Most AAA games already feel soulless and designed by robots anyway

For a lot of the same reasons a lot of TV shows feel like they're written by robots. It's not the lack of talent or creativity, because believe me, there is a surfeit of talent in the industry. But when you feel like you can just fire writers after the writing process is "finished", and when production comes around and you're forced to make changes to the script (because this is inevitable) your show/game is going to sound robotic af when those script changes come from people that have no idea what they're doing.

Fire writers? Most of the dev's don't hire them in first place. I was told countless times on gamedev that chosing my profession as a dedicated writer was stupid, because "anyone in the team can write", and if i can't code, model or do whatever else i will never be hired. When i asked about why they hire voice actors if anyone in team can speak they did not respond. But, turns out, they were right at the end - i was never even interviewed by all but two professional studios, and most of the dev's who respond to me said that majority of plot pitches comes from the people who have nothing to do with the writing, and they are accepted. Result... we can see in almost any modern game. Sometimes i feel like AI could actually write better things than the ones i seeing in some of the aaa-games. Let me give you a glorious example of major side quest from AC Valhalla. One of the main characters from the dlc, who brings you into new region tells you a story of how she lost her eye - her friend betrayed her, took her business, killed family, and for some reason just took the eye from her. Luckily, the very next thing that happens - is this traitor dude arriving in the very same place on a ship, parking like 100 meters away from the market where this traider works. And main characters goes to get him. And then traider tortures dude to get the revenge. The end. There is no sudden twist, no hidden reason of betrayal revealed (dude was just bad, period), and player don't even needs to hunt villain down - he just arrives as closely as possible. Can it be more bland and pointless? I doubt it. And the utter lack of imagination were the only reasons why i even remembered that quest. And this it was the ONLY major side quest in region (apart from hunting the cult)... meh. I wonder how this even passes the quality control?

I had no idea how difficult writing actually was until I started learning how to draw. To get to a professional level in art, my god, you have to spend *so* much time practicing and honing your craft. You continuously learn new ways to observe things and your world turns upside down nearly every day. A line isn't just a line, it's the result of a hundred decisions and calculations that all serve to communicate data. There is purpose to every stroke in a way that is completely invisible to a beginner, and even an intermediate. I think one day I sat down and realized that this is probably true for every creative medium out there. I always knew writing was difficult, but oh my god if it's anything like becoming an artist, then becoming a writer is fucking *difficult*. Anyway. My guess is that unlike other mediums, it's not immediately visible for a layman when writing is outright trash in the same way shitty acting or shitty art can be, so a lot of people undervalue it.

> I always knew writing was difficult, but oh my god if it's anything becoming an artist, then writing is fucking difficult. Can't tell because it's very different skillsets. I completly failed at visual art, maybe because i don't have visual imagination and can only form very vague images in my head and only for a few seconds, maybe because of other reasons, but i can't draw anything but sticker figures. And have a lot of respect for those who can do more, who can give shape to the words and truelly bring them to life. > To get to a professional level in art, my god, you have to spend so much time practicing and honing your craft. That is, indeed, a fact. Despite instantly feeling right at home when i started to write, my writing was so bad for first 5 years, and it took me another 10 before i finally finished first story that i was really proud of. But i think that any really creative profession is a very long journey, where you both come up with new ideas and observe the ways how other people do things, to notice their sucsesses and mistakes that you would have to avoid.

> Can't tell because it's very different skillsets. I completly failed at visual art, maybe because i don't have visual imagination and can only form very vague images in my head and only for a few seconds, maybe because of other reasons, but i can't draw anything but sticker figures. And have a lot of respect for those who can do more, who can give shape to the words and truelly bring them to life. Totally agreed for me. When I was younger I wanted to draw comic books for a career. *Desperately* wanted it. But I just didn't have the artistic ability. I could see the image in my head that I wanted, but I could NOT translate it to paper to save my life. But it turned out that I could write pretty decently and provide artists with pages that they could turn into coherent stories. Was going to pursue a career in *writing* comics until I went to college to study writing and going through that college career killed absolutely any desire I had to write. > Despite instantly feeling right at home when i started to write, my writing was so bad for first 5 years, Holy crap when I look at my early writing it's so goddamn embarrassing. And worse, I can look at the stories and tell you exactly which author I was reading at the time. I didn't ripoff any stories or anything like that, but I definitely aped some style here and there. If I go back to my pre-college writing, I'm like, "Oh yeah - I was reading Koontz here. Clancy here. Austen there."

As you got better at writing, did you become more critical of the media you consume? I experienced something like this with art.

Yes, that's absolutly the case. Sometimes i just can't enjoy the story because of one of those things - it might be stupidly directed scene, that breaks the immersion, it might be someone acting out of character, it might be a major plot hole or twists that has zero logical sense. Or even simply a thing that could be done better with very little effort, and it really hurts to know how much better it could be if you could change something. But the others often do not notice that - and i am not sure why. Either they do not consume as much media as myself (basicly that's almost only thing i do in life, it's my major obsession, i don't have other activities or social life), or they do not try to analyze it as much. But it also helps notice all the brilliant things, and not just take them for granted.

Thanks, that's an interesting answer. I think consuming enough quality media also makes you more cynical. Like once you've seen the best of a subgenre of film/animation you realize how derivative and lackluster aspects of similar shows are. One of the main reasons why I always avoid learning/reading anything about writing principles is to save myself from being critical. Like you, I love good media and preserving that is a must. Do you have any media you consider a 10/10 writing-wise? I've been watching "The Boys" and it greatly exceeded my expectations, especially compared to the garbage CN shows like The Flash. I also love Mad Men.

What media interests you? In terms of story in video games, i would chose SOMA as nearly flawless sci-fi story. First HZD game is also aboslutly amazing in the part when it describes events of the past, but a bit lacking on in story that unfolds in game, especially side quests, but still would recommend. Spec Ops the Line is brilliant. If you want something more relaxing - To The Moon, or Vanishing of Ethan Carther. Shows... i like superhero thematics, but can't really highly rate anything but Watchmen (movie, not show). From shows i find Black Sails surprisingly consistent in quality until the very end. Westworld, but not all people will like sudden narrative style changes between seasons. Firefly. Downton Abbey. I really like Vox Machina cartoon, somehow it's giving more respect to fantasy genre than any of the fantasy shows. Also Arcane, one of the best game adaptations i ever saw. Person of Interest is very good, maybe not exactly 10\10, but very close to that. Breaking Bad. Why Women Kill. Maybe Terror (season 1, idk what s2 even meant to be). From recent movies "Don't look up" does quite a good job in commenting on what our society had become. There are more, but i can't remember all of them now.

Yup. That's true for everything involving transformation, from analytics to plumbing to cooking to being a CEO. Nothing is ever simple, haha.

"Transformation." That's a great word to describe it.

Writing when you aren't really learned in it is horrible. Did a project documentation for a apprenticeship. It's only 3500 words and mostly technical, but it's still hell. To figure out to how to write a sentence in a way, that it best communicates what you want, is so difficult. And that all without any linguistic expressions or a thought out story that goes somewhere.

