Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

Recently, it came out that FoamStars, the new PlayStation exclusive party shooter from Square Enix utilizes certain assets generated by an AI program called Midjourney. While the game's producer, Kouske Okatani claims this only makes up a tiny portion of the game and the rest of the package was made by hand, there are already certain parts of the internet disgusted by the idea of using any AI-assets in a game at all, and are already vowing to boycott the game.

AI development has grown tremendously in recent years. Text-to-visual and text-to-audio programs have been getting more intricate and sophisticated. But, there's also the obvious and understandable fear of AI mass eliminating jobs in the creative space, eventually leading to all of our daily lives being completely be controlled by AI programs.

Obviously, nobody wants a Matrix-like dystopia where machines enslave us all, and we should still be very skeptical of how AI is used on a broader scale. But at least as far as creative fields like art and game development are concerned, I feel like the whole "replacing all human artist jobs" was always a self-fufilling prophecy, mostly spouted by people who were never good artists to begin with.

I think AI can be a very useful and powerful development tool when used in moderation. If Square Enix's claims of FoamStars' AI assets being less than 1% is in-fact true, then it shows that AI combined with human-craft can create some true breakthrough innovations when put in the right hands. Of course, key word here is moderation. AI so far, isn't the all powerful human creator replacement some people hype it up as. And an entire game's worth of assets generated by an AI bot probably still isn't going to deliver the results you want without human intervention and hand-crafted work alongside it. I think AI has a place in creative fields, so long as its reigned in by actual human creatives.

 

[Skyfox]

It's like any tool. It depends on the wielder.

 

[tommycronin]

Considering in that game it barely takes up less than 0.1% of the games overall assets, is it really worth using to then having a potentially bad new cycle for your game before it releases.

 

[thief183]

I don't see the problem, imagine having to design a table for each game you make... (it is just an example) it doesn't make sense and using an Ai to create something like 30 types of it in a matter of seconds is a very welcome news.

This implying that you don't have to be "creative" with it. It can totally help with basic assets

 

[Griffon]

I only care about the result. AI is a tool like any other, and if it helps release faster and better games, use it.

 

[sertopico]

It can spare a tremendous amount of time and create new ways of approaching problems. I welcome the idea, as long as the output goes through a person's scrutriny afterwards.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

My stance is we better get used to them. It's also the final result that matters.

If it's firmly artist driven with a personal touch applied then I don't think most of us would know unless the dev/pub said it was AI art.

 

[Wildebeest]

Generative AI right now, and maybe by design, will do the bulk of the work but will not do the hard part which sometimes takes up a lot of the work or at least the finishing work by the most skilled individuals. If you just put AI content in games or give users unfiltered access to generative AI, the game will not look polished.

 

[SirTerry-T]

As someone lucky enough to be employed as an artist in the industry, I have nothing but fear and trepidation where the use of AI is concerned.

 

[BaldingAshCrimson]

I don't like it, because it more then anything comes off as a "testing of the waters", to me.
It starts out with just a "tiny portion" of the game, and then it slowly will become a big portion of games.

And this is one game that is being transparent about the fact that they are using AI.
Other games will not. Will use AI, and you will never know.

I heard someone joking about the Metal Gear Solid 3 (pointless) Remake using AI to voice the characters.
And it was a joke, but after testing the waters like this, that will certainly be used or at least attempted (Not in MGS 3, I mean future games)

Either way, I'm not gonna push for a boycott on this, because boycotts are completely and utterly pointless.
But I'm not gonna play this game. I'm disgusted by this, and I'm gonna die on this hill.

I want games made by PEOPLE. From top to bottom. Assets, art, music, everything. If it's not, it has no value to me. It stops being art.

 

[cireza]

Using AI to stimulate your imagination why not, but I don't think that using directly what is generated is really practical ? At least it doesn't look like it to me. Because of how uneven things will be when compared to one another, and there are many visible defects as well.

