this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
91 points (96.9% liked)
PC Gaming
14820 readers
767 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are confusing correlation with causation. Placeholder art doesn't give great art assets. Artists do. Just because there have been a few times in history where placeholder art got it right doesn't make it worth preserving in its current state. Now, instead of spending time on placeholder art, the artists can do what they want to do and be creative with designs. The doodle that became Kirby will still be there. The creativity isn't going anywhere.
Not confusing the two. Exploring their ideas and seeing how even the simple placeholder art looks can spark more ideas for them. Placeholder art didn't give great art, no, but flexing their creativity and exploring what the game will be can. It doesn't cause it but it's sure part of the process. It's why concept artists are a thing and their entire job is just toying around with art that will never make it into the game.
Think I'm gonna trust the people making beloved games, not some Internet slop apologists on this. And time and time again artists say no to AI and would rather be allowed to cook.
"Placeholder art doesn't give great art assets. Artists do". So let them do their thing, not AI.