Yes, because gamers are ever so slightly more tech savvy than your average project manager. They are fully aware that LLMs and diffusion models are just expensive plagiarism engines at best and slop factories the rest of the time.
You say stigma I say quality control issues.
Great to see disclosures of this technology. I think as time goes on, we’ll want to see further degrees of disclosure. AI art shipped as production quality is a misstep for me. However, AI written code feels worth alerting players & consumers about. They are different degrees of concern, environmental impact, and I suspect that we’ll see AI code to become more standardized whereas games with AI art lacking human oversight will continue to receive more negative ratings than the average.
“Data analyst finds that “diarrhea stigma” in bakeries can reduce the number of reviews a cake gets by around 53%–and the reviews it does get are more negative.”
Stop putting diarrhea in the cake and people will both review them more often and review them more highly.
I love how easily the billionaire sloplords adopt language implying that they are oppressed.
Maybe we should start doing just that
Good idea. I’ll tell my special interest magazine to make me more sympathetic.
deleted by creator
Could it just be AI itself and how bad it sucks instead of “AI stigma”?
Yep. I’ve seen indie game devs try to push AI art into their products and it never looks good. There is no cohesive design. It looks like badly done collage work with images in different resolutions sometimes. And if they’re that lazy, it usually shows in more ways.
“Data Analyst Finds that ‘Lazy Awful Game Stigma’ Can Reduce the Number of Reviews a Game Gets by 53% - And the Reviews it Does Get are More Negative”
Insert Seymour Skinner meme about the kids being wrong
Damn guess they shoulda paid artists huh
in my experience, a lot of the game devs using AI would normally try to do the art themselves, but think AI is “better” than what they could do… Then they throw together a collage of mismatched art that has no cohesion and call it a day, and get upset when they get called out for it, thinking it’s just some anti AI thing.
People love to take shortcuts then hate when people tell them they sacrificed quality to do it.
Ah yes, the stigma against AI, the stigma that is actually pretty well founded given how it’s dogshit at anything other than BS-ing. The stigma that’s an obvious reaction to shoe horning a hype fueled scam into every fucking thinkable thing. That stigma?
It’d be pretty hard to test in a meaningful way, but I’d be curious how big the impact of AI art is on a game’s initial perception compared to human-made slop such as asset flips or a lot of the mobile market and compared to human-made ugly games like Cruelty Squad or Don’t Stop Girlypop.
Basically, define how much the humanity is important, versus “prettyness”, versus dislike of AI for indirect reasons.
I would be willing to bet that the people who were previously doing human made slop like you described are now the ones making the AI slop. They were already doing minimal effort; it makes sense they’d do even less when presented the option.
Or did I misunderstand what you’re saying?
I would be willing to bet that the people who were previously doing human made slop like you described are now the ones making the AI slop. They were already doing minimal effort; it makes sense they’d do even less when presented the option.
You’re overestimating both how good AI is and how little effort a lot of these developers want to put in.
Generally, AI tools struggle with any type of specialized work and the same extends to game development. From my own testing, AI tends to butcher all but the simplest game coding tasks as a result of the larger and often very disjointed programming involved, and in terms of asset creation, it can create a lot of more generalized assets, but if you need a repeating texture or a texture for a 3d model, things immediately fall apart. That not to say it can’t be done, but its a suprising amount of work for what is supposed to be an automation tool, and when compared to the old solution, is it really much better than just buying a premade game, and maybe swapping one or two things?
That said, my question is more that AI is ugly, soulless, and samey, but human art (and “”“art”“”) can be too. Do equivalent human works receive similarly lower reviews, or do the additional consequences of AI use actually factor in to people’s perceptions, and if so, how much? For example, is a asset flip designed to rip people off going to be reviewed just as badly as a particularly soulless AI game, or AI going to be worse? Similarly, if you have a game with good programming and design, but AI assets, would it preform the same as something ugly in a human way like Cruelty Squad, or would it perform worse? Basically, how much of the negativity is because AI use has a bunch of negative effects, and how much of it is because the results of AI use are bad?
who otherwise would have succeeded
Buddy is in his own little assumption fantasy world
I’m sure it has nothing to do with AI games being bad.
Maybe because people don’t want their art automated?
What I’d really like to know is whether this is because of AI use, or merely because they disclosed AI use. I’m sure there are a lot of games on Steam with undisclosed AI use. How do those score?
They tested where AI use is disclosed.
On Steam, if you use AI, and don’t disclose, that’s literally a breach of contract with Steam.
But you’re basically asking for a study on a likely unstudiable thing, at least not directly. What, are you gonna … ask every game dev team on Steam if they knowingly lied to both Steam and their players?
Its like the question on your taxes that asks if you are currently a felon with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Yeah, you might catch some absolute total morons, probably not anything close to the entire demo you’re ostensibly trying to poll.
Love to see it