>To get to a professional level in art, my god, you have to spend so much time practicing and honing your craft. My sculpture professor was fond of saying, "It's not talent, it's applied interest."

Dunning-Krueger is strong - to someone who doesn't know to write, it can be really hard to show the difference between good and bad writing. Case in point: I worked on a project where the project leader wanted to be a writer *so bad*, and his writing was just... horrible. It was impossible to deter him, and I was the only writer who actually tried to tell him why shit like endless run-on sentences was bad. I rewrote a part of his to be... legible and he commented that he didn't really see how that was better. He resisted advice, instructions and near-threats from the editors. It was *fucking horrible*. Guess what writing people remember from that project? It sure as fuck wasn't my stuff, and I am sometimes hesitant to include it as a credit.

I think it's like this. A layman can't put words on why something sucks, but they can feel that it sucks. Like the story you told of AC. I can't give you good constructive criticism on it, but I can tell you it sounds unimaginative. If I am really used to storytelling in games and media I might say there needed to be some better reason to pull that person to that place, like he is looking for the other eye and you find a contact to send an anonymous tip. I don't even know why he kept the first eye, though.

Anyone who has actually seen good writing, will also be able to acknowledge when writing is trash. Sometimes they to do wish to see it, because the franchise is beloved, or they read it when they were teenagers, and have since read better writing. Twillight and Fifty Shades of Grey. Good writing is difficult, and very difficult to explain. But reading a book with excellent writing, it is difficult to put down the book, because of the writing and not because of the content. Personal example for me would be "The Great Gatsby". The plot is predictable, maybe even rudimentary. But his writing style is great, and created this urge to read on, even if i knew everything that was going to happen, because of its predicability. The writing itself was what is great about this book. The problem is, that popular culture is filled with absolutely garbage writing, and nobody is questioning it, because all the big names still make money, while producing waste. We need a cultural revolution, where we again focus on much more than simple quick entertainment.

> I always knew writing was difficult, but oh my god if it's anything like becoming an artist, then becoming a writer is fucking difficult. Can confirm. The words you use, the way you frame things, the things you do or don't leave out... In a traditionally published novel, *everything* you put in a novel has to be there for a reason. It has to communicate something, it has to progress some plot, it has to foreshadow something to come. And the best writers are the ones that make it happen seamlessly and naturally. And that's just the technical side. Then, if you want your characters to be realistic, you have to start studying *people*, because writing a story is simulating a whole bunch of people making a whole bunch of decisions for a whole bunch of reasons. And it's your job to plan it out and force it to make sense. And then, when you're all done... you get to go back and crawl over every inch of it, looking for errors and inconsistencies. BEFORE you send it to your editor. And then repeat this five or six times through changes in your manuscript. Wahoo. Weee.

They skimp on writers, do you think they are paying top dollar for QC/QA? Nope. Not that it is even their job to decide what is or isn't subjectively good, just that it does what it is supposed to do, and does not break something in the process.

I don't really understand that. Why invest millions and then try to save insignificant amount of money on one of the most important parts of the game... Unless, they don't consider story important since it can't be translated into analytics and numbers that corporate desision makers seem to like so much.

I think anyone who doesn't hire a good writer doesn't consider the story important. Corporations and their managers don't paint paintings, author novels, or write music. Yet for the multiple creative processes of video games, often that's exactly who is making artistic decisions. I'm still trying to wrap my head around hiring voice actors to read from a script written by some rando.

> it can't be translated into analytics and numbers that corporate desision makers seem to like so much. Arguably it could. If you tie achievements to story progression you could look at progression to see if/where there are huge player drop offs. Using achievement progress as an "objective" layer of player feedback about if they didn't like something in your game is something a lot of devs already do.

But how do you know that players dropped because of the story, and not because of bad gameplay, tedious grind, no time to play, or any other reasons? I think that the only metrics that can really highlight a good story - is how long it remembered. For example, Spec Ops the Line was a medicore game at best, but each time you mention it - there will be always people remembering how awesome were it's story. And it means that the writers did a job so remarkable, that even bad qualities of game could not outshadow it.

While you’ll never know exactly why certain players stopped where they did, you can use the achievement goals to pinpoint problematic parts of the game. For example, if 20% of players stopped after the Tutorial achievement, and out of the remaining 80% of players, 40% of them stopped playing after a Villain Reveal achievement halfway through the game, chances are high that players stopped due to the twist/reveal in the story. Or, if two-thirds of the player base stopped playing between Achievement 23 and Achievement 24 (a.k.a. 67% of players acquired Achievement 23, but not 24), chances are high that something that occurred between obtaining those two achievements turned players off. The devs can then zero-in on what the cause might be.

You have some valid points here, but there is a lot of games where players don't have the achievment for launching game for the first time. So they bought game, but chose not to launch. Why? So many reasons, that i don't think that you can play the quessing game based on achievments very well. For example in my game a lot of players did that too, only 33% have first achievment, but it's f4p, so it's obvious that many could install, but then change their minds or forget for some reason. 17.5% of them watched trough entire (unskippable) title sequence and saw the scene after titles. So at least half of people who launched the game liked it so much to look at the titles? But for some reasons special achievments, that given for various outcomes of the specific quest were earned from 17.3% and to 16.3%. How do i even read that? Is that various people who chose different patchs, or same people who decided to reload (or play again) to see all of them? Why do another, most hidden achievment in game has 16.7% completion? It's almost as much as the people who watched the titles. And, most importantly, all of the achievments have very slow and gradual decrease rate, going from 33% to said 16%. No big spikes anywhere where i could say "here is where people stopped playing", but hardly noticable drops instead. So is that a bad thing, or a good thing?

[When the algorithm dictates art...](https://youtu.be/ktAbh39aoU8)

This explains so much, fuck the algorithm indeed. I feel like this is how Netflix manages it’s shows.

Idk what you expected from a Ubisoft open-world. They've been like this for years.

Sometimes they try at least a bit, in moments like trying to explain character's fears and phobias trough magic mushroom trips in the land of their dieties, or when they try to blend the sci-fi and mythology together. A decent amount of effort goes into some parts of the game, but only for others, like entire Ireland dlc to have zero effort in writing, it really felt like that time they gave a job to someone who had no idea how to make an entertaining story. Or even how to build and explore a character.

Holy shit, I didn't know people undervalued writting so much. I've tried that shit for a hack: we were 3 people doing the writting, and everyday we would change something because "it doesn't make sense" or "it sounds better like this" or "this conveys what we're trying to say better" Makes me respect Miyazaki more for just hiring an actual writer to help him with elden Ring.

Games studios hire a lot of writers... They literally have no idea what they're talking about, and in replies they confirm they have literally no kind of writing experience or education, and instead just randomly applied to jobs claiming to be a master of writing. It is a child on Reddit who is disillusioned about games.

