Will AI Disrupt the Videogame Industry? (yahoo.com) 109
VC firm Andreessen Horowitz believes the industry most affected by generative AI will be videogames. But they're not the only ones, reports the Economist:
Games' interactivity requires them to be stuffed with laboriously designed content: consider the 30 square miles of landscape or 60 hours of music in "Red Dead Redemption 2", a recent cowboy adventure. Enlisting ai assistants to churn it out could drastically shrink timescales and budgets....
Making a game is already easier than it was: nearly 13,000 titles were published last year on Steam, a games platform, almost double the number in 2017. Gaming may soon resemble the music and video industries, in which most new content on Spotify or YouTube is user-generated. One games executive predicts that small firms will be the quickest to work out what new genres are made possible by AI. Last month Raja Koduri, an executive at Intel, left the chipmaker to found an AI-gaming startup.
Don't count the big studios out, though. If they can release half a dozen high-quality titles a year instead of a couple, it might chip away at the hit-driven nature of their business, says Josh Chapman of Konvoy, a gaming-focused VC firm. A world of more choice also favours those with big marketing budgets. And the giants may have better answers to the mounting copyright questions around AI. If generative models have to be trained on data to which the developer has the rights, those with big back-catalogues will be better placed than startups
. Trent Kaniuga, an artist who has worked on games like "Fortnite", said last month that several clients had updated their contracts to ban AI-generated art.
Making a game is already easier than it was: nearly 13,000 titles were published last year on Steam, a games platform, almost double the number in 2017. Gaming may soon resemble the music and video industries, in which most new content on Spotify or YouTube is user-generated. One games executive predicts that small firms will be the quickest to work out what new genres are made possible by AI. Last month Raja Koduri, an executive at Intel, left the chipmaker to found an AI-gaming startup.
Don't count the big studios out, though. If they can release half a dozen high-quality titles a year instead of a couple, it might chip away at the hit-driven nature of their business, says Josh Chapman of Konvoy, a gaming-focused VC firm. A world of more choice also favours those with big marketing budgets. And the giants may have better answers to the mounting copyright questions around AI. If generative models have to be trained on data to which the developer has the rights, those with big back-catalogues will be better placed than startups
. Trent Kaniuga, an artist who has worked on games like "Fortnite", said last month that several clients had updated their contracts to ban AI-generated art.
And a possible answer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Generating is easy. Testing and QA is the major time consumption often, and what gets cut short. Given AI state, even more QA will be needed than with human generated content.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, depends. What is certainly correct is that it is a trade-off. The less effort you invest in design/creation, the more testing, QA and fixing effort you have. This is true for art, code, stories, engineering, etc. As Artificial Ignorance is of the currently hyped form is relatively often flat-out wrong and hallucinates things, I do not see this being any different when it is used. In fact, the QA and fixing effort may be _worse_ as it is harder to predict where it will put in serious flaws.
Re: (Score:3)
Generating is easy. Testing and QA is the major time consumption often, and what gets cut short. Given AI state, even more QA will be needed than with human generated content.
The dumbass execs will see dollar signs, fire the QA staff, put AI in charge of testing, and ship product that was produced by an AI, QA'ed by an AI, signed off on by an AI, and then they'll wonder why it's a toppling travesty of failure that doesn't sell. I look for that to happen in a lot of industries over the next few years while people are super hyped by the promise of AI long before AI is up to the task of actually competing with humans.
Re:And a possible answer? (Score:5, Interesting)
About as much (or little) as other forms of procedural generation disrupted the videogame industry.
So ... completely and utterly changing the landscape leading to better graphics, and in some cases whole classifications of a certain subgenre of video game like "rogue like"?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, our take on video games is very different. The vast majority of video games don't seem all that different then last generation of video games. The only thing that has changed is the improvement in graphics and that's just because technology is better now.
I'd go as far as to say games are worse today then a decade ago. Almost all of them are rehashes of previous games and often times they now won't even let you just outright buy the game. It's "free" with a bunch of timesinks put in and if you want to s
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of video games don't seem all that different then last generation of video games.
