If you can't tell it's AI, then it's a problem entirely made up in your own head.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
226 points (92.5% liked)
Games
20109 readers
853 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
It’s still an ethical dilemma
Surprising amount of comments that are OK with this and completely missing the point that Steam requires disclosure of AI asset usage. The devs neglected to tag it as such and people are rightly getting refunds for it.
I saw some early demos and hoped that AI could bring about a revolution in on-the-fly procedural generated content for gaming to do things that would be literally impossible by other methods. But no, instead it has been used to replace artists to produce poor-quality pre-generated static content and I couldn't be more disappointed.
That's because they keep trying to push AI into the foreground, not the background where it belongs
I mean, this article was spawned by The Alters, which had a bad machine translation segment (a thing since long before we called it AI) and... Some lorem ipsum in a background texture.
It's already in every game in the background. Do you think paid graphic designers are instructed not to use the AI features built into Photoshop/Illustrator?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Gaming is the one place generative AI makes the most sense, imo.
Personally, I want to see the Holodeck from Star Trek. That entire concept is generative AI.
In a world that artists don't need to make money to live this works but I feel we will never get there.
I would really like to see both: Artists creating their vision, drawing and sketching out ideas. Then using their own work, bring that to life with generative AI. Train on their drawings and work alone. Use it to help with rigging and modeling. Use it to take mashes and apply them in the holodeck as it is generating the world you are exploring.
It is not just one or the other. It just become a little more complicated.
There already exists no shortage of ways for corporations to exploit artists.
Fight for what you're actually talking about: fight for better wages and unions for artists and creatives and fight for a better social safety net. Trying to pick a fight with a glorified screwdriver isn't going to solve the ails of capitalism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Complete overreaction, but I agree that commercial games should not be using GenAI art. If you're making money out of selling your game, then don't use something which abused to commons to do so. If you're making a FOSS game, I don't see a problem with it.
Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?
I'm not OK with any business practices of AAA studios, and I don't think there's a way for them to get enough educated consent for creations (i.e. not just someone accepting a shitty TOS on deviantart 6 years ago) to make a good GenAI model. But if I were to put aside the first part and assume a magical reality where the second could manifest without coercion and lies, I would theoretically be OK with it as long as that model passed to the commons when the works it was trained on did as well.
Fair point, I should have asked about commercial games in general
That said I didn’t mean that the game studio itself would do the AI training and own their models in-house; if they did, I’d expect it to go just as poorly as you would. Rather, I’d expect the model to be created by an organization specialized in that sort of thing.
For example, “Marey” is one example I found of a GenAI model that its creators are saying was trained ethically.
Another is Adobe Firefly, where Adobe says they trained only on licensed and public domain content. It also sounds like Adobe is paying the artists whose content was used for AI training. I believe that Canva is doing something similar.
StabilityAI is also doing something similar with Stable Audio 2.0, where they partnered with a music licensing company, AudioSparx, to ensure that artists are compensated, AI opt outs are respected, etc..
I haven’t dug into any of those too deep, but they seem to be heading in the right direction at the surface level, at least.
One of the GenAI scenarios that’s the most terrifying to me is the idea of a company like Disney using all the material they have copyright for to train their own, proprietary GenAI image, audio, and video tools… not because I think the outputs would be bad, but because of the impact that would have on creators in that industry.
Fortunately, as long as copyright doesn’t apply to purely AI generated outputs, even if trained entirely on your own content, then I don’t think Disney specifically will do this.
I mention that as an example because that usage of AI, regardless of how ethically the model was trained, would still be unethical, in my opinion. Likewise in game creation, an ethically trained and operated model could still be used unethically to eliminate many people’s jobs in the interest solely of better profits.
I’d be on board with AI use (in game creation or otherwise) if a company were to say, “We’re not changing the budget we have for our human workforce, including for contractors, licensed art, and so on, other than increasing it as inflation and wages increase. We will be using ethical AI models to create more content than we otherwise would have been able to.” But I feel like in a corporate setting, its use is almost always going to result in them cutting jobs.
oh ffs, The Alters used it for placeholder assets for which no one would have hired a professional. It’s a rough machine translation instead of Lorem Ipsum.
load more comments
(7 replies)
So I'm in two minds about this. I am a software engineer by trade and have an idea for a game I'd like to try making.
The problem is that I don't even really know how to make games, not do I have any artistic abilities myself. I can't afford to pay a load of artists for work for a game that might never be finished and might never make money.
So I'm stuck in this hard decision of do I try and make my game, invest a lot of money and potentially lose it all, or do I try and find a publisher who can front the money but lose creative control of my game? Or do I use AI to give me a head start in building something that I can use to garner interest in, in the hope that enough people like it that I can fund the development?
Essentially, AI offers me a way to create something that I would not otherwise be able to create and that's really hard to accept.
The 20-80 rule really saves your ass when you're a solo dev.
Be really good at the one thing, nail the game mechanics, and then learn the 20% you need to be 80% good at everything else. If the game is kick ass, it'll be forgiven if everything looks like stick figures(but well drawn stick figures, mind)
load more comments
(6 replies)
video games in their current market might be one of the only areas that I'm tentatively okay with ai work.
Stasis Bone Totem had some hideous applications of it but the studio was using it to fill out supplemental art for puzzles and items that could've eaten up their budget. it kind of gives smaller studios a way to punch up when their vision is exceeding their budget for things like piles of gore on the ground or bundles of wire.
that said I only make that particular defense under late stage capitalism which is proving to be poisonous to art. not to mention that for every Bone Totem there's 108 employees that Ubisoft is going to lay off because they think ChatGPT can do their job
Bruh even fucking Kaiserpunk? I was super excited about that game.
Fucking hate this timeline man.
To me there's a difference between using assets that were generated by AI and a game using generative AI to create assets.
A person hired as an artist to make dialogue portraits could have shoveled some slop to meet a deadline. That's a production issue.
But if the games are being integrated with a generative AI model to cover minor assets, that's a fundamental development issue and I ~~can~~ cannot possibly see how that's good for anything.
Huh, it's almost like this new tool is fine for placeholder art, and placeholders can be good enough to ship.
Did you know The Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction" was supposed to have a brass section? That driving riff with the fuzzbox guitar was a placeholder. They released it as-is, the song hit #1, and distortion became mainstream. At what point do we stop lamenting all the horn players who were robbed?
Wasnt it just a translation thing while Most of the Game was handmade? Slightly exaggerated if the Game is good and seems to have Soul imo
I don't care about AI in video games, seems silly to give a shit.
I DO care if they are using AI to analyse or harvest my data. Otherwise.... its a freaking video game. Whatever. Is it a good game?
And I say this because I know people who really have interesting ideas, but they cant afford artists, musicians, and some even need a little help creating meshs and rigging. I would hope they are honest about it, but if they use AI as a tool to bring their vision together that seems fine. If they do translations it definitely would be worth saying "AI generated" as it never is as good as a native speaker. But it is something that is better than nothing.
And I will add: If you are concerned about the "executive class" and workers, you shouldnt be buying from the big studios anyways.
Edit: I guess the down otes indicate that you don't give a shit about artists, you just have a knee jerk reaction to technology. Probably because you do not even understand it.
view more: next ›