"On Witchfire, we have one simple rule: if I want to create an idea, I create an image in AI and show it to the guys and say, 'hey I'm imagining an enemy that would be this style', but not a single pixel can be AI in Witchfire,"
So they do use AI. And this is exactly the same stance as Larian but they got shit on for it.
Wait if that's not what Larian's using AI for then what are they using it for? Aren't concept art made from AI references the same thing?
Edit - I hate that taking a hard stance against AI is not a (realistic) option anymore, it only took us half a year for goons to start defending AI, good job guys!
From what I read, it was more like... concept concept art. It was a concept they would create with AI that they could then base their actual concept art off of.
Yeah, people often literally used to take character designs from other games' concept art, gaming magazine pictures, and random people's designs found on the internet printed onto paper, cut them up, and glue them together to start as a base to draw a custom reference to work off of. It's essentially the same thing. They would "steal" other people's art, chop it up and make it something new. The final product didn't use any of the borrowed inspiration, but it was clearly heavily modeled after existing art. I don't really see the difference when using AI tools to generate references to inform the hand-done work to create something new an doesn't seem like the insane moral failure that some seem to imply.
That's kind of how all art works, really. Every piece of music, every film, and every painting is drawing from what came before and borrowing ideas. Now having AI actually create the final product is a different conversation to me, but we all have our personal lines in the sand I suppose.
Yes and no. One significant thing that happens when you use someone else's work directly as reference is that, well, you know you used their work as reference. It situates it within a particular artistic world, time, and place; you know what you're borrowing and from whom to create your reference material.
With AI, the act of "referencing" work is opaque. A concept artist will probably get something they can work from, but the lineage of creativity and style that led to the reference is now completely erased in the blender of AI. A middleman has effectively done the entire work of using references, except that the concept artist has no way to see what was involved.
We can argue about how much this erasure is meaningful, but it is a major and undeniable difference between traditional references and AI "references".
Pretty much every artist I know that takes commissions gets a bunch of references from clients that they randomly grabbed from pinterest or whatever else, loads of AI stuff thrown in there but nobody cares because none of it is making it in to the actual artpiece. Outrage makes absolutely no sense.
Yea I guess so. Guess I kind of misread what you said originally. And yes, sounds like the same thing here.
Honestly, a lot of it at this point feels kind of like virtue signaling. To get out ahead of potential controversy. While I think creating final artwork with AI is definitely a gray area at best, I have no real issues with a team prototyping an idea with it before spending time creating their own thing.
Because taking a hard stance is just dumb. There absolutely are good use cases for it. It’s no different than anything else in this world. Good game devs will use it correctly and bad ones will not. Simple as that.
To my mind, what this is replacing is the stick figures artists get from the person who has the idea. This just lets the idea guy verify that their intent is getting across. I currently feel like it's a responsible use of a very, very flawed technology.
I actually still have an ethical problem with how the current tools have been created, to be clear. Not to mention that the result is that the idea guy misses out on an opportunity to get better at drawing.
If there is no ethical problem with artists browsing and studying the work of others when they are leaning (and they continue to learn this way through their entire life, mind you), I don't see how a like process with AI must suddenly be problematic.
I actually still have an ethical problem with how the current tools have been created, to be clear.
What problems do you have with it's creation? My main issue is how it will be used, but even that isn't the same as everyone else's problem.
Like I don't care that AI will be used to replace workers. I care that it will be used to enrich the billionaires at the expense of the working class.
When you say creation, do you mean the development or the physical creation? As in how these facilities are being built in areas that can't handle them and are causing ecological and environmental problems and damage?
Cause I gots problems with that too. Or course, the PC hardware shortage that is being created because of this also blows chunks.
Training models on existing art is the only option though. It has to get its data from somewhere. There can be cultivated pools of data for it to use, but those have been questionable at best. Even those data sets have blatantly stolen content all throughout them. Given that info, the issues really arise when these models are used generate a finished product that is used for profit and that product is actually a direct rip-off of someone's work.
Also, training new ai models is what is using so much energy. Like a shit ton of energy consistently over a span of many months. It's the core of the problem. Not so much when someone is using it as a search engine. Generative stuff uses a little bit more than a search, but still not anything especially crazy.
For perspective, a single gpt4 query uses about the same energy as 5 google searches. On average, a single image created with generative AI uses about the energy of 10 google searches. Of course, these numbers go up with added complexity and size.
I don't say this to defend AI and its impact. Really just to share perspective and objective truths so people are fighting the right fights. Jumping on misinformation or sensationalized crap is not helping anyone.
It's how humans learn how to art. It's more primitive and obvious with AI because AI is more primitive than humans and it's a hot button topic that's being widely talked about. But everything is derivative of something else.
And plagiarism is a huge issue for human creators too. Just look at social media where 90% of content is just ripped off of someone else. And I'm not even talking about the zero effort reaction video garbage. Even when they go through the trouble of creating their own videos with their own acting, they're often just stealing someone else's jokes line for line.
It's less obvious in "traditional media" cause there's some measure of quality filter, but even so a lot of things are still just knock offs of something else. As much as I love sci-fi, the procedural dramas often just straight ripped off other stories and compacted them to fit their time slots.
Traditionally where people use placeholder images from like google/pinterest or make like a collage from existing random pieces for reference, they were using AI.
I use AI the same way - you block stuff out and make changes, then you go make it by hand with the reference, or even just the kinks worked out. The anti-AI squad need to prioritize the stuff that matters, people using AI as 'real' art, people using it to manipulate people, and companies profiting off of it messing with vulnerable people's psychology. If I can look up someone's photo of a cloud for cloud references, I can generate one and say "make the left side look fluffier" and it's still just a reference. And no, it doesn't "use" gallons of water to do it.
This isn't concept art. This is a director trying to explain his idea using AI that will then be taken by a concept artist and actually be concepted. In the past they'd use search results, napkin art, or flailing hands to get their idea across. Now they can augment with AI. Still, none of the actual art is using AI if you go with this method.
Concept art is going to be closer to the production process, whereas references are any bullcrap pulled from anywhere.
Most studios create a “reference bible,” which is just images chock full of official arts from other projects and random stuff found on the internet. The color story is of premiere importance here— but you get into proportions, fashion, world building, rendering directions vibes, etc.
Concept art is created from the reference bible in the cohesive style for the team. Depending on the pipeline, the concept art could even include 3/4 and front/profile/top views, but sometimes that’s considered a separate step.
So yea— using AI for reference bible is… kind scummy still, but it’s not a huge jump from different from scraping the internet for examples. I think AI should not be used directly for reference though, but as a way to get art direction some ideas for what sort of references they should put together.
If the person pitching the designs expects the art in that style and not a unique expression of art direction by the team, that’s really bad. Potentially worse than using AI art. Because now your entire art direction is basically AI that humans extrapolate on. The intentionality is totally lost.
Yea wait a second.... that's literally the same thing lmao. If you want the clout of saying you aren't using AI "at all" and going to "extreme lengths", then using AI, printing it and ref-ing off the image itself is still using AI lol. Just because you printed the piece then traced it or referenced the image and free handed it doesn't mean the AI didn't create the thing and influence your process....
Maybe 10% (or less) of people seeing the title will see these comments though. It will have the desired pr effect.
The public, including reddit, has shown an inability (at least right now, today) to handle "the ai use in development" topic with aannyy maturity or reason, so i am not at all surprised that companies are using tactics to manipulate public information about how they operate. Until people can stop behaving so volatile & knee-jerk around the topic, these companies have zero valid reason to be open & forthcoming.
Carefully crafted perception pieces are the only real option for game studios right now, because even the ones on "the right side of the line" with AI usage are getting unfairly blasted.
A lot of people rightfully have concerns about AI usage in general. But yes, there are a lot of "hype train" types that just latch onto an issue that may affect them in future without understanding any of the nuances of the arguments made even by the people they are supporting/agreeing with. They just resort to blanket statements of "this thing good, this other thing bad"... with alarming ease. But I guess that's not entirely new and to some extent I understand it.
There is an argument to be made that AI in the long run could have deleterious effects on creativity of people in general, but I don't actually think AI alone is the source of that problem. If anything it's a time saver or inspiration tool, or at least it could be... I think the actual issue we're having with people thinking less carefully, less intently, and less creatively is more a function of how our socio-economic system works on people and the incentives it presses than a function of AI itself. AI only makes it worse because of the economic position it holds in our current-day cultures.
In some alternate culture, if people had more free time to work on their own things (or whatever they wanted to do), less socio-economic pressures, were allowed to fail many times without it almost certainly leading to homelessness/starvation or without being mocked into the ground, and if lots of use-cases of AI weren't just becoming job replacement tools (this again, due to the way our economic system works) then most of this would be a complete non-issue. Wouldn't see a lick of controversy, period.