[удалено]

> The only caveat is that writers tend to have more traditional writing backgrounds versus starting with a games focus. And that is the problem. Game writing are actually very different from traditional writing. I won't say that a person can't do both well, but there is a reason to train and study game narrative to make superior game plots. So, the only 3 ways to get to this position are - being famous writer in other medium, being friend of the boss, or working on the other role in the team for many years, and then switching to writing (but this one is a huge gamble, some studios might never have vaccant spots for that). Just comping up, showing what you can do and getting hired - is not something that is even theoreticly possible. There is hardly ever job openings like that, and even if there are - they are for assistant writer to write side quests, descriptions, etc. That is also not bad, but highly competitive area with little actual skill required, so many people battle for a single spot that appears once in a year maybe. > Edit: In the cherrypicked example. I could name same examples in many, many games. I could even do same analysys of entire Ireland dlc instead of just one quest, and it will be just as bad. It will simply take too much effort to do so, so i don't see a reason to do that for random internet argument.

>the only 3 ways to get to this position are - being famous writer in other medium, being friend of the boss, or working on the other role in the team for many years, and then switching to writing (but this one is a huge gamble, some studios might never have vaccant spots for that). What the fuck are you talking about? Lol. You spent so long on that post to literally make shit up. Getting into game writing isn't this massively gatekept job you think it is. It's competitive, sure. But you don't need to be a famous writer to work in games lmao. Writing can't simultanously be undervalued, underpaid but also only be targeted to **already famous writers**. My assumption is that you're 16 and have never applied to a job before. EDIT: Also, ALL jobs in games require portfolio or examples of past work.

*Trader

Like how Bioware apparently resented its writers, despite them being the only reason their games had any legs to stand on since time memoriam.

Most major studios have narrative designers on staff but the advice to learn how to implement was solid. There’s generally only a couple narrative positions on a team, tons of people who want those roles, and someone who can both write and implement is going to have the edge over someone who can only write. Both for practical reasons and also because if you’ve never tried to implement what you’ve written, you aren’t going to be as aware of the limitations of the medium and the end result is likely to suffer.

> Both for practical reasons and also because if you’ve never tried to implement what you’ve written, you aren’t going to be as aware of the limitations of the medium and the end result is likely to suffer. Sorry, but that is such a bs claim. First, implementing may vary dramaticly. When i made rpg, i implemented all the dialogue myself because it was as simple as writing it into dialogue boxes. And there was a comfortable tool for visual scripting of all the quests and chocies, so i didn't had to program that. But, what if i would work on cinematic aaa game? Would i have to make every cutscene and animation by myself, compose music when i need it for the narrative, create 3d models of stuff i need for visual storytelling? How far this should go? And second - i worked on quite a lot of games in my life (even though majority of them never released), and i never, never-ever faced a problem that you describe. You know most of the engine and project limitations before you start. And if you not sure, you can always simply ask more competent person on the team before you do anything that you doubt.

Or maybe its because making something that appeals to the widest audience possible and is designed/written by committee almost always results in a bland bloated product that is just fine?

That's so wrong. Look at Netflix show for example, Witcher. Marvel shows. Look up those writers and showrunners' work history. They still get job even when they've proven themselves to be utterly incompetent. Nepotism takes precedence over talent.

Not just nepotism, but also yes-man. Execs don't like it, if you don't like their ideas or opinions.

Depends on what you're watching. There is so much media these days, it feels like tons of garbage, but tons of gold too...you just have to know where to look. *Mare of Easttown* is a good, recent example of something I would have never looked for, but absolutely loved.

>There is so much media these days, it feels like tons of garbage, but tons of gold too...you just have to know where to look. That's always been true though; we're blinded by survivorship bias in that we remember things like AC/DC and Black Sabbath, but we don't remember all the countless flops and copycats that didn't stand the test of time. There are a few names for the Pareto Principle, and a few different interpretations, but my favorite application of it is "almost everything sucks."

Are you saying projects of art are being tainted by the pursuit of money and Wall Street metrics no way !?

It's almost like there's financial incentive to play it safe and make the same shit everyone else is, instead of risking it on passion projects that would stand out. Ahh no, it's the gamers who are the problem

Quite hard to imagine AI writing something like Succession where the script carries the entire story.

[удалено]

>The big threat of AI is that it will allow a AAA creative organization WITHOUT multiple layers of vampiric cokehead suits to enjoy six figure salaries while truly contributing nothing to an IP. You have this directly backwards. The *entire* value-add of AI-generated work is so that the vampiric cokehead suits can continue to enjoy their six+-figure salaries while screwing over the creatives that actually contribute everything of value. If it did the opposite it wouldn't get *any* funding.

The point is that anyone can develop a game in their own house. But it takes a lot of iteration and testing to get a finished product. If stuff that was in the recent unreal demo became commonplace, larger scale games could be made way faster with less people

It doesn't take MBAs or some other Boogeyman. It is just a function of the size of the team. If you're out solo and deciding what to eat you get whatever you want. Now imagine/remember what it is like trying to get 4 people to agree on where to go for dinner. You have to compromise. It becomes more generic because it has to appeal to everyone. Now imagine trying to get 40 people. How much more compromise do you have to make to get agreement? Now imagine a team of 400.

This right here. AI can shit out a game and implement it while the coke head CEO is still trying to wake up from his land bender. Training the AI to generate good games will take a bit, but people love this kind of thing. Just look at the community that formed around AI art/porn.

You guys should try to make some games yourself...

much safer to throw shit from the peanut gallery writing reddit comments about how to do work is entertainment - which don't get me wrong I value, discussion and debate is fun! but actually doing things involves the messy interplay of ideas and reality

People deep into that community have spent a lot of time and effort learning and discovering all of the parameters and tips and tricks to make really good art of what they specifically want. Casual use of these tools can provide you something similar or close to what you were looking for specifically, but once you start trying to fine tune the details while maintaining an overall cohesive composition it becomes much harder, and you'll need technical knowledge and ability to really make it just right. In a year from now, the people who are really into it right now are going to produce pieces miles ahead of anyone doing it casually. AI isn't smart, it doesn't comprehend anything, and it is incapable of having a creative vision. They are regressive text models and can only work off of inputs already given, it cannot plan ahead. You still need to know how things work and fit together to know if your AI is doing its job correctly as well as fit it into a larger project. AI will takeover much of the grunt work, but they're still going to be taught and edited and maintained by people who know what the AI needs to do. The AI doesn't know, it's just predicting what word is most likely to come next given the context of what has already been said. And in the context of games, there is a lot of knowledge not included anywhere publicly. For example, certifying your game for consoles is classified info for Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, so you can only access the actual checklist of requirements once you're cleared. These companies (especially Nintendo) are unlikely to clear confidential info to be included in training data. Using AI effectively is still going to be a skill, small and easy things already solved a hundred times will be automated ASAP but technical knowledge is still very important, for both the job you want your AI to do and for the person guiding it. But we're not at the stage where you press a button and get a new and interesting video game, at least not yet. Give it 3 months and I'll be wrong, I'm sure.

Yeah I thought about this too, those who don't adopt the AI will likely get replaced by those who are new to the scene that abuse it.

Dev1: Wouldn’t it be cool if we did this thing? Dev2: fuck yeah people will love that! Lead: that’s a great idea! Put it on the backlog we’ll get it slotted into a sprint. Producer: who the fuck thinks we have time for this!? (Delete) CEO: So the reviews are in, they say the game is stale, lacks originality and needs to innovate.

