Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1144
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

It's less about the quality of the end result and more that AI usage is seen very negatively in many creative communities, including the tabletop game space, and its presence at all can be a bad look. There is absolutely a nontrivial subset of potential players who see it as a dealbreaker. Whether that's an appropriate response or an overreaction is a worthwhile discussion to be had somewhere other than this thread, but it's definitely a commonly enough held perspective that it's more trouble than it's worth.

And subjectively, still images in trailers have a certain charm to them, especially in a small indie project.

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Thanks for sharing these points on reception and style. This is all definitely important for us to be aware of. We'll work on making some updates to avoid this landmine, though I fear the damage may already be done.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 04:55 PM]

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Zaratustra00 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your stance.

I wasn't communicating a stance -- it's more of a question on how it's perceived. What is your stance on this?

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 06:50 PM]

Schik
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5527
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

I'm not the person in question, so I don't know what they in particular think. But they replied to your agreement that "It's a tool, like a hammer" statement as a stance, which... it is. Some people think generative AI is just a tool like a hammer, and some people think it's a plagiarism factory. I think it's obvious what Zaratustra thinks on the matter, though clarification is always welcome.

I'm attempting to inject none of my own opinions on the matter. I am curious about something, though, which I'm not sure I've seen specified - the trailer, clearly and openly, contains some AI generated content. Does the physical game? Is the AI content only in the promotional material, or is it in the physical game that people will purchase? For those who are pro-AI content, it won't matter, but for those who are strongly anti-AI, does that question even matter? If the art in the physical product is all 100% human artist created, is it okay that promotional videos used AI?

____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Thank you, Pinnacle!

This was what I was trying to ask about. Perhaps my "right?" at the end of sentences came across as confrontational, rather than as an honest question? If so, I’m sorry. That wasn’t my intention at all. I didn’t mean to pour gasoline on any fire. In retrospect, I should have been more careful in my wording.

Zaratustra00
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 114
Registered: 11-12-2004
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:

Zaratustra00 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your stance.

This isn't really a stance -- it's more of a question. What is your stance on this?

Well you asked. My stance is that I want to support humans, and work made by humans, and that is doubly true if I choose to invest on a Kickstarter product.

If those humans, themselves, are making the point that an AI would be doing a better work, I'm not sure why I should be participating.

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 653
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Zaratustra00 wrote:

mrimer wrote:

Zaratustra00 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your stance.

This isn't really a stance -- it's more of a question. What is your stance on this?

Well you asked. My stance is that I want to support humans, and work made by humans, and that is doubly true if I choose to invest on a Kickstarter product.

If those humans, themselves, are making the point that an AI would be doing a better work, I'm not sure why I should be participating.

I'm not really sure what your point is. From what mrimer said it seems pertty clear that humans were used for the art, not to mention that the game itself is also created by a person, namely Mike. So is the requirement that computer aid isn't used at all?

As an aside, when it comes to the holographic girl, frame interpolation has existed for years, and AI methods are not required to create such an effect. You're more than entitled to think it looks bad (though I personally think it barely notices), but it does seem a very arbitrary line to draw. Do you take issue with using video editing software to create the pixelation effect? After all, that doesn't require AI, but also doesn't need any human 'effort'.

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 07-03-2025 11:12 AM]

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Zaratustra00 wrote:
My stance is that I want to support humans, and work made by humans, and that is doubly true if I choose to invest on a Kickstarter product.

If those humans, themselves, are making the point that an AI would be doing a better work, I'm not sure why I should be participating.

Thanks for clarifying, and point taken. We'll work to remove the AI content from these images.

However, to me, your stance seems disingenuous and reductive, and I'm going to push back on this point.

The way you're saying this comes across as an attack on a project that we poured our hearts into for years and doesn't suggest that you're trying to support human endeavor and effort here, but that you're discounting it.