The "not allowing failure" point, especially, I think is important (alongside the socio-economic order we're under which makes it far far worse). We really do have a culture that just fucking hates failure and punishes it VERY heavily, particularly if you're above a certain age. Which is actually itself, ironically, a massive failure of our current cultures... because people don't often stop learning (or shouldn't) at "adulthood". And they only get better at something if they can fail at it a LOT. Many things have elements of trial and error, it's just how our brains work for most things. It's how we're wired, and have been for a long time due to evolutionary processes and just... well not knowing how things work until we've had a chance to see multiple configurations/opportunities. We have relational capacities that can shorten that process, but failure is a given. And our culture just doesn't tolerate it, almost at all in most contexts. And that makes these kinds of things (like AI) more dangerous to most. So it's a sticky issue that I'm not sure will ever get better, lest our conditions change.
Maybe 10% (or less) of people seeing the title will see these comments though. It will have the desired pr effect.
Yea, tbh judging from the comments people didn't even bother reading the top comment pointing this out lol.
There's some nuance to be had for what "using AI in development" is that is going to need an actual term to define what people do and don't like about this stuff. I'm very clearly extremely anti-ai, and my line is basically any use of generative ai images in the final product. Using it for concept art is dubious, because I think the overall product is going to suffer from how... generic AI concepts are, but people can barely find decent ref images these days without being flooded with a mix of slop and real images so trying to draw a line there is going to always friendly-fire devs just trying to find decent ref images.
However I also think there's definitely a strong preference by people for stuff to be made by "Real humans", and that devs and creators should be encouraged to do that vs the "easy route". I don't think there's an "AI FREE" version of the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" lol, but there's definitely going to be respect for devs that go out of their way to try to engage with that type of stuff as little as possible.
They are probably not tracing it. To my knowledge, most skilled artists in that job field are able to create at a level where tracing would detract from their work. My source is that I have close friends who have done a ton of concept art for high-profile video game and multimedia companies. AI would moreso be for assistance with lighting or perspective. You can also put your own image into it and ask it to give feedback. I mean.. Using a google search to find reference images could also be "using AI". Taking a picture of something with your iphone is ai-enhanced. It's not really possible to avoid using AI.
This is not me excusing or supporting when they decide to use generative AI for their final product like COD or something. I think that's super wack and very scummy.
Oh for sure they aren't tracing it, that was just a general comment on lower quality artists. Tracing is... generally not actually useful once you know how to draw, you can do the same pose/outfit etc based on a ref just freehanding faster.
I'd say though also actual, skilled artists don't need "Ai assistance" for lighting or perspective either, since the AI stuff typically doesn't actually understand lighting or perspective very well. Generally artists are just going to have a massive folder of ref images they've saved over years and years and just use that.
Google Images though is a mess. If you know what you are doing you can generally avoid AI stuff if you want to make sure you are only refing on human made products and ideas, but less experienced artists are going to have to rely on well curated lists if they want to avoid it.
The COD stuff though... thats just Activision being lazy and pushing for the fastest cosmetics they can shove down their customers throat, and isn't surprising coming from them.
Yeah I have only used it for lighting assistance literally one time when I was just dumbfounded by a weird angle in a drawing. I am not as skilled as many professionals though, and my art is all for myself or local commissions. I have asked it to create a reference for me before and it was no better than pinterest for my use-case, but I can certainly see how it could be useful for others. Even if just for brainstorming.
When I mentioned google I was referring to the search engine itself heavily leveraging AI. But yeah it also will have a ton of crap to slog through lol.
Yea I'd never give a hobbyist/learner shit for trying to use the stuff, but I'd encourage them to understand the massive limitations, and frankly damaging (at this time) effect it can have on your understanding of perspective and lighting. The AI models... just don't understand that stuff, and honestly probably never will, because the sources they are pulling from then averaging out the values have their own problems that it's always going to spit out weird results.
Sourcing real references (especially ones you can pay for from models) is going to be your best bet for learning that stuff, but the good ones do cost money so there's that to consider.
You're 100% right. It pretty much just very niche use cases. Just a tool to add to the kit. Many people can't understand nuance in topics like this. I can see that you have firsthand experience on the matter and you have provided some very sound information. Thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgeable responses. It's not common on here lol
Ya if the title was that they go to extreme lengths to keep AI out of the final product that one thing, but they obviously do not avoid AI usage. Like at all.
The best thing studios can do is keep their mouth shut
Has been most evident with the often misquoted "get comfortable to not own your games" from Ubisoft. Sub-minimum wage blogs are good at taking stuff completely out of context, and a rephrased repost on Reddit then does the rest.
AI is incredible for visualizing draft ideas down so you can quickly iterate to see what’s good and what’s bad. It’s the same for programming, it is very good at getting you started on a new module
It’s crazy to me this is even a discussion on how people iterate on THEIR vision. If it’s not in the final game then why does it matter
because their is a hardened core of screaming anti-AI zealots who think anyone who has so much as touched an AI system should be burned at the stake. They are not willing to tolerate an alternative view or acknowledge middle ground exists.
This is like reading the "Google ai summary" at the top of your Google searches and then being accused of "using AI". Literally everyone does it, game devs or not.
If a video game is improved or unharmed by AI, and the devs are putting in real effort developing, who gives a crap about their use of AI then?
I work at a large company (different industry) and everyone is literally encouraged to use copilot AI where they can. If your job relies on computers, then youre probably using AI (or being told to) as well, so people need to either target all industries, or to stfu with the witch hunt against game developers. Targeting game devs ignores the wider AI usage by people in other industries (where you dont know how they are using it) and is basically just virtue signaling.
Functions in drawing programs are considered "AI" as well, like Pen stabilization, but no one wants to hear that.
The paranoia though is ridiculous though. All you have to say is "AI", regardless of any context, and people will freak out about it. People want to be hysterical and have outrages. Chunks of AI can be ran on anyone's local PC, and takes up the same power as playing an online game.
On the flip side, you have some major companies (like Nvidia) not aiding this in the slightest and just abusing any resources they can, so a chunk of social media with virtue signaling has just taken to forms of scorched earth mode. Yet it's just making everything even worse, and just adds to it.
Functions in drawing programs are considered "AI" as well, like Pen stabilization, but no one wants to hear that
No one wants to hear that because that's not true. Those functions have existed for 20+ years. They're not "AI." They're not considered AI. Finding the averages of your previous mouse positions isn't AI. Even content-aware-fill isn't AI.
You have a point about the AI witch-hunting being overblown, and it's actually hurting artists who don't use AI. However, it's just not true that drawing program functions helping artists to draw are the same as ChatGPT, DallE, Midjourney, etc.
Because ai hate is popular right now, ai aint going anywhere quite the opposite its going to be used more and more and already is used even a google search you are using and getting used by ai.
Sandfall also had rewards stripped from them for the same use of AI, all because onw placeholder made it into the release.
It was replaced almost immediately with the correct non-ai texture, but it was enough. People just want to be able to justify their hate for a popular thing.
2) All art is derivative. I went to a good art school and have a design degree. Worked in the field for several years after before becoming a software engineer. Mood boards literally involve clipping out images and making a collage. The literal first step in the design process is finding art styles you're inspired by for the project.
lol exactly dude. People are getting way too riled up about this. It’s a tool lol. Just because I’m using a hammer doesn’t mean I’m building a house out of hammers
this guy has been in the news recently for some other takes, kinda feels like they're just trying to drum up a bit more interest in Witchfire.. cheaper than running ads i suppose
Most likely. But I will say, Witchfire is actually a very good game. It has a fantastic art style, fun gameplay loop, and I'm really looking forward to going deeper with it once 1.0 releases.
Same here been keeping up with this game looks super fun im personally just waiting for 1.0 since I mostly avoid early access games just incase the dev doesn't finish it. Only exception i made for that was Palworld.
I bought it during this current Steam sale but haven't had a chance to sit down and play it yet. I love FPS games and dark fantasy type stuff. The art style was a huge factor in me deciding to buy the game. Hope to get a chance to play it tonight when I get home.
My friend was streaming it on Discord and I fell in love with the art style, so I grabbed it in the sale. So far I've only put about 6 hours into it, but at this point it's so close to release that I'm just going to wait to fully enjoy it, because I can tell it's a game I'm going to sink some serious hours into.
Im confused by this take. I get it, I just dont understand why we focus on why someone says something. People say shit on Twitter all the time and we dont question their motive but when someone who dislikes AI contributes to the conversation about AI a fact about their game, its automatically "just" advertising or virtue signaling? Isnhe not allowed to talk about his game ever for fear that he might come off as someone who wants to sell something rather than someone who believed a thing, made a thing with stringent respect to that belief, and is proud of it? Or maybe thats just the price you pay for being the creator of a thing; you arent allowed to contribute to how culture builds around it.
This is what fascinates me.about the games industry. I consider it to be the perfect combination of art and business and it creates a lot of crazy discourse.
