I really don't care if they use AI. If it lets a smaller studios have voice over or more than three lines for Skyrim guards it's great. If it allows for more sprites or portraits for people and items to be unique that's cool.
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
64 points (98.5% liked)
Games
20381 readers
1242 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
Honestly, it's going to be a very meaningless label unless it's accompanied by what it was used for.
I have absolutely no problem with titles using generative A.I for filler text that no one is meant to read, such as various "rapports" and "notes" on... god know what, think lab assistants notes that flash on a screen somewhere in a corner, looks nice that there is some actual text, but it's not crucial to anything. It's background, and it will just take time away from more important bits.
As opposed to someone that has used generative AI for basically everything just to churn out some passable content for hundreds of games, making quantity over quality.
descriptions and lore to brainstorming story arcs.
Personally, I think there's a huge difference between descriptions and actual lore and story arcs.
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?
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?
We are not going to get anywhere debating a made up scenario. And what glyphs would or wouldn't do instead of text is subjective. Maybe the game isn't centered around ancient egypt?? I'm sure someone can find 1 million and 1 reasons as to why something might be text. But that's not the topic.
I didn't claim more = better. But I do think gen-AI has a place in some areas. You don't have to agree.
In my view. It's a tool. Tools can be misused. Tools can be useful.
I want to be clear that I used to have a similar mindset; I came around to the idea that if I'm a game dev (or any other type of creativity), and I'm looking for speedy shortcuts, I'm doing myself a disservice in two ways:
- I'm not learning the necessary skills to improve my craft. It's vibe coding in a different shirt, and skipping the struggle is skipping the parts that make me better.
- I'm missing the forest for the trees. Extra details don't make something better, and just because AI can do what I don't want to do doesn't mean that thing is worth doing. If I'm so disinterested in creating <insert thing>, why am I outsourcing it to a robot that doesn't actually understand my art? Out of everyone, a dev should be the most interested in the details, and if it's so unimportant that a robot can put in whatever, the end user likely wouldn't have cared in the first place.
I agree that it's a tool, and I agree that we aren't likely to see eye to eye on this, but at the end of the day, I am wholly convinced that this tool is being used in the wrong place and in the wrong way. It doesn't belong in creative endeavors.
I'm cool with you saying your final word on the matter, but I think we've beat this topic to death. You've been very courteous, and I appreciate that. Take care.
I'll just reply with my 2 cents on your two points. This is the kind of topic where there isn't a right or wrong. Just different opinions and people thinking differently. I hope you have a nice vacation and with that, here goes.
I know from personal experience that what you would like to do, does not often co-exist with the time you're allowed to spent on it. I would have loved to refine so much, add better function, create a more robust framework to allow expansion of future functionality. But the machine is going out to a show in 4 weeks. It doesn't need to be refined, it doesn't need to be perfect. But it does need to work and be functional.
I did not use A.I for that project. Along with it, I had to create a UI that worked on a touch-screen. I had never done anything of the sorts before. I did study up and learn the basics in order to create the UI. Honestly, using A.I did not even cross my mind. It wasn't a question of wanting or not wanting. It literally did not even occur to me that it's something I could have used. But thinking back. If I had, maybe I would have saved a few hours and could have used that to finish some "almost done" functions.
Everyone is different, and I'm sure most devs are super interested in the details, they're just, different details. The detail of certain text might not be as important to a dev as the detail of a certain framework and building it in a specific way to allow for future implementation of... whatever.
I'll end it with, I'm sure there are devs of your description as well, that would rather die than let some machine taint their vision of what their project should be.
I suppose I see it from a very practical point of view. Rather than an artistic point of view. But I do understand the concern. And should quality start to suffer as a result, I'm sure my opinion would change.
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.
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I have a lot of leaned skills but programming and digital art aren't on the list. Since I don't have the money to pay someone to make a game for me or 4 years to learn the whole of the skills from scratch, generative AI is my only option. Plenty of people will look down on me for that but if they had a robot that would do all their welding and woodworking for them they'd tell me to get fucked for asking them to pay.
I'm learning Godot cuz I had an idea for a game and thought it'd be a fun project. Started off trying to use AI to learn and got in such a muddle I deleted everything and started using guides. Even old, out of date ones are easier to learn from and don't cause massive errors.
There's really no excuse to use AI. It's much quicker to type "This vase is empty" than ask ai to write a description of an empty vase. As in its quicker than even writing the prompt.
If your scenario is "the vase is empty" then yeah... I don't think anyone is using prompts that take longer than typing the description.
But in the case of, let's say a scientific report on an alien encounter and resulting dissection then a prompt will for sure give you way faster inspiration than thinking of it all yourself.
You may not like that. That's ok. But I would not have a problem with that.
But that's the fun of writing is thinking up stuff like that? AI in that case is solving the problem of being creative and leaving the boring stuff up to humans?!
But not everyone thinks that writing that kind of stuff is fun. Not everyone enjoys that part of creativity. I know lots of people that love the creativity of solving problems with code. but writing reports is the most boring thing in the world.
If you have people in your studio that are fantastic and love writing that kind of stuff, that's great! I'm sure the quality of that is noticeable. I genuinely do believe that when it comes to art in any shape or form. A skilled human could do a way better job than any A.I.
But I can also see a world where you work in a smaller studio, you're a tight team of a few really great and passionate programmers, but writing literature just isn't your thing, it's not what you enjoy, it's like if someone asks you to dance. Looks great when others do it but you just feel awkward and would rather melt through the floor so no one has to see you.
But that's the thing. It's just opinion. No right or wrong. Just different thoughts on a subjective topic. You would probably enjoy writing up something like that. Me, I'd love to give a few ideas to get inspiration going. But to actually write it all up in an interesting way is just not something I would enjoy. And it would take forever...
Why would you hire a writer that hates writing?
Why are you making a narrative video game without a writer?
If you're making just a Candy Crush or a PacMan or a Space Invaders that doesn't need plot or environmental storytelling why do you need these narrative, story-driven pieces of prose?
None of the justifications make any real world sense to me.
But also, a good friend of mine makes props and set dressings for TV shows (he helped build Vecna's world in Stranger Things for example) and they are frequently building stuff just like you say.
I didn't say anyone would hire a writer that hates writing. You keep asking rhetorical questions about things that no one brought up.
Why are you making a narrative video game without a writer
I answered this already in the comment you replied to...
People can be passionate and want to create things despite not being adept at every single aspect involved. You keep creating scenarios in direct opposition to what I've explained and then tell me your scenario doesn't make sense.
Why someone would need story-driven pieces of prose in PacMan? I don't know buddy. You tell me. I never suggested anything of the sorts.
I've had great discussions with other people. But you seem intent on bad faith arguments and straw-manning every chance you get.
None of the justifications make any real world sense to me.
It's very telling you see it as "justifications", as if I would have to justify my opinion on the matter. It is what it is based on my experience. I have no doubt, there are a lot of things that make no real world sense to you.
I assume some devs don't disclose
It is still very funny to me that Ai image generators don’t get how human hands work.
That's actually a bit of a mislead. Most AI software has hand correction built into models now so they get it right more than they don't. We've all just associated bad hands with AI so the easiest way to get the wanted response is to make bad hands. If those images are AI generated, I'd bet "bad hands, too many fingers" were in the prompt.
They do now. Its just that the older models are still prevalent for various reasons.