First, these background images featured in a few seconds of the trailer don't translate to content included in the physical Kickstarter reward (i.e., the tabletop game), and no -- we're not making a point that AI would be doing better work at creating a game and a product for players. The gameplay, physical component design, and puzzles were all generated by humans, not AI, and they are all done really well. You can read and watch how many early reviewers say it's an amazing game and one of their favorites, and this has nothing to do with the trailer we produced after they got their hands on a prototype copy of the physical game.

I have a hard time understanding the implication that the reward backers will get is not worthwhile because we generated some background images in a post-production promotional trailer. I am not suggesting that AI would do better work, so one shouldn't bother getting the game. The game was already done before we made the trailer.

Second, we're an indie studio working on an indie budget, paying out of our own pocket to invest in a passion project. We've spent multiple person-years developing the game content, and this video trailer production was completed by Alex, by hand, after the game was designed and implemented. Alex spent weeks on the effort. The goal was to stay within budget and hit a deadline, which lined up with the summer schedules of a bunch of content creators (both free and paid). Alex didn't have time to hand draw all the scenes to hit our date, and we were also bumping up against our budget limit on promotion. These decisions aren't about taking humans out of the creative process -- it's all about working with people in a human way in a real, physical human reality to get creative things done with human processes, the best way we can.

Third, Firefly is a rights-respecting, ethical tool, not a plagiarism factory.

IMHO, saying "Hey, guys, I saw AI" is a knee-jerk reaction that leads to an unproductive slippery slope. It feels like witnessing some form of witch hunt. To clarify our intentions, we wanted to put together a cool-looking trailer to present a mood and a vibe for the game. It's obviously a tabletop game, not a digital game where we're somehow tricking people into thinking the content we'll be delivering is somehow different than it is, like an 80s video game commercial. I don't consider those commercials "more acceptable" because they were more human-made. I'd prefer the metric be based on the production levels and quality of the player's experience with the game, not the tool created (by humans) and used (by humans) to provide the experience or advertise it.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 06:49 PM]

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Schik wrote:
Some people think generative AI is just a tool like a hammer, and some people think it's a plagiarism factory.

In truth, Schik, I think it wouldn’t be entirely unfair to describe the Spinning Jenny as a kind of “plagiarism factory,” at least by some modern standards. Any kind of change is likely to create both winners and losers.

The perspective you raise is a very valuable concern, though. I realize this isn't just about logic, but still: my guess is that the final result would likely have looked just as similar to other artists’ work, whether AI was involved or not.

Coming from someone who wanted to create games as a child, I’m genuinely happy when the barrier to doing so gets lowered. I do realize some doors may close in the process — but if 100 new ones open, that feels like a net gain to me. The Luddites did have a point: they didn’t personally benefit from “progress.”

Please don’t read too strong a value judgment into that (if anything, I believe the introduction of the Spinning Jenny wasn’t handled in a humane way). My goal is to understand and express, not to provoke.

At the end of the day, the question I keep asking myself is: does this have the potential to benefit the world?

Zaratustra00
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 114
Registered: 11-12-2004
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:

Thank you for clarifying your stance. Maybe rephrase it a bit more diplomatically the next time someone brings it up.

Schik
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5527
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

First off, I am not saying *I* believe generative AI is a plagiarism factory, I was just trying to show why "AI is just a tool like a hammer" is a stance, and not a hard fact. I'm saying that is a way I've heard people describe AI, even right here on this forum. Myself, I've never used AI in any commercial way. I've had it generate a few funny images to share in CaravelNet chat and that's really about it. My opinions are somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Blondbeard wrote:
In truth, Schik, I think it wouldn’t be entirely unfair to describe the Spinning Jenny as a kind of “plagiarism factory,” at least by some modern standards. Any kind of change is likely to create both winners and losers.

I am not an expert in 18th century technology, so I had to look up the Spinning Jenny. I can't for the life of me imagine how that could be categorized as a plagiarism factory. Is... the assembly line a plagiarism factory? If I use a calculator, am I plagiarizing someone else's math? Genuinely confused by this comparison.