People say shit on Twitter all the time and we dont question their motive
You on some sorta special for kids twitter thats super locked down? Literally the entire platform is a dumpster fire of questioning everyone's motives. Thats basically all that happens on social media. YOU are even doing that in your response to OP right here.
but when someone who dislikes AI contributes to the conversation about AI a fact about their game, its automatically "just" advertising or virtue signaling?
This isn't some special anti ai focused thing. Of course the dude is using it to promote. It's business. They are doing business. It's his job lol.
It is pretty obvious a virtue signaling and an attempt to gain some publicity on the wave of anti-AI hype. The uncomfortable and pretty much unspoken truth of the industry is that close to 100% of games are developed with the help of AI tools. Even when they aren't used overtly for visual assets, artists use them individually, they are built in poetry much into every game development tool and majority of game code is either written with the assistance of generative AI or outright generated - my estimate is that roughly half of the code is generated by AI. Maybe some 1-2 people team projects are avoiding AI for game code for ideological reasons, but pretty much everyone else in the industry uses them. Saying this is as game dev veteran that currently works in the game adjacent field.
So yes, "we don't use AI" is a virtue signaling that is most likely not even true unless they put a bunch of asterisks like "for final visual assets" "as far as we know" "*excluding game code".
I'm sorry but questioning people's motives is literally the only thing people focus on in places like twitter and reddit nowadays. Hell half the time people can say something that the reddit hive mind agree's with, but because they aren't on the same "side" people question their motives behind that opinion and use it to discredit them entirely.
It's not that confusing. No one believes it's genuine, because he said they use AI the same way larian does. Clearly not trying that hard to not use AI.
I only buy games where every pixel is placed by hand using an Etch A Sketch, and every line of code is typed on a vintage 1938 Remington Noiseless before being converted to punch cards.
When you do an interview with a journalist, you really have zero control over what the editor decides to title the article.
The interviewee explicitly said no pixel of AI ends up in the final product, but the editor or writer decided to put words in his mouth in order to get more clicks by giving it this title.
I work in AAA in animation, AI isn't near being ready to be used in my field, fortunately, but there will come a day where my work will be criticized and attacked if it even remotely resembles whatever AI animation will end up looking like.
Heck, I know my work is being used to train future animation AI models, it's bizarre to think one day someone will probably shit on all my work and accuse me (or my peers) for using AI because "it looks like it"...
Most AI bashing just feels like virtue signaling. Suddenly everyone’s clutching pearls like “oh the humanity!” as if art was ever created in a vacuum without tools, references, or influence.
Except it isn’t… since there’s no clear laws and regulations attributing work made with ai, it’s a minefield of ownership and control. Imagine making an entire game, then finding out that you’re using stolen ip, and boom, cease-desist, games gone. Millions of dollars down the drain because you stole work you didn’t realize you stole.
It is but I can also see the devs position.
Even someone falsely accusing a game dev of using generative AI can result in a tidal wave of hatemail and death threats. Some of the people opposed to AI are completely unhinged.
The reality is that AI tools in some capacity have been a part of game development for at least a couple decades now, and this newest generation of LLM and diffusion based tools is an evolution of that. Like any tools, there are good and bad ways of using them- and I think that's the conversation we should be having. There is a vast swatch of middle ground between the insane AI tech bros, and the equally insane Hardcore anti-AI folks who think any use of ai is a violation of intergalactic law. We should start mapping it out.
I think the vast majority of the "anti AI" crowd is just general people that don't know absolutely anything about software development, but yet are very opinionated on how developers do things. Like, why are people that know absolutely nothing about development telling software engineers what they can or can't do? It makes no sense.
yet you participate etc. such a nonsense statement. people can survive just fine without video games, while maintaining a normal life without technology in general would be impossible for most.
Good luck budy. Generative AI in Art in gaming is just a tiny fraction of AI usage. people are shitting on gaming companies, trying to cancel them, but are not going against openAI, Microsoft, Alphabet, Adobe, etc. who put AI in every single product. It will only get worse.
I mean people with no idea what they are talking about yelling nonsensical but well meaning demands at people who are well informed is probably 70% of all human communication by volume at this point.
If argue this is the exact level we need to seem more of so the bubble pops sooner than later. If everyone thinks “AI bad” instead of “AI good,” companies will swear against it, and maybe things will get better as a whole.
Right? This is so over the top and it's also completely unrealistic that they can oversee every single line of code that their software developers are writing, and developers are most definitely using AI tools one way or another.
It just reads like they're pandering hard to the anti-AI crowd to get their cheap applause.
Do you have a philosophical objection to electronic / synth music because it lacks the warmth of the overtone series & the musicians who make it haven’t put in the work to learn all the acoustic instruments it mimics? Do you think that artists are copy machines who, if they merely view a genAI image, will have their artistic sensibility fundamentally corrupted? Do you think the artists who made all the other (non genAI) images that devs pull from the internet and copy / paste onto the mood board should be paid & credited? The studio did click save as without permission.
It's like people have just discovered that references have been used in every form of media since, well, forever. Now those references are made by AI in seconds, it's a very useful tool in early development. The only issue people should have with AI is if it's replacing hand made assets, or costing people jobs, which it's not when used like this.
People are showing a rare sign of still having a bit of humanity left and are taking an ethical stance. Much better than shrugging and going "i dislike ai but big business keeps pushing it so what can i do."
Yeah, I agree. I highly doubt they are using Photshop or Illustrator as a glorified Paint. I would put money on it that in 6 months we find out this company is using AI more than any other game developer.
It seems people will start associating a lack of A.I. with quality.
Recently I started seeing the difference in advertising. Luxury products typically have less aggressive and irritating adverts, but now they also dont use a.i. whilst I see gambling apps using a.i. to advertise and cheap products like softdrinks using a.i.
From a publicity standpoint it really might translate to higher sales given how hated generative a.i. and LLMs seem to be among people who arent invested in the proliferation of those two technologies.
Its really important for both journalists and interview subjects to emphasize that they are talking about LLMs and GenAI, not various types of machine learning which has been in use for years and helps the development process.
Journalists don't give a damn about integrity anymore, it's ALL AI, oh you used interpolation? AI. Oh you used machine learning to approximate a statistic? AI. Oh you generated a video of your coworker nude ? AI. The buzzword is what's important, not the concept.
In a roundabout, funny, ironic way, you both made an interesting point why this is over blown and shouldn't be that big of a cause for concern, and in the same thread, back and forth but in a different comment, then basically showed exactly why AI usage and tools should be worrisome and feared (while also coming across as a complete creepy perverted weirdo) lmao
I mean, honestly and truly, bravo for being a great example that you perfectly represented both sides, ya fkn perv.
€: seeing promises of bikini pics, have yet to see any. Guess your AI is powered by a hamster
Meh it's not really saying much. They still admit to using AI for the ideas process, they're just saying that nothing AI generated goes into the final product. And the thing about Photoshop kinda just sounds like bullshit to capitalize on the current AI paranoia, surely they're not policing all their employees so hard that they'd actually know if they're using certain Photoshop tools or not.
It’s truly become a religion. It’s like the Red Scare for robots. Everyone’s gotta go out of their way to show how much more devoted and pious they are than the next guy. Excited to see how ashamed of us future generations will be.
They go through every length except actually avoiding using it.
Idk what they are trying to accomplish with these interviews but I just added them to Hidden on my Steam preferences. Never even heard of them until this nonsense.
Frankly, that's dumb. Photoshop has had built-in AI tools for over a decade and it saves graphic designers hundreds of hours and improves their product. I will never once be sad that the graphic designers I work with can be more efficient or have a good work/life balance.
I don't have a ton of respect for this insane anti-AI witch hunt so many people seem to be engaging in.
Edit: Some "pro artist" just messaged me and told me that nothing I wrote is true. Apparently this professional has never heard of things like content-aware fill, which was created via computer vision (aka machine learning, aka AI) in 2010. They've used similar machine learning models to create a dozen other tools over the years, finally coming out with Generative AI tools in 2023.
People who don't know the difference between Generative AI and non-Generative AI have no business starting an argument about AI. People who have never heard of something like content-aware fill have no business pretending to be a professional in the field.
For the record, I've hired and worked with graphic designers and other media producers for over a decade. Not a single one of them has avoided using the intelligent features in Adobe products. Because that would be dumb.
Hi I'm a pro artist with many contacts and friends in the industry. What you just said is completely not true.
Generative AI is a new technology. Just because something else was also inaccurately called "AI" decades ago doesn't make it the same tech.
Artists hate it. It's an inaccurate plagiarism machine that doesn't help productivity. But execs keep forcing them to use it, despite the lack of productivity gains.
Not only is this technology based on stolen data and images, it's bad for the environment, and is responsible for the mistreatment of workers in poor countries who have to see IRL gore and child abuse images to train them out of the machine.
It's utterly irresponsible and deceptive to handwave criticism of these AI companies and their products as a "witch hunt".
I did a short presentation recently about AI and one of my points was is something was AI made If you use photoshops new content aware fill, or magic brush, or ai color balancer.