 

[KungFucius]

I don't like procedurally generated content that much. It usually feels cheap and boring. AI assets is something I am not sure about. It basically means someone is out of a job which sucks, but it also means somebody else is able to get a lot done. That said, I don't think eliminating artists' jobs on games with AI is the right thing to do. Eliminate the overhead that pays for things like Todd Howard's ego before shitting on some underpaid artists' lives.

 

[StueyDuck]

How is the game part of the game?

That's all I care about.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Absolutely against it.

Not only in videogames but in any media where creativity is involved. This is a textbook creativity killer and I'm shocked that so many people are oblivious to this. Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? They are literally doing this right now. It's the right time to show them the finger.

The paradigm "it's a tool to save time" is as fake as it can get. Open the door to this and very soon you will have monkeys punching in IA commands to make characters, plots, missions, music, you name it. I'm not paying anything for that bullshit.

Just like in the movies we have activists "writing" scripts assisted by IAs, with lovely results.

 

[SirTerry-T]

I'd be interested to find out what the AI is being trained on because at the moment anything art related that comes from AI is using stolen content from other artists somewhere along the pipeline.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Using AI to stimulate your imagination why not, but I don't think that using directly what is generated is really practical ? At least it doesn't look like it to me. Because of how uneven things will be when compared to one another, and there are many visible defects as well.

Current AI tools work on the same principle as dreaming. Just like how dreams are generated by your brain fetching various memories and visual stimuli and constructing an experience based on that info, AI bots generate visual content based on whatever images or videos you feed it or tell it to fetch from the internet. That's why most AI-generated video and images often seem very dream-like with garbled up text and distorted animation. And its also why they're probably not going to be a mass replacement for hand-crafted art by human creators anytime soon (if ever).

But it can help with inspiration and mass creation of mundane assets.

 

[Xion_Stellar]

Just the same stance that I have with store bought assets as longs as those tools are used properly and without malicious intent they are fine with me.

Of course we are in the middle of the generative AI wild west right now and there's a bunch of rampant copyright infringement going on right now so I'm slightly more interested to see how the courts are going to rule on the current lawsuits.

 

[crackajack]

I don't boycott Photoshop, drawing tablets, Maya, Speedtree, Unreal etc either. The only people that should boyott AI are Amish... or should become Amish or something of that belief route. AI is just a new tool in various disciplines. For now the image creator AI needs some human quality control, especially at drawing hands, but it eventually will get to a point where AI modules can write a game's story, model characters, throw together levels based on 3d-scans or also previous games, texture all of it in the blink of an eye, and maybe a game director and a producer and some players who check the quality, and everything costs much less than employing a fuckton of people for the same jobs, doing it much slower.

Not great for them losing their work, including my job in some years, and probably a huge danger for society, but it's just unstoppable progress. Unless every country on this planet does not come together to ban it from happening, treat it very much equal to slavery, which in itself isn't entirely gone at all, it will happen. At the very least some pretend people will actually be AIs doing jobs illegaly. Previously blu collar jobs were replaced by machines doing it entirely or helping immensely, but now progress goes after white collar workers. The main problem here might be that unlike previous revolutions nothing seems to be on the horizon that replaces those jobs and we will need a great reset in work hours for remaining paid jobs and how its compensated at a level that's not making huge parts of our world working poor, stopping society from working all together. Since if products are done by AIs, but no one is employed by it, no one can buy those cheaply made products.

 

[Bernoulli]

I want AI to do more than just assets

 

[RagnarokIV]

Don't care.

 

[BaldingAshCrimson]

The paradigm "it's a tool to save time" is as fake as it can get. Open the door to this and very soon you will have monkeys punching in IA commands to make characters, plots, missions, music, you name it. I'm not paying anything for that bullshit.

Not to mention the obvious solution this, is to not try to shit out a game in 1 year. Give developers more time to work on their game. Why do you need to "save time"? Save energy, not time.
If it came down to JUST the developers, every part of game design matters. And they would craft those parts of the game just fine, if they had time and space to do it.