But anyways, it's great to hear that the actual physical game does NOT contain generative AI, just the video. The product is fully human-made. My middle-of-the-road view makes me not 100% sure on what I'd think of AI being in the game, but if it's just in an advertisement, I can't bring myself to care about that fact.

____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Zaratustra00 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your stance. Maybe rephrase it a bit more diplomatically the next time someone brings it up.

That's a great suggestion, and I admit to being under some stress at present and not at my best, and I apologize for that. I can do this, with the help of ChatGPT, which I admit is better at this sort of thing than me:

Thanks for the clarification — I appreciate the opportunity to respond thoughtfully.

I’d like to offer a different perspective on your concern. The background images you’re referencing appear briefly in the trailer and are not part of the physical game or its rewards. The core of Time Fenix—the gameplay, puzzles, and component design—was created entirely by humans, over multiple years of dedicated work. Early reviewers who had prototype copies in hand have shared incredibly positive feedback, and that praise reflects the quality of the actual game, not the trailer.

We did use a few pieces of AI-generated art for background inspiration during the trailer’s production—mainly to help meet budget and time constraints. The trailer was produced after the game was completed, and our artist, Alex, put weeks of focused work into creating and refining it. As a small indie team working from our own resources, we had to make pragmatic decisions to deliver the best experience we could within real limits.

To be clear: this was never about replacing human creativity. It was about enabling one artist to meet a tight deadline and represent the game’s tone effectively. We used Adobe Firefly, a tool designed to be rights-respecting and ethically trained.

It’s tough to hear accusations that seem to dismiss or undermine the deeply human effort behind this project. We care very much about ethical creation—and we also care about sustainability, fairness, and finishing what we started with the resources we have.

At the end of the day, we hope the value of Time Fenix will be judged by the quality of the game itself—something we've poured our time, hearts, and creativity into. We’re always open to constructive discussion, and we appreciate your engagement. But we also want to ensure that the conversation reflects the real work that’s gone into this game.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 06:06 PM]

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 653
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Zaratustra00 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your stance. Maybe rephrase it a bit more diplomatically the next time someone brings it up.

Are you serious? The guy has presumably spent hundreds if not thousands of hours developing a game only for you to sit here and provide no meaningful feedback other than that you dislike AI, the implication being that he's not worth supporting if he has done, because he hasn't put in enough effort for you.

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

ThemsAllTook
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 248
Registered: 06-23-2014
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
Alex spent weeks on the effort. The goal was to stay within budget and hit a deadline, which lined up with the summer schedules of a bunch of content creators (both free and paid). Alex didn't have time to hand draw all the scenes to hit our date, and we were also bumping up against our budget limit on promotion. These decisions aren't about taking humans out of the creation process -- it's all about working with people in a human way in a real, physical human reality to get creative things done with human processes, the best way we can.

This might be where the conflict lies. I'm going to attempt to describe this situation from two different perspectives:

1. For those who are sensitive to the use of AI imagery, this would look like a violation of trust. This is an act of going beyond available means to produce something which, through neural net trickery, is designed to look as though a larger amount of artistic labor was invested into it than what actually was done. The labor and creativity being leveraged by the data model producing the images comes from past artists' work, and whether that was done with the consent of those artists is part of the issue (but not the entire issue). It casts a shadow of doubt over the entire creative work it's attached to - if the promotional materials were produced by a method that uses neural net sleight of hand, there's a perceived shallowness to the thought process that went into them. From this perspective, it might look like a lack of care. Can the other portions of the work be trusted to have been assembled with genuine care and deliberate decisionmaking if the promotional materials took visible (but only if you know how to spot it) shortcuts to achieve their look?

2. For those who are not sensitive in the same way to the use of AI imagery, this would appear to be a practical way to boost the project's production value. Image generation tools are widely available, and the results can look pretty good, especially if you haven't specifically trained yourself to spot the telltale signs. Then, backlash suddenly comes out of nowhere, for reasons those providing the backlash can't adequately explain.

