There is nothing inherently wrong with using AI in games. The industry is already a self-feeding ouroboros that operates completely independent of "gamers" or "audiences." No one asks for niggers or ugly women in games, and yet they continue to appear in increasingly-expensive projects that defy all reason when they appear to fail yet receive countless sequels, and their developing studios fail upward. There is a mountain of proof that video games as an industry do not require anything akin to artistry, audience appreciation, nor anything that might otherwise "argue against" AI. What is the point of fighting it? Allow game developers to synthesize entire video games out of AI some day. All them to punch in whatever ridiculous parameters for social engineering they like, producing something no one enjoys yet succeeds anyway. The ouroboros forever feeds money unto itself and somehow grows. We can never understand why nor how, but it happens. Remove all artistry and human involvement from games. Allow AI to produce everything to fatten the pockets of those who do not heed their alleged audience anyway. To kick back against this inevitability is logical. You cannot lament the loss of the artist when the video game industry has already done everything possible to eject them from the medium.
>>724242683The author argues that the video game industry operates independently of its audience, producing content like diverse characters that gamers don't request, yet studios continue to thrive despite apparent failures. They see no issue with AI-generated games, as the industry already disregards artistry and audience preferences, functioning as a self-sustaining cycle that prioritizes profit over creativity. Embracing AI would simply align with this reality, removing human involvement entirely, as the industry has already sidelined artists. Resistance is futile since the system is already detached from its audience.
>>724242746The argument isn't inherently "wrong," but it’s contentious and can be challenged on several grounds, depending on perspective. Here’s a succinct breakdown of why some might see flaws in the author's point:Dismissal of Artistry: The claim that the video game industry has ejected artistry ignores games that are celebrated for their creativity, narrative, and design (e.g., The Last of Us, Elden Ring). Many developers still prioritize artistic vision, and AI could complement rather than replace it.Audience Influence: The idea that the industry is entirely detached from its audience oversimplifies reality. Gamer feedback often shapes updates, sequels, or new titles (e.g., No Man’s Sky’s redemption arc). Market forces still respond to player demand, even if imperfectly.Cynical View of Diversity: The derogatory language and dismissal of diverse characters as unwanted assume a monolithic audience. Many players value representation, and its inclusion often reflects broader cultural shifts, not just "social engineering."AI’s Limitations: Fully AI-generated games may lack the emotional depth or originality humans bring. While AI can streamline production, it’s not yet clear it can replicate the nuanced creativity players often seek.Ethical Concerns: Handing game development entirely to AI risks further disconnecting creators from players, potentially prioritizing profit-driven formulas over meaningful experiences. It could also exacerbate job losses in an already volatile industry.The author’s fatalistic view assumes the industry’s trajectory is inevitable, ignoring the potential for gamers, developers, or market pressures to push back and preserve human-driven creativity. Their point hinges on a specific, cynical lens that not everyone shares.
i would ask chatgpt to respond to this for me but i'd rather not open myself up to demonic possession. i'm sure you get the gist but if not it doesn't matter
pea brain opinion. sage and hidden btw
At most, AI should be used to create the skeleton of something or as a proof of concept