That's because nothing at all has changed within the last generation. Why are you talking about generations in a topic about once off step changes which may affect development?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Roguelikes with procedurally generated worlds are in the realm of indies, not major titles. You do see this stuff make a splash in the mainstream (heh) every once in a while, e.g. No Man's Sky but it's got... problems. In a longer game like NMS everything ends up feeling the same, there's no coherent narrative structure, and eventually it just becomes boring to "explore" an endless number of places that mainly differ in color scheme. It's not suitable for games based on a commercial IP where you want t
Re: And a possible answer? (Score:2)
Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall used this, but it started to get boring after a while seeing the same towns and taverns over and over again in slightly different configurations.
"15,000 cities, towns, villages, and dungeons" almost all alike using the same limited handful of themes.
Re: And a possible answer? (Score:2)
Come to think of it, we see this today in America complete with copy-pasted floor plans for restaurants and big box stores from coast to cosst.
Re: And a possible answer? (Score:2)
But procedural generation did indeed disrupt the whole video game industry.
Making games is already easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Making games is already easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Every young game developer dreams of coming up with some simple gameplay idea that allows them to make a game quickly without too much effort, and then watch the game go viral and make them into multi-millionaires once it goes live.
Well, that dream is not realistic. The sooner would-be indie developers drop it, the better.
It does happen that low-budget games sometimes do well. But the odds are overwhelmingly against it and getting stronger against it every day. If you want people to play your game, you are going to need either or both of:
1. Mass-media-level advertising so you can push knowledge of your game out in front of everyone else's game (generally only rich studios can afford this).
2. A gameplay element that many people want but that most existing games don't have (good luck!).
The fact is, this industry is super competitive, so there is no sure or easy way to win.
Re: (Score:1)
Flappy bird.
Tetris.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
2 hugely popular games out of how many indie games? Both made by single people hacking away in their spare time.
And how many commercial games are big winners out of how many made? Pretty much all of which are made with expensive licensed engines and hundreds or even thousands of people with giant marketing budgets and take years to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure what your point is. In my original post I stated that it does happen. You gave two examples of exactly what I stated.
I also stated that the odds are overwhelmingly against it happening. Your two examples don't dispute that fact.
Re: (Score:1)
I already answered this.
How many India games make it?
How many lose money?
How many AAA games make it?
How many lose money?
What percentage of each makes it?
What is the definition of making it?
Until you can answer those questions it remains unclear if being an indie developer is a hopeless endeavor commercially.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that your final statement should have been obvious from the prior statements you made. It was not.
But now that it is clear, I wonder why you didn't just web search for the answer. Sites like this [vginsights.com] can provide some insight. Direct quote from the main page: "Over 50% of indie games on steam have never made more than $4000."
There's more information there if you want to poke around. The general gist, however, is that only a very small percentage of games make millions, and many of those had
Re: Making games is already easy... (Score:2)
Look at the username. People who think they're the smartest person in the room are generally the dumbest.
Re: (Score:1)
Another nerdling triggered by a silly user name on a dead site. Thanks for the ad hominem. You, like so many triggered nerdlings before you, have added your maximum capacity to this conversation. Thanks for joining. Your mom says hi, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't I post a link? Several reasons. It's a trivial topic unworthy of the 15 seconds being the primary but thanks for posting half the data.
What you don't say is what is the depiction of a successful indie game? How many of those indie developers are just scrat.Ching and itch and having fun making a game they share? And making 4k+ on a hobby game sounds pretty dammed good to me. Why does it have to make millions to be successful?
And how many AAA games did big companies spend millions on and not ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Google can provide the definition of making it?
Gosh I can't find it, please google that key question for me. You're so smart.
Oh wait, no, you slapped the reply button the moment you saw my name and entirely missed the point because you didn't read what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You said something incredibly stupid again. Take your lumps and move on.
