Oh man, and they’re gonna want to release in autumn, too, to be in time for spooky season. So, if it isn’t done at that point, they’re likely to release in an unfinished state rather than delay by a whole year…
Not that I clicked on the article, but the quote given by OP actually doesn’t worry me too much. It feels too me like there is an appropriate level of caution here. I don’t get the impression they’re trying to do an Activision.
Resident Evil was near annual for a bit, and only the 3 remake do I really hear people complain about.
I mean, I don’t have a ton of skin in the game here, as I don’t care much for horror games either way.
But yeah, I just assume that they say they’re cautious to calm the fans, but they actually can’t be cautious, since well, they can only really delay by a whole year at a time, and if they do that, then they have two games in the year afterwards.
They did only pre-plan a handful of years, so maybe they can just delay the following games by a year each, too.
I think it’s important to consider that, if you had some aim to release something annually, but without taking any oblique compromises on quality, how would you announce this to people without pissing them off? Because a lot of people are going to hear the word ‘annual’ and just immediately seize.
I think, and I’m not saying this is true per se, but I think that they’re signaling an aim or a hope, and not that there will be a CI pipeline that auto releases the next Assassin’s Creed to stores no matter what state it’s in.
If they can’t keep pace with yearly releases, the language used tells me they’re willing to slow down, kind of exactly like how Resident Evil has.
I will be disappointed if it turns out Konami can’t keep their cock in their pants, of course, but SH2, SHf, and what I think I’ve heard about MGS3 all tell me that there is some effort to produce things that are worth seeing here, which I’m fine with.
And once again Konami proves they have no fucking clue what horror fans actually want.
These companies keep trying to grab both bones, completely failing to realize the second bone is a fucking reflection.
They have tapped some genuinely competent studios for this comeback of the franchise, but tightening the screws, like, at all, and this shit will blow up. Setting up four games from the start may already have been a mistake.
If Konami wants more, they don’t need to make more Silent Hill. They have so many alternatives.
FFS, they are sitting on fucking Zone of the Enders, despite Armored Core showing there’s plenty of appetite for that kind of game.
Or how about a modern Castlevania? Anyone?
Or, get this, publish for some small indie studios with neat ideas for completely new stuff, as a low cost way to discover new potential franchises?
So… now that we’ve got our series to finally get the love it deserves, spent 3+ years polishing and making the game the way the fans have all been clamoring for for years. We are now ready to mass produce, copy/paste the formula until we kill the franchise so spectacularly no one asks us to make another.
Isn’t ai pretty decent as a coding assistant? Don’t understand what all this fuss is about. I wouldn’t be using Linux if I didn’t have ai to assist me with coding
more like fighting against the ai slop. Such huge controversy should make other companies think again before using ai for creative process. Its either this or having more and more ai slop, voting with your vallet is the new pull your self up by your shoestrings.
Fighting against AI slop is fine, but that’s not what’s happened here. The devs tested using gen AI for a brief time with the intention to make placeholders. They stopped using gen AI after they found problems with the outputs. They therefore continued to use humans to make the rest of the placeholders. They then replaced all the placeholders with finalized versions, which are entirely human made.
The issue is not that Expedition 33 has gen AI, the issue was that they used gen AI for a brief time in the game’s development
I have an idea for a game, I know how to code, but I’m clueless about gamedev. Hell yes I will use AI to help me with it. That is if I’ll find time for it, because it will be insane amount of work to have something playable.
Some people seem think that you write a couple of prompts and you can ship it as an early access game.
I see no issues here. These AI tools came out during the game’s development. Its not unreasonable to try using new tools upon release. And its reasonable to be unaware of the harms of these new tools before the harms are widely reported on.
If things were as described, this seems fine. They now have a clear policy against AI. People, even in groups can be mistaken and learn and change their ways, which is what appears to have happened here. I can’t fault anyone for making the occasional misstep.
So long as they stick to their commitment to not use AI.
Yeah this is something that keeps getting completely lost in this conversation.
The assets in question were from development during 2022-2023 at the latest. GenAI image tools at that time were extremely primitive compared to what’s out there now - remember DallE-Mini? That’s the kind of thing they were using. And because these tools hadn’t breached containment yet, literally no one was talking about ethical issues yet. Sandfall was basically just experimenting with brand new tech long before it was “good” and long before anyone was talking about it.
Now? It’s good to see them committed to avoiding it. GenAI is a plague and should be treated as such. But 2022-ish was totally different than today.
Want to mention that I really appreciate this reasonable, nuanced perspective of the situation that takes pains to see the humanity in the devs, that they are humans who make mistakes, and not ascribe malice to what can easily be ignorance.
The benefit of the doubt is lost in modern day and it’s nice to see it still being given.
