this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
77 points (97.5% liked)
Games
20555 readers
542 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m not even into this use of AI.
Before, you knew that every single asset was placed by hand, and even if it was a prebuilt asset. A human was directly involved with every piece of artwork, dialogue, text, etc.
Now, you might come across dozens of random text documents or images that are seemingly and vaguely related to the story. How do I as the player know what’s actually relevant? Maybe the AI generated text sends me down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the game because it wasn’t proofread.
These were tasks that, even when menial, allowed for the artist to express themselves all the more. I’m imagining a painter being handed a premixed palette or a sculptor having someone apply the finishing touches for them.
It just feels like giving up at the finish line. Why do we need a bunch of unrelated text and images of the game stands fine without them?
Classic case of things you don't notice because they're there. But you will notice their absence.
Don't put the blame on generative A.I for filler content. I've seen Loren ipsum as filler long before generative A.I was even invented. It's always down to the devs to make sure what they put out is good.
But generative A.I absolutely make it easier to create the filler content, so you can focus on other aspects.
You're putting out a lot of "what if". If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike and if my mom had balls she'd be my dad.
This has nothing to do with gen-A.I. so someone has lots of important lore that contradicts other lore? That's their fault for misusing their tools. Not a fault of the tool.
It's not like they would suddenly do a better job just because they didn't use gen-A.I, they would still do a shitty job if they can't pay attention to details.
It's fine if you just don't want any gen-A.I in what you purchase. That's an opinion, a stance and I respect that. I just personally am not bothered if used correctly. I'm just complaining that their categories of gen-A.I doesn't allow me to make that distinction.
At that point, the question a dev should be asking is, "Is it necessary to have filler text?" Taking your "background text that flashes onscreen" concept, if its just background noise anyway, why does it need to specifically be text? What do letters or characters add that couldn't be achieved with glyphs or scribbles?
People often see AI as some shiny new tool to bring their visions to life, but the game design and storytelling techniques we've collectively learned over the past decades still apply. More ≠ better, and if it's not meant to be consciously and overtly experienced by the player, what need is there to include it at all, AI-generated or otherwise?
So if that dev used AI to make various filler/background glyphs would it be okay? Because even scribbles take time to make, if an AI tool can do it quicker and its just background noise, is that okay?
Where is this imaginary line of acceptability? Its different for every person who enters these AI discussions. How about if the dev codes a tool that spits out procedural glyph assets, surely thats fine, but what is the real difference?
I think you're getting caught up on the "thing." My point wasn't whether it should be glyphs or letters. Devs should be asking, at that point, why it's necessary at all. Does it need to exist? If you're considering AI just to generate "background noise," is that noise really necessary in the first place? This step often happens naturally in human-derived work when we consider the work involved, but it must happen intentionally when you throw garbage-generators into the mix.
And no, I don't think making glyphs via AI is okay, because now we're in the realm of AI image generation, and that's a giant unethical miasma. You ask what the difference is between a dev making their own script to general glyphs versus an AI, and that's like asking what difference exists between a solar calculator and a data center run by Google. Both can tell you what 2+2 equals, but one is unnecessarily complex.
And then there's the ethical considerations. Where did that AI model come from? How was it trained and developed? Whose work was used to derive that model? Who benefits from its public use?
AI simply does not belong in creative endeavors. People may have their own reasons for where they've drawn their lines, but that does not mean it is a mere matter of subjectivity, like choosing broccoli instead of carrots, or that they have a good basis for that decision.