I dont think so personally, but I didn't expect it to be relevant so soon.
Lol why? Because they don't want to upset so Internet idiots? Are those idiots going to blow them for the hours they didn't save using AI? For the additional stress and overwork they had to pull in?
Virtue signaling around AIs, who didn't see that coming?
Only Sith deal in absolutes. When it makes sense to use AI, use it. If your AI slop can pass for a decent game, good for you. Let the result speak for itself.
Too bad he admits to using AI in the actual article
"There's a couple of things I can say. The first is that anyone who believes you can make a good game using AI is absolutely dead wrong. There's absolutely no way. I'm using AI for visualisation, correcting my English, and I'm using the highest tiers of all the AI I bought. We don't have to worry too much right now.
On Witchfire, we have one simple rule: if I want to create an idea, I create an image in AI and show it to the guys and say, 'hey I'm imagining an enemy that would be this style', but not a single pixel can be AI in Witchfire,"
So they're definitely using AI. It's apparently a key part of their workflow.
Except they do engage with it to generate concept art.
So it's not really a principled decision unless they're saying the concept art does not contribute to the final product (in which case why are they creating it in the first place?)
All of these companies are just weathering the early storm of online rage for a while. They'll go all in on this stuff once it becomes more generally accepted.
AI is basically Horse Armor right now in games. We know how that turned out.
I would be happy working for this company as an artist, though I would prefer to not use AI for reference either.
AI is not a living thing that can experience and feel the world around it. That is why I like using human made art for reference along with real photographs and video. Sometimes I will go out and take my own reference photos or build my own 3D model reference.
I also like using human made art because its just inspiring to look at. It gives me motivation. I dont feel anything looking at AI generation.
like anyone would admit if if they did now after what happen with Larian and Sandfall people went on a witch hunt after they found out even though Sandfall’s case had been known for months
I suspect more and more companies will never say if they did or didn’t use AI
Its wild how everyone's so afraid of a tool. I get that right now its being wielded willy nilly, but once this dies out people will realize AI is a powerful tool that can bolster creativity in the right hands.
We’re going to reach the point where the pendulum of the anti AI hysteria swings so hard in one direction that it’s actually going to end up having the opposite effect and create support/further integration of AI as people get tired of all the fear mongering and Puritanism around it.
There’s definitely concerns to be had with AI, but it’s shockingly clear that a lot of people doing the virtue signaling and fear mongering around AI don’t actually even understand what AI is or how it works and how people typically actually use it in the real world.
By the way, AI is a LOT more than just LLMs and generative AI.
Look we all need to crowd-source a standard set of opinions on what is and is not acceptible in 2026, then we can all download that opinion package and everyone will be safe.
I don’t care if they use AI. If it looks cool and fits the aesthetic then who cares. If you can make a fun game that runs well and is a good price, have at it.
Now, I'm not being a hardcore proponent of large AI business practices. Of course the hardware prices and the complete vibe coders are all concerns, and no one is happy about those.
But I'm specifically talking about AI as an actual assistant that you incorporate into your workflow, and you need to embrace it. You have to.
Because if you don't, you're going to get left behind.
I see a lot of Redditor purists completely rejecting the use of anything AI.
If that's you, you are basically the equivalent of someone from 30 years ago who refuses to use the internet and insists using an almanac is the "superior human way".
It's not even about being left behind. Our economy is so all in on AI that it must be successful or we all suffer. Its basically "use it or welcome to a recession/depression".
They'll never have enough of a return to pay for everything they've lost. It's already over. The companies are shambling zombies, pretending they have a future.
This AI witch hunt is growing extremely old, extremely fast.
Now I just want a large/popular studio or some indie darling to come out and be like "Yeah, we use AI, fuck you. Don't buy our games if you don't like it."
Don't get why this subreddit seems to love generative AI so much all of a sudden, the way most comments are written here you'd swear people are actually hoping AAA games do switch to using gen AI for everything in their art.
Most AAA games were seen as corporate slop before ChatGPT even launched. I don't think anyone is "hoping" people use AI, more that they simply do not care. Why should people care if FC27 uses AI? Why should I care if a studio uses AI for concept art?
In order for people to care about degradation, they'd need to have existing high expectations. If Studio Ghibli started using AI, people would care. Nobody is expecting a deep level of artistic merit from the next game EA cooks up.
AI is a boon software development in all facets. I get the point of people disliking AI generated art but to deny any usage at all for development purposes is extremely stupid. Hating a buzzword you don't understand for the sake of it. Cringe.
I'm so sick of this virtue signalling over AI to appease the hysterical crybabies online. Use it or don't, I couldn't give a shit as long as your game is good at the end.
This is getting ridiculous now. So, are programmers allowed to use AI then? Shit, why even have AI in game? I've said this multiple times, people get angry at AI and rightfully so in most cases, but this level of paranoia is just detracting from actual productivity and real world usage where it would be beneficial to use AI. Larian and Sandfall got shit for nothing. Sandfall had a bit more of a slip up, but people need to get comfortable that most people can and will use AI, mostly to just generate a view of real ideas and AI can be helpful in many cases to get that idea solidified, to get rough ideas sketched out.
But the way we are going about it now, its only going to make developers retract more and more, until we play this cat and mouse game trying to decipher if and where AI was used rather than a transparent conversation.
Most artists and designers I know use Photoshop tools extensively and this level of witch hunting is only going to negate productivity. And programmers use LLMs all the time, not to write optimized production level code, but just to get a starter boiler plate whenever and wherever necessary.
So they do use AI. And this is exactly the same stance as Larian but they got shit on for it.
Larian even specifically said they won't create concept art with AI, this sounds like it could very well be concept art generation too.
Wait if that's not what Larian's using AI for then what are they using it for? Aren't concept art made from AI references the same thing?
Edit - I hate that taking a hard stance against AI is not a (realistic) option anymore, it only took us half a year for goons to start defending AI, good job guys!
From what I read, it was more like... concept concept art. It was a concept they would create with AI that they could then base their actual concept art off of.
yeah, so 'references' right? Isn't that's what being done with this game?
References are used in every media field in existence. This is why the public outcry was weird.
Yeah, people often literally used to take character designs from other games' concept art, gaming magazine pictures, and random people's designs found on the internet printed onto paper, cut them up, and glue them together to start as a base to draw a custom reference to work off of. It's essentially the same thing. They would "steal" other people's art, chop it up and make it something new. The final product didn't use any of the borrowed inspiration, but it was clearly heavily modeled after existing art. I don't really see the difference when using AI tools to generate references to inform the hand-done work to create something new an doesn't seem like the insane moral failure that some seem to imply.
That's kind of how all art works, really. Every piece of music, every film, and every painting is drawing from what came before and borrowing ideas. Now having AI actually create the final product is a different conversation to me, but we all have our personal lines in the sand I suppose.
Yes and no. One significant thing that happens when you use someone else's work directly as reference is that, well, you know you used their work as reference. It situates it within a particular artistic world, time, and place; you know what you're borrowing and from whom to create your reference material.
With AI, the act of "referencing" work is opaque. A concept artist will probably get something they can work from, but the lineage of creativity and style that led to the reference is now completely erased in the blender of AI. A middleman has effectively done the entire work of using references, except that the concept artist has no way to see what was involved.
We can argue about how much this erasure is meaningful, but it is a major and undeniable difference between traditional references and AI "references".
Pretty much every artist I know that takes commissions gets a bunch of references from clients that they randomly grabbed from pinterest or whatever else, loads of AI stuff thrown in there but nobody cares because none of it is making it in to the actual artpiece. Outrage makes absolutely no sense.
Yea I guess so. Guess I kind of misread what you said originally. And yes, sounds like the same thing here.
Honestly, a lot of it at this point feels kind of like virtue signaling. To get out ahead of potential controversy. While I think creating final artwork with AI is definitely a gray area at best, I have no real issues with a team prototyping an idea with it before spending time creating their own thing.
Because taking a hard stance is just dumb. There absolutely are good use cases for it. It’s no different than anything else in this world. Good game devs will use it correctly and bad ones will not. Simple as that.
No, no, you don't understand, anyone who disagrees is a goon and a shill!
To my mind, what this is replacing is the stick figures artists get from the person who has the idea. This just lets the idea guy verify that their intent is getting across. I currently feel like it's a responsible use of a very, very flawed technology.
I actually still have an ethical problem with how the current tools have been created, to be clear. Not to mention that the result is that the idea guy misses out on an opportunity to get better at drawing.
If there is no ethical problem with artists browsing and studying the work of others when they are leaning (and they continue to learn this way through their entire life, mind you), I don't see how a like process with AI must suddenly be problematic.
because a copany who paid zero royalties to anyone and just stole the artwork is making money off of it.
you're aware they're going to be doing the same and photobashing other people's work before concept art stage anyway yeah?
What problems do you have with it's creation? My main issue is how it will be used, but even that isn't the same as everyone else's problem.
