and still they refuse to take the hint
It’s because big money is backed into a corner, they’d have bailed by now if they could but they’re in to deep now, if they pulled out it would collapse everything, buy comoditys, physically if you can.
biased headline? calling it an “AI stigma” implies the judgment is unfair.
just say: *“games that are made using AI…” *
Current AA, AAA games are operating on subscription models that end up costing the consumer hundreds of dollars. If you’re going to save time/money by using AI and not lower the price, a subset of consumers are going to be justifiably pissed. (Presumably less jobs are created due to the use of AI, so the money I pay isn’t being reinvested into communities via local payroll, and now unemployed artists, writers, and coders are being a drain on tax based safety nets. That AI is a drain on water and electric infrastructure that may impact me directly if I live in the vicinity of a data center. The implications are larger than people not wanting AI in games.) If the AI elements are bad/game breaking, or if they don’t deliver value for price, studios/publishers deserve the hate.
I’m fine with AI use in the back end, nobody really codes without something along the lines of copilot or claude anymore anyway. But any art related asset (in terms of the writing, visuals or audio) needs to be human made.
If you’re comfortable leaving what should be deliberate artistic choices to some logic machine, i’m not interested in putting time the world you’re building.
I’m fine with AI use in the back end, nobody really codes without something along the lines of copilot or claude anymore anyway.
Well that’s just straight up untrue. My org did an AI pilot to see if it was something we wanted to invest in and it ended up coming back with reduced productivity among devs (largely due to a massive increase in debugging time because of the slop output from the AI). Our devs write good code, faster, without the AI involved.
It’s mostly in management where we’ve seen productivity increases, because of how many emails they are writing on the average day and for transcription of meetings.
Heck, it is objectively measured by a LLM adjacent seller like Faros AI.
The more LLM code in your company, the slower delivery and more bugs that you likely find on production.
Literally data is at 60% of daily tasks being LLM assisted, the throughput is (every value is an average) 500% slower, company delivers 10% less and the bug rate is +50% per PR and +250% production incidents.
At 40% of daily task being LLM assisted the bug rate was +9% vs pre-LLM.
That’s what’s crazy.
Some indie dev was like, “Yeah I used AI to help me learn Godot” and suddenly there’s a dozen negative reviews about how his game uses AI.
Yeah nuance is a word that doesn’t exist in some people’s dictionary, unfortunately.
Damn guess they shoulda paid artists huh
in my experience, a lot of the game devs using AI would normally try to do the art themselves, but think AI is “better” than what they could do… Then they throw together a collage of mismatched art that has no cohesion and call it a day, and get upset when they get called out for it, thinking it’s just some anti AI thing.
People love to take shortcuts then hate when people tell them they sacrificed quality to do it.
Im an artist working in games, and I absolutely agree. Lots of people think art in games needs to be “good” without knowing what that actually means. It’s a lot more important that your art is coherent. Having coherent shapes and colors can do a lot. For example, just by choosing a color palette alone, you can create art that works pretty well.
Setting up any limitation will automatically create the coherence for a project. And you can go pretty minimalistic, too. Don’t understand colors and light? Go black and white or sepia. Don’t know about shapes? Use only one or two and design anything around it.
One problem with AI is that it doesn’t use limitation as a tool and isn’t able to contain detail. An indie developer who is inexperienced in art and able to manage their expectations doesn’t have this problem. They can create naturally game art because they only know one way to approach it.
Or they use it to generate placeholder art “so they can get an an ideal on the final product while they’re working on gameplay”.
Super Mario 64’s jumps were figured out with a cube bouncing around in an infinite plane. Their excuse is pure bs, good gameplay is good gameplay
Even if AI could perfectly produce art for a video game - it would lack a lot of what makes indie games charming.
Part of that discovery process is so valuable to the charm. “I don’t know how to do art! The fuck is this shit! How do I 3d model? I guess that works, it’ll do. Hey actually it’d be kinda cool if I based the general aesthetic of the game around this kinda look.” Boom, unique art emerging from their constraints. They had to work to get there, but their work is infinitely more artful as a result
As a gamer (and an artist in my spare time) I don’t think this is true. I’ve played and loved lots of charming games, but I almost never think about the process as an element of that charm. The charm is in the details of the final product - and a perfect simulation from an AI would (by definition, if it existed) perfectly produce those details.
To be clear, I’m not saying the process is the charm. I’m saying the process leads to a product that is charming, as a result of having had restrictions.
An AI that could perfectly produce what the dev desires would not lead to this innovation from constraints.
I love how easily the billionaire sloplords adopt language implying that they are oppressed.
Maybe we should start doing just that
Good idea. I’ll tell my special interest magazine to make me more sympathetic.
Billionaires get their branding from CumHammer Brand Management:
Wealthy
Handsome
Fun-loving
Victim
deleted by creator
Could it just be AI itself and how bad it sucks instead of “AI stigma”?
