Who cares?
Wow they really are stressing the phrase beginning / began with human artwork a lot in these statements. Suspiciously so.
were produced through a human-led process
How the fuck does anyone describe an artist generating game artwork as “human-led process”? You know what this rather sounds like? A “human” prompting image generation.
First of all, they did do a bad job with their blog post.
…But I’m also shocked by the number of people who think they’re human AI detectors.
I suspect people are a year or two behind, looking for signs of messy Stable Diffusion XL output, like suspiciously styled appendages or that weird framing 1.5 always did. Or maybe the Ghibli-esque style Tweeters used to ape Sam Altman.
Models aren’t like that any more.
The other day, I was sitting at a TV, looking at photos side by side, I cannot tell my own mirrorless camera RAWs apart from some locally-run generations that used my photos as a reference, even if I zoom in to pixel peep or try to nitpick the depth-of-field from my lens.
Videos edited by H3 are shockingly good now, albeit at lower resolution.
I did some animesque character design mockups (just for my own thinking/brainstorming), and I can feed the model separate reference images for characters and art styles and poses and it… just gets it. It looks just like the original painted style, and I can’t find any artifacts or distortions that jump out. Not counting the ones in the original material.
I’m not trying to glaze diffusion or anything; quite the opposite. It’s messy, and sloppy. Besides, that’s not the point, and I don’t want to get into that.
What I’m saying, outside of really lazy slop or bad models like ChatGPT, people are behind if they think they can spot AI-generated stuff reliably.
So, maybe the studio lied.
The blog post certainly makes it suspicious. They could have uploaded some asset at least?
But, as suspicious as the style is, I can’t tell if that “process” picture is AI generated. Certainly not because the 2nd frame has a cartoon style, or the 3rd and 4th look like weird cg.
Guy, everyone thinks they’re a Human AI Detector, especially if they have an account on Twitter, Reddit, BlueSky, etc. Which often results in baseless accusations against human made content being called AI generated, which is hilarious to me honestly.
Well, apparently Nintendo fans and commenters in the linked news section do too.
But I don’t want do disqualify how sus the blog post is, either. It does feel a little like a corporate paint-over; the internet can reasonably be suspicious of that. But I haven’t been convinced by a single comment trying to dissect the picture.
I feel like they did a shit job tryinf to defend themselves if this is the best example of steps taken:
Like, For Real, this is worthless. Show the messy work files, the unfinished sketches, isolate the layers in the 2D mockup to show lineart and color independent of each other, a gif of the 3D wireframes rotating.
This image they posted won’t convince anybody. It will vindicate critics.
100% AI slop. These people must think we were born yesterday.
Yeah, I really don’t want to falsely accuse anyone but… the human 3d-artist forgot to model one of the horns? That redraw has a very, let’s say, familiar style as well.
Says “process” in the title unlike the others, body is missing inside, flame jets are missing as well.
This is pathetic. They could have just ai generated fake sketches but they didn’t even have the brain power to think of that.
The theory on The Other Site is what I also agree with: They took #1, fed it into an AI 3D modeler to get #4, fed that image into a 2D style AI model to get #2, and then went back to #4 and used AI in-painting and lazy Photoshop to remove some elements to get #3.
You are 100% correct. 3 obviously was generated from 1, and 2 is just the most blatant 2D genAI image generated from that.
oh yeah that makes sense, the little bubble window is literally just painted over.
i… these are literally all ai. like why would the render be missing a horn?
I’m gonna interject and say you generally model things one half at a time and then mirror for symmetrical objects.
Sure, but you wouldn’t just render one horn and add the other one in photoshop. That makes no sense at all. You would duplicate the horn before rendering it.
yeah but you generally also have a hierarchy of submodels so that mirroring a group mirrors everything in that group.
How is this not AI?! The redraw absolutely smacks of that style, not to mention the cannon arm is obviously meant to imitate a milk can which the redraw mangles. The rockets are supposed to be udders but the two we can see most clearly don’t match in construction and the other two seems to sprout off of another one. These errors carry over to the full render. The udders are a pixelated mangle of perspective in the original, but this point is absolutely missed.
Above the leg is also a weird split. You can see in the original this is a weird artifact of pixel shading, but it’s been rendered into an actual split in the material in the redraw and renders. This is a valid design choice I guess, but to me it’s an indication of how the AI misinterpreted intent and someone reviewing it didn’t catch or care about it.
I really hate these ai which hunts. Like if an artist says it’s not ai and it’s just a doubt then I believe but.
But in this case like come onnnnnn. Unless you’re very painstakingly trying to mimic the ai generated lewk at every stage, complete with slopsign tells (and then why??) then I’m not buying it one bit.
It’s a hellscape, I’ve decided to retreat to Dead or Alive wAIfu’s from the early 2000’s due to concerns about the appeal of novel secret agent sexy fish.
First they came for the women of insta with filters and I did not speak out, now they are coming for the sexy fish I will make my stand.
This might be another case of the phenomenon where people which get exposed to a lot of AI text start using similar structure and speech elements themselves after a while.
The look is pretty much what Pixar and Disney have formalized decades ago - no shit it will look similar to what ImageGen would look like if you go that route. And in the end this boils down to he said/she said with a dash of witch hunt mixed in.
The process image makes it clear that they are lying. Step 3 is step 4 with bits crudely painted out. You can see it easily on the shoulder and chest. They are making up intermediary steps after the fact, which would be unnecessary if there were intermediary steps.
Why should they use some kind of filter to achieve the same fuzzy, plasticy look that bad AI art tends to have? It’s not like that magically appears when you make 3D art.