Like I don't care that AI will be used to replace workers. I care that it will be used to enrich the billionaires at the expense of the working class.
When you say creation, do you mean the development or the physical creation? As in how these facilities are being built in areas that can't handle them and are causing ecological and environmental problems and damage?
Cause I gots problems with that too. Or course, the PC hardware shortage that is being created because of this also blows chunks.
No they mean training models on existing art
Piggybacking on your comment here.
Training models on existing art is the only option though. It has to get its data from somewhere. There can be cultivated pools of data for it to use, but those have been questionable at best. Even those data sets have blatantly stolen content all throughout them. Given that info, the issues really arise when these models are used generate a finished product that is used for profit and that product is actually a direct rip-off of someone's work.
Also, training new ai models is what is using so much energy. Like a shit ton of energy consistently over a span of many months. It's the core of the problem. Not so much when someone is using it as a search engine. Generative stuff uses a little bit more than a search, but still not anything especially crazy.
For perspective, a single gpt4 query uses about the same energy as 5 google searches. On average, a single image created with generative AI uses about the energy of 10 google searches. Of course, these numbers go up with added complexity and size.
I don't say this to defend AI and its impact. Really just to share perspective and objective truths so people are fighting the right fights. Jumping on misinformation or sensationalized crap is not helping anyone.
It's how humans learn how to art. It's more primitive and obvious with AI because AI is more primitive than humans and it's a hot button topic that's being widely talked about. But everything is derivative of something else.
And plagiarism is a huge issue for human creators too. Just look at social media where 90% of content is just ripped off of someone else. And I'm not even talking about the zero effort reaction video garbage. Even when they go through the trouble of creating their own videos with their own acting, they're often just stealing someone else's jokes line for line.
It's less obvious in "traditional media" cause there's some measure of quality filter, but even so a lot of things are still just knock offs of something else. As much as I love sci-fi, the procedural dramas often just straight ripped off other stories and compacted them to fit their time slots.
Basically they were using AI for the ideas phase.
Traditionally where people use placeholder images from like google/pinterest or make like a collage from existing random pieces for reference, they were using AI.
From what I remember, the rollercoaster opinion on AI started positive, then shifted to negative, and now might be becoming more neutral.
AI is a tool and there's no reason not to use tools. Taking a "hard stance" against common sense is never sensible.
I don't know why goons attack AI. Good job, guy.
I use AI the same way - you block stuff out and make changes, then you go make it by hand with the reference, or even just the kinks worked out. The anti-AI squad need to prioritize the stuff that matters, people using AI as 'real' art, people using it to manipulate people, and companies profiting off of it messing with vulnerable people's psychology. If I can look up someone's photo of a cloud for cloud references, I can generate one and say "make the left side look fluffier" and it's still just a reference. And no, it doesn't "use" gallons of water to do it.
For people with aphantasia the ability to get an AI to visualise a concept is really profound.
I understand why people don’t like AI but our experiences of it depend on where we are coming from and our own perceptions and those are varied
This isn't concept art. This is a director trying to explain his idea using AI that will then be taken by a concept artist and actually be concepted. In the past they'd use search results, napkin art, or flailing hands to get their idea across. Now they can augment with AI. Still, none of the actual art is using AI if you go with this method.
Concept art and reference art are different.
Concept art is going to be closer to the production process, whereas references are any bullcrap pulled from anywhere.
Most studios create a “reference bible,” which is just images chock full of official arts from other projects and random stuff found on the internet. The color story is of premiere importance here— but you get into proportions, fashion, world building, rendering directions vibes, etc.
Concept art is created from the reference bible in the cohesive style for the team. Depending on the pipeline, the concept art could even include 3/4 and front/profile/top views, but sometimes that’s considered a separate step.
So yea— using AI for reference bible is… kind scummy still, but it’s not a huge jump from different from scraping the internet for examples. I think AI should not be used directly for reference though, but as a way to get art direction some ideas for what sort of references they should put together.
If the person pitching the designs expects the art in that style and not a unique expression of art direction by the team, that’s really bad. Potentially worse than using AI art. Because now your entire art direction is basically AI that humans extrapolate on. The intentionality is totally lost.
Yea wait a second.... that's literally the same thing lmao. If you want the clout of saying you aren't using AI "at all" and going to "extreme lengths", then using AI, printing it and ref-ing off the image itself is still using AI lol. Just because you printed the piece then traced it or referenced the image and free handed it doesn't mean the AI didn't create the thing and influence your process....
Maybe 10% (or less) of people seeing the title will see these comments though. It will have the desired pr effect.
The public, including reddit, has shown an inability (at least right now, today) to handle "the ai use in development" topic with aannyy maturity or reason, so i am not at all surprised that companies are using tactics to manipulate public information about how they operate. Until people can stop behaving so volatile & knee-jerk around the topic, these companies have zero valid reason to be open & forthcoming.
Carefully crafted perception pieces are the only real option for game studios right now, because even the ones on "the right side of the line" with AI usage are getting unfairly blasted.
A lot of people rightfully have concerns about AI usage in general. But yes, there are a lot of "hype train" types that just latch onto an issue that may affect them in future without understanding any of the nuances of the arguments made even by the people they are supporting/agreeing with. They just resort to blanket statements of "this thing good, this other thing bad"... with alarming ease. But I guess that's not entirely new and to some extent I understand it.
There is an argument to be made that AI in the long run could have deleterious effects on creativity of people in general, but I don't actually think AI alone is the source of that problem. If anything it's a time saver or inspiration tool, or at least it could be... I think the actual issue we're having with people thinking less carefully, less intently, and less creatively is more a function of how our socio-economic system works on people and the incentives it presses than a function of AI itself. AI only makes it worse because of the economic position it holds in our current-day cultures.
In some alternate culture, if people had more free time to work on their own things (or whatever they wanted to do), less socio-economic pressures, were allowed to fail many times without it almost certainly leading to homelessness/starvation or without being mocked into the ground, and if lots of use-cases of AI weren't just becoming job replacement tools (this again, due to the way our economic system works) then most of this would be a complete non-issue. Wouldn't see a lick of controversy, period.
The "not allowing failure" point, especially, I think is important (alongside the socio-economic order we're under which makes it far far worse). We really do have a culture that just fucking hates failure and punishes it VERY heavily, particularly if you're above a certain age. Which is actually itself, ironically, a massive failure of our current cultures... because people don't often stop learning (or shouldn't) at "adulthood". And they only get better at something if they can fail at it a LOT. Many things have elements of trial and error, it's just how our brains work for most things. It's how we're wired, and have been for a long time due to evolutionary processes and just... well not knowing how things work until we've had a chance to see multiple configurations/opportunities. We have relational capacities that can shorten that process, but failure is a given. And our culture just doesn't tolerate it, almost at all in most contexts. And that makes these kinds of things (like AI) more dangerous to most. So it's a sticky issue that I'm not sure will ever get better, lest our conditions change.
Yea, tbh judging from the comments people didn't even bother reading the top comment pointing this out lol.
There's some nuance to be had for what "using AI in development" is that is going to need an actual term to define what people do and don't like about this stuff. I'm very clearly extremely anti-ai, and my line is basically any use of generative ai images in the final product. Using it for concept art is dubious, because I think the overall product is going to suffer from how... generic AI concepts are, but people can barely find decent ref images these days without being flooded with a mix of slop and real images so trying to draw a line there is going to always friendly-fire devs just trying to find decent ref images.
However I also think there's definitely a strong preference by people for stuff to be made by "Real humans", and that devs and creators should be encouraged to do that vs the "easy route". I don't think there's an "AI FREE" version of the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" lol, but there's definitely going to be respect for devs that go out of their way to try to engage with that type of stuff as little as possible.
I don't think he's looking for clout. He didn't write that headline.
The original interview:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/ai-news/adrian-chmielarz-interview
They are probably not tracing it. To my knowledge, most skilled artists in that job field are able to create at a level where tracing would detract from their work. My source is that I have close friends who have done a ton of concept art for high-profile video game and multimedia companies. AI would moreso be for assistance with lighting or perspective. You can also put your own image into it and ask it to give feedback. I mean.. Using a google search to find reference images could also be "using AI". Taking a picture of something with your iphone is ai-enhanced. It's not really possible to avoid using AI.
This is not me excusing or supporting when they decide to use generative AI for their final product like COD or something. I think that's super wack and very scummy.
Oh for sure they aren't tracing it, that was just a general comment on lower quality artists. Tracing is... generally not actually useful once you know how to draw, you can do the same pose/outfit etc based on a ref just freehanding faster.
I'd say though also actual, skilled artists don't need "Ai assistance" for lighting or perspective either, since the AI stuff typically doesn't actually understand lighting or perspective very well. Generally artists are just going to have a massive folder of ref images they've saved over years and years and just use that.