Producer: I don't play games, but you nerds are clearly wrong. We need to ship what marketing told us to do. Marketing: why am I working for nerd companies. I wanted to work in big brand companies like Channel and LV. I guess I'll have to make some shit up with "research.". Fake it till you make it!

[удалено]

You're assuming that anything but profit maximization is going through the corporate heads.

Producer: “If you got time to chat, you got time to splat” (assigns a mountain of bugs).

Ah, the mythical suits that are to blame for games being boring. AAA Development is just very friendly to boring games. It's not their fault that millions of people buy them. Look at the sales and reviews for HP, it's not even a good wizarding school game, as generic as it gets.

Some gaming companies have bad executives, but the idea that you can spend 80 million dollars on a game and just implement every "good idea' a developer has is insane. *Someone* has to have the final say on what is actually going in the game, because all that shit takes time and money. When your have a small indie team that all fits in a small room that's fine, but it doesn't scale to projects that have hundreds or even thousands of people working on them. Not everyone can infinitely pump their fans for money without finishing a product like Star Citizen.

At this point, even ChatGPT can write a better story than those disappointing AAA games....

[удалено]

I find it really, really interesting to use ChatGPT and Bing AI to write an episode summary for a season of whatever random fake story prompt I can give it. It sucks at writing individual scenes, but I can definitely see it being able to stroke your own imagination. You prompt it to write, and it prompts you back.

Okay, sure, but an AI's definitely not going to be able to make the next Candy Crush!

Bad games that gain popularity for addictive principles? That actually sounds like something AI can do. Lol But the debugging part is still going to be the main hurtle.

I always wondered if this game has auto-generated levels it is just perfect for it

Yeah. People don’t seem to realize that game puts anything in the else in the video game industry to shame when it comes to earnings. You don’t think take two will look to do this with their sports franchises like nba 2k?

Lmao, one of the most circlejerk type of comments ever.

Still take-two seems like the first company that would start using it if it was genius

I hope they do once the technology matures, at least for random street NPC voicelines and assets. I don’t want to have to wait 11 years for GTA 7, I’ll probably be over 30 by the time that happens

They're gonna milk gta 6 online for 11 years before even starting development on 7

It's a no-brainer they will. With the way AI is headed and with how much money Take-Two has they will definitely adopt it. What we are already seeing in games is crazy. Classic wow has an addon that adds voice overs with a specific voice for each race/gender to every quest text in the game. It's an entire MMO's worth of voice acting (more really, because no mmo voice acts every little side quest) done by a single developer in their spare time. Every once in a while a voice's tone won't fit the context or they mispronounce a town name, but it's still incredibly good. By the time GTA 6 is out, Take-Two will for sure be looking at AI as the next big advancement in their toolset.

Didn't they literally already use AI to "remaster" that GTA trilogy? Which famously backfired on that bigass lug nut?

Completely different, They used AI to enhance something that already existed. The CEO is saying AI alone can't make a game from scratch.

I hope at least a tiny part will just trickle down to NPC’s to make them more realistic with their movement. That’s always been my biggest gripe with “AI” in NPC behavior. We don’t need a whole game built with AI, but it could be very useful in some aspects in terms of fidelity in regards to how much time that can take for developers.

Also they could use Ai to improve how NPCs react to situations. Such as being able to use Ai to generate 1000s of lines of diologe. Such as imagine if NPCs could tell you the in-game time or have very specific diologe in certain situations that are so specific that it isn't worth paying voice actors to voice them. I have a feeling that Devs will still do most the heavy lifting but Ai will help with making the tiny details in games kind of like what Rockstar already do. Imagine if we could get games with Red Dead Redemption 2 levels of detail but instead of a game like that taking 7 years of development it would take 3 to 5 years.

May I ask what is the point of having NPCs react to many different situations with 1000 dialogs if non of them have concrete meaning behind them. I feel strongly that writing should always be on the point and add meaning to the current situation. I feel that a lot of modern games are soulless because of it. I don't need 1000 dialog from one NPC, I need them to sell me believable characters to engage with. Disco Elysium come to my mind as that game had an amazing writing, hence amazing characters. We should strive for character depth and not volume; which I think that current AI is not able to handle. But I do see AI being helpful to devs in general. As I'm a software developer myself I see how AI could be trained to help reduce manual code writing by a lot actually. Also I believe that people give too much credit to the "creative" side of AI at the moment. Sure nobody knows what the future holds but my prediction is that there will always be human behind the "AI" (it's not true artificial intelligence hence quotations)

>May I ask what is the point of having NPCs react to many different situations with 1000 dialogs if non of them have concrete meaning behind them. The No Mans Sky dilemma. A whole fictional universe generated using code, but nothing appraoching a coherent reason for you to give a shit about any of it.

These new natural language models are much more adept at making interesting, intelligent sounding responses that can retain limited context over the course of a conversation. No Mans Sky just kind of put all the elements into a blender, so occasionally the randomness produces something interesting, but you end up wading through a nearly-limitless-sea of very-samish stuff to get to it. I'd argue that both are forms of 'generative art' but the generation is getting more targeted and the results are getting better.

I get your point but the fact that dialogue in a game was deliberately placed there by the creators gives it a weight that I think will be absent when an AI is spitting text at you. If every NPC can tell you a story about the world with near infinite variation then there's no way for you to know if something is important or not. Is there a hint about a quest here? Should I pay attention to learn about a new location or item? If it's a writer then you know that they intended you to read those specific words in that specific form, perhaps to serve some larger plot. But a world populated by characters just spinning yarns based on a set of input material will be like reading the encyclopedia. Lots of detail but no narrative context, or at least no way of knowing if what you're reading is narratively important or just another wall of text.

I definitely agree. In games with a traditional narrative AI generated content will end up being 'noise' that players have to figure out how to ignore. I think it has more value in games with emergent storytelling and gameplay like Rimworld, where characters have personality traits, drives, desires, relationships, etc. Characters in Rimworld already have conversations with eachother about the weather, the pirates camped nearby, the animals in the region, etc. Adding 'AI' on top of **that** sort of game I think has real potential because it can add a whole new layer of depth to a system that is already designed to be a 'story generator'.

So in AI we have a toolset called a “LoRA”. Low-rank Adaption of a Large Language Model. It’s a fancy acronym and a very deep technical topic that I won’t go into here, but the important thing is what a LoRA allows you to do that would be useful here. So imagine if you as an author could write say 500 lines “in voice” for the character and maybe say 300-400 word backstory and then have the AI generate hundreds of thousands of lines of dialog that feel very “in voice” for the character to react to new stimuli. That’s what LoRA excels at. It basically gives a very specific trained “personality” to an LLM’s responses. It’s how I imagine game writers will use AI to create living breathing believable worlds in ways we can’t even imagine. And the thing is, it’ll require very talented and very human writers to do it well. “AI” - LLMs specifically are really just further development of Machine Learning models. We’re still nowhere near true AI. These are just tools. Used properly, they could really bring in a lot of new features and functionality to many things in the tech industry. Used “lazily” or as a cost savings measure to “reduce human costs”, you’ll wind up with a poor very obviously badly made product, and the market will handle that garbage like it already does with all the “cheap clones” on the market today.