Or are you going to do your usual thing and throw a temper tantrum because someone called you out on your stupidity?
Re: (Score:1)
Hi troll. I'm going to skip right to the end this time and save all the back n forth where you say stupid shit that's probably incorrect.
You should recognize this and get used to seeing it. It's all you'll get in the future.
Here you go:
You're wrong every single time. Every time. Without fail. Thank you for once again demonstrating you're a delusional psychotic.
I've decided this is actually fun. Yes you are mentally ill and normally I wouldn't continue to trigger a broken person but you know what you're do
Re: Making games is already easy... (Score:1)
Another issue that could exacerbate the issue is a wave of AI-generated shovelware clogging up distribution platforms. We already had that issue with Unity where hacks were basically slapping together store assets and pushing them onto Steam, flooding even the front page with garbage.
Digital platforms will likely need to update their curation methods again to deal with the spam.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And it could also lead to the big firms churning out boring games the same way Netflix churns out TV in such huge quantities that you get lost in the unoriginality of it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's almost like we've been here before....
Last time, the bubble burst and you know the rest. The industry appears to be undead at this point, shambling forth, shedding mediocre games with every greedy step, unable to die.
As posted elsewhere (Score:2)
This is what the current state of ChatGPT can do to create a simple game [youtube.com]. It won't be all that long before it can create more complicated layouts with deeper story lines.
Imagine all those out of work gaming programmers screaming, "It took mer jrb!".
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine all those out of work gaming programmers screaming, "It took mer jrb!".
User: "ChatGPT, create a 3D model of a human skeleton I can use in my game."
ChatGPT: explodes.
Game programmers are safe. The only ones who have to worry are the entry-level coders who only write simple code but do nothing else. There is so much verbosity and back and forth needed to get ChatGPT to create simple, common code structures that you can probably code it yourself just as fast.
The language interface is the only impressive thing about ChatGPT. It's only just barely passing at just about everything e
Re: (Score:3)
Re: As posted elsewhere (Score:2)
Re: As posted elsewhere (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the few places AI could be very effective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what you're into, Japanese developers have been making games where player can effectively customize a woman of his/her preference that will then interact with the player in real time 3D environment. For at least a decade. Probably longer.
AI Will Disrupt Everything.. (Score:2)
Eventually. Humans are too curious to leave it alone. I just wonder how long before the dark side of AI will show its face.
I could see AI doing well in random content generation needed for visuals and physical character generation.
Let the dice roll.
Re:AI Will Disrupt Everything.. (Score:5, Informative)
Eventually. Humans are too curious to leave it alone. I just wonder how long before the dark side of AI will show its face.
You mean like a chat-bot convincing a human to end his life [euronews.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
These things have no capacity for novelty. I can't see any reason to be concerned at all.
AI will remove many jobs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of that is very much up in the air. The LLM's cannot create original anything, but can only copy what they've been trained on. The copyright liabilities are astounding, and the little guy may or may not ever have a means to make use of LLM's outputs. This will all have to be slugged out in court over the next 20-40* years before you or I will have the legal certainty about what we can or cannot do with it. This will remain the domain of deep-pocketed interests until then.
---------
* SCO's lawsuit against
Re: (Score:2)
The LLM's cannot create original anything
Combining elements in a way that hadn't been seen before, regardless of if aesthetically pleasing ... IDK, seems weird to claim a computer - that excels at doing lots of math really fast - couldn't/can't do this (as opposed to being creatIVE (currently)).
In some ways yes (Score:5, Interesting)
It might also help out with testing to a degree as well. Some games are just too large for developers to test every pet of the game world. AI agents that can be trained to act closely enough to playing the game and recognize when they've entered some improper state would help with identifying bugs.
Maybe it can be used to help artists as well, but I don't think that's where the real uses will come from. I'd be more interested if it can help with creating more realistic model animations just by studying real-world objects. It's not too much work for an artist to create a good set of textures for a wolf, but getting something that has to realistically move like one is considerably more work.