Google Images though is a mess. If you know what you are doing you can generally avoid AI stuff if you want to make sure you are only refing on human made products and ideas, but less experienced artists are going to have to rely on well curated lists if they want to avoid it.
The COD stuff though... thats just Activision being lazy and pushing for the fastest cosmetics they can shove down their customers throat, and isn't surprising coming from them.
Yeah I have only used it for lighting assistance literally one time when I was just dumbfounded by a weird angle in a drawing. I am not as skilled as many professionals though, and my art is all for myself or local commissions. I have asked it to create a reference for me before and it was no better than pinterest for my use-case, but I can certainly see how it could be useful for others. Even if just for brainstorming.
When I mentioned google I was referring to the search engine itself heavily leveraging AI. But yeah it also will have a ton of crap to slog through lol.
Yea I'd never give a hobbyist/learner shit for trying to use the stuff, but I'd encourage them to understand the massive limitations, and frankly damaging (at this time) effect it can have on your understanding of perspective and lighting. The AI models... just don't understand that stuff, and honestly probably never will, because the sources they are pulling from then averaging out the values have their own problems that it's always going to spit out weird results.
Sourcing real references (especially ones you can pay for from models) is going to be your best bet for learning that stuff, but the good ones do cost money so there's that to consider.
You're 100% right. It pretty much just very niche use cases. Just a tool to add to the kit. Many people can't understand nuance in topics like this. I can see that you have firsthand experience on the matter and you have provided some very sound information. Thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgeable responses. It's not common on here lol
Ya if the title was that they go to extreme lengths to keep AI out of the final product that one thing, but they obviously do not avoid AI usage. Like at all.
Blame "The Gamer" journalist. Here's the original interview. https://www.pcgamesn.com/ai-news/adrian-chmielarz-interview
That’s the internet being stupid not either studio’s fault. The best thing studios can do is keep their mouth shut unless directly asked about it lol
Has been most evident with the often misquoted "get comfortable to not own your games" from Ubisoft. Sub-minimum wage blogs are good at taking stuff completely out of context, and a rephrased repost on Reddit then does the rest.
Same as Bethesda as well, as described by Todd Howard:
Using it as a Tool is using AI. In fact you can only use it as a Tool now because AI can’t make a AAA game on it’s own at least not now anyways.
AI is incredible for visualizing draft ideas down so you can quickly iterate to see what’s good and what’s bad. It’s the same for programming, it is very good at getting you started on a new module
It’s crazy to me this is even a discussion on how people iterate on THEIR vision. If it’s not in the final game then why does it matter
because their is a hardened core of screaming anti-AI zealots who think anyone who has so much as touched an AI system should be burned at the stake. They are not willing to tolerate an alternative view or acknowledge middle ground exists.
Im going to be downvoted to oblivion for this.
This is like reading the "Google ai summary" at the top of your Google searches and then being accused of "using AI". Literally everyone does it, game devs or not.
If a video game is improved or unharmed by AI, and the devs are putting in real effort developing, who gives a crap about their use of AI then?
I work at a large company (different industry) and everyone is literally encouraged to use copilot AI where they can. If your job relies on computers, then youre probably using AI (or being told to) as well, so people need to either target all industries, or to stfu with the witch hunt against game developers. Targeting game devs ignores the wider AI usage by people in other industries (where you dont know how they are using it) and is basically just virtue signaling.
Functions in drawing programs are considered "AI" as well, like Pen stabilization, but no one wants to hear that.
The paranoia though is ridiculous though. All you have to say is "AI", regardless of any context, and people will freak out about it. People want to be hysterical and have outrages. Chunks of AI can be ran on anyone's local PC, and takes up the same power as playing an online game.
On the flip side, you have some major companies (like Nvidia) not aiding this in the slightest and just abusing any resources they can, so a chunk of social media with virtue signaling has just taken to forms of scorched earth mode. Yet it's just making everything even worse, and just adds to it.
No one wants to hear that because that's not true. Those functions have existed for 20+ years. They're not "AI." They're not considered AI. Finding the averages of your previous mouse positions isn't AI. Even content-aware-fill isn't AI.
You have a point about the AI witch-hunting being overblown, and it's actually hurting artists who don't use AI. However, it's just not true that drawing program functions helping artists to draw are the same as ChatGPT, DallE, Midjourney, etc.
Tbf, that Google AI summary is complete trash and is constantly filled with misinformation.
If that was my sole experience with AI then I would say "burn it at the stake" too.
I really wish people would know the context before they come to their conclusions. Thank you, because this is exactly what people need to see.
Because ai hate is popular right now, ai aint going anywhere quite the opposite its going to be used more and more and already is used even a google search you are using and getting used by ai.
Sandfall also had rewards stripped from them for the same use of AI, all because onw placeholder made it into the release.
It was replaced almost immediately with the correct non-ai texture, but it was enough. People just want to be able to justify their hate for a popular thing.
So not only are they not going to extreme lengths to avoid AI, but are also using it as concept art?
Fucking hell, how hard is it to come up with something on your own now?
No, references. Artists use references all the time.
1) Read the original interview. The headline and article from "The Gamer" are paraphrasing poorly. https://www.pcgamesn.com/ai-news/adrian-chmielarz-interview
2) All art is derivative. I went to a good art school and have a design degree. Worked in the field for several years after before becoming a software engineer. Mood boards literally involve clipping out images and making a collage. The literal first step in the design process is finding art styles you're inspired by for the project.
References to use while creating the concept art. Not the concept art itself.
lol exactly dude. People are getting way too riled up about this. It’s a tool lol. Just because I’m using a hammer doesn’t mean I’m building a house out of hammers
Uses AI to generate
"I'm imagining"
LOL
Headline - "we don't use AI".
Article - "we use AI".
AI Free Product
*Manufactured in a facility that also uses AI. May contain traces of AI.
I’m allergic to AI, unless you dont tell me.
It's free marketing
The duality of man
this guy has been in the news recently for some other takes, kinda feels like they're just trying to drum up a bit more interest in Witchfire.. cheaper than running ads i suppose
Most likely. But I will say, Witchfire is actually a very good game. It has a fantastic art style, fun gameplay loop, and I'm really looking forward to going deeper with it once 1.0 releases.
Same here been keeping up with this game looks super fun im personally just waiting for 1.0 since I mostly avoid early access games just incase the dev doesn't finish it. Only exception i made for that was Palworld.
Its got enough content to feel finished already imo. Game plays like a dream, almost no bugs i can think of and a full gameplay loop
I get like 150 FPS on that game on max settings. It looks amazing on top of being actually fun.
I bought it during this current Steam sale but haven't had a chance to sit down and play it yet. I love FPS games and dark fantasy type stuff. The art style was a huge factor in me deciding to buy the game. Hope to get a chance to play it tonight when I get home.
My friend was streaming it on Discord and I fell in love with the art style, so I grabbed it in the sale. So far I've only put about 6 hours into it, but at this point it's so close to release that I'm just going to wait to fully enjoy it, because I can tell it's a game I'm going to sink some serious hours into.
It’s fantastic. I played back when they only had a few maps, not sure how much further along it is now but what was there was a ton of fun.
Im confused by this take. I get it, I just dont understand why we focus on why someone says something. People say shit on Twitter all the time and we dont question their motive but when someone who dislikes AI contributes to the conversation about AI a fact about their game, its automatically "just" advertising or virtue signaling? Isnhe not allowed to talk about his game ever for fear that he might come off as someone who wants to sell something rather than someone who believed a thing, made a thing with stringent respect to that belief, and is proud of it? Or maybe thats just the price you pay for being the creator of a thing; you arent allowed to contribute to how culture builds around it.
This is what fascinates me.about the games industry. I consider it to be the perfect combination of art and business and it creates a lot of crazy discourse.
.... we always question the motives of people saying shit on twitter or wherever. How often do you see people accused of being paid shills?
You on some sorta special for kids twitter thats super locked down? Literally the entire platform is a dumpster fire of questioning everyone's motives. Thats basically all that happens on social media. YOU are even doing that in your response to OP right here.
This isn't some special anti ai focused thing. Of course the dude is using it to promote. It's business. They are doing business. It's his job lol.
It is pretty obvious a virtue signaling and an attempt to gain some publicity on the wave of anti-AI hype. The uncomfortable and pretty much unspoken truth of the industry is that close to 100% of games are developed with the help of AI tools. Even when they aren't used overtly for visual assets, artists use them individually, they are built in poetry much into every game development tool and majority of game code is either written with the assistance of generative AI or outright generated - my estimate is that roughly half of the code is generated by AI. Maybe some 1-2 people team projects are avoiding AI for game code for ideological reasons, but pretty much everyone else in the industry uses them. Saying this is as game dev veteran that currently works in the game adjacent field.
So yes, "we don't use AI" is a virtue signaling that is most likely not even true unless they put a bunch of asterisks like "for final visual assets" "as far as we know" "*excluding game code".