The question is, what is production value? Group 1 would probably prefer to see low-budget drawings that were unambiguously created by a human decisionmaking process the whole way through, even if they wouldn't have the visual flair of a neural-net-assisted production. Group 2 would probably prefer to see whatever gives the most visual flair, regardless of how it was produced, and might be turned off by the hypothetical visibly lower-budget option. When under time and budget constraints, is there a way to satisfy both groups, or are you doomed to receive either anger from one group or apathy from the other?

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Schik wrote:
I am not an expert in 18th century technology, so I had to look up the Spinning Jenny. I can't for the life of me imagine how that could be categorized as a plagiarism factory.

Having an open mind, the way I'm taking this is that the invention copied and replaced the craft that people were carefully doing by hand up to that point. If the human element of performing a craft was seen as a fundamentally creative pursuit, then I might see how, by some modern standards, the device could have been likewise perceived as replacing human creativity.

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Schik wrote:
First off, I am not saying *I* believe generative AI is a plagiarism factory, I was just trying to show why "AI is just a tool like a hammer" is a stance, and not a hard fact.

Wow! I really do need to be more careful in how I phrase things. I didn’t mean to suggest you personally held that view, just that I was reacting to the stance you described others taking.

As for the Spinning Jenny, and other tools like it, I’d argue it did involve a kind of "plagiarism," or at least replacement of individual artistic variation with mass replication. Instead of thousands of people weaving unique patterns by hand, you suddenly had machines reproducing a limited set of designs at scale.

In fact, those looms were arguably the first example of mass programming. They used punch cards to encode patterns. A direct ancestor to how computers operate today. So it’s not a stretch to say this moment marked the transition from individually crafted works to reproducible templates. Beautiful, yes, but also homogenized.

That’s the comparison I was trying to draw: AI, like those early machines, may drive progress, but also raises serious questions about originality, labor, and creative diversity. I always find it problematic when people get hurt by progress. In this case, though, it seems clear to me that human labour is the main force behind Time Fenix.

I wish I knew better how much I ought to explain. More often than not, I am too verbose.

---

[Last edited by Blondbeard at 07-03-2025 05:12 PM]

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

ThemsAllTook wrote:
The question is, what is production value? Group 1 would probably prefer to see low-budget drawings that were unambiguously created by a human decisionmaking process the whole way through, even if they wouldn't have the visual flair of a neural-net-assisted production. Group 2 would probably prefer to see whatever gives the most visual flair, regardless of how it was produced, and might be turned off by the hypothetical visibly lower-budget option. When under time and budget constraints, is there a way to satisfy both groups, or are you doomed to receive either anger from one group or apathy from the other?

Hi, there! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this situation from these perspectives. I appreciate you participating in the conversation. What I'm taking away is that you're highlighting an inherent and fundamental tension that gets to the core of what is considered creative, human, and valuable.

As a creator, these are super interesting topics for me. I've appreciated the level of care you've presented in your own creations over the years, and I can tell you've thought deeply about these things and produced your work with intention and integrity to your personal vision. I can see from both perspectives, and as a producer, I want to earn trust and garner credibility for our work. I also have a strong desire for our creation and effort to be valued for the effort that went into it. At the same time, I acknowledge my creations are valued across a gamut of personal and subjective (often contradictory) scales.

This question of trust is relevant and real. If there's a question as to the quality and "trustworthiness" of the work, one approach to assess these has long been through independent reviewers, whose stances can be taken as credible sources to translate and communicate the value of the work to potential audiences. When credible sources who have had hands-on experience with a work are discounted, that's a large part of what makes the reaction feel knee-jerk rather than a principled, thoughtful response.