I know games are just a product to most people and publishers that say this, but man it would be depressing to go to a painter or something, and keep suggesting and even forcing on him/her things to make their process quicker, not better and closer to their vision. Just give them more time to work on their thing, and if you are going to introduce new things to game design, introduce things to make their visions easier to put on practice. Not give their vision off to something that has no intent or feelings.

And this is kind off-point, but it kind of hurts that to a lot of people in gaming communities, that one huge shinning tree in Elden Ring being made by people, and AI, would have absolutely no difference.

 

[Mephisto40]

These people going crazy about it realise AI is used across the board now, especially for remasters, to upscale textures and stuff don't they?

 

[Robb]

If the game is good I don’t really care.

If an AI could produce a Super Mario Galaxy 3 that’s just as good as one Nintendo would be expected to produce I’d happily play it.

I think we’ll get some very obvious examples of devs that use AI as a tool to improve things/increase efficiency Vs. devs that just want to push a “magic button” as we move forward. I expect games with weird spelling mistakes that no one bothered to look at, in-game artwork/posters that no one bothered to look at etc. etc. etc.

 

[tommib]

I hate everything about it. From the reuse of real artwork to how tech-bros are using it to make more money out of artists. It’s kind of gross and all of it should be regulated. AI has no place in art. But the result is always so bad that hopefully it will just die. It was fun for 2 days to see the procedural generation but I can’t stand the style anymore. Eye rolling.

 

[NeverYouMind]

I have to wonder what free/paid assets it samples to generate those assets. With the proper red tape and litigation it would be useless outside of conceptualization as it should be.

These people going crazy about it realise AI is used across the board now, especially for remasters, to upscale textures and stuff don't they?

If it is as shitty as the release of Grand Theft Auto Trilogy Definitive Edition, I would rather they not bother at all and make the original content easily obtainable.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Indifferent. AI is a method of generating assets, how you manage it matters least of all if the output is quality.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Perfectly ok as long as these games are priced accordingly. For games priced at 60-70$ its absolutely unacceptable.
(the use of their own generative tools for enviroment/placing assets or any tools for stuff like upscaling and denoising is perfectly fine)

Lets say the next big AAA release with $300m budget uses AI tools for voice acting, i would not pay more than 20-30$ for it no matter how good it is.

 

[willothedog]

Don't care. How is it any different than using CG in movies rather than practical effects?

 

[ReyBrujo]

As a developer (albeit different branch, healthcare industry) not accepting what AI has to offer is ridiculous. As long as you take care about the information you have fed the model with has been sanitized and you validate the generation users shouldn't care about it. Very few care about whether the meat in the hamburger they are eating comes from a cow or a horse, why should they care about game assets.

 

[Comandr]

Perfectly ok as long as these games are priced accordingly. For games priced at 60-70$ its absolutely unacceptable.
(the use of their own generative tools for enviroment/placing assets or any tools for stuff like upscaling and denoising is perfectly fine)

Lets say the next big AAA release with $300m budget uses AI tools for voice acting, i would not pay more than 20-30$ for it no matter how good it is.

So the voice acting is over 50% of the value of a given game? That sort of belittles the monumental effort that everyone else puts in to make the project happen doesn’t it?

Pokémon should have been a $10 game by that logic. It doesn’t even have voice acting and the budget is no doubt faaar less than 300m.

The pricing is going to be dictated by the publishers to maximize profits. The goal of utilizing AI is to maximize profits. That’s it. Take less time. Pay less people. Charge the same price. Make more money. That’s what this is all about.

You’re welcome to purchase $20 AAA games ofc but just go ahead and throw away the idea that they will ever LAUNCH at that price.

 

[Holammer]

Hail Hydra/Hydra Dominatus
I'm A-Ok with AI generated assets. Anyone refusing to adapt and integrate it to their workflow will be left behind.
At this pace, I give it three years until AI can spit out a quality textured and rigged 3d model based on prompts or an image with a sketch or a character design sheet. A job that can take several workdays done at a press of a button. Allowing small teams to make a GTA level production.