I'm sorry but questioning people's motives is literally the only thing people focus on in places like twitter and reddit nowadays. Hell half the time people can say something that the reddit hive mind agree's with, but because they aren't on the same "side" people question their motives behind that opinion and use it to discredit them entirely.
It's not that confusing. No one believes it's genuine, because he said they use AI the same way larian does. Clearly not trying that hard to not use AI.
Welcome to the world of Adrian Chmielarz.
I mean people keep posting about it, so why would they stop?
Has a "artisinal hand crafted beer" vibe to it.
AI free game, made by locally sourced, organic, free-range devs...
Runs best with DLSS /s
This is funny. 🤣
I only buy games where every pixel is placed by hand using an Etch A Sketch, and every line of code is typed on a vintage 1938 Remington Noiseless before being converted to punch cards.
That studio is definitely located in Portland
He admitted to using ai lmao
When you do an interview with a journalist, you really have zero control over what the editor decides to title the article.
The interviewee explicitly said no pixel of AI ends up in the final product, but the editor or writer decided to put words in his mouth in order to get more clicks by giving it this title.
This is an ad
That seems over the top and dumb
So this is just straight up virtue signalling.
This level of AI paranoia is ridiculous.
Just avoiding the turbo-witchhunt imo
Yeah there's an army of freaks on here ready to review bomb any game suspected to include AI
Isn't it crazy how things turned out to be?
I work in AAA in animation, AI isn't near being ready to be used in my field, fortunately, but there will come a day where my work will be criticized and attacked if it even remotely resembles whatever AI animation will end up looking like.
Heck, I know my work is being used to train future animation AI models, it's bizarre to think one day someone will probably shit on all my work and accuse me (or my peers) for using AI because "it looks like it"...
"Don't you understand!? We're doing this to PROTECT you, to protect ARTISTS!" /s
This is why vigilantism sucks.
Its that or some weird virtue signaling, weird af in either case
Could be virtue signaling for marketing purposes
It's marketing.
Most AI bashing just feels like virtue signaling. Suddenly everyone’s clutching pearls like “oh the humanity!” as if art was ever created in a vacuum without tools, references, or influence.
Or as if art is inherently good just because its human made
There's an awful lot of art-as-a-sport type of attitude (i.e. value by difficulty) coming from people who want to claim others don't understand art.
Except it isn’t… since there’s no clear laws and regulations attributing work made with ai, it’s a minefield of ownership and control. Imagine making an entire game, then finding out that you’re using stolen ip, and boom, cease-desist, games gone. Millions of dollars down the drain because you stole work you didn’t realize you stole.
What do you mean "finding out that you're using stolen IP"?
It is but I can also see the devs position.
Even someone falsely accusing a game dev of using generative AI can result in a tidal wave of hatemail and death threats. Some of the people opposed to AI are completely unhinged.
The reality is that AI tools in some capacity have been a part of game development for at least a couple decades now, and this newest generation of LLM and diffusion based tools is an evolution of that. Like any tools, there are good and bad ways of using them- and I think that's the conversation we should be having. There is a vast swatch of middle ground between the insane AI tech bros, and the equally insane Hardcore anti-AI folks who think any use of ai is a violation of intergalactic law. We should start mapping it out.
I think the vast majority of the "anti AI" crowd is just general people that don't know absolutely anything about software development, but yet are very opinionated on how developers do things. Like, why are people that know absolutely nothing about development telling software engineers what they can or can't do? It makes no sense.
It's the same people who complain about capitalism and worker exploitation through their smartphones they get the newest version of every year.
yet you participate etc. such a nonsense statement. people can survive just fine without video games, while maintaining a normal life without technology in general would be impossible for most.
It's not about participation. It's about enthusiastic and excessive participation.
no it's about a person you made up to get mad at
Idk man I just want to be able to afford graphics cards, RAM, and electricity. I guess it's a self-solving problem in the end.
Good luck budy. Generative AI in Art in gaming is just a tiny fraction of AI usage. people are shitting on gaming companies, trying to cancel them, but are not going against openAI, Microsoft, Alphabet, Adobe, etc. who put AI in every single product. It will only get worse.
Every person I've seen rightfully shitting on AI usage has criticized all companies, not sure what you're seeing champ.
I mean people with no idea what they are talking about yelling nonsensical but well meaning demands at people who are well informed is probably 70% of all human communication by volume at this point.
It's just people who are lonely and want to be part of a movement. The movement itself isn't important.
That’s true but they also made/are making a pretty dope game. If this is how they choose to do it I have no complaints
If argue this is the exact level we need to seem more of so the bubble pops sooner than later. If everyone thinks “AI bad” instead of “AI good,” companies will swear against it, and maybe things will get better as a whole.
Al has just replaced Fake. Remember when we fell for good Photoshops
Why would it be? have you seen whats gonna happen to prices for building a pc?
Right? This is so over the top and it's also completely unrealistic that they can oversee every single line of code that their software developers are writing, and developers are most definitely using AI tools one way or another.
It just reads like they're pandering hard to the anti-AI crowd to get their cheap applause.
People just don’t want their art influenced by anything other than a human. Not a bad thing at all
Do you have a philosophical objection to electronic / synth music because it lacks the warmth of the overtone series & the musicians who make it haven’t put in the work to learn all the acoustic instruments it mimics? Do you think that artists are copy machines who, if they merely view a genAI image, will have their artistic sensibility fundamentally corrupted? Do you think the artists who made all the other (non genAI) images that devs pull from the internet and copy / paste onto the mood board should be paid & credited? The studio did click save as without permission.
This game will win indie game of the year, because it’s the only game that can actually say no AI was used.
LOL read the fucking article.
It's like people have just discovered that references have been used in every form of media since, well, forever. Now those references are made by AI in seconds, it's a very useful tool in early development. The only issue people should have with AI is if it's replacing hand made assets, or costing people jobs, which it's not when used like this.
The anti ai circlejerk is unreal.
I get it, let’s not use ai slop for stuff. But holy fuck some of yall are brain broken
People are showing a rare sign of still having a bit of humanity left and are taking an ethical stance. Much better than shrugging and going "i dislike ai but big business keeps pushing it so what can i do."
Ai shouldnt be near creation of art in any way.
Why not? It's all up in my profession.
Not good enough, I only play videogames built by the Amish
Dumb.
Lol gamers dont care.
If the game is good, gamers will eat it up.
The arrogance of this dev is laughable. Won’t use photoshop but actively admits to using AI for concept art.
Thats not even what he said, he said he wont use the ai feature in photoshop...
It’s not that hard to not use ai..
Let me just step in here to say this.
Bullshit.
Yeah, I agree. I highly doubt they are using Photshop or Illustrator as a glorified Paint. I would put money on it that in 6 months we find out this company is using AI more than any other game developer.
with all these post about witchfire, i really dont ever want to see their game. jesus
they should not use computers either.
Can we ban posts from the witchfire Dev there's one per day and it's just advertising
It seems people will start associating a lack of A.I. with quality.
Recently I started seeing the difference in advertising. Luxury products typically have less aggressive and irritating adverts, but now they also dont use a.i. whilst I see gambling apps using a.i. to advertise and cheap products like softdrinks using a.i.
From a publicity standpoint it really might translate to higher sales given how hated generative a.i. and LLMs seem to be among people who arent invested in the proliferation of those two technologies.
Its really important for both journalists and interview subjects to emphasize that they are talking about LLMs and GenAI, not various types of machine learning which has been in use for years and helps the development process.
Journalists don't give a damn about integrity anymore, it's ALL AI, oh you used interpolation? AI. Oh you used machine learning to approximate a statistic? AI. Oh you generated a video of your coworker nude ? AI. The buzzword is what's important, not the concept.
It's going to become more like the organic labeling for produce
Not using AI is the new virtue-signal. Like every other fad, it will soon fade away and we'll all look back and laugh at those who participated in it.
I'll take the virtue signaling over slop any day.
Wow, YOU ARE A GOOD PERSON. I'll generate an extra grok bikini-pic of my coworker tonight, in honor of you.
In a roundabout, funny, ironic way, you both made an interesting point why this is over blown and shouldn't be that big of a cause for concern, and in the same thread, back and forth but in a different comment, then basically showed exactly why AI usage and tools should be worrisome and feared (while also coming across as a complete creepy perverted weirdo) lmao
I mean, honestly and truly, bravo for being a great example that you perfectly represented both sides, ya fkn perv.
€: seeing promises of bikini pics, have yet to see any. Guess your AI is powered by a hamster
Sometimes, new things happen. History's not cyclical.
Cringe and no one in reality cares
Meh it's not really saying much. They still admit to using AI for the ideas process, they're just saying that nothing AI generated goes into the final product. And the thing about Photoshop kinda just sounds like bullshit to capitalize on the current AI paranoia, surely they're not policing all their employees so hard that they'd actually know if they're using certain Photoshop tools or not.
It’s truly become a religion. It’s like the Red Scare for robots. Everyone’s gotta go out of their way to show how much more devoted and pious they are than the next guy. Excited to see how ashamed of us future generations will be.