---

As a thought experiment, let's consider these scenarios:

(a) I sketch out a concept image on paper
(b) I use an AI tool to reproduce my concept image in a different style
(c) I ask an artist to redo my concept in another style

Which of these three activities is fundamentally more creative or valuable?

I'd say that (a) is the most creative, because it's closest to "the act of creating something from nothing", while (b) and (c) are both an incremental extension of (a). The latter two both provide a net-increase in creativity, but (b) and (c) are both generally considered more valuable to the end-user than (a). The consumer typically values the end production, and the creative process that went into it is nearly always only an afterthought, if considered at all.

I think you're expressing that value is in the eye of the beholder, and ultimately it's up to people to vote with their feet or wallet. As a creator wanting people to experience and enjoy our creation, I don't want to provide content in a way that would inadvertently discourage people from appreciating the creation. To satisfy both groups, Alex and I are investing more to update these background images and animations. The goal is to minimize the potential hang-up.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 05:39 PM]

kieranmillar
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3797
Registered: 07-11-2014
IP: Logged

Not sure why people are having a go at Zaratustra00 or downvoting the post, Mike literally asked for candid feedback. Given Mike's initial response was having a go at them for it, the worst possible response after asking for candid feedback, Zaratustra would have been totally justified in responding "Go f yourself". Mike has apologised, so all's good.

Re: Blondbeard and the weaving machine thing, you dont understand plagiarism. If you make a pattern weaving machine, then hire an artist to make a pattern for you to own the rights to, then you are free to mass produce it. If you took the patterns made by artisans and reproduced those, claiming it to be your own and giving no compensation to the actual author, it's plagiarism.

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

kieranmillar wrote:
Re: Blondbeard and the weaving machine thing, you dont understand plagiarism. If you make a pattern weaving machine, then hire an artist to make a pattern for you to own the rights to, then you are free to mass produce it. If you took the patterns made by artisans and reproduced those, claiming it to be your own and giving no compensation to the actual author, it's plagiarism.

I think I meant it feels similar in effect to AI-produced art (at least to me). You go from a sprawling landscape of human creativity to a landscape that builds on the creativity that preceeded it. The effect of which is that what came before will no longer be viable in the same way. Isn't that the main concern?

Anyway: Clearly my point is not very obvious.

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

kieranmillar wrote:
Not sure why people are having a go at Zaratustra00 or downvoting the post, Mike literally asked for candid feedback.

That’s right, I do value candid feedback, and I genuinely want to hear a range of perspectives. In this case, though, it didn’t come across as a personal opinion shared in good faith. "If those humans, themselves, are making the point..." felt more like criticism aimed at belittling the creators and the work, rather than contributing to a constructive conversation. I apologize if I'm misreading this or making too much out of it. I hope we can keep the discussion respectful and focused on helping each other create better things.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-03-2025 06:18 PM]

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

For the record, I didn’t see anything wrong with mrimer’s first response to Zaratustra00.

If I had spent as much time as mrimer and the team have on a project, I’d probably feel disheartened to read a comment implying that all that work somehow doesn’t count as “made by humans.” I’m a bit of a snowflake myself, maybe, but to me, the wording came across as more accusatory than perhaps intended, especially with the suggestion that the team was “making a point that AI would be doing a better job.”

That felt quite hyperbolic. Honestly, the whole exchange seemed inverted: mrimer and the team have poured years of effort into this. Whatever concerns people may have about AI tools, I think it’s important to recognize the deep human effort behind Time Fenix. In this case, the team deserves support and appreciation, not what can be interpreted as accusations.

Candid feedback is valuable, but there’s a difference between critique and what felt, at least to me, like a veiled accusation. I just wanted to say: I see and respect the work that’s gone into this project. I appreciate the care with which it’s being presented, and I fully support mrimer’s response.

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 653
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

kieranmillar wrote:
Not sure why people are having a go at Zaratustra00 or downvoting the post, Mike literally asked for candid feedback. Given Mike's initial response was having a go at them for it, the worst possible response after asking for candid feedback, Zaratustra would have been totally justified in responding "Go f yourself". Mike has apologised, so all's good.