*Tensor cores go brrr*

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Dont care. I wouldn't even know it unless I was told. And how is this different from paying a third-party asset maker for stuff like this? So how I see it its no different than say using UE or havok...etc.

 

[MetalRain]

I think it's great use case, make it more efficient to create game assets.

 

[crackajack]

Not to mention the obvious solution this, is to not try to shit out a game in 1 year. Give developers more time to work on their game. Why do you need to "save time"? Save energy, not time.
If it came down to JUST the developers, every part of game design matters. And they would craft those parts of the game just fine, if they had time and space to do it.

I know games are just a product to most people and publishers that say this, but man it would be depressing to go to a painter or something, and keep suggesting and even forcing on him/her things to make their process quicker, not better and closer to their vision. Just give them more time to work on their thing, and if you are going to introduce new things to game design, introduce things to make their visions easier to put on practice. Not give their vision off to something that has no intent or feelings.

And this is kind off-point, but it kind of hurts that to a lot of people in gaming communities, that one huge shinning tree in Elden Ring being made by people, and AI, would have absolutely no difference.

Or stupid shit like Star Citizen happens, or doesn't happen, ie games would "never" be released. The notion that all developers are idealists, only lacking some more time, only pushed and forced by devil publishers, might have been true some decade(s) ago, but most people involved today are probably just cogs in a barely manageable human machine. Sure there are individuals that are passionate about specific narrow areas in huge evil companies too, and some independant individuals who make full games solo exist, but replacing a lot of them by actual non humans is just fine and does not change an iota of any artistic vision. An artistic vision that is most of the time a waste of time for everyone involved, since the writing in most media today is just utter shite and to make the demanded soulless content you hardly need artists.
Humans prove game after game, that the art is not evolving anymore, at least only very very seldomly, so clinging on the magic human factor is as pointless as asking for Fords or Toyotas to be made by artists without machines and software.
We would be better off with less games overall, removing a ton of people partaking in the industry, often with good intentions but ultimately lowering the quality. Problem is less games would probably kill more risky, potentially more interesting games first, so we need enough shit thrown to see what sticks, to have at least some progress.

 

[Deft Beck]

AI as an artistic tool is fine for research and development, not in production. Use it to figure out the aesthetic and tone you want, don't use any AI generated assets in production if you can help it.

 

[Krieger]

AI art is garbage.
AI used for directing the game can be good, see the Dead Space Remake. It has an AI system which will manipulate the lights, create fog, stop elevators, or spawn enemies whenever and wherever it wants, making each play through for everyone unique.

 

[reinking]

I think it can be a great tool but one that can be easily abused. Aside from the controversy that it will cost an artist jobs, it could lead to tons more shovel ware. I have not really researched it enough to have an opinion beyond that right now.

 

[SHA]

A failed idea, it kills creativity, if gaas lacks the human factor and start relying on AI, then I see how bad it could go, it should at least bring what's missing in this industry, like Bioshock, some old ips,...etc.

 

[T4keD0wN]

So the voice acting is over 50% of the value of a given game?

Clearly no, its just one example of one thing that could be done with ai.

That sort of belittles the monumental effort that everyone else puts in to make the project happen doesn’t it?

Using AI absolutely belittles and hurts the effort that everyone else puts in by comparison, because theyve actually put in effort, yes.

Pokémon should have been a $10 game by that logic. It doesn’t even have voice acting and the budget is no doubt faaar less than 300m.

Just think about it, Pokémon costs the same amount of money as red dead redemption 2, if they can get away with it more power to them, but this is just about the only industry where its possible.
Imagine Ford attempting to sell their "Focus" line cars at the same price as Ferrari selling the F12, they would get laughed at. (well its even worse by comparison because those are pretty good cars, but you get the idea)

The pricing is going to be dictated by the publishers to maximize profits. The goal of utilizing AI is to maximize profits. That’s it. Take less time. Pay less people. Charge the same price. Make more money. That’s what this is all about.

Yes, i know and thats exactly the one part that i have a problem with. Theyll use it to pay less people and take less time, thats less effort, therefore the product should be worth less because its a lesser product. Thats how thing work in any other industry, high quality clothes are worth more than poorly made clothes from low quality materials, etc.

