cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8882542
It’s a different story for the more established studios with an existing following and previous titles. Game Oracle found that the use of AI by these studios resulted in a significant 40% to 60% drop in sales.
That’s a huge difference. AI stigma seems to hit competent developers with a lot to lose the hardest, and I’m not sure that game studios are ready to accept it.
In what specific ways? There are 20 comments in the thread you commented on explaining in detail why they think the opposite, but you said “nuh uh AI cool actually” so you must be right.
Because it enables developers with fewer resources to create better games, or games that wouldn’t even be possible without AI.
There are 20 different comments about things that apply to humans the same as AI but they think that AI need a special solution, or different regulation. We agreed to disagree.
Let me guess, you disagree too? You must be right, there’s no way someone other than Concetta could be right. AI must be bad in every conceivable way, with zero redeeming value, right?
Again, you’ve put one point that is heavily debatable, and respond like an asshole when people push back at all. You keep saying shit like
Yes I do disagree, why don’t you give a better reason than speed. I have enough dogwater games to play, I want to play games with soul, as a defense to your first point.
Sorry, I started out polite but the overwhelming majority of people here have responded as assholes so I’ve resorted to the same. I’ve essentially given up - people can’t even seem to discern the difference between AI and data centers, and I’m tired of explaining such subtleties over and over again without the other party gaining even a whiff of comprehension.
Let me start fresh, with you, after my sincere apology for my initial reaction.
Why do you believe using AI removes the soul of a game? There’s still a person involved, directing the AI - purposefully planning the prompts, meticulously curating the resulting content, and imparting their own judgement in determining inclusion. Refining the results until it meets their standard of quality. To attribute the results entirely to the tool used is to discount the human using the tool.
I remember having the exact same reaction as you when Final Fantasy VII came out. I was appalled the developers left behind hand drawn pixel art to instead use computer generated imagery. I literally said they removed the soul of the game by using a computer to create their art.
With age, I’ve realized I was wrong. The tools used don’t remove the soul, so long as a person is still there making the final call, they just enable the person to better realize their own vision and often times that clashes with what the audience expects/desires, but it doesn’t invalidate their vision, as I previously thought.
See the problem is knowing you use ai, everytime I see more than a paragraph it becomes not worth the effort of reading and replying because solid chance you’ve just got an AI doing your writing.
Your prejudice runs deep. I’ve never used AI for a conversation. I use it for generating art, solving errors, adding software features, solving technical problems, analyzing data, and identifying plants/animals. Using it for conversation seems a poor use for the technology. Some people probably do, though, but if they post it they endorse whatever it is that’s being said, so they may as well have written it.
I guess in the future the solution is to only respond with one or two sentences? I’ll try to continue the conversation in that matter but my arguments won’t be very compelling.
Lol
Okay, less than a sentence. I can do that:
LMAO? Roflmao.
wild gesticulations
Startling lack of evidence for these incredibly bold claims.
The initial observation comes from personal experience and I don’t consider it particularly bold. If you meant something else, and would like to discuss it, please do call it out specifically.