), compared to like, a core mechanic of a game openly featuring AI. The concept is obviously an experiment in using AI so it will attract the people who are already interested in that sort of thing, as opposed to attracting everyone and having a number of them get really mad when they realize it's not human-made.