you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 258 points 10 months ago* (104 children)

Seems excessive.

There’s AI slop games, the new breed of lazy asset flips. There’s replacing employees with slop machines.

And then there’s “a few of our textures were computer generated.” In a game that is clearly passionately crafted art.

I get it’s about principle, but still.

  • source
  • hideshow 104 child comments
  • [–] 100 points 10 months ago* (28 children)

    For stuff like dirt/stone/brick/etc textures I'm less strict for the use of generative stuff. I even think having an artist make the "core" texture and then using an AI to fill out the texture across the various surfaces to make it less repetitive over a large area isn't a problem for me.

    Like, I agree that these things gernally are ethically questionable with how they are trained, but you can train them on ethically sourced data and doing so could open up the ability to fill out a game world without spending a ton of time, leaving the actual artists more time to work on the important set pieces than the dirt road connecting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago* (26 children)

    And little tools like that give studios like this an edge over AAAs. It’s the start of negating their massive manpower advantage.

    In other words, the anti-corpo angle seems well worth the “cost” of a few generations. That’s the whole point of AI protest, right? It really against the corps enshittifying stuff.

    And little niche extensions in workflows is how machine learning is supposed to be used, like it was well before it got all the hype.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Most AAA studios at this point have in-house AIs and training, I'm not sure it's the equalizing factor people think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    An OpenAI subscription does not count.

    Otherwise, yeah… but it helps them less, proportionally. AAAs still have the fundamental Issue of targeting huge audiences with bland games. Making them even more gigantic isn’t going to help much.

    AAs and below can get closer to that “AAA” feel with their more focused project.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

    That’s precisely not what happened with E33.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    And little tools like that give studios like this an edge over AAAs. It’s the start of negating their massive manpower advantage.

    The implication here is that you can gain manpower without hiring more men, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    More that an existing smaller studio doesn’t have to sell their soul to a publisher (or get lucky) to survive. They can more safely make a “big” game without going AAA.

    My observation is that there’s a “sweet spot” for developers somewhere around the Satisfactory (Coffee Stain) size, with E33 at the upper end of that, but that limits their audience and scope. If they can cut expensive mocap rigs, a bunch of outsourced bulk art, stuff like that with specific automation, so long as they don’t tether themselves to Big Tech AI, that takes away the advantage AAAs have over them.

    A few computer generated textures is the first tiny step in that direction.

    So no. AI is shit at replacing artists. Especially in E33 tier games. But it’s not a bad tool to add to their bucket, so they can do more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago*

    I think AI is too dumb, and will always be too dumb, to replace good artists.

    I think most game studios can’t afford full time art house across like 30 countries, nor should they want the kind of development abomination Ubisoft has set up. That’s what I’m referring to when I say “outsourced”; development that has just gotten too big, with too many people and too generic a target market. And yes, too many artists working on one game.

    I think game artists should have a more intimate relationship with their studio, like they did with E33.

    And it’d be nice for them have tools to make more art than they do now, so they can make bigger, richer games, quicker, with less stress and less financial risk. And no enshittification that happens when their studio gets too big.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    It takes less time for the actual in house artists to use GenAI with a dataset trained with the company’s own style to generate “bulk art” than it takes them to manage an outsourced company doing the same thing.

    Sauce: work in gaming, just talked about this with our art producer.

    The outsourcing work is literally “make this texture we made ourselves by hand look like it was snowing” type of shit. You can use GenAI and have it done in 30 minutes or spend 2 hours talking back and forth with the outsourcing partner in 10 minute intervals over a week - interrupting your flow every time.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Oh fuck off with that sentiment. You're very well aware that that's not what happened here, nor is it what's happening in a majority of genAI usage cases. In fact in most cases it IS artists using genAI to speed up the design process.

    What AI does here is allowing small teams to get art done what otherwise would eat up their budget, aka they literally couldn't afford. No artists were harmed in these cases because if AI didn't exist they simply wouldn't have been hired.

