this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
463 points (99.6% liked)

Gaming

2822 readers
587 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bia@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (50 children)

Not sure how to interpret this. The use of any tool can be for good or bad.

If the quality of the game is increased by the use of AI, I'm all for it. If it's used to generate a generic mess, it's probably not going to be interesting enough for me to notice it's existence.

If they mean that they don't use AI to generate art and voice over, I guess it can be good for a medium to large game. But if using AI means it gets made at all, that's better no?

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'd argue that even if gen-AI art is indistinguishable from human art, human art is better. E.g. when examining a painting you might be wondering what the artist was thinking of, what was going on in their life at the time, what they were trying to convey, what techniques they used and why. For AI art, the answer is simply it's statistically similar to art the model has been trained on.

But, yeah, stuff like game textures usually aren't that deep (and I don't think they're typically crafted by hand by artists passionate about the texture).

Are GEN_AI bookshelves a slippery slope or slopp that artists want to avoid?

load more comments (48 replies)