This game still not out? I remember seeing this in like 2016 and being "oooh neat.... oh its a arena shooter, hard pass."
And then despite all this they've been using AI for creating Concept/prototype Art.
They go through every length except actually avoiding using it.
Idk what they are trying to accomplish with these interviews but I just added them to Hidden on my Steam preferences. Never even heard of them until this nonsense.
The rest of the article aside, this clickbait is funny as shit. "Goes to extreme lengths to..." make games like we did for decades.
Always an army of pathetic losers on Reddit ready to defend generative a.i.
Frankly, that's dumb. Photoshop has had built-in AI tools for over a decade and it saves graphic designers hundreds of hours and improves their product. I will never once be sad that the graphic designers I work with can be more efficient or have a good work/life balance.
I don't have a ton of respect for this insane anti-AI witch hunt so many people seem to be engaging in.
Edit: Some "pro artist" just messaged me and told me that nothing I wrote is true. Apparently this professional has never heard of things like content-aware fill, which was created via computer vision (aka machine learning, aka AI) in 2010. They've used similar machine learning models to create a dozen other tools over the years, finally coming out with Generative AI tools in 2023.
People who don't know the difference between Generative AI and non-Generative AI have no business starting an argument about AI. People who have never heard of something like content-aware fill have no business pretending to be a professional in the field.
For the record, I've hired and worked with graphic designers and other media producers for over a decade. Not a single one of them has avoided using the intelligent features in Adobe products. Because that would be dumb.
Hi I'm a pro artist with many contacts and friends in the industry. What you just said is completely not true.
Generative AI is a new technology. Just because something else was also inaccurately called "AI" decades ago doesn't make it the same tech.
Artists hate it. It's an inaccurate plagiarism machine that doesn't help productivity. But execs keep forcing them to use it, despite the lack of productivity gains.
Not only is this technology based on stolen data and images, it's bad for the environment, and is responsible for the mistreatment of workers in poor countries who have to see IRL gore and child abuse images to train them out of the machine.
It's utterly irresponsible and deceptive to handwave criticism of these AI companies and their products as a "witch hunt".
Nobody cares.
Many people do in fact care
The venn diagram between people shrieking about AI and people who boast about finding any petty reason to justify pirating a game is a circle.
Not the people who buy video games.
And their target audience doesn't care if they use AI or not.
been about a week since the last "witchfire dev talks about (not) using ai post", about time we got another
such bravery....
I did a short presentation recently about AI and one of my points was is something was AI made If you use photoshops new content aware fill, or magic brush, or ai color balancer.
I dont think so personally, but I didn't expect it to be relevant so soon.
That's cute but I really don't care how ethical or moral the dev is after taking epic exclusivity money
I’m so sick of the paranoia and fear around AI. The outrage with Larian was stupid and this is a nothing burger.
At what point can we safely start calling it a mental illness
The "Anti-AI Mental Illness" will be added to the DSM soon enough 😀
Lol why? Because they don't want to upset so Internet idiots? Are those idiots going to blow them for the hours they didn't save using AI? For the additional stress and overwork they had to pull in?
Since when does anyone care what "Witchfire dev" has to say? All these recent articles and interviews just smell like marketing.
Virtue signaling around AIs, who didn't see that coming?
Only Sith deal in absolutes. When it makes sense to use AI, use it. If your AI slop can pass for a decent game, good for you. Let the result speak for itself.
This shit just comes off as preachy now
I get it. The foundation of many AI (LLM) tools is corrupt, so not engaging with it at all is a principled decision.
Too bad he admits to using AI in the actual article
So they're definitely using AI. It's apparently a key part of their workflow.
Except they do engage with it to generate concept art.
So it's not really a principled decision unless they're saying the concept art does not contribute to the final product (in which case why are they creating it in the first place?)
So they use it the same way e33 did
All of these companies are just weathering the early storm of online rage for a while. They'll go all in on this stuff once it becomes more generally accepted.
AI is basically Horse Armor right now in games. We know how that turned out.
I would be happy working for this company as an artist, though I would prefer to not use AI for reference either.
AI is not a living thing that can experience and feel the world around it. That is why I like using human made art for reference along with real photographs and video. Sometimes I will go out and take my own reference photos or build my own 3D model reference. I also like using human made art because its just inspiring to look at. It gives me motivation. I dont feel anything looking at AI generation.
like anyone would admit if if they did now after what happen with Larian and Sandfall people went on a witch hunt after they found out even though Sandfall’s case had been known for months
I suspect more and more companies will never say if they did or didn’t use AI
“Extreme lengths” like “development best practices from 2024”? Please.
Its wild how everyone's so afraid of a tool. I get that right now its being wielded willy nilly, but once this dies out people will realize AI is a powerful tool that can bolster creativity in the right hands.
5 years ago people would rage on games with early access.
Nowadays an early access developer gloats about how they don't use AI as if anyone cares.
We’re going to reach the point where the pendulum of the anti AI hysteria swings so hard in one direction that it’s actually going to end up having the opposite effect and create support/further integration of AI as people get tired of all the fear mongering and Puritanism around it.
There’s definitely concerns to be had with AI, but it’s shockingly clear that a lot of people doing the virtue signaling and fear mongering around AI don’t actually even understand what AI is or how it works and how people typically actually use it in the real world.
By the way, AI is a LOT more than just LLMs and generative AI.
wowee, want an award?
Look we all need to crowd-source a standard set of opinions on what is and is not acceptible in 2026, then we can all download that opinion package and everyone will be safe.
Should we accept photoshop usage? People used to actually draw things and it took some efforts. Now, they just click around and stuff.
A game will not be judged on if it is hand made or assisted, it will be judged on if it's good and fun to play.
I don’t care if they use AI. If it looks cool and fits the aesthetic then who cares. If you can make a fun game that runs well and is a good price, have at it.
AI is a tool.
We need to take advantage of it.
Now, I'm not being a hardcore proponent of large AI business practices. Of course the hardware prices and the complete vibe coders are all concerns, and no one is happy about those.
But I'm specifically talking about AI as an actual assistant that you incorporate into your workflow, and you need to embrace it. You have to.
Because if you don't, you're going to get left behind.
I see a lot of Redditor purists completely rejecting the use of anything AI.
If that's you, you are basically the equivalent of someone from 30 years ago who refuses to use the internet and insists using an almanac is the "superior human way".
It's not even about being left behind. Our economy is so all in on AI that it must be successful or we all suffer. Its basically "use it or welcome to a recession/depression".
They'll never have enough of a return to pay for everything they've lost. It's already over. The companies are shambling zombies, pretending they have a future.
May as well draw the assets on paper. Ditch UE and code in Assembly.
This is some braindead level statement. AI is tool. Use it responsibly.
This AI witch hunt is growing extremely old, extremely fast.
Now I just want a large/popular studio or some indie darling to come out and be like "Yeah, we use AI, fuck you. Don't buy our games if you don't like it."
Don't get why this subreddit seems to love generative AI so much all of a sudden, the way most comments are written here you'd swear people are actually hoping AAA games do switch to using gen AI for everything in their art.
Most AAA games were seen as corporate slop before ChatGPT even launched. I don't think anyone is "hoping" people use AI, more that they simply do not care. Why should people care if FC27 uses AI? Why should I care if a studio uses AI for concept art?
In order for people to care about degradation, they'd need to have existing high expectations. If Studio Ghibli started using AI, people would care. Nobody is expecting a deep level of artistic merit from the next game EA cooks up.
why is it more fair to witchunt devs for monetization and maybe letting an IP sit for a while but we can’t prune a little hard for AI usage?
This is dumb.
AI is a boon software development in all facets. I get the point of people disliking AI generated art but to deny any usage at all for development purposes is extremely stupid. Hating a buzzword you don't understand for the sake of it. Cringe.
I'm so sick of this virtue signalling over AI to appease the hysterical crybabies online. Use it or don't, I couldn't give a shit as long as your game is good at the end.
How ridiculous.
This is getting ridiculous now. So, are programmers allowed to use AI then? Shit, why even have AI in game? I've said this multiple times, people get angry at AI and rightfully so in most cases, but this level of paranoia is just detracting from actual productivity and real world usage where it would be beneficial to use AI. Larian and Sandfall got shit for nothing. Sandfall had a bit more of a slip up, but people need to get comfortable that most people can and will use AI, mostly to just generate a view of real ideas and AI can be helpful in many cases to get that idea solidified, to get rough ideas sketched out.
But the way we are going about it now, its only going to make developers retract more and more, until we play this cat and mouse game trying to decipher if and where AI was used rather than a transparent conversation.
Most artists and designers I know use Photoshop tools extensively and this level of witch hunting is only going to negate productivity. And programmers use LLMs all the time, not to write optimized production level code, but just to get a starter boiler plate whenever and wherever necessary.
Game AI is a different thing.