    Yes, there IS a currently ongoing shift. Just like there was e.g. with the mechanic loom. Did that kill off handmade clothing? No - even today we still have artists making handmade clothing and in fact making tons more off of it, while the masses got access to cheap clothing. The initial sudden rush to the new tech is annoying and yes it exposes some people to hardships (which is why we should switch from capitalism, and start providing UBI), but it WILL balance out. Remember, the luddites were wrong at the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Reality is that people on platforms like Reddit or Lemmy (or the tech side of the Fediverse in general) can be incredibly fervent about their AI hate, but they don’t represent the average people, whose work has become ever so slightly more convenient thanks to AI

    According to research, the overwhelming majority of gamers across all ages and genders do hate genAI though:

    Gamers Are Overwhelmingly Negative About Gen AI in Video Games, but Attitudes Vary by Gender, Age, and Gaming Motivations. - Quantic Foundry

    In a recent survey, we explored gamers’ attitudes towards the use of Gen AI in video games and whether those attitudes varied by demographics and gaming motivations. The overwhelmingly negative attitude stood out compared to other surveys we’ve run over the past decade.
    (...)
    Overall, the attitude towards the use of Gen AI in video games is very negative. 85% of respondents have a below-neutral attitude towards the use of Gen AI in video games, with a highly-skewed 63% who selected the most negative response option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • Gamers also don't generally reflect the opinions of the entire population.

    Oh, so it is the gamers who are anti-AI, and the artists who are in favor of it. That makes sense.

    where the developer had absolutely no chance of hiring actual people (therefore no artist, software engineer, etc. was hurt in the process)

    It's interesting to me how a project fronted by somebody without two nickels to contract an artist can use the power of AI to create assets they'd never otherwise be able to, but they're not replacing anyone; AI can't just make a bunch of assets that a person could. That's some black magic, right there.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    It's been proven time and time again that a game doesnt need to compare to AA and AAA shit to be successful. You dont need a big game with a big world. There's an endless list of simple indie games that had a captivating charm that are crazy successful, all without a single bit of AI used.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    What AI does here is allowing small teams to get art done what otherwise would eat up their budget, aka they literally couldn’t afford. No artists were harmed in these cases because if AI didn’t exist they simply wouldn’t have been hired.

    That excuse can be used by big publishers as well, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Oh, yes. Big publisher will try it on a huge scale. They cant help themselves.

    And they’re going to get sloppy results back. If they wanna footgun themselves, it’s their foot to shoot.


    Some mid sized devs may catch this “Tech Bro Syndrome” too, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    For reference, see the latest McDonalds Christmas advert scandal. Or was it Coca Cola?

    Like with any new tech, companies will try to exploit it to reduce expenses on people, then quickly realise that just because you replaced a hammer with a hydraulic smithing press, you haven't suddenly become a blacksmith yourself and still need the blacksmith to make shit happen - but now one blacksmith can do ten times more.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago*

    Who made the textures or took the photos that them AI generated ones were derived from, do they get a cut? That justification is even more bizarre now, considering the tools we have to photoscan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago (44 children)

    Also what about AI code tools? Like if they use cursor to help write some code does that disqualify them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 10 months ago (41 children)

    If you do that and proceed to say "No we didn't use any AI tools". Then yes, that should be a disqualification.

    "When it was submitted for consideration, representatives of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    You don't even need to use cursor. All the major IDEs are including LLMs nowadays to help with code completion and code generation. There's zero chance no gen ai code is in any project that has more than a few people nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (32 children)

    You have to draw the line somewhere, saying any game cant use AI is much simpler than an arbitrary definition of what slop is. Also means we reward real artistry everytime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago* (26 children)

    How have we all forgotten that games were made perfectly fine for decades without AI? Better games even.

    I'd rather give an award to a "worse" game that didnt use AI, than to a game that did.

    Devs can lie, but the truth always comes out eventually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    "the truth" being that a few generated placeholder textures were accidentally left in and promptly replaced? crazy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (18 children)

    Theyre not limiting their tools, they're limiting some awards they could win by doing the art themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    No no. The rules didn’t say “art” it was ALL AI use for the whole duration of the project. Planning, emails, research everything.

    Not a single drop of AI is allowed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    This time yes. But the rule ban any and all AI use during development. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the final product or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Would you consider it your own code or Code that was generated by AI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    It’s a weird gray area. Nobody really knows where the limit is. The current consensus is that for a fact the “AI” can’t own a copyright to anything.

    How smart can an autocomplete be before it takes away your copyright? Does using snippets count? How smart can the snippet engine be at filling the template?

    If I ask AI how to solve something but write the exact same code myself, is it mine?

    It If I grab code from stack overflow, does it make it mine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    So is the source.

    If they’re paying a bunch of money to OpenAI for mega text prompt models, they are indeed part of the slop problem. It will also lead to an art “monoculture,” Big Tech dependence, code problems, all sorts of issues.