It makes me wonder if movie studios (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they want to make any real humans famous? Then someday you might wind up having to pay more due to some lawsuit or something. Makes more sense to just invent a voice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This will make fully voiced games possible without massively ballooning the budget and file size to produce and store all of the audio.
Voice actors get paid peanuts compared to an actual game development budget. This would have zero effect on the industry.
Not just tool usage (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, I can always tell when someone who's skilled in Photoshop without being skilled in art makes a composite image. It might be technically perfect, but in the conceptual and aesthetic sense is woefully boring or unbalanced. Another very visible example is in photography forums online... there's always the crowd that's way more about collecting the kit and talking about taking pictures than the art. Their pictures are technically perfect, but if it's not going to communicate anything beyond what physical objects were in front of the camera when the shutter opened. That's great that it makes them happy and I wish them well, but don't confuse their taking pictures with the images an artistically trained photographer would create.
Of course, AI will hugely disrupt games--- especially comparatively lower-effort high-turnover products like mobile games-- but no matter how many iterations of some set of character models AI can generate, you still need someone with that fundamental knowledge who knows whether or not any of it is good. And for fine art-- AI will never create anything that isn't some amalgam of the things it already knows. There will always be a creative avante garde who will be making the real change that will feed the algorithms, and there will always be people who are way more interested in seeing their work in its pure form before it gets dumped in the computer mixing bowl.
So yeah, absolutely, but I doubt we're going to hit "OK Google, make me a AAA quality FPS where the main character is...". I think people like workaday utility web developers, jr contract lawyers, lower-end graphic design who work in sign shops and the like are all way more directly in the path of the AI axe.
Re: (Score:2)
Fantastic comment!
This quote from a professional art teacher blew my mind as a rookie painter:
"What does it take to make a museum-quality painting? You might think it's just a question of developing the technical skill... but actually MANY people have the technical skill. Very few of them ever succeed. Even with the skill it's not so easy."
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit.
Jan van Eyck's paintings definitely weren't notable because they were realistic-- they were notable because they were absolutely captivating. If you had compiled every piece of artwork from every painter before and fed it into a ML system, there's no prompt that could have possibly created what he did with his paintbrush. A more m
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's worse than the Dunning - Kruger effect. Slashdot and tech forums are chock full of people who are Badly Broken. Not only do they lack a soul, they don't understand what they're missing. They have massive inferiority complexes and say delusional, mentally ill shit. Dunning Kruger is just overestimating one's ability, Slashdot and techies have a kind of megalomania or schizoid type personality disorder where their pronouncements bear no relationship to reality!
Re: (Score:2)
The beginning of the Holodeck (Score:3)
What AI provides to gaming and media goes far beyond just procedurally generating a landscape. What AI can do is much closer to the holodeck, where the user specifies what they want to play and the AI generates everything, the story, characters, rules, landscape and all the rest. There is no longer a need for a game creator. For some genres this essentially already works. ChatGPT can generate stories, can generate puzzles and puzzle dependency graphs, it can generate images, there is AI to segment those images, generate depth maps, etc. That's basically all the bits and pieces you need to create a classic point&click adventure from scratch, completely by AI (this is what StableDiffusion can produce in 20min without any user tweaking [youtube.com]). The thing missing is having all those AI systems integrate with each other, but people are already working on that too. If you leave away the graphics, you can already play simple text adventures right now completely in ChatGPT.
The thing I am most curious about is how this will change media consumption in general. A large part of classical media is the shared social experience, people don't watch movies just for the movie itself, but because friends and family are going to watch the same movie. With AI they now have the tools to generate custom content at home, tweaked for them personally. Furthermore that content will be dynamic. With AI you can explore locations and characters that aren't part of the main plot. You can change the story on the fly. So it's not just that AI is making the movie/game/etc., AI is the thing you use to consume the media with. There no longer a need for a finished .mp4 file falling out the other end, it will all be made up on the fly by AI.