Re: Blondbeard and the weaving machine thing, you dont understand plagiarism. If you make a pattern weaving machine, then hire an artist to make a pattern for you to own the rights to, then you are free to mass produce it. If you took the patterns made by artisans and reproduced those, claiming it to be your own and giving no compensation to the actual author, it's plagiarism.

There's no way you genuinely believe that the feedback offered by Zaratustra was anything more than virtue signalling, given that the only thing they said was 'AI bad' without even really qualifying why they think that. That's why they're getting downvotes.

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3772
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged

This is a pretty thorny topic so I'll try to carefully add something new to it...

I'm not familiar with Adobe Firefly in particular, but I take mrimer's word for it that he's done the appropriate research, and believes it to be minimally-harmful (with regards to environmental concerns, plagiarism concerns, moral hazard, etc.). This goes beyond merely accepting at face value any claims Adobe themselves makes about their product, of course.

However I'm still mildly disappointed to see the use of generative AI in the process (and thus its visible artifacts even in the final product which was further edited by human artists), for the following reasons:

1. The inconsistencies other people have pointed out (character design being inconsistent between scenes, lighting and focus being inconsistent, background characters not being as visible as they might need to be, awkward stances and angles). These are, of course, hard topics for human artists to get right too, but when they do get them right, it shows attention to detail. If people see an AI-generated image with these kinds of flaws in it, it raises the questions of "where else are shortcuts being taken" and "were the artists paying attention to how their assets came out", whether or not they're necessarily fair questions to ask.

2. Using generative AI is an endorsement of that technology. Adobe Firefly in particular might be minimally-harmful, but there are several other AI applications out there that are not. In general I don't want to see this stuff normalized because it's difficult to research which applications are minimally-harmful and we don't want increased popularity and usage of the harmful ones.

3. It promotes a certain degree of homogeneousness and muddiness when it comes to character design. I think the main character Fenix's design, the techno-roaches, etc. look distinctive and fine, but I'm not a big fan of:

- the trailer's floating glowy squares during the hallway walks (a distraction that make it harder to see details in the hallway, I didn't think it was appropriate for sci-fi tunnel atmosphere. Usually I see that stuff when there's a big fire or a forge or somesuch.)

- the trailer's big demon ("mech lord?") we only get to see a couple of seconds of (isn't really interacting with its environment, just waving its arms idly, no sense of scale for height or distance reference, not much to suggest that it's technological in nature or what villainous activities it's up to)

- the boxart's dark knight lurking in the background (hard to see, not much distinctive feature to it, would be hard to spot in a crowd. If I saw some other art of a dark knight how I would I know it's _this_ dark knight.)

I certainly think human artists could take these designs as a starting point and make improvements on them... but this is the trailer that just got shown to the whole public, which usually suggests a certain degree of "release-readiness" to these assets.

===

It might also help to include, in the Kickstater's "use of AI" section, some examples that illustrate the language used, "[AI generated images] were revised, redrawn, reimagined, or entirely replaced by our artists for the final product.", with pictures of the source images and the final images that were made by human artists - that might give a better impression of how much adaptation and refinement went into the final product rather than just using the gen AI image verbatim.

===

None of these would be deal-breakers when considering whether to buy this product, they're mostly just making me roll my eyes. I don't think it's a huge transgression but I also don't think it's a good look.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

navithmastero wrote:
There's no way you genuinely believe that the feedback offered by Zaratustra was anything more than virtue signalling, given that the only thing they said was 'AI bad' without even really qualifying why they think that. That's why they're getting downvotes.

That’s not how I see it. I think the subject may be deeply important to Zaratustra, and calling it “virtue signaling” doesn’t seem quite fair. To me, virtue signaling is about putting on a show of moral purity. I don’t think that’s what this was. It felt like a sincere concern about AI’s role in creative work. That said, I also didn’t find the way it was expressed to be fair or particularly constructive.