I could make an AI image of mona lisa for free, print it and frame it, is it worth as much as the real thing that took time and effort? Nope
Anyways wanting higher quality products at lower prices is the stance consumers should take and not go against their own interests by accepting lower quality products at the same or even higher prices, that would be illogical from their position.

 

[clarky]

Absolutely against it.

Not only in videogames but in any media where creativity is involved. This is a textbook creativity killer and I'm shocked that so many people are oblivious to this. Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? They are literally doing this right now. It's the right time to show them the finger.

The paradigm "it's a tool to save time" is as fake as it can get. Open the door to this and very soon you will have monkeys punching in IA commands to make characters, plots, missions, music, you name it. I'm not paying anything for that bullshit.

Just like in the movies we have activists "writing" scripts assisted by IAs, with lovely results.

Get with the program old man. It takes up to 7 years to make a game these days, if AI can make a few trees and textures with the direction of a human then it might just save this industry from eating itself.

The current dev cycle is not sustainable, even a monkey can see that.

 

[FoxMcChief]

As long as they’re verified by someone, who cares who/what generated them.

 

[diffusionx]

The big issue for me is that AI art is not art and never will be. It is just regurgitating and copying stuff from actual artists. I think the fact that people instantly can spot the AI-generated stuff is evidence of this.

That said I think there is a real place for AI, for example in dialogue systems in games.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm not sure I would even know that assets were AI generated or have any way to tell.

Generative AI could be a useful tool for hobbyist developers so as long as the content they generate is not intentionally derivative of an established artist's work I don't have a problem with it.

 

[killatopak]

AI generated from private assets?
Procedurally generated world space?
Real time asset creation from interactive gameplay?

OK

Any form of AI generated content from public but owned and not for sale asset are a no go. There are tons of assets that are up for sale. You can build a portfolio from them then generate from your own stock of assets for multiple game. Do not pull assets without consent, license or ownership.

 

[blastprocessor]

What's the difference between them and shop bought assets? Both l guess are disliked by some but if you can't draw and need art in your game?

 

[ssringo]

Assuming you own/licensed the assets I don't have a problem with using AI but if I can tell it's AI generated then you failed. That means your AI model was poorly trained and/or you implemented the assets in a way that makes it noticeable that it's AI.

 

[AndrewRyan]

The AI genie aint never going back in the bottle. It's barely even started and it's coming for ALL our jobs. Adapt or die.

Many jobs are rapidly vanishing and that trend is ever increasing. However, just as quickly new opportunities are materializing for people who previously didn't have access.

Nothing we do is going to stop this so the best strategy going forward is to look for areas where your knowledge can be enhanced by these tools and leverage them.

 

[Tsaki]

If it actually helps in the development process, without having too much loss in quality, I'm with 100% adoption of it.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Absolutely against it.

Not only in videogames but in any media where creativity is involved. This is a textbook creativity killer and I'm shocked that so many people are oblivious to this. Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? They are literally doing this right now. It's the right time to show them the finger.

The paradigm "it's a tool to save time" is as fake as it can get. Open the door to this and very soon you will have monkeys punching in IA commands to make characters, plots, missions, music, you name it. I'm not paying anything for that bullshit.

Just like in the movies we have activists "writing" scripts assisted by IAs, with lovely results.

Sure but it's inevitable with AAA games costing north of $200mil, $300mil probably approaching $500mil next gen without tools like AI. Then factor in development times of 4, 5, 6 and 7 years. If the gaming market remains fixated on shiny graphics, where no asset or texture can be flawed and every detail needs to look close to photo realistic, then the industry will need to leverage AI and leverage it they will.

If a game uses AI to make story content or music then I won't touch those games. But to help create some art assets, environments, lyp syncing etc isn't all negative and has some positives. I'm eager to see it reduce game budgets, improve game quality and development time. Ultimately it can be artist driven and we'll have to see the results in game dev.

 

[TrebleShot]

Could not care less.