Re: (Score:2)
>A large part of classical media is the shared social experience, people don't watch movies just for the movie itself, but because friends and family are going to watch the same movie.
Streaming services largely killed this aspect. "Netflix and chill" is not a euphemism for sitting down to watch a movie. We're already in the world where streaming services are highly targeted at individuals, and in the world where living together with a spouse is rapidly degenerating from a norm into a rarity. Which is in
Games wil start looking and sounding alike (Score:2)
Just like AI artwork, you need the human to make real art, even in games.
Re: (Score:2)
But looking at the output of, for example, a contemporary AI porn image generator [pornpen.ai], you seem to have a point that current AI generators produce way too repetitive results.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with AI for game creation is that it's basically a new form of procedural generation. Eventually, everything looks alike or becomes a similar/familiar experience and the generation of things is just a boring meat grinder.
-glances toward Madden game series-
Re: (Score:3)
Say what you want about Madden, but if you buy one every several years, it's good fun. I played the crap out of Madden 18 and then when Madden 23 dropped, bought it and have now played the crap out of it.
I imagine if Xbox One get's Madden 28 (doubtful) I'll buy that for the updated roster as well. The difference between 18 and 23 aren't much but 23 is actually more fun to play. This isn't true with every iteration though. Madden 19/20 wasn't really worth upgrading to.
Some games, you expect to just be graphi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Raw AI product is badly overfitted and subject to the same awfulness factor as ChatGPT (which may literally make up false things, complete with false citations).
This is fine if a human with some skill refines the raw product... but then the quality depends on human skill. We're talking about a purely procedurally generated world that doesn't break immersion. That simply isn't going to happen.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most games already look very similar, because a lot of games use same engines AND same default assets from those engines for much of the environment. Same applies to sounds.
If you have a good eye for detail, you'll quickly notice same default UE4 rock textures and such in many different games for example.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I'm interested to know is whether it might result in improved single player experiences in open world games if the NPC characters you converse with were able to interact with you more fully.
This is going to be probably the biggest immediately perceptible change. No more NPCs with nothing to talk about, now they will be able to waste your time for hours.
Nope (Score:2, Troll)
Quality will suck, elements will be repetitive and sometimes simply be off. Writing a custom world-gen, for example, has a much lower risk of angering your customers. Either be genuinely creative or not. The second option will not make you a lot of friends though.
Re: (Score:3)
So exactly just like every game today, where same default UE4 rock textures are used in countless games, where same dungeon layout with slight recoloring is a norm, where when you level up, enemies have the same model but different color and maybe some small additional element on top of that.
We already have a problem with repetition and things being off, because most of the design work is mind numbingly repetitive. So people copy paste the same levels, same models, same textures, same sounds etc where ever
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But Artificial Ignorance will att real problems in surprising places on top of that.
Re: (Score:2)
ML AI will remove the majority of work that was mindless drudgery of picking each rock, each pebble, each patch of grass, placing it, then placing a correct texture on it, then figuring out the scene lighting so it doesn't look awful and so on. If you think there was some kind of unique insight in doing that, you should really try to be less bigoted against game designers. They're overwhelmingly not 90 IQ crowd who would enjoys this sort of work, but 110 IQ crowd who find this sort of thing soul destroying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, keep dreaming. I do not think the current hype with regard to art and design will survive more than 5 years. At that time the massive limitations and problems should have become obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious that current hype will not survive, because the hype is around pretending that being the guy placing default rocks in yet another UE game requires an artist.
When in reality, it's mindless conveyor work. That will be solved by modern automation, bottling conveyor style. Where you may have a couple of points where human is needed. And everything else is done by automation.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that for many things, like the generic detail work, automation is needed. I just do not agree that "AI" is the way to go, at least not in its current form. But we will say. Neither you nor I can say for sure at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't even say if world we live in is a simulation or reality for sure. Because nothing in this world is a 100% certainty.
