generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
What? You’re legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Again, a very… interesting take.
So take an example. You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game. So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
What? You’re legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
If you want a good and meaningful end product, yeah.
If you don’t care about the end product or it’s something that was going to be meaningless from the start, like corporate art, I guess it works.
So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
If you want your game to be a good game, you’ll have to invest something into the art, you don’t have to be a master artist to make a good game with good art.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
AI doesn’t make art accessible to people, it makes pretty images accessible.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art, and if you want to use it for any project you care about, you are making a mistake.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
What I’m capable of is completely irrelevant to what I care about, I want people to create cool and meaningful pieces of art, and AI generated images ruin that.
As I said before, you’re taking all of that expression and experience, blending it together, and what comes out has nothing in it, it’s completely empty of any thought or intent behind it.
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art, and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Off the top of my head I could name games like Undertale, that were created by people who were completely new to game dev.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is. But he didn’t, he got an artist to work with him to create the vision he wanted for the game.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art,
“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art,
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments? And just because you dont like something doesnt mean it should go away. Plenty of people dont like abstract art and think its not “real art” but those people are also gatekeeping assholes, just like you.
and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is.
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
There’s an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn’t made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It’s a threat because:
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
It’s just bad?
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
What?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate
What?
Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that “I feel so clean like a money machine.”
Mud chocolate bit
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
I’m just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don’t want to put in any effort into it.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
It’s not about how easy it is, it’s about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn’t matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It’s not about it being easy, it’s that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
This is what we would call cirular reasoning. So again. What gives you the authority to declare that this is the definition of art? My definition of art includes AI art. Why do you think your definition is more valid than mine?
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
But its usually a person that decides to create AI art right? Like I can go into photoshop and decide “I want to create a cyberpunk city scene” And using little more than the generative AI in photoshop I can turn the image I have in my head into an actual image other people can look at. There is objectively intent behind it as well as creative expression, just like any other piece of art.
What is the fundamental difference between that and If I had used other digital tools in photoshop to create the same image that means one is art and one isnt? They are both “created by a machine” So there is no natural line where we cross from being art to not being art.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Like you understand computers dont just spontaneously generate AI art right? They require actual input from people. It can be a lot of input from the people are it can be a couple of keywords but its still people.
And all those programs are still made by people, often with painstaking effort. So they are still people doing things.
and artistically worthless.
Another completely bullshit term. That means nothing besides whatever you need it to in order to justify your gatekeeping. If I think modern music is “artistically worthless” then that means its not art right?
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
Im only “”“misinterpreting”“” it because im applying your logic to situations you dont want me to, because it shows the inconsistencies in your argument.
I know you types dont have educations in this type of things, but if you want to make an actual argument that AI isnt art but digital art and modern music is, then your reasons need to be internally consistent and any arguments you make about AI need to not be applicable to digital art and modern music.
And so far you havnt done that. You’ve just made baseless assertions and emotional arguments. And this is why people dont take you “AI bad!!!” types seriously.
You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist. Full stop. You might not have drawing skills, you might not have 3d skills, you might not have musical skills, and you still can produce a great game, but that’s because the art in games is more than those things. They’re secondary to the experience same as set design is secondary in theatre, a great play will rivet an audience even if you stage it before a blank wall.
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game. It can generate some pixels for you, you still need to work it into a coherent whole that has the impact you’re looking for. It cannot write a play for you that you could stage before a blank wall.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game.
Okay so at this point it’s sounding like an issue of semantics - you’re clearly saying that artists can use AI to help their tasking.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
I’m not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can’t create art without AI, you won’t be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn’t make the message art if it wasn’t art in the first place.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
No. I’m saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn’t come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you’re employing it.
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models. So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me. I dont understand why you think this is a contradiction, other than you just gatekeeping for no reason.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible
Nope it’s like saying “you cannot be a gardener without knowing about plants”. Games are art. To produce them, you have to be an artist. If you produce games, you are an artist. You might be a brilliant or shoddy artist, formally educated, self-taught, conservative or avant-garde, but you are, by definition, an artist.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models.
If you understand game design then you should understand how it’s art.
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team, there’s one choice you should make before all others: Do you want to get into creating that other kind of stuff, or do you want to make the lack of those things a style? Maybe even an expression in itself. It’s going to be the one or the other, so make it consciously, and informed, ideally after having explored both sides a bit, learned enough to know what you don’t know, practised enough to see what you’d need to practice to get results you’d like.
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice. But be aware that without any experience in creating picture media yourself you have no artistic eye for them, and can’t judge the quality of the AI output, and probably be unaware of the artistic possibilities inherent in lightening, choice of colour schemes, etc. No you don’t need to be able to paint everything yourself, but there’s still a baseline of skills necessary to use AI in a capacity that’s more than prompting “big bazongaz plz”.