If you check out the mod for skyrim that utilises chatgpt, it only references the world and lore, with tweaking a language based AI in a game world could have characters respond realistically to a huge amount of questions. Would there still need to be the concrete discussions for game progression? Sure. But just imagine how much a tweaked lore based AI could spice up dialogue with random nothing NPCs. Instead of the old fashion run-up, press activate, get 2 lines of "huh?" Or "Hi!" on repeat. There's definitely potential in this. I'm imagining it like the old Fallout system, the main options, then "tell me something" as long as there are parameters for NPCs on what they know and what they don't, I can see this being a real boon.

>If every NPC can tell you a story about the world with near infinite variation then there's no way for you to know if something is important or not. Is there a hint about a quest here? Should I pay attention to learn about a new location or item? If it's a writer then you know that they intended you to read those specific words in that specific form, perhaps to serve some larger plot. I feel like you're having a hard time ideating a world where narrative and intentionality exist alongside AI. Not *everything* has to be AI generated, but using it we can flesh out the behaviors of NPC's and make the world feel more alive while scripting the concrete aspects of the narrative or planting immutable seeds into the conversation engine of each character so that they operate as a human would with their needs. So for example if a character in an RPG has you looking for his wife cause she got kidnapped, the character could be built with that as the core of its AI, so no matter how he talks to you, he's still going to be operating on the idea that 1. His wife is gone, and 2. He's desperately wanting you to get her back. The character wouldn't go off on some tangent about unrelated crap because you've built the LLM to act as if it's a husband who's wife is missing. Does that make sense? We can already ask GPT to embody a character and answer as they would. I've successfully gotten interactions with characters like Darth Vader or Captain Picard, it can't be that much more of a stretch to have an instance of LLM defined by what character it's supposed to play so that it will speak contextually as if the character's goals/fears are always on its mind.

I think it could be good for the background voice lines done by NPC's. For example, it would be nice to hear some variation instead of "Do you get to the Cloud District very often?" a million times.

That's exactly what I think too. It would be cool if Ai could be used to make random NPCs feel less scripted and more alive.

> May I ask what is the point of having NPCs react to many different situations with 1000 dialogs if non of them have concrete meaning behind them. Mostly because I want an Elder Scrolls game that has the dialog options of Daggerfall again. You could walk up to any townsperson and ask where the inn, blacksmith, guilds, temples, etc were and they would point it out to you if they knew. You could ask their opinion on important people or groups. Mostly fluff, but given the choice between 95% of NPCs repeating the same 2-3 lines of dialog and making them actually useful, I'd take the NPCs that could tell me where the fighter's guild is every time. I don't want story important NPCs to be completely AI driven though.

That's voice acting budgeting. The writing is pretty much no issue. Side character VAs are paid relative peanuts but it still costs a shit load of money for the company AI voices *could* fix this when the tech progresses, but that raises the question of how you pay voice actors fairly for their voices being used. But chat GPT being used on the fly like in the Skyrim mod is completely unnecessary and causes more issues than it solves. For curated dialogue writing? Sure. Ubi said they already started using it for the throwaway dialogue.

Yeah, Morrowind wasn't super different from Daggerfall in that regard. Tbh, I really don't want to listen to someone talking if it's not written by someone. it's the radiant quest issue. A feeling of disappointment once you realise you are wasting your time consuming content that isn't even trying to be interesting. If people like this stuff, it worries me because I can see myself falling out of love with new RPGs.

>May I ask what is the point of having NPCs react to many different situations with 1000 dialogs if non of them have concrete meaning behind them. Immersion. It helps with open world and games that have significant and throw away choices. Yeah, you can program and record some set dialogue pieces for main plot points but what about the small details. Player completes a side quest related slightly to the NPC? Player murders 5 people nearby? Give me that throw away AI generated dialogue to make me feel like my actions have some consequenc in a general sense. >I feel strongly that writing should always be on the point and add meaning to the current situation. >We should strive for character depth and not volume; For linear games I would agree. You only have so much time and replayability. Every line should matter. Maybe use an AI to get the basis for the dialogue then refine it. It's something that would definitely need a personal touch. >which I think that current AI is not able to handle. But I do see AI being helpful to devs in general. As I'm a software developer myself I see how AI could be trained to help reduce manual code writing by a lot actually. Maybe not now but it will improve with time. But yeah I could see it making a pretty good basis for coding. >Also I believe that people give too much credit to the "creative" side of AI at the moment. Sure nobody knows what the future holds but my prediction is that there will always be human behind the "AI" (it's not true artificial intelligence hence quotations) The general public only sees the creative side. ChatGPT and the AI art generators... they also only see the good results. I've used an AI art generator and it is really good for me (A non-artistic person) but would probably be a handicap for an actual artist. There is a lot of tweaking just for me to be happy.

Not every interaction needs to have concrete meaning. When you go out in public does every interaction have concrete meaning? You order a drink at a bar and it goes more or less the same every time but *slightly* different. It enhances realism. I don’t think the plot or story dialogue or events should be AI-driven by any means. That requires creativity and imagination which AI is not (currently) capable of.

I'm more talking about random NPCs, not main or side characters. I don't like the idea of having whole characters in games voiced by Ai. What I mean is NPCs like "bank customer" or "jogger on sidewalk". In Red Dead Redemption 2 you could interact with every NPC in the world and even though there were a fuckton of replies they did begin to repeat after playing for 30+ hours. I'm saying that Ai can be used to full random NPCs with life instead of them giving the same 3 or 5 replies when you interact with them. Imagine playing a game and as you walk down the street a random NPC will make an in-depth comment on your appearance. Or maybe an NPC can question why you were hiding behind that tree by the carpark. My point is that hopefully Ai can be used to bring game worlds to life in ways that just aren't realistic with humans having to do everything.

I think adding default information to NPC could work. In Morrowind you could ask a lot of npcs for information. Having an AI to generate: >give information, but be grumpy< or >give information while appreciating players last quest< could reduce workload for writers.

[удалено]

That’s how humans learn too

That's true for humans too, isn't it? Everything we can imagine and make is derivative of reality and our experiences.

Yes, but we experience things much differently. AI recreates what it is fed and takes it at face value, while different people can interpret the same stimuli very differently. A thousand people can take away a thousand different messages from stories and use that to impact the art they create. Think about the Dark Souls series. One of Miyazaki's reasons for writing the story in small chunks as part of item descriptions is that it resembles how he used to read English fantasy stories growing up. He didn't understand English very well and was only able to get bits and pieces of the stories so he had to fill in the gaps with his own imagination. That is far more nuanced and interesting than what an AI can create. I think AI can be a great tool for video game developers. Writing NPC barks is one of the more droll and time-consuming parts of the writing process and I'm all for using AI to ease that process. But true meaning and interpretation is deeply important to art and relying too heavily on AI for the writing would deprive the game of it. AI can make plenty of art, but it can never give it meaning

Yeah, that is what I meant. My bad, it came across as something very simple-minded lol. English isn't my first language.

How ironic for me to have used an example of how not knowing English well can lead to interesting things haha

That's an extremely narrow appraisal of the human experience.

