On the other hand, I think I'd personally vote "somewhat negative" on quests and dialogue. Many games have too much pointless filler dialogue and unmemorable sidequests. Maybe if you don't care enough to actually write it, it shouldn't be there at all.
I don't know. Clair Obscur is about as good as it gets and gamers notice. or at least, other devs who are also gamers notice it.
The community was always a much more "hyperactive" scene, and it doesn't seem like AI is an exception. Thing that may blow over in other industries will be eviscerated here, especially in a time where there's more cynicism than ever among the gaming community and the AAA industry.
sadly, the 9000 layoffs in NA this year seems to show what they really want to do with AI.
So the true opposition is to poor quality content, not GenAI.
Unfortunately for artists, actors, etc. GenAI right now is the worst it's ever going to be, and it was much worse just a year ago.
Meanwhile, AI markets itself almost exclusively on being a time and money saver. And more efficient workers, but industry actively opposes that in a day and age where they prefer to commoditize labor instead of invest in specialists. If it doesn't actually do neither, then it won't really serve a niche compared to CGI.
Same with programming. The best humans write better code than Codex, but the awful government portals and enterprise apps you’re using today were also written by humans.
And yes, I think with the current trajectory, we're not even hitting "crappy entrprise government portal" levels within the next few decades.
> AI Hyperrealism: Why AI Faces Are Perceived as More Real Than Human Ones (Nov 2023)
We've already reached the point where GAI art is extremely difficult to distinguish from human art and at a fraction of that cost.
I'd say that's pretty objective and it's hard to even leave room for subjective interpretation when it's so hard to tell them apart.
> Also, analogies are almost always weak rhetorical distractions.
I wasn't trying to start a discussion with them. To say GAI will never be better than humans at art when we already know what we know today isn't a good faith logical argument, it's a tautological appeal to emotion.
And this logic is why people don't understand how to make good game art. generating an 2d animation or real time 3d model that properly deforms is multiple magnitudes different from fooling some tiktok users with a static image in isolation. even composing a still scene will quickly reveal the lmitations of generating art for your visual novel.
Wielding a camera doesn't make you a cinematographer that can sell a movie. Generating a few realistic-ish images does not make you an artist that can sell a game.
Owing to network effects, games can be extra sticky because you want to consume the same media as your friends.
I would prefer a mushy human was responsible for the art I consume, but I am probably not going to boycott a game because it uses AI for some assets.
ARC Raiders uses AI for generated voice or TTS; it's hardly in the same field as generative AI which is mass scraped from the internet and churned out of a matrix math black box. They paid voice actors for the training and likeness, and the AI is used for future flexibility, and the VAs know this and its part of the contract they sign
They also use AI for the robotic kinematics which looks absolutely fantastic. When you blow up robots they zoom around and correct themselves exactly how you would imagine an evil robot to behave
As for the indie scene, AI isn't going to solve the problems on why they don't sell well. It's not assets nor tech that holds the scene back at the moment.
I'm one of those gamers. I'm pretty sure we can find more than 8259 others.
Given how little time a modern game has to advertise itself (without millions in an ad campaign), those gut feelings are key to landing a sale.
But AI has completely legit non-slop use in games: texture gen, 3D model gen, Suno for audio, programming,...