    Now, if they’re using open weights models, or open weights APIs, using a lot of augmentations and niche pipelines like, say, hand sketches to 3D models, that is different. That’s using tools. That’s giving “AI” the middle finger in a similar way to using the Fediverse, or other open software, instead of Big Tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    I understand the principle. Even if E33 is not slop, people should fear a road that leads to dependence on “surveillance state AI” like OpenAI. That’s unacceptable.

    That being said, I think a lot of people don’t realize how commoditized it’s getting. “AI” is not a monoculture, it’s not transcending to replace people, and it’s not limited to corporate APIs. This stuff is racing to the bottom to become a set of dumb tools, and dirt cheap. TBH that’s something that makes a lot of sense for a game studio lead to want.

    And E33 is clearly not part of the “Tech Bro Evangalism” camp. They made a few textures, with a tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    When I give myself the leeway to think of a less hardliner stance on AI, I come back to Joel Haver's video on his use of ebsynth:

    It lets me create rotoscoped animations alone, which is something I never would have the time or patience for otherwise. Any time technology makes art easier to learn, more accessible, we should applaud it. Art should be in the hands of everyone.

    Now my blood boils like everyone else's when it comes to being forced to use AI at work, or when I hear the AI Voice on Youtube, or the forced AI updates to Windows and VS Code, but it doesn't boil for Joel. He clearly has developed an iconic style for his comedy skits, and puts effort into those skits long before he puts it through an AI rotoscope filter. He chose his tool and he uses it sparingly. The same was apparently true for E33, and I have no reason not give Kojima and Larian the same benefit of the doubt.

    On the other hand, Joel probably has no idea what I'm talking about when I say "surveillance state AI." People Make Games has a pretty good video exposing its use case. There's also...

    • the global and localized environmental impacts of all these data centers,
    • Nvidia and Micron pricing the consumer out of owning their own hardware,
    • aforementioned companies fraudulently inflating an economic bubble,
    • the ease with which larger models can be warped to suit their owners' fascist agendas (see Grok).

    Creatives may be aware of some, or all, or none of those things, which is why it's important to continue raising awareness of them. AI may be toothpaste that can't go back in the tube, but it's also a sunk cost fallacy, you don't have to brush your teeth with shit-flavored toothpaste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Now my blood boils like everyone else’s when it comes to being forced to use AI at work, or when I hear the AI Voice on Youtube, or the forced AI updates to Windows and VS Code

    You don’t hate AI. You hate Big Tech Evangelism. You hate corporate enshittification, AI oligarchs, and the death of the internet being shoved down your throat.

    …I think people get way too focused on the tool, and not these awful entries wielding them while conning everyone. They’re the responsible party.

    You’re using “AI” as a synonym for OpenAI, basically, but that’s not Joel Haver’s rotoscope filter at all. That’s niche machine learning.


    As for the exponential cost, that’s another con. Sam Altman just wants people to give him money.

    Look up what it takes to train (say) Z Image or GLM 4.6. It’s peanuts, and gets cheaper every month. And eventually everyone will realize this is all a race to the bottom, not the top… but it’s talking a little while :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    People have made it excessive due to turning AI into a modern witch hunt. Maybe if people had a more nuanced take than "all AI bad" companies could be more open about how they use AI.

    I can guarantee that if E33 came out with the AI disclaimer it would've been far more controversial and probably less successful. And technically they should have an AI label because they did use Gen AI in the development process even if none of it was supposed to end up in the final game.

    But we can't have companies being honest because people can't be normal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 10 months ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    How do I put this.

    AI isn't exactly the cause of the rise in the price of hardware. Only 1/6th of the purchased Nvidia cards are actually in data centers. Same for the memory.

    We're not using it.

    What's really drumming up all the prices is that the billionaires are convinced that AI is going to replace tons and tons of people. It's not. It's the insane corporate hype that's doing all the damage.

    It will replace some, sure. The same way the electric drill replaced carpenters. One electric drill does not replace one carpenter. That's not how that works. Instead the carpenters can work a bit faster and their job is a bit easier. It's worth buying and it's worth using, but it doesn't really replace a person. Accountants didn't disappear as a profession when spreadsheets were invented.

    There were books written in the 1980s about how household appliances raised the standard of cleanliness. Turns out people change clothes more when cleaning clothes doesn't involve a washing board. And I don't think Roombas replaced that many jobs either.

    In particular, I think this is a thing that will happen for software development. I don't think it'll reduce the number of developers we need. I think the standards for development will just be higher. All the front end stuff in particular is going to get easier, and you won't need as many frameworks. We'll especially need just as many devs, if not more, in the short term. Someone's going to have to fix the mess all these companies are going to make after they've fired half their devs and tried to just vibe code everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [+] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)