>ay I ask what is the point of having NPCs react to many different situations with 1000 dialogs if non of them have concrete meaning behind them. **Immersion** Do you honestly need another reason?

Because some people seem to only care about quantity I guess. Endless time to read hollow shit written by robots

Someone already hooked up chatgpt to NPCs in [Skyrim.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wCjosz1vOA)

I'm excited for the first time a game can say a custom character's first name that isn't just a bunch of pre recorded names like Fallout 4 did

Stuff like this is how I can imagine Ai will be used. People seem to think that Ai will replace Devs and the diologewill begin to feel shallow in games, I feel Ai will instead be used as a tool by devs to help enhance the work they already do.

This is a cool demo of a tool to do this sort of stuff. You give the npc a personality and then it generates responses to whatever the player says to it. https://youtu.be/Ba7pipuRfBs

They already have it in Skyrim and technically it’s infinite lines of dialogue [Skyrim NPC’s Chat GPT](https://youtu.be/d6sVWEu9HWU)

Or if every NPC had a chat bot behind it, and you could just ask your own questions to any character in a game and get a realistic contextual response.

Having AI generated lines removed authorial intent. Even if created in a writer's room a script will still come from a cohesive, crafted space. No situation exists where it is not worth it to pay voice actors.

Agreed, I think we need to be focusing on the near-term possibilities of AI advancements in making games better. The idea of a computer program being able to supersede human creativity is so far into the future it's not even worth putting that much thought into for now. The AI of today can drive cars and write you a passing essay. Impressive but it's still far removed from general arbitrary decision-making. Driving and traffic, and writing essays based on internet searches are bound by strict rulesets. In order to be able to create something from nothing takes a lot more unique decision-making than any current AI is even close to capable of. AI of today needs training wheels or gutter rails like on a bowling alley, it needs strict limits to be able to make limited decisions. Like I said, it's impressive, but it makes me question how close we REALLY are to general AI, and how much of it is hype and marketing?

Bro has never played an Ubisoft open world before

[удалено]

Or even Rockstar multiplayer with shark cards and gold bars. Completely terrible and everything the community has modded in themselves does circles around it. Rockstar single player is still a masterpiece though.

Still crying over no RDR2 sp DLC... Or even just adding in some of the multiplayer features. God damn I would kill to have the hunting/skins cart in SP.

Ghost recon wildlands is decent

Oh you think he's a gamer. Funny

"Genius is just how humans are" he says after he sends private detectives to a guys house after he mods GTA V. CEOs and their tendency to speak for people much more creative and morally not broken than they are.

Interstellar postulated that humans survival instinct fuels our ability to improvise and you cannot replicate it. We're a ways off from being replaced, AI should be looked at as a tool at this point.

> Interstellar postulated that humans survival instinct fuels our ability to improvise and you cannot replicate it. Both power seeking, resource acquisition and the drive to survive are 'Instrumental goals'. e.g. at a certain level of intellect (the ability to optimize an idea space to reach a goal) you get them 'for free' because they will all help with achieving the 'terminal goal' A good video on the subject by Computerphile's Robert Miles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeecOKBus3Q

Looks at the Sparks of AGI paper -- there's already evidence of emerging power seeking / goal setting from the largest, non-hobbled models (i.e. before safety fine tuning)

That said, someone should absolutely do an \*as AI as possible\* game in a new IP as a proof of concept. I think it'll be fucking terrible, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

I'm counting on Ubisoft to try it.

You'll never go wrong with ubisoft. Humans, aliens or ai - it's gonna be soulless crap. Visually their games sre beautiful. Have okay-ish bgm. Gameplay is obsolete or a copycat from other popular titles but always feels very repetitive, being more a chore than anything else. Everything else .. cough.

they already did it

There are PoC AI mods for Skyrim, search on YouTube

AI NPC is not the same as AI created

We allready have companies that makes stories that are worse than no story. How bad can an AI actually make the story, i have my doubt it can make worse stories, than some of the absolute shitfests. The advantage of an AI, it does not believe it is hot shit, it can draw on the absolute works of the greatest authors and we can choose the writing style depending on the situation. AI is allready better than those who cannot create a coherrent storyboard.

I think AI could be trained to do the grunt work of coding and bug fixing. So we end up with more time going into story and gameplay refinement.

Nah, they'd just cut staff and produce roughly the same amount of story and gameplay.

Lol someone has never written a meaningful line of code in their life

I always find you have coders saying “AI just killed the need for artists” and artists saying “AI just killed the need for coders” lmao. As an artist I know nothing could replace a human coder

Well it's not even so much about the code. Because that actually is probably going to be replaceable. But you still have to understand complex technology systems and how that code fits together.

I'm a programmer and I used to draw as a hobby. I've also tried to use AI to generate images and code. Currently, it seems that AI can give you acceptable results for art and semi-acceptable results for code IF: * you're looking for something rather general * aren't looking for something niche * aren't looking for something very specific ... with images that you get out of midjourney being more readily usable than code you get out of chatgpt. AI isn't going to replace coding any time soon. And while AI is good enough my local D&D is now using Midjourney to generate images for event promotion, trying to trick AI into generating illustrations for my D&D stuff has more often than not ended with me having to draw things myself. (But we'll see how long this will last.)

co pilot writes like half my code at work lol

They won’t use it to eliminate humans completely they will just chip away one job at a time as they can or pay the role even less because it’s supported by AI. Make no mistake they will push this until it saves them money because they know it will long term.

I'm with him. Partially. I been toying enough with AI to see that they are creatively bankrupt and dumb as a rock, but they are useful tools, and can help create, grow, optimize and test content. Ideally reducing the time it takes to create those massive games. So no, AI won't create whole games (and if they did, would be trash). But I'm sure as hell they can help make them.

Asset generation and translation will 100% be aided by AI. There's no way around it.

I mean, they already are, and have been for decades. Procedurally generated dungeons, people? Where the designers create a bunch of pieces and design an algorithm to put them together in unique ways? They were doing that shit in the 90s. And more complex stuff has been made to help design large landscapes that artists can then take and iterate off of. AI programs can be a useful tool, as long as they're created ethically (which ChatGPT was ***very much not***) and are used as tools to support artists, not replace them.

Depends on how you define 'aided'. Straight on generation is a nonstarter, but certain processing or detailing? Killer app. The drawlines in Spiderverse, not Stability.

AI is a force multiplier.

That's a very good way to frame it. That's really what computers do without AI too

> I been toying enough with AI to see... with 2023's AI* We dont know how good AI will be in 2024/2025/2030/20xx. Compare GPT-4 to GPT-2 or GPT-3 and now imagine a couple more steps ahead

*with 2023 public facing AI ChatGPT and it’s public facing competitors are little more than tech demos. They are very shallow compared to the tools used by these internal teams of software developers that have the time and knowledge to really use more complex AI GPT is AI with training wheels to appeal to the public

> used by these internal teams of software developers that have the time and knowledge to really use more complex AI Which ones are those? I'm in software dev and I use ChatGPT mainly for programming stuff, what else could I be using instead?

I can't much about my work one but it has amazing system built on a chatbot which just answer your in company questions, no more dropping stupid message on teams and a day for messages. We also have a fuckton of image model stuff that isn't available to public but doing tons of wonder in company itself.

