I understand the sentiment, but I feel like not using AI for game dev isn’t going to be economically viable much longer, and I wonder why companies don’t just embrace it while it still gives them an edge.
Many artworks (across mediums) have parts where the artist isn't directing their creative decision-making so much as reaching for the nearest stock asset / procgen tool, or googling "leather texture photoshop trick" instead of carefully studying the usage-appropriate types of leather and looking up authentic period nubuck references and hand-painting it to get it just right, etc. Some "art" assets really are utilitarian and fungible subunits in the context of the full artwork they're used in, just like the code one would LLM. And many games are sprawling works, with that much more room for such.
Going whole-hog on artistic intentionality for every little detail is just bikeshedding.
Strong evidence for this: the cottage industry of reusable gadgets in every creative field. Presets and sample packs in music[0], brushes and textures for illustration, models and rigs and so on for 3D. You could go on forever listing it.
[0] And library music for games, which I'm getting into making: <a href="https://clubhouse.kyefox.com/posts/2016-2026-162342979" rel="nofollow">https://clubhouse.kyefox.com/posts/2016-2026-162342979
retrac98 · · focus · HN ↗
cautiouscat · · focus · HN ↗
Games are art, and the people who make them are by and large: artists. Why would artists want to use generative AI?
blargey · · focus · HN ↗
Going whole-hog on artistic intentionality for every little detail is just bikeshedding.
Kye · · focus · HN ↗
[0] And library music for games, which I'm getting into making: <a href="https://clubhouse.kyefox.com/posts/2016-2026-162342979" rel="nofollow">https://clubhouse.kyefox.com/posts/2016-2026-162342979