Look I’ve seen the hours those studios and devs put into design… If they want to prototype using a tool? Nobody’s losing a job over that. Its a couple hours saved from doom scrolling though your existing assets looking for something temporary.
Yeah, it slipped out though the cracks. But then how many games are loaded with “Unintended Easter eggs” because people are human. I don’t get it. The event is no more novel than finding an untextured brick off the beaten trail or a picture of a dev left in following an in joke amongst the team.
AI as a monolithic “thing” is bullshit. Fugazi. We relabled a ton of tools like OCR and other pattern recognition engines: “AI” to capitalize on the sheer stupidity of the average investor. Artificial intelligence indeed.
I digress. Tools save time and energy. If a team can prototype a space and become more immersed in their project faster and with less effort - so much the better.
I’m for tools as effort multipliers. My initial statement implied as much. I don’t see us running back to rooms full of women doing math at NASA and discarding the digital equivalent.
Look - everyone is absolutely sick of “AI” being jammed into everything. I get the raw response to it… But the concern isn’t about renamed tools; it’s not about a glorified chatbot being an “ok” facsimile. No company would spend billions on that. If by some chance they could make an automiton that was good enough… That could work without stopping, have no rights, for free. Literally they are gambling everything on a shot at replacing every single worker they currently employ. They don’t want workers. They want slaves. That is short sighted, ignorant, bullshit… which deserves all the hate it gets and more. But that - ain’t this.
What does NASA have to do with the creation of art? Art and science are not the same thing. What might be good for progress technologically, like flying to the moon, might not be good for a different field.
Art is all about the time and energy spent. If Clair Obscure came out of an AI machine that took 3 minutes to create it, most people wouldn’t play it and it wouldn’t have won any awards.
Cutting corners or “saving time and energy” is the opposite of exploring creatively, and these tools are not capable of unique thought or inspiration.
What does NASA have to do with the creation of art? Art and science are not the same thing. What might be good for progress technologically, like flying to the moon, might not be good for a different field.
Reread the comment instead of irrationally reacting before you understand the context. Calculators used to be people. Literally. It was a job. I brought up NASA as an example because, very famously, their “calculators” were part of history… So it should have been well known enough for people to see the parallel. But then I guess ever since moving to digital boards for math we can just downplay all subsequent achievments because the scientists didnt work hard enough.
Art is all about the time and energy spent. If Clair Obscure came out of an AI machine that took 3 minutes to create it, most people wouldn’t play it and it wouldn’t have won any awards.
If I’m not mistaken those artists’ art was well recieved. I find it interesting that so many people seem intent on defining a world they aren’t part of. Wacom tablets are tools, are digital artists not real artists because they don’t use paper?
Know any artists? I know quite a few. I wouldn’t dare inject my preconceptions on their process. Who the fuck am I to tell somone what is or isn’t part of their process. Traditional media, music, …even architects use tools to help iterate on their ideas - and their lives are easier for it.
But please, explain to the class why your ideals supercede their own.
Cutting corners or “saving time and energy” is the opposite of exploring creatively, and these tools are not capable of unique thought or inspiration.
Speaking for everyone? That’s bold. Is that your process or are you just a bobblehead parroting what someone else told you to say?
Oh cool, now I’m an irrational person who reacts quickly. Thats a good start.
Do you even know the point you are trying to make? You make a bunch of preconceptions and then claim you won’t do that, so thats fun too.
You can keep writing nonsense arguments all you want, you aren’t an artist and should probably do what you said and shutup instead of making a bunch of assumptions.
Oh cool, now I’m an irrational person who reacts quickly. Thats a good start.
The full body of your response disregarded the core meaning of what I was saying. You didn’t understand something but just powered on through with your opinion. Which if we can appreciate the irony:
You, like many, are looking to burn a company at the stake over what I would clearly describe as a very polished product… Over an asset that they mistakenly left in. Can you comprehend how batshit insane that is?
My response was measured and pretty on the nose I’d say.
Do you even know the point you are trying to make? You make a bunch of preconceptions and then claim you won’t do that, so thats fun too.
Considering the consistency in what I’ve said in this thread … I’d say I do. As far as me making preconceptions: again I’d recommend you take a look at what I wrote and read it again. (We have a trend developing) I gave my reasons: and I provided the logic behind it. But if you’d like to drag this out: go ahead and show me what my “preconceptions” were. I’ll wait.
You can keep writing nonsense arguments all you want, you aren’t an artist and should probably do what you said and shutup instead of making a bunch of assumptions.
I posted facts, I provided commentary on them, and even provided an example as a parallel. You, by your own words: didn’t understand the example (and made no attempt to), you ignored the nuance of the commentary, and preceded to put your ignorance on full display here.
