Would you buy an Ai generated Videogame?

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,027
Without any thought put into the game just a game where Ai thinking you want these Ai character models and this map that is how I view Palworld it's not a genuine game really just copy and pasted Ai generated algorithms. No History no Lore no hand crafted worlds or maps. No appreciation for previous games in the same genre.
Unless the AI is so good that it covers all the bases and has depth that previous games couldn't capture. Then it might be a solid game but then how much is that game worth if they are so easy to make? This guy on late night Radio said what you see online is going to become reality but it's not necessary the truth. Like people being glued to social media all day.
 
Last edited:
Comixbooks said:
Without any thought out into the game just a game where Ai thinking you want these Ai character models and this map that is how I view Palworld it's not a genuine game really just copy and pasted Ai generated algorithms. No History no Lore no hand crafted worlds or maps. No appreciation for previous games in the same genre.

Unless the AI is so good that it covers all the bases and has depth that previous games couldn't capture. Then it might be a solid game but then how much is that game worth if they are so easy to make?

This guy on late night Radio said what you see online is going to become reality but it's not necessary the truth. Like people being glued to social media all day.
Click to expand...

It's worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.
 
Depend what we mean, copying game asset style does not require generative AI at all to happen.

If you can go from making a game easily with AI tools, it would be a bit like book, it is really easy tech wise to make and distribute books, it rise the creativity needed in the idea-execution for a book to be considered a success. If millions of people make games and ready to sell it for little because it costed them little to do, it would be deflationary, like it is rare for song-book-podcast to be sold at high price.

As for buying it, yes sure, if it seem good for the price, it is not like there will be a clear nuance between form of non-AI compute made and AI compute made that will exist and that we will know which was which, this could rapidly sound like would you ever buy a videogame that used a compiler instead of being wrote in assembly (because the would you ever buy a game wrote in assembly instead of machine code stopped being popular) or the anti GPU over general compute talk back in the days.

The people that made the Unreal engine much more Palworld than generative AI did (if it was used for much outside some asset)
 
Last edited:
Reality is what the majority believes but it doesn't make it morally right or good. I just don't want to see a bunch of fake games becoming popular.
 
I think we are a long way off from having to worry about this. That said, the industry is using the tools available today to cut costs and crank out content faster. So far that kind of thing hasn't been particularly well received but we may reach a point where we can't tell its even being done anymore. When that happens, no one will care.
 
As long as the game is interesting and entertaining, people won't really notice. That being said, the whole basis of this thread is disingenuous and you're just using the AI argument to shit on Palworld. Truth is, you have no idea what went into the development of the game.
 
cvinh said:
As long as the game is interesting and entertaining, people won't really notice. That being said, the whole basis of this thread is disingenuous and you're just using the AI argument to shit on Palworld. Truth is, you have no idea what went into the development of the game.
Click to expand...
Not sure who you are maybe Ai.
 
sharknice said:
Would you buy an AI generated gaming pillow?
Click to expand...
It's physical so yeah Ai generated is usually digital. I bought a shelf this week at Walmart Best purchase made all year Wire garage shelf puts my pillows to shame.
 
Depends on if the game is good or not. Certainly will be an interesting thing to see. I assume AI will still need a lot of human input at first, but I'm assuming things like balance can be done quite quickly (calculating opposing teams run time to center, line of sight percentage blocked), and be able to implement basic systems quickly. But I also feel like they will become even more formulaic.
 
The only substantive part that matters is if the game is good.

The problem with game making in general and AI in particular is making a game worth playing that isn’t a simple rehash of mechanics. AI isn’t good at making novel anything. Let alone novel gameplay.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
AI isn’t good at making novel anything. Let alone novel gameplay.
Click to expand...
Flogger23m said:
But I also feel like they will become even more formulaic.
Click to expand...
When we look at solution that AI system come up to problems, I feel they are often more novel-strange that what humans come up with, maybe even too much and would need to be human controlled back into a more standard affair if the npc in the game are supposed to be humans-like.

When you look at Monopoly strategy they come up with or hide and seek, they try novel stuff that we would not:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M

The Star Wars movie was maybe mashing together Kurosawa, John Ford western, Merlin-Arthur-Excalibur hero-wizard, Nazi aesthetic, Roman Republic to empire, etc... with others stuff, mixing existing stuff can create something relatively new or at least that feel quite new, that probably what human brains tend to do.

Maybe they would end up to be, but there could be a wild transition of very novel affair.
 
Last edited:
At a certain point various things will stop being referred to as 'AI', just like how auto computer-generated terrain used in many AAA open world games isn't (and most users aren't even aware). While atm it's a kind of loaded term since in the past year alone generative imagery and text has facilitated the output of so much homogenized stuff and replacement of certain tiers of jobs, which has obviously made it very polarizing.

AI alone isn't currently able to achieve a game worth paying for (code-wise) based on what I've seen of the cutting-edge that a Microsoft dev was able to show, whose team had access to the unfiltered GPT-4. Neither have I seen generative images able to auto output all the necessary assets that could be used for a game (unless one likes visual novel type games with limited scenes/character poses). Animation is improving like everything else but still in its infancy for the type of consistency necessary.

