this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
383 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
4012 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn't and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.
I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy "ah, fuck it" kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn't be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*
* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.
That's basically a statement for the press to try to minimize damage. He even said they had the cut scenes done and later replaced them with AI. Bullshit.
They are mad they got caught and it's the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.
"if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings."
The director literally outright says it's their fault for using the tool.
And what do you mean "got caught"? It's very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn't notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: "I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big."
The very first thing you need to become an artist is a sense of taste. Everything builds from that. If in his judgment he thought that art looked good enough then what does that say about him as an artist.
I'd rather see the "bad" things than Ai.
Honestly if the rest of the game is good, I would rather have some napkin sketches, or a computer based paint software.
I'm 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team's mistake, but it's still a mistake.
Do you genuinely believe this is true for even just 10% of gamers? 10% of people? I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't believe any relevant amount of people give a damn about the purity of art for most things.
Most art the average person interacts with is mainly utilitarian. Marketing and porn is probably like a good 80% by mass. As long as the art does it's job, I just don't believe most people give a fucking damn.
You'd honestly be hard for us to find even 1% of the population gives any real f*** about the source of art. They pretty much only ever care about the actual final result and maybe at most a name attached to it because it's of value in some nebulous fashion. Not the reason why that value is there. Just that it has it.
Hell honestly, most art is utilitarian. You're entirely right on that. It's made to serve a purpose either for the artist themselves or for the person consuming it. Most communal forms of art are made as a way to do something more efficiently or as part of a ceremony to accomplish something.
Art for Art's sake is kind of an extreme rarity.
No you wouldnt. 4 decades of whining and bitching by gamers have proved that. There is no winning with this lot.
I wonder, what would be examples of games with badly done art that is overlooked because the game itself is good.
And I think stuff like Minecraft doesn't count, because with that style, the uglyness is a choice, not a result of not being able to make things look a certain way.
"Sentinels of the Multiverse" is a fairly popular board game (within those circles) and it looks pretty rough. Pokemon S/V got rightfully dunked on for looking like shit but it still made a bunch of money. "The Case of the Golden Idol" is highly regarded. Runescape.
No one really gave pokémon any s*** for the art. They gave s*** for the performance such as like the pop-in and reused assets.
But the actual art is fine. No one really had issue with that. It's pokémon for heaven's sakes. Not crisis.
That's why people got mad. It's basic 3D models in really simple backgrounds and it ran like s***. There's no reason for something that looks like pokémon to run poorly.
I think pokemon was so heavily criticized partly because it's developed by a veteran studio that really should be able to do better. And the way it looked bad wasn't so much the art style, but how it was loaded into the game.
You had a lot of pop-ins, things not being animated in the distance, and every npc using the exact same animation at the exact same time, as well as some truly uninspired textures out in the wild.
Gamefreak is clearly capable of better when you look at Beast of Reincarnation or Little Town Hero, they just don't seem to care about pokemon anymore.
Effort, talent, technology, taste, there's lots of reasons for something to look bad.
Five Nights at Freddy's is popular if nothing else, but the art in the early games isn't bad on purpose.
How could AI possibly tell a complex story better than a human could? It sounds like bullshit.
Interesting context, but that statement sounds so fucking stupid.
"Welp, we tried so hard, but just couldn't portray our art in the best possible way. So naturally, we turned to the soulless machine that fails at generating anything resembling art even if you tell it to do a 1:1 copy of a real art piece."
LLMs can make stuff resembling art. I'm not interested in it, though, because a human didn't make it. What makes art art, what makes it interesting, is artists.
This is speciest. Art made by animals is just as good as art made by humans!
Why not hire people or another firm to do the cutscenes then. You know, professionals who have learned and perfected their craft. Professionals you don’t have.
Backslash shouldn’t have been a surprise.
Money. Capitalists have it. Developers need it.
How do you not understand this. You and 14 other people.
"Oh just spend a million more on this and delay the release!"
I’m not sure the lost sales due to the backlash is worth it.
Presumably they didn't have that much money, because game developers do it for the love of the game. To create something new. So you're basically saying they should better have abandoned their project.
It would have died quietly, and nobody would have given a fuck.
Still seems like a cop-out.
If they had intended to do it manually in the first place, I don’t see why they couldn’t just use AI to help generate a number of rough outlines to help conceptualize a solid template that satisfied their needs before investing their time into it.
AI could maybe help stress test the game before the final release. If AI were used like that, the game itself would likely not be considered slopified.
The dirty data centers, the RAM chip grab, the widening divide between the haves and the have nots being exacerbated by the billionaire AI ownership, these problems have to be addressed before I can even consider the other issues. AI as tech is usable, but as a socioeconomic phenomenon it is hugely problematic.
It's bullshit, they experienced zero agony, they skipped from trying it themselves straight to AI without bothering to just pay real artists because they're cheap.
I was thinking the same but I have so many questions (that I don't care enough to research).
How big is their team? Could they not find any competent artists? Could they not afford any competent artists? Could they not afford to upskill any of their current team, like getting them lessons in whatever was relevant?
It seems like they were just shallow and wanted a "classically" pretty product right now. And that doesn't engender much sympathy.
If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we're supposed to be discussing is too much, I'm not sure why you're here trying to discuss it.
even then, you use the AI output as inspiration, not as the end product..