I don’t doubt that you can train that artistic eye while hitting generate over and over, as long as you’re critical enough, but spending some time with a youtube tutorial and actual pencil, crayon, and paper, or actual blender and virtual clay1, will teach you a lot more in a much shorter time-frame. You don’t actually have to master that stuff, but you do need to be able to see that you’re not mastering it so you can judge whether the AI got it right.
1 Highly reommended but please, for the love of your carpal tunnel, don’t try to sculpt with a mouse for longer than a day. Huion tablets are good and cheap. You don’t need a display tablet (nobody does but some prefer it).
Yes, actually, someone arbitrarily deciding what makes someone an artist is by definition gatekeeping.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it? Its just pixel art? Youre not making the point you think you’re making there.
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team…
This whole paragraph wasnt really relevant to the conversation so im just moving past it if thats okay?
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice.
This is a false dichotomy. Your options are not either put in the effort with traditional art or lazily throw any random AI generated images at your game. You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make. The latest background im making for my game, for example, has taken me well over an hour already and its not quite finished, but its still orders of magnitude faster and better than if I drew it myself
Which is the entire point of my comment. If I had to rely on my own artistic skill or have to pay money I dont have to get art made, then I simply would not have been able to make the game I want to make. Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make. Thats why im saying AI art is a good thing and makes art more accessible. I simply would not be making my game, expressing my creativity and enjoying myself if it wasnt for the ability to generate AI art pieces.
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following, by now there’s some extensions. It’s rendering to console, not with some 3d API, how would it even use those textures and models? It also doesn’t contain pixel art (past the intro screen) same as a street map is not line art.
Seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you’re anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer. Maybe you’re a hobbyist trying to write your first game, in that case be aware that your first ten are going to suck get them out of your system as quickly as possible, don’t settle. Move quickly and abandon things.
You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make.
Nothing I said contradicts that. That time and effort, to make it fit what you’re trying to make, is an artistic endeavour, all I did was give pointers on how to get better at that stuff.
Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make.
That’s not what I suggested. What I suggested was making a conscious, deliberate, informed, choice. Not saying “I want to make a science-based dragon MMO with photorealistic graphics” but “Here’s my options, here’s what I can do, here’s what I can learn in a reasonable amount of time, let’s see what option I like best”. Make a decision matrix if you have to.
expressing my creativity and enjoying myself
One thing art is not about is enjoyment. I mean it can come with the process but the opposite can be true as well.
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following
The only version ive seen is the steam version that actually has sprites
seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you’re anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer.
lmao, fuck off.
One thing art is not about is enjoyment.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Theres is 0 chance you actually believe that.
Literrally what the fuck is the point of any of your comments besides being a troll?
What? You’re legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
Again, a very… interesting take.
So take an example. You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game. So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
If you want a good and meaningful end product, yeah.
If you don’t care about the end product or it’s something that was going to be meaningless from the start, like corporate art, I guess it works.
If you want your game to be a good game, you’ll have to invest something into the art, you don’t have to be a master artist to make a good game with good art.
AI doesn’t make art accessible to people, it makes pretty images accessible.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art, and if you want to use it for any project you care about, you are making a mistake.
What I’m capable of is completely irrelevant to what I care about, I want people to create cool and meaningful pieces of art, and AI generated images ruin that.
As I said before, you’re taking all of that expression and experience, blending it together, and what comes out has nothing in it, it’s completely empty of any thought or intent behind it.
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art, and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Off the top of my head I could name games like Undertale, that were created by people who were completely new to game dev.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is. But he didn’t, he got an artist to work with him to create the vision he wanted for the game.
“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments? And just because you dont like something doesnt mean it should go away. Plenty of people dont like abstract art and think its not “real art” but those people are also gatekeeping assholes, just like you.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
There’s an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn’t made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It’s a threat because:
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
It’s just bad?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
Is bonsai an art? I’d say it is. In that case the difference between that and your example is humans providing artistic direction.
Does the same not happen with generative models? In the typical use case, humans provide artistic direction.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
What?
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
What?
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that “I feel so clean like a money machine.”
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
I’m just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don’t want to put in any effort into it.
It’s not about how easy it is, it’s about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn’t matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It’s not about it being easy, it’s that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
This is what we would call cirular reasoning. So again. What gives you the authority to declare that this is the definition of art? My definition of art includes AI art. Why do you think your definition is more valid than mine?
But its usually a person that decides to create AI art right? Like I can go into photoshop and decide “I want to create a cyberpunk city scene” And using little more than the generative AI in photoshop I can turn the image I have in my head into an actual image other people can look at. There is objectively intent behind it as well as creative expression, just like any other piece of art.
What is the fundamental difference between that and If I had used other digital tools in photoshop to create the same image that means one is art and one isnt? They are both “created by a machine” So there is no natural line where we cross from being art to not being art.
Like you understand computers dont just spontaneously generate AI art right? They require actual input from people. It can be a lot of input from the people are it can be a couple of keywords but its still people.
And all those programs are still made by people, often with painstaking effort. So they are still people doing things.
Another completely bullshit term. That means nothing besides whatever you need it to in order to justify your gatekeeping. If I think modern music is “artistically worthless” then that means its not art right?