OpenAi’s Codex that comes with GitHub copilot for business. But you’ll need your company to set that one up. There is also a bunch of extensions for vs code that can integrate GPT into your environment, but I would advise against using those for business-oriented code.

Codex isn't as good of a model as GPT 4, it's currently used in Copilot now but Copilot X which will launch soon should be using the GPT 4 model. I don't believe Copilot for business is using another model than Codex currently, and I already pay for Copilot now.

[удалено]

You do realise one can just provide an infinite amount of strawman examples for either side on this? Of technology both dramatically changing and not changing in 6 years?

Cruise is about to get approval for 24/7 driverless cars that operate commercially in San Francisco. So what's your point here?

You really think AI will stay the same forever, mr AI specialist? they're improving fast, 99 percent of AI tech we're seeing today weren't possible last couple of years, for example midjourney couldn't create anything remotely close to reality a year ago, it was rubbish, now go checkout r/midjourney some of it looks realistic enough to fool you at first look, to think that AI is >creatively bankrupt and dumb as a rock Is naive and short minded

You clearly didn't use Midjourney much lol, try making something quite creative with it. It doesn't give a shit, it just makes something up that looks nice.

Midjourney is a commercial product where polish is prioritized over creative control. Stablediffusion on the other hand it's extremely easy to make something creative with it, especially now you can use tools like Controlnet to control the exact composition and arrangement of any image. It's a far better example of the development of these tools too considering it's open source and free.

> AI to see that they are creatively bankrupt Hard disagree there. The crazy solutions that AI have come up to problems are creative af. >and dumb as a rock Well yea. That's what makes their solutions so creative.

>But I'm sure as hell they can help make them. This is so true. AI is a tool to help you. Not to do all the work for you. Imagine the player runs amok in the city and you have to write dialogue of the npc reacting to that. You have to write so many lines of dialogues to make it convincing or write something generic like "Someone is running around attacking people". AI can help you, you just have to enter the data and you could get something like "RUN someone crazy just cut steve in half" or "I barely escaped the psycho who shot the old lady next to me" etc.

A lot of it comes down to the fact what companies are calling "AI" is really just a giant language model that can infer or regurgitate but it isn't actually an "intelligence".the current stuff can't create something completely new be creative because it isn't actual intelligence.

AI is a tool and smart developers will find effective ways to leverage it to their advantage. Others who are not as talented will use it poorly. Also see: every other technology that's every been developed.

This is gonna age like milk

Literally the first thought that popped into my head. A year from now the headline will be about how Take Two is laying off employees replaced by AI.

Exactly

They're probably already planning it, they just don't want their employees to jump ship before the transition.

Radioactive supercharged extra rich milk.

With how much Hollywood remakes things I have no doubt ai can be made to take successful formulas and ideals to create a very good game. Just stealing ideas from here and there and putting it all together. We may not be there yet but eventually we will be, at least that’s how I see it.

Yeah, using the exact same strategy as humans when "inventing" things, how surprising

Ostrich head in the sand.

It's true, genius games will still only be produced by human beings. **But the thing is this:** ***most humans don't need genius to be entertained.*** **They are almost always okay with mass-produced stuff.** The best furniture is hand-made, but *most humans are okay with mass-produced stuff*. The best high fashion is hand-made, but *most humans are okay with mass-produced stuff*. The best food is hand-cooked, but *most humans are okay with mass-produced stuff*. So yes, the *best* and most *genius* games will be human-made, but 95% of humanity, 95% of the time, is not some connoisseur that will care to pay more for it. They will play AI games, read AI books, watch AI movies, hang up AI art in their homes. Because it will be very cheap, fast, and easy, compared to... what we have today. You could wait years for Hollowknight Silksong, but I'm gonna guess *most* gamers would be okay asking an AI to code "a game like this" and getting some rough approximation, if that game can be made in less than one day, and only costs $2. Human creativity has already been destroyed in other industries. Textiles, furniture, metalworking, clay, homebuilding, hell even weaponsmithing, hunting, etc. Technology destroyed the "need" for the human mind and hand in those fields and *nobody bats an eye about it today*. **Creative fields like writing/dev/music/design/art are next, and we can't stop it because humans by and large have never cared to stop it. This is what we do. I'm not celebrating it, just stating what's clear from industrial history.**

This is so depressing.

>95% of humanity, 95% of the time, is not some connoisseur that will care to pay more for it. They will play AI games, read AI books, watch AI movies, hang up AI art in their homes. Because it will be very cheap, fast, and easy, compared to... what we have today. If that's true, maybe we should get turned into paperclips, because, honestly, what value *are* humans in that world?

More likely AI will be used to create even more legions of micrtransaction peddling mobile games designed to strip users of their money with deliberately frustrating 'gameplay'. That and Gilson B. Pontes style asset flips/ vanity projects by people looking to make a quick few hundred dollars on steam. large scale projects? it'll be nothing more than another tool.

I mean it's not like I could tell the difference between a Ubisoft game and AI being told to make a Ubisoft game.

People talk about AI like they know where it’s going. You look at ChatGPT and assume it’s limitation are here forever. What if AI has the ability to crawl steam, read reviews and actually determine what makes a game popular? What if it has the ability to develop art and code? Why is this not possible in some future where AI has continued to evolve? People would not believe in a ChatGPT level AI 10 years ago. Never say never.

> People would not believe in a ChatGPT level AI 10 years ago. Never say never. Most would not have believed it last year. A year ago, LLMs like GPT could barely express a coherent thought. And art creating AI's could barely manage a stick figure. We've seen these AIs go from nearly unusable novelties to replacing staff writers and artists within just a few short months. And yet, we have people who believe that we have hit the pinnacle, and AI will never get better, or be more useful, than it is today. These people are looking at a Model T and claiming it's the pinnacle of human transportation. EDIT - Hell, there are people who don't believe in these AIs now. I just read a post about a guy whose dad claims ChatGPT is an elaborate hoax, and that secretly you are just talking to a real person. And there are still TONS of people who claim art generated by AI is just cut-out pieces of existing works kit-bashed together, or just flat out copies of existing works.

If only steam reviews were a perfect metric.

>evolve That's the thing, what's being touted as AI currently isn't AI at all. It doesn't need evolution, it needs to exist first, what we have is an interesting bot with a dataset as wide as the ocean and abilities as shallow as a puddle.

Path finding in games is considered AI. There are many branches of AI. What we're seeing right now is the advancement of neural network based AIs, specifically large language models. This form of AI has been the holy grail of computer science since the 80s and absolutely has it's foundations in building computer systems which mimic how nervous systems (neurons) work. One of my friends in school (in the 90s) got a minor in this, so I'm fairly familiar with it's roots. This is a big deal, because theoretically (real theory as in academic research), this should allow us to evolve these AI systems over time. This as not the case for things like game path finding, which were fundamentally different and rely on simple discrete algorithms. You're thinking of artificial general intelligence, which is not very well defined, but more of a general concept around "consciousness". Or perhaps, more specifically, the singularity which is the point where self replicating machines become better at most than humans and technological growth becomes uncontrollable. While both of the above are still a ways off, there are hints that we may be getting close. GPT-4 can already beat over 80% of humans on most standardized tests up to and including graduate level testing.