So currently? I don't think it's feasible without human/artist intervention. Used as an assistive tool though then obviously it's achievable but the most successful use cases I've seen are where the person using it already has the skills to achieve the exact same thing and is only using aspects of the tech to save time in their workflow—at which point whether it uses AI or not would be transparent to the user.

Unfortunately that is a very tiny minority since the public got hold of it, so what most are really judging (quality-wise) comes mostly from the most popular (and sometimes bastardized) models. One of the most popular Stable Diffusion models had the author literally mock its users in its very description (in Chinese) because of how bastardized the model had become—which the users wanted since it gave them more pretty/detailed results for any random prompt even if it didn't match the tokens.

This will always continue when something is free/cheap and widely accessible, so for the majority of things we'll have to contend with is what such users enjoy poking around with, compared to the minority of actually worthwhile content made by those with more of a vision. This has always been true for art/games but now we're inundated due to the sheer speed and reasonable baseline quality AI has provided.
 
Okatis said:
At a certain point various things will stop being referred to as 'AI', just like how auto computer-generated terrain used in many AAA open world games isn't (and most users aren't even aware). While atm it's a kind of loaded term since in the past year alone generative imagery and text has facilitated the output of so much homogenized stuff and replacement of certain tiers of jobs, which has obviously made it very polarizing.

AI alone isn't currently able to achieve a game worth paying for (code-wise) based on what I've seen of the cutting-edge that a Microsoft dev was able to show, whose team had access to the unfiltered GPT-4. Neither have I seen generative images able to auto output all the necessary assets that could be used for a game (unless one likes visual novel type games with limited scenes/character poses). Animation is improving like everything else but still in its infancy for the type of consistency necessary.

So currently? I don't think it's feasible without human/artist intervention. Used as an assistive tool though then obviously it's achievable but the most successful use cases I've seen are where the person using it already has the skills to achieve the exact same thing and is only using aspects of the tech to save time in their workflow—at which point whether it uses AI or not would be transparent to the user.

Unfortunately that is a very tiny minority since the public got hold of it, so what most are really judging (quality-wise) comes mostly from the most popular (and sometimes bastardized) models. One of the most popular Stable Diffusion models had the author literally mock its users in its very description (in Chinese) because of how bastardized the model had become—which the users wanted since it gave them more pretty/detailed results for any random prompt even if it didn't match the tokens.

This will always continue when something is free/cheap and widely accessible, so for the majority of things we'll have to contend with is what such users enjoy poking around with, compared to the minority of actually worthwhile content made by those with more of a vision. This has always been true for art/games but now we're inundated due to the sheer speed and reasonable baseline quality AI has provided.
Click to expand...

Yeah, more and more things have become automated in games over time. The "AI generated" no different than what's been happening for decades. Terrain generation is a very good example. It used to be completely manually coded, then editors were created, then it was "randomly generated" in the editor, then there was more logic added to the generation, now it's extremely complex with seed spreading simulations with all sorts of variables taken into account. Its a million times faster than a human can do manually and way better.

Every aspect of game creation is getting more and more automated and people don't even know it.
 
I would buy one. I see AI systems having a value especially curating generic material. So maybe we can get larger games when people are spending so much time making chairs and tables for the game (rough example i know) but that is one way i picture it being really good.

I mean i paid for minecraft from notch, i have no standards lol
 
Yes. I don't understand why this is even a question. I guess AI is the current trendy internet boogeyman.
 
The way I see it, there are three types of people against generative AI:

  1. Artists for hire who are against it out of fear for their jobs: They are most likely already using AI or at least tried it and are fully aware of the benefits, but they play the hypocrite in hopes of being able to continue charging money for minor jobs that now takes 2 minutes with AI.
  2. Artists who think AI is stealing their art. Which is a fundamental (possibly wilful) misunderstanding of how it works. AI can mimic styles, but it won't recreate an existing work unless that is the explicit goal of the user. Don't go against the tool used to copy your art, go after the person using the tool. At the end of the day if someone wants to plagiarize your art, they can do it without AI too. The only difference is the barrier to entry. We should not ban a tool that lowers the barrier for creating art, just because of a few bad actors.
  3. Those who are not artists, but bought into the FUD surrounding it. Mostly a mixture of things mentioned in the above two, that AI is stealing art, and that it will end jobs.

And no, AI is not ending the jobs of for hire artists, not for a long time. Most hire jobs are for very specific things. If you used generative AI you realize that specificity is not its strong suit. It can create vague concepts very well, but if you want something specific you'll still need an artist with more tools and skills than generative AI. And usually the people who don't want something specific are just in it for kicks, and are unlikely to be willing to pay for the work anyway.
 
Think about AI in terms of getting a sandwich that's made on an assembly line versus getting a sandwich crafted by the top chef in a classy restaurant. So, a hearty no from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top