in my experience, a lot of the game devs using AI would normally try to do the art themselves, but think AI is “better” than what they could do… Then they throw together a collage of mismatched art that has no cohesion and call it a day, and get upset when they get called out for it, thinking it’s just some anti AI thing.
People love to take shortcuts then hate when people tell them they sacrificed quality to do it.
Im an artist working in games, and I absolutely agree. Lots of people think art in games needs to be “good” without knowing what that actually means. It’s a lot more important that your art is coherent. Having coherent shapes and colors can do a lot. For example, just by choosing a color palette alone, you can create art that works pretty well.
Setting up any limitation will automatically create the coherence for a project. And you can go pretty minimalistic, too. Don’t understand colors and light? Go black and white or sepia. Don’t know about shapes? Use only one or two and design anything around it.
One problem with AI is that it doesn’t use limitation as a tool and isn’t able to contain detail. An indie developer who is inexperienced in art and able to manage their expectations doesn’t have this problem. They can create naturally game art because they only know one way to approach it.
Even if AI could perfectly produce art for a video game - it would lack a lot of what makes indie games charming.
Part of that discovery process is so valuable to the charm. “I don’t know how to do art! The fuck is this shit! How do I 3d model? I guess that works, it’ll do. Hey actually it’d be kinda cool if I based the general aesthetic of the game around this kinda look.” Boom, unique art emerging from their constraints. They had to work to get there, but their work is infinitely more artful as a result
As a gamer (and an artist in my spare time) I don’t think this is true. I’ve played and loved lots of charming games, but I almost never think about the process as an element of that charm. The charm is in the details of the final product - and a perfect simulation from an AI would (by definition, if it existed) perfectly produce those details.
To be clear, I’m not saying the process is the charm. I’m saying the process leads to a product that is charming, as a result of having had restrictions.
An AI that could perfectly produce what the dev desires would not lead to this innovation from constraints.
Damn guess they shoulda paid artists huh
in my experience, a lot of the game devs using AI would normally try to do the art themselves, but think AI is “better” than what they could do… Then they throw together a collage of mismatched art that has no cohesion and call it a day, and get upset when they get called out for it, thinking it’s just some anti AI thing.
People love to take shortcuts then hate when people tell them they sacrificed quality to do it.
Or they use it to generate placeholder art “so they can get an an ideal on the final product while they’re working on gameplay”.
Super Mario 64’s jumps were figured out with a cube bouncing around in an infinite plane. Their excuse is pure bs, good gameplay is good gameplay
Im an artist working in games, and I absolutely agree. Lots of people think art in games needs to be “good” without knowing what that actually means. It’s a lot more important that your art is coherent. Having coherent shapes and colors can do a lot. For example, just by choosing a color palette alone, you can create art that works pretty well.
Setting up any limitation will automatically create the coherence for a project. And you can go pretty minimalistic, too. Don’t understand colors and light? Go black and white or sepia. Don’t know about shapes? Use only one or two and design anything around it.
One problem with AI is that it doesn’t use limitation as a tool and isn’t able to contain detail. An indie developer who is inexperienced in art and able to manage their expectations doesn’t have this problem. They can create naturally game art because they only know one way to approach it.
Even if AI could perfectly produce art for a video game - it would lack a lot of what makes indie games charming.
Part of that discovery process is so valuable to the charm. “I don’t know how to do art! The fuck is this shit! How do I 3d model? I guess that works, it’ll do. Hey actually it’d be kinda cool if I based the general aesthetic of the game around this kinda look.” Boom, unique art emerging from their constraints. They had to work to get there, but their work is infinitely more artful as a result
As a gamer (and an artist in my spare time) I don’t think this is true. I’ve played and loved lots of charming games, but I almost never think about the process as an element of that charm. The charm is in the details of the final product - and a perfect simulation from an AI would (by definition, if it existed) perfectly produce those details.
To be clear, I’m not saying the process is the charm. I’m saying the process leads to a product that is charming, as a result of having had restrictions.
An AI that could perfectly produce what the dev desires would not lead to this innovation from constraints.