And apparently you want to complete this nonsense by implying you know me or what I do. I dont recall knowing anyone as dull as you that suffered a headwound … But I’ll jog your memory:
Staring with the key topic:
I’ve signed more NDAs and non-competes for multiple, well known, gaming companies … Than years you’ve existed on this planet. So let’s just say I have “some” industry knowledge.
You mentioned I’m not an artist: another bold claim but… Its broad so let’s cover the bases.
I started my career in design. I’ve worked with 5 color printing presses. I’ve been paid for my work, although digital art, which has been seen by “roughly a country of people” around '04. Not enough for you? I maintain a circle of artist friends, who - over time have filled my home and consequently one of my closets with their works. I am honored and grateful that I’d be trusted with someone’s original blood sweat and tears condensed into a single medium. I’d be forgiven, I think, for speaking on their behalf. If not? They know my handle - they have my number - and know where I live…
They can @ me and tell me to shut up. You can’t.
I could go on but I think I’ve made my point sufficiently in this long post. Go crawl back to the echo chamber from whence you came. If you are capable of critical thought - it has yet to be demonstrated.
Maybe I do. Who’s to say - unless you want to tell me what I do again?
Its been rare to see somone so utterly dismantled that their only response is to repeat the observation I made at the end of that thrashing. It is almost comical how you just set yourself up for a callback to the parroting and echo chamber comments.
In closing:
Even if I did have a blog, I think it’s apparent, by now, you’d just wait for somone else to read it and tell you what to think.
That was obvious from the get go. That’s exactly why I said you were dull and made the comment “that you let somone else read things and tell you what to think.” I appreciate the confirmation.
Maybe you can save even more time by not bothering to post next time too.
I haven’t needed to insult you yet. Why would I? You, by your actions and responses have been more than sufficient. I just pointed it out.
The hope was to drive home that parroting (ey! callbacks) an opinion that isn’t yours isn’t wanted or useful.
And I know, I know - you don’t read much:
I didnt read your posts.
So let’s use your words to have fun:
I think its funny that you keep talking to yourself. You probably feel like you need the last reply too.
I think it’s funny knowing how many times you’ve set yourself up in this thread. See that quote? That’s me using your words as bait.
I could just copy and paste your own quote repeatedly and you’d either be compelled to respond - making yourself that exact thing… Or being the one that was forced out of the exchange: beaten with your own words.
No artist gets paid to create placeholder art during development. They get paid for the final art pieces that are used in the game itself. No actual AI art was used in the final game except for a few accidentally included bits that were not correctly replaced with the final art and that issue was corrected. No artists were harmed in the making of this game.
Any projects i have been on, if i need quick placeholder i take it from some existing library that is filled with free to use textures or i create some bullshit texture name temp.png or removethis_brown.jpg and some real artist comes and makes the final one somewhere down the line, 10-1000 hours later.
I have hard time understanding how creating the temporary texture that is never meant to be seen by end user is different when using generative tool versus paint. Especially when no artist looses their pay check or their spot in the credits.
However I do take offence if somebody uses ai to replace writer, designer, voice actor, or artist of any kind in the final product.
Because the people they want to sell their game to have overwhelmingly stated they don’t want this new generation of AI technologies used when creating art. Its sorta like arguing that using corn syrup is cheaper and quicker than sugar or honey, so why not use it? Things aren’t so simple as “nicer” and “faster”, and only a small subset of people seem in favor of AI technologies used creatively.
Of course if you are making art for yourself, by yourself, then who cares what you use for anything.
Placeholders are never meant to be part of the meal. They are there in the development stage when there needs to be something on the screen. They dont go trough the art department. Visual director wont review them. They are not representing the finalized game. They are there just as placeholders so people can see things work and not to need to look at wireframes when they work on the project. Often at parts of the game that has no quarantee to even be at the finalized game.
Generally graphics are one of the last things that is finalized in games. There is no point to use artists time for making placeholders, when they can spend that time doing something meaningfull.
In the end it does not matter if the placeholder is done by artists hand, is photoscanned from the doodles janitor made on toilet paper or if its done by AI. Hell, it could be pictures of spongebob fan art stolen from google search. It does not matter what people feel like is best and fastest way to get the texture, because its not representting the game and its not meant to be part if the finished product.
If you want to keep the food analogy, placeholders are the toothpicks holding your meatrolls in shape while they are in the oven. They wont end to your plate and if they do, somebody somewhere did a mistake.
Also i want to point out that not you nor i can say anything about overwhelming opinions. Clair Obscur for example has sold over 5 million copies. How big procentual part of those 5 million people you think has even read about the whole dispute, or put any meaningfull tough for the matter? Places like lemmy, steam reviews and comments on youtube videos are mostly from loud minorities that generally wont represent the whole fandom at all.