Which is why likelihoods matter. And considering evidence of the past on automating away repetitive work, and considering that ML AI is an type of automation process, chance of it being the solution to repetitive work of the kind we're talking about is very high.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that ML AI has failed for most tasks for something like 70 years now, I do not share your optimism. Especially as it is only getting marginally better over time now and there really was no recent break-though except in the natural language interface. We will see.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand your argument, this statement in your first sentence in context of this discussion requires one of two foundational beliefs.
Either you believe that ML AI existed in 1953 in something approximately similar to its current form, or you believe that other forms of automation that were applied around that time failed at their tasks.
Or I've misunderstood something about your argument.
But your second sentence suggests that I didn't, and you're just opinionated and ignorant of details of the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, keep telling yourself I have no clue. You are welcome to do that to keep your beliefs intact.
Games will be most affected? (Score:2)
Games' interactivity requires them to be stuffed with laboriously designed content
All non-trivial software is stuffed with tons of laboriously-designed content. That's why we have "data warehouses" and "data lakes" are all about. These collections of data tend to be poorly organized and haphazard. AI might be able to help tame the chaos.
Business software these days is sprawling and inconsistent, with changes to business rules being applied in some places before others, and some are never updated, because there is simply too much work to do to make it happen.
Dependency analysis is an area
Re: (Score:3)
More likely people in that category will be far too busy jacking off to their latest waifu than caring about something as trivial as going outside and planning an actual murder.
How about ChatGPT for NPC responses? (Score:1)
It's gonna be all fun and games (Score:2, Funny)
It'll be all fun and games (literally) until someone tricks the AI in plastering dicks all over the environment...
Then it'll be an outrage (again)...
No, it will enhance it. (Score:2)
FFS, the game industry in many ways is / has been the founding area for AI.
I'm not sure I really understand where this stupid question came from, but AI and video games are just made for each other... and have been for decades. ... but I digress, we need to unstitch the loaded term AI.
Before multiplayer online really took off, we battled "AI" opponents.
Even whilst multiplayer games were starting to become hugely popular, we still had "bots" - Quake, Quake III, Unreal - whatever, you name it.
And I can't be b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with anything but your final statement.
There is a level of abstraction to consider - no, nobody's made a really intelligent computer (yet), but the recent explosion in AI effectiveness is a new and notable milestone.
Reducing it to "we've always had this" does not adequately describe the effect we see in the real world. The tools are (fairly suddenly) much, much better than they used to be.
It requires entirely different algorithms (Score:2)
Even if you could put an extra dimension on stuff like stable diffusion, you wouldn't want to. The amount of data necessary to train just isn't there, and the computation for high resolution assets would take too long. Meanwhile DreamFusion sucks. The algorithms for high quality 3D content generation will likely have be far more physical oriented, tweaking parameterized building blocks and composing them for scenes. More Metahuman, less DreamFusion.
The problem is far more different from language models and
Re: (Score:2)
Image gen, not 3D content generation.
play stupid games, win stupid prizes (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm editing my friend's book, which is a How-To guide for using AI-Art program Midjourney. It was born out of the frustration we both had over using existing internet tutorials to create anything meaningful. My friend has an extensive background in visual design and it still took him six months of research into a wide range of art, photography, and architecture related subjects to finish the book.
One of the more surprising findings was the amount of human effort required to go from the AI's output to an image of sufficient quality to include in the book. At a minimum, one requires an art program and photoshop. Even then, the images produced don't really compare to what a professional digital artist can produce... my friend can iterate over 100 images and spend 20 hours post-processing and it will look maybe 80% as good, with that missing 20% being the emotional resonance the pro can produce.
AI-Art empowers the average person with little to no skill at traditional painting/drawing/digital art. Rather than spend thousands of hours learning the basic skills to draw, they can make their vision a reality in a few dozen hours. I call this the 'easy win' model - by getting nice images right away, that unskilled person will (hopefully) persevere... that's the point of the book.
