111–120 of 164 posts
I have a Kat Walk C2 and a game like Myst in VR with that VR rig would be absolutely goddamned insane.
Myst ruled because you felt like you were in another world back then. Recreate that with the tech we have to really make you feel like you're in that world.
Myst has severely overlooked a platform that has recently made some pretty decent strides - VR. I have a Kat Walk C2 and a game like Myst in VR with that VR rig would be absolutely goddamned insane. Myst ruled because you felt like you were in another world back then. Recreate that with the tech we have to really make you feel like you're in that world.
I think I own five copies of Myst now. There are at least 4 remakes/remasters. It's kind of insane.
The biggest issue is that it has become very accessible to approach AA quality in a solo setting. The jump from indie to AA is much more plausible than the jump from AA to AAA. The middle of the market is in a gigantic space trash compactor right now. I could sit down with one other level designer / environmental artist and create something that would be visually competitive with Myst in record time using modern tool…
Why is using it for code more acceptable than for art? I can't imagine we aren't already seeing tons of both in indie games. Maybe aaa too? Is there any ramification for leaving off the disclosure, or adding one? Personally if the gameplay is good I kind of don't care if it used lots of ai.
It's just not good enough. AI art generators aren't used in porn industry much. That should tell enough about quality and value of those. Bad VHS tapes were worse than YouTube 144p, and still totally fine for that industry. We're almost as far away from viability of AI art as we are from reliable self driving cars.
AI code generation is simply good enough. It might spit out GPL or Classified codes, but a lot of code just works. So they're widely accepted. AI translations and text interpretations are good enough too. READMEs are okay but barely. People are quick to point out Claude isms and reach for dislikes. "That's not just a double standard - it is a concrete indication that code and text are not the same" or whatever.
The biggest issue is that it has become very accessible to approach AA quality in a solo setting. The jump from indie to AA is much more plausible than the jump from AA to AAA. The middle of the market is in a gigantic space trash compactor right now. I could sit down with one other level designer / environmental artist and create something that would be visually competitive with Myst in record time using modern tool…
Why is using it for code more acceptable than for art? I can't imagine we aren't already seeing tons of both in indie games. Maybe aaa too? Is there any ramification for leaving off the disclosure, or adding one? Personally if the gameplay is good I kind of don't care if it used lots of ai.
For AI generated assets getting coherence in terms of art assets not even just say like character art design, but artistic coherence is much broader and hard to make explicit. What is it that makes the colors, texture, models and animations work together well? What is the relationship between having an item with a specific color and texture in a specific context in relation to all those other items? That's essentially the question of what good art is and it's far more intuitive you could attempt to formalize it but someone can just disagree with your formalization and you can't really say anything.
Getting art that is coherent with the rest of your work depends upon having someone who is able to internalize it and express it. I personally don't think AI will ever be capable of that however I do think we will likely end up in a place where a good artist could leverage AI to produce far more assets then they could have individually. It will depend on them feeding it a bunch of structure and criteria and evaluating what it does though.
How can an AI understand enough about your character and his role in the story such that his personality is conveyed through his animation, his gait, his voice acting, the materials and clothing, etc. It's just not a strict syntactic relationship which is what AI is actually good at, there is no way to actually formally represent that.
The issue with AI generated assets for me is that they are just bad and ugly and being used by people with bad taste. I can see a future where you have technically competent artists having AI tools they can train or set up to reflect their vision and be closer to their work following principles they establish but we aren't there now. For coding because it lacks that a well written program by a human or AI (guided by a human) is basically identical. I could say an AI designed game would probably be awful for similar reasons that AI is or purely vibecoded things that are artistic like shaders, specific mechanical tuning, etc for the same reason AI art is bad. Those are also much easier to tune because they are at the end of the day symbolic formal representations that can be easily manipulated by AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is using it for code more acceptable than for art? I can't imagine we aren't already seeing tons of both in indie games. Maybe aaa too? Is there any ramification for leaving off the disclosure, or adding one? Personally if the gameplay is good I kind of don't care if it used lots of ai.
Because people can tell the difference between AI art and human art. Not true for logic unless you are incompetent.
AI art is human art. It is based on human intent and choices (and in non-trivial cases it’s a lot of effort to get the machine to produce something that resembles a artist’s mental image), and the rest is mathematically sourced from human art.
I strongly suspect the only difference is in level of decision making, where details that aren’t explicitly planned are randomly generated rather than chosen (consciously or not). Or unable to be planned - refining the generation results is the most difficult part. Which translates to that “sloppy” image.
Humans can detect sloppiness, not “AI”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The degree to which you can discern is the degree to which you can meaningfully ask for human vs AI.
Art consists of decisions made by the artist that are interpretable by the audience. Automatically generated imagery lacks this, but still presents a fascimille of it. The intention and thoughtfulness of the artist is encoded within their creation, and when there is no artist this is lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is using it for code more acceptable than for art? I can't imagine we aren't already seeing tons of both in indie games. Maybe aaa too? Is there any ramification for leaving off the disclosure, or adding one? Personally if the gameplay is good I kind of don't care if it used lots of ai.
That’s how double standards work, there often isn’t a clear reason. The art and audio is somehow seen as more important and something only humans should de in a game than the code and design, you know the actual game portion of the game.
Neither of these changes affect the game play, they are both purely aesthetic in their effects, without introducing anything which might be called "art" in a traditional sense, unless you count crudely modeling the behavior of light in shaders and C code as "art", but at that point the distinction between code and art vanishes. I had previously had a "no-ai" policy in my codebase, just as a kind of over-reaction, and kind of, "if I ban it, then I don't have to think about it" response. But these patches... after studying them, there's just no way I wasn't accepting them.
[1] https://github.com/smcameron/space-nerds-in-space [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mapping [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is using it for code more acceptable than for art? I can't imagine we aren't already seeing tons of both in indie games. Maybe aaa too? Is there any ramification for leaving off the disclosure, or adding one? Personally if the gameplay is good I kind of don't care if it used lots of ai.
A lot of people are confused and/or behave defensive and hallucinate copyright issues(which is real, but IMO not the reason why artistic or creative AI contents aren't accepted). It's just not good enough. AI art generators aren't used in porn industry much. That should tell enough about quality and value of those. Bad VHS tapes were worse than YouTube 144p, and still totally fine for that industry. We're almost as f…
Have you been in a self-driving car?