I played the game very shortly after release and I read all the newspapers. There was a lot of storytelling going on in them and they definitely weren’t this. Was some prerelease build or placeholder texture? Because if so, this controversy is pedantic, puritanical, witch-hunting garbage, and I say that as someone who is violently anti-AI.
I hate AI with a passion. A burning passion. And there is some muddied reporting and stuff with how the Clair Obscure team handled the use of AI but ultimately it does look to be an innocent use.
It does start a slippery slope argument, but I don’t see much wrong with using AI generated textures or models if they are truly truly 100% meant to be replaced by the product ship date. There are many video games that start out with stolen ripped assets as placeholders because it’s a whole lot easier to throw in completed assets that work right now so you can get to your iterative phase of game development a lot sooner.
During game development, there is a lot of wasted effort you need to try to avoid. A game is not fully complete when it is planned out. When you start video game development, you don’t know where you’re going to end. If you do not approach the iterative process of game design carefully, you will end up wasting tons of effort and artist time just for things and features and levels that will never see the final release.
Tldr; I don’t see a big problem with using AI as placeholders but you better fucking be honest about it and they better actually be placeholders
I think the issue is, that they didn’t remove all the assets in the version they submitted for the award. Yes, the assets were later removed, but the version that was used for the awards still had those assets.
I agree with your argument as a whole, but it doesn’t really apply here. There wouldn’t have been an issue if they had indeed replaced the assets with real art in time.
They already had the replacement assets created upon release, but forgot to swap them out and it was missed in QA. That’s why, pretty much as soon as they discovered it, they got it all replaced just 5 days after release.
It’s pretty common for games to mistakenly release with minor assets still as placeholders instead of the official version. Who’s really going to look at something like the texture of a rock and be like “Wait just a minute! That’s not the official rock texture!”
The more you learn about this, the more understandable it is. The only people mad are those who don’t know the whole story, or those that are just looking for an excuse to be mad, no matter how dumb the excuse.
The people still defending them is sad. If you give them even a single pass, they will take it for granted. Be glad atleast someone is trying to set a precedent.
Also this game has to be the most polarising one this year. People that played it love it to death and the other well on a lot of social media are now hating it to death(they’re probably salty because of the game awards).
No AI in video games, period. We’ve learned when we draw the line the major players push at it until they get what they want. AI benefits the wealthy, no one else. AI data centers are a blight on communities.
But maybe if I use AI I can be wealthy. Sure it is accelerating climate change and will undoubtedly cost lives, but that is a small price to pay for me to horde money like a dragon.
That’s a pretty reductive take. I consider auto-formatting a form of AI because that’s a function that I ask ChatGPT to do. “Reformat the code” “tidy it up.” But I’m assuming even that is bad to you because ChatGPT was involved. The level of “AI” that the Claire devs used seemed to be on the same level as what I just described. A tool to help get the ball moving but not be the sole engine of the project.
Also, you don’t need to use LLMs from companies like OpenAI or Google, you can just run your own LLM.
We’ve seen this before with horse armor and gambling in video games. If you allow a little they are going to take a mile with it. That point I don’t consider it art anymore. AI is not art.
It’s good to have morals, but also to have realistic expectations.
We haven’t been able to stop dlc, micro transaction, gambling… I don’t think we would be able to stop AI in videogames.
I have the suspicion that all these quick and fast remakes in HD are pulling AI assets as crazy to be able to have results quickly and cheap.
Going too hard with these devs, which doesn’t seem like bad people won’t ever change what EA. Ubisoft, Nintendo or any big player will do. It would only hurt this small studio for nothing.
You do you. I’ve been decades doing political activism. I just advice to keep expectations checked because I’ve seen so many people burning themselves out of not being able to achieve unrealistic political goals, and, what’s worse, ending up picking on small innocent people because they are the only ones they can impose their will on.
It’s good to keep making people conscious of the dangers of AI. But knowing what is expected, for yourself, and trying not to target people won’t deserve being targeted our of misdirected anger.
My best approach is taking a constructive approach. Do something by hand myself and enjoying it.
You’re talking to me like I haven’t been through decades of disappointment and in other areas. Me cutting things off is the last straw and thing I can readily do. Be it someone who says “welfare queens should die” to AI used for media. I know you cannot rightfully get away from supporting Amazon or that you have a choice of a soulless, big box store to buy at anymore. Just because I have to do so to maintain my ability to live doesn’t mean I won’t try to inform others about it and get them on my side. I’m just less patient with supreme levels of bullshit anymore.
polygon.com
Najnowsze