However, making an open-world game with procedurally generated AI-Art that can compare to a professionally designed AAA game??? That's just idiotic. The human eye is very good at picking up the 0.01% discrepancy that breaks immersion.
All AI will do is let amateurs make far better games than they could otherwise. This will be incredibly valuable to encourage people to go into game design, but it won't 'revolutionize' anything about what people actually consume en masse. It will speed up Professional developers by about 10% -- the early stage proof of concept demo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> making an open-world game with procedurally generated AI-Art that can compare to a professionally designed AAA game??? That's just idiotic. The human eye is very good at picking up the 0.01% discrepancy that breaks immersion.
That may be true for the tools available for now. But there is no reason to assert that it will remain so. There is no reason why artists cannot generate 90% of the 3D models with just prompts and just finish the rest with manual tweaks.
I can imagine an argument from 15 years ago t
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine an argument from 15 years ago that game developers absolutely need to code well and that any idea of visual coding like with Unreal Engine's Blueprints is unrealistic (pun intended) for serious game development.
You can make a game with Unreal's blueprints because the difficult stuff - 3d object loading, animating, physics, rendering, sound, input, etc. etc. is all done for you and certainly not with visual coding languages. Game logic in a "toy" language is actually extremely common. Loads of games going way back to single digit MHz CPUs utilised simplified domain specific languages/tools in order to let the artists work without having to hang over the shoulder of a programmer. Blueprints aren't a new concept by a
Re: (Score:2)
I understand. I tweaked the game logic of late 90s games with Lua and Python.
You also would not do any granular detail level stuff with prompts, just like with scripting languages, because the models would have been trained on hand crafted models - prior work had been similarly done by others.
Just as you would adjust low level aspects of the engine with a more low level language, you would still adjust an AI generated model with the usual 3D tools.
Most games should not need highly unique and hand crafted as
News fLASH! (Score:1)
If GAI is anything near the hype and promise, ALL industries are going to be disrupted at very fundamental levels.
This represents a historical shift in the ways we have employed technologies in the past, It affects individuals, companies, governments, and humanity as a social whole.
The disruptions we see today are just the 1st scratches on the surface.
The close relationship of gaming and computers guarantees that it's the low hanging fruit in the race to optimize everything.
Games are easy, GOOD GAMES are Hard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more. For fun I took Will Wright's masterclass in game design. There's an element of understanding how people think that's KEY to making a fun game. Ideas like feedback, freedom to fail, happy accidents, leaving space for the player's imagination.
An AI will never understand what humans find fun, let alone what they find beautiful. 90% of games already feel too generic.
Not Even Wrong - Pauli (Score:2)
I hope so!!! (Score:3)
I've often dreamed of just being able to tell my computer more or less what I wanted and get the product out. I've played a lot of Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 and the community content is what gives it such longevity. Both come with toolsets that let you effectively build any adventure you want. The biggest limiting factor is it takes a lot of time and you have to really enjoy designing stuff.
If I could just draw out some maps, upload them to the computer and tell an AI to create me a module that used these maps and do this kind of story, etc, it would be absolutely amazing. You are already using the same graphics for all your adventures but now it could do all the storytelling, all the writing and possibly all the boss fights. Where can I sign up!!!
With that said, I haven't heard tell of any RPG that's like either of those two games that comes with a full toolset to make your own adventures. A modern NWN single player/single server multiplayer game with a toolset would be a godsend. Even better if it had the ability to let the community create custom (or ai generated) artwork to expand over what the original dev team had time to make. The possibilities would really open up to the kind of stories you could tell and the scenes that could be created.
dumb question (Score:2)
Why would you provide a YAHOO link to an economist story, when you could direct link to the economist?
https://www.economist.com/busi... [economist.com]
Popcorn time (Score:2)
So, we're going to put up the guy from Revelation of John (AI) up against Jormungandr (free to play, pay to win)?
I see no downside. It's like Cthulhu or Giant Meteor instead of another Election cycle? Yes, please. Either.