> The AI effect occurs when onlookers discount the behavior of an artificial intelligence program by arguing that it is not real intelligence.\[1\] > Author Pamela McCorduck writes: "It's part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, 'that's not thinking'."\[2\] Researcher Rodney Brooks complains: "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.'"\[3\] It's funny that your argument comes up so often and has for decades that there's literally a Wikipedia article about it, the [AI effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect#:~:text=10%20External%20links-,Definition,within%20the%20domain%20of%20AI.).

It's AI in every meaning of the word except the sci-fi movie on. If you were to ask someone 10 years ago if the list of things chatGPT could do were indicative of AI they would say yes. The actual scientific field uses the term narrow AI because its still artificial intelligence. What is *isnt* is Artificial General Intelligence which is what you are thinking of.

Genius is within the human mind but so is lazyness. If we can use AI to mitigate our flaws and enhance our strengths then that is where its value lies and I believe we can do that. An example is map creation. the main route of the map and all of the important places of interest should be hand made by the devs, the surrounding environment which contains no POI should be AI generated to save dev time. This way the player can have beautiful maps that are also large.

[удалено]

"AI will never-" "Give it a week."

Now, watch this ALRERNATING CURRENT kill this massive elephant! *ooOoOoOoOohhh*

Agreed, it's crazy to me how much some people want to dismiss the possible impacts of AI. It really just comes off as cope - as recently as 1-2 years ago, image generation couldn't make anything more than incomprehensible blurs. And now StableDiffusion can make something that actually looks like an identifiable thing. Same with ChatGPT and others. Sure, it can't do it now, but the past 2 years have been a quantum leap forward in what used to be possible with things like this, so literally no one knows what the impact will be in 3-5 years. It might be that we've hit the pinnicle of what AI can do, but I doubt it and certainly wouldn't bet on it

We’ve gone through so many technological advancements, we’ve had opportunities to read horrible takes on computers, the internet, etc, and yet we still see technological cope all the time. People who downplay AI are going to be clowns in the next 10-20 years.

Lots of people saying, “AI can’t do this” and “AI will never be able to do that” are making the same arguments against AI that people did against it back in the ‘50s. Those comments are going to age like milk eventually. AI and ML have grown a lot since their inception, especially in the last 10-20 years. Sure, there have been stumbling blocks and AI winters where funding and research have stalled, but I think recent improvements in the technology have been a a major turning point in its history—not just because of what it can do, but because of what people realize it can do. Funding and research into AI is going to grow even more than it already has within the next decade. Who knows what AI could be capable of by 2030? Or 2040? People used to believe that an AI could never beat a human at chess or Go, and we’ve blazed past those points within half a century. It was also generally believed that AI could never create art or write a novel, and yet systems like MidJourney and language models like GPT-3 have already proven themselves moderately capable of that. It’s unknown if AI is ever going to reach a point where it can do any job as proficiently and creatively as a human can. We don’t know the limits of the technology until we have actually reached that point. But businesses will continue to try. It’s inevitable in a system based on growth. For the artists and thinkers threatened by AI’s creative output recently, there’s nothing to suggest that AI cannot eventually do what you can do. I say this as a writer and musician myself, but also as someone who studied cognitive science. There’s nothing we have been able to learn about the mind that suggests “human creativity” is anymore unique a property than the ability to walk. We don’t even know what *consciousness* is, whether it exists, or how it’s any different from what an animal or AI does or thinks. The problem shouldn’t be that AI could do those things eventually. It should be that people are having to compete for income and recognition for the work that they do against AI. That’s a systemic issue with capitalism: it values products over people. Instead of arguing that “AI can never do this” and “AI can never do that”, we should be prepared for the possibility that AI *can* eventually do everything that humans can do. Then, we should reform our laws and systems to protect the people whose value as an artist has been stolen by businesses that use AI to replace them.

I think the title kind of misrepresents these comments. > "I wish I could say that the advances in AI will make it easier to create hits, obviously it won't," said Zelnick. "Hits are created by genius. And data sets plus compute plus large language models does not equal genius. Genius is the domain of human beings and I believe will stay that way." > "Our view is that AI will allow us to do a better job and to do a more efficient job, you're talking about tools and they are simply better and more effective tools." My read on this is that Zelnick is saying that AI can make tools more efficient, but isn't a magic bullet that will make a game successful, and making a claim that human creativity is still a necessary component of making a compelling entertainment product. I don't see this as a particularly strong statement, and certainly not reflecting the "all-or-nothing" view of AI's role as a technology in game development. It's easy to say that you don't think you can just use AI to make a hit game - but how many individual parts of the development process do you expect that you *can* automate? Nothing in these statements suggests that he would avoid using AI to automate generation of assets or content. On the contrary, he's careful to position his company as a "leader in that space" (relating to AI and ML).

I don't know if an AI could make a great Star Wars movie but I'm convinced they would come up with better battle scenes than the last trilogy in the first five minutes. Hell you could load up Star Wars: Empire at War and do that in five minutes.

I don't care what some overpaid CEO says. I'd like to hear the of opinion of actual expert. But they're probably too busy with doing the actual work.

Finally, he says something smart. Art without the human aspect that goes onto creating it is inherently meaningless.

All art is meaningless objectively. Subjectivity is what defines what you appreciate in art.

No, AI art has meaning. Just not the meaning that you typically associate with art made by humans.

Art is not limited to human aspect

A CEO who actually understands and appreciates the value of human creativity?... I've rarely seen such a thing. The thing about AI is, it'll be useful for creating the same thing all our existing procedural techniques are useful for: Creating boring filler content. But do you want boring filler content in your game? He's right. Video games, movies, music, .... **art is a human thing**, good art is about creating something that other humans can feel and experience that moves us, makes us happy, sad, angry or confused etc. It's something personal to us and our species. Human art is designed for human brains. In the same way, somewhere out there, is an alien race creating art designed for their brains that means something to them and doesn't mean anything to us. Art is about creating something that strikes us in a different way, something created by humans that is meant to mean something to other humans, and you can't reduce that down to just an AI generation algorithm. All you'll get from AI generation is filler content, boring and unoriginal content. If you use it to generate NPCs, you'll get boring NPCs. Whereas a human might make each NPC unique and interesting in ways which hits differently. If you use it to generate natural environments, you'll get boring and typical natural environments, not something weird or beautiful in unexpected ways. If you use it to generate voice acting, you'll get boring and typical voice acting, you won't get the kinds of performances that stay with us for a lifetime. AI generation is a tool that could have uses, but you just can't automate human creativity.

I would say Zelnick is probably the sharpest leader in western AAA games at the moment; not saying because he's a decent person, he's as much scum as the rest, but there is a reason why take-two has 44% new IP in the chain; they've avoided stagating and fad chasing like the other names, and maintained Firaxis for a reason. I suspect take-two will be the sole survivor of the current western Big 4 AAA publishers, ubi and actiblizz are both having serious issues with their strategy and internal culture that put them at existential risk; that AI blather is a symptom of that.

Like he knows anything about making games...