Yep. I’ve seen indie game devs try to push AI art into their products and it never looks good. There is no cohesive design. It looks like badly done collage work with images in different resolutions sometimes. And if they’re that lazy, it usually shows in more ways.
“Data Analyst Finds that ‘Lazy Awful Game Stigma’ Can Reduce the Number of Reviews a Game Gets by 53% - And the Reviews it Does Get are More Negative”
Insert Seymour Skinner meme about the kids being wrong
I think the way you phrased it misses the point. It simply does not matter whether AI “art” is good or bad, in a technical sense.
Until AI is an actual person, and can make art reflecting its subjective experience (which would no doubt be very interesting) ; AI “art” is just nothing.
There is no meaning, no story behind it, no other mind to connect with. It was made by a philosophical zombie, a thing that possesses enough appearance of consciousness to seem aware, but no actual subjectivity.
AI “art” could be technically irreproachable, ie “good” and it would still be equivalent to nothing. Even a blank canvas made by a human means worlds more than our current AI could ever make.
And I personally don’t believe AI will ever be a person. But on that, sensible minds may differ.
“Data analyst finds that “diarrhea stigma” in bakeries can reduce the number of reviews a cake gets by around 53%–and the reviews it does get are more negative.”
Stop putting diarrhea in the cake and people will both review them more often and review them more highly.
Ah yes, the stigma against AI, the stigma that is actually pretty well founded given how it’s dogshit at anything other than BS-ing. The stigma that’s an obvious reaction to shoe horning a hype fueled scam into every fucking thinkable thing. That stigma?
Oh, right. The poison. The poison for Kuzco, the poison chosen especially to kill Kuzco, Kuzco’s poison. That poison?
It’s so weird how far self-censoring has gone. Now they’re altering quotes because of this perception that it will be caught by the AI moderation…
I’m sure it has nothing to do with AI games being bad.
When Valve updated the policy for games published on Steam to include disclosure of Ai usage in the games, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney responded in the public that this should not be done and just hurts the industry. It would generate unneeded backslash, as everyone will use Ai in development, according to Tim. Fast forward to today, turns out Epic plans on integrating Ai tools into Unreal Engine 5.
You will not find a game engine without some AI tool. Same way as majority of devs will use AI in some capacity.
People only care about AI when presented with it. If non of these games had AI generated visual elements, people would be non the wiser.
You will not find a game engine without some AI tool.
I don’t know where you getting this and spreading misinformation. I think Unreal Engine didn’t have any Ai integration in its entire history. And I’m sure there are game engines without Ai tools integrated by default. I think the Open Source engine Godot in example does not have any of that. If I’m wrong, then please enlighten me. I mean seriously, I want to know if the engine includes Ai tools by default, because I care about.
People only care about AI when presented with it.
So they care about then? Whats really bad is, if companies or developers hide the usage of Ai and only admit using it after they got caught. There are many problems with Ai why people care about this subject. And it should be an informed decision of the buyer, if Ai is used or not or to what extend and what type of Ai. Generating art is not the same as autocompletion of words when programming in example. Using Ai to replace voice actors is also not something we want to see. Ai is trained unethically on data without permission.
If non of these games had AI generated visual elements, people would be non the wiser.
I don’t understand this statement.
I think they’re basically saying that if the kitchen staff spits in your food and doesn’t tell you, then you wouldn’t care. It’s only when you find out that you care.
No, that’s wrong analogy. I do care if the staff spits in my food. Because I want food without spit in it. Just because they did not tell me they spit in it, does not mean I wouldn’t care.
I do care if the staff spits in my food. Because I want food without spit in it
How’d you know if they did?
It’s not like any restaurant has an open kitchen you can look into.A little off topic now but I’ve seen that a bit, the restaurants I’ve worked in you could see everything in the kitchen, even the person doing prep, they were all Japanese though so that’s probably a cultural thing.
Yes, which is exactly why it is such a good analogy to what the pro AI commentator meant. You care for it and not knowing doesnt mean you don’t care, you just can’t express it without sounding like a lunatic that asks every waiter if they spit in your food
But that is not what has been said. It has been said: “You only start caring, after it is exposed.” And that was what I was responding and arguing with. Here the quote I do not agree with:
People only care about AI when presented with it.
The guy responding then saying what you said is a different person, with its own take.
Yes, and I (and the other comment with the analogy) agree with you. The pro AI comment surely wasn’t meant in the way of the analogy. But the analogy explained it exactly right. Pro AI people act as if we wouldn’t care that somebody spits into our soup, except if we know it. But we do care even if we don’t know it, it’s just really hard to prove.
So we are all in agreement here, except the first pro AI statement.
Godot is a game engine without any AI tools. At least none that I’m aware of.
You say stigma I say quality control issues.
who otherwise would have succeeded
Buddy is in his own little assumption fantasy world
Yes, because gamers are ever so slightly more tech savvy than your average project manager. They are fully aware that LLMs and diffusion models are just expensive plagiarism engines at best and slop factories the rest of the time.