Im only “”“misinterpreting”“” it because im applying your logic to situations you dont want me to, because it shows the inconsistencies in your argument.
I know you types dont have educations in this type of things, but if you want to make an actual argument that AI isnt art but digital art and modern music is, then your reasons need to be internally consistent and any arguments you make about AI need to not be applicable to digital art and modern music.
And so far you havnt done that. You’ve just made baseless assertions and emotional arguments. And this is why people dont take you “AI bad!!!” types seriously.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist. Full stop. You might not have drawing skills, you might not have 3d skills, you might not have musical skills, and you still can produce a great game, but that’s because the art in games is more than those things. They’re secondary to the experience same as set design is secondary in theatre, a great play will rivet an audience even if you stage it before a blank wall.
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game. It can generate some pixels for you, you still need to work it into a coherent whole that has the impact you’re looking for. It cannot write a play for you that you could stage before a blank wall.
Okay so at this point it’s sounding like an issue of semantics - you’re clearly saying that artists can use AI to help their tasking.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
I’m not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can’t create art without AI, you won’t be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn’t make the message art if it wasn’t art in the first place.
No. I’m saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn’t come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you’re employing it.
This is just gatekeeping nonsense
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models. So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me. I dont understand why you think this is a contradiction, other than you just gatekeeping for no reason.
And thus makes are more accessible.
Nope it’s like saying “you cannot be a gardener without knowing about plants”. Games are art. To produce them, you have to be an artist. If you produce games, you are an artist. You might be a brilliant or shoddy artist, formally educated, self-taught, conservative or avant-garde, but you are, by definition, an artist.
If you understand game design then you should understand how it’s art.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models in that one? It’s in the fucking MOMA!
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team, there’s one choice you should make before all others: Do you want to get into creating that other kind of stuff, or do you want to make the lack of those things a style? Maybe even an expression in itself. It’s going to be the one or the other, so make it consciously, and informed, ideally after having explored both sides a bit, learned enough to know what you don’t know, practised enough to see what you’d need to practice to get results you’d like.
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice. But be aware that without any experience in creating picture media yourself you have no artistic eye for them, and can’t judge the quality of the AI output, and probably be unaware of the artistic possibilities inherent in lightening, choice of colour schemes, etc. No you don’t need to be able to paint everything yourself, but there’s still a baseline of skills necessary to use AI in a capacity that’s more than prompting “big bazongaz plz”.
I don’t doubt that you can train that artistic eye while hitting generate over and over, as long as you’re critical enough, but spending some time with a youtube tutorial and actual pencil, crayon, and paper, or actual blender and virtual clay1, will teach you a lot more in a much shorter time-frame. You don’t actually have to master that stuff, but you do need to be able to see that you’re not mastering it so you can judge whether the AI got it right.
1 Highly reommended but please, for the love of your carpal tunnel, don’t try to sculpt with a mouse for longer than a day. Huion tablets are good and cheap. You don’t need a display tablet (nobody does but some prefer it).
Yes, actually, someone arbitrarily deciding what makes someone an artist is by definition gatekeeping.
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it? Its just pixel art? Youre not making the point you think you’re making there.
This whole paragraph wasnt really relevant to the conversation so im just moving past it if thats okay?
This is a false dichotomy. Your options are not either put in the effort with traditional art or lazily throw any random AI generated images at your game. You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make. The latest background im making for my game, for example, has taken me well over an hour already and its not quite finished, but its still orders of magnitude faster and better than if I drew it myself
Which is the entire point of my comment. If I had to rely on my own artistic skill or have to pay money I dont have to get art made, then I simply would not have been able to make the game I want to make. Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make. Thats why im saying AI art is a good thing and makes art more accessible. I simply would not be making my game, expressing my creativity and enjoying myself if it wasnt for the ability to generate AI art pieces.
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following, by now there’s some extensions. It’s rendering to console, not with some 3d API, how would it even use those textures and models? It also doesn’t contain pixel art (past the intro screen) same as a street map is not line art.
Seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you’re anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer. Maybe you’re a hobbyist trying to write your first game, in that case be aware that your first ten are going to suck get them out of your system as quickly as possible, don’t settle. Move quickly and abandon things.
Nothing I said contradicts that. That time and effort, to make it fit what you’re trying to make, is an artistic endeavour, all I did was give pointers on how to get better at that stuff.
That’s not what I suggested. What I suggested was making a conscious, deliberate, informed, choice. Not saying “I want to make a science-based dragon MMO with photorealistic graphics” but “Here’s my options, here’s what I can do, here’s what I can learn in a reasonable amount of time, let’s see what option I like best”. Make a decision matrix if you have to.
One thing art is not about is enjoyment. I mean it can come with the process but the opposite can be true as well.
The only version ive seen is the steam version that actually has sprites
lmao, fuck off.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Theres is 0 chance you actually believe that.
Literrally what the fuck is the point of any of your comments besides being a troll?