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5463
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Chaco wrote: ...that he's done the appropriate research, and believes it to be minimally-harmful

Yes, that's correct!

However I'm still mildly disappointed to see the use of generative AI in the process (and thus its visible artifacts even in the final product which was further edited by human artists)

To clarify -- this isn't the final product. It's a prototype version that we created to launch the Kickstarter. The goal is to get funding to complete the project and produce the final game. I should probably definitely make this point more clear on the KS page. We're still making changes.

1. The inconsistencies other people have pointed out (character design being inconsistent between scenes, lighting and focus being inconsistent, background characters not being as visible as they might need to be, awkward stances and angles).

I'm not clear what you're referring to here. The box cover image? It sounds like you're talking about content that was actually human-made. For instance:

3. It promotes a certain degree of homogeneousness and muddiness when it comes to character design. I think the main character Fenix's design, the techno-roaches, etc. look distinctive and fine

These are human made! Maybe that's what you're pointing out, and I'm glad you like them, but it sounds like you may be saying you think they were AI-generated?

- the trailer's big demon ("mech lord?") we only get to see a couple of seconds of (isn't really interacting with its environment, just waving its arms idly, no sense of scale for height or distance reference, not much to suggest that it's technological in nature or what villainous activities it's up to)

This sounds like a story-boarding issue? This is a still image that we animated with AE. Not clear what the point is here about AI. Are you suggesting we should have 3D-modeled and fully animated a scene here, or you simply don't like the image we created?

- the boxart's dark knight lurking in the background

This is hand drawn. The box cover elements are hand-drawn. Alex spent a lot of time creating this image by hand and I think it looks great, but I may not be in the majority in my opinion. Are you saying the box cover image and elements look like they're AI-generated? They're not!

I certainly think human artists could take these designs as a starting point and make improvements on them...

Ouch. As these are drawn by our artists, what I'm hearing is you're disappointed in our production values and we need to go back to the drawing board.

but this is the trailer that just got shown to the whole public, which usually suggests a certain degree of "release-readiness" to these assets.

Sounds like we botched our approach. This is painful for me to hear, but that's life, I guess. Perhaps we could simply yank the trailer from the page for now to avoid the misperception.

It might also help to include, in the Kickstater's "use of AI" section, some examples that illustrate the language used

That's a good suggestion. KS doesn't let us modify this text after launch. It also doesn't let us show off anything visually here to illustrate an example. Also, I think it's unnecessary to refer to ads to say we used AI in making the game, because that content is not in the final product.

Maybe it's just me, but this critique feels way harsher than anything we received on the art and production quality of Twisty Little Passages. No one said anything like "I don't like how the Demon King looks in your trailer" for TLP, and that image wasn't even animated. Is this a 2025 thing where expectations are simply higher now?

Queue my Rodney Dangerfield impression...

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 07-04-2025 12:51 AM]

Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3772
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
To clarify -- this isn't the final product. It's a prototype version that we created to launch the Kickstarter. The goal is to get funding to complete the project and produce the final game. I should probably definitely make this point more clear on the KS page. We're still making changes.

Great, that does help clear things up, thank you.

This sounds like a story-boarding issue? This is a still image that we animated with AE. Not clear what the point is here about AI. Are you suggesting we should have 3D-modeled and fully animated a scene here, or you simply don't like the image we created?

I think the use of AI for that particular cutaway, to animate the demon image, doesn't help with readability - the background melts away before I can look at it, and I can't tell without pausing and freeze-framing if those arcs near the demon's head and shoulders are supposed to be horns, or cables, or armor flares, or what. There might be a minor storyboarding issue with the overall trailer making that particular segment short (and thus increasing the readability difficulty for a snap-look at the scene), but I think it would be possible to design something more purposefully for readability keeping in mind _that_ it would be a short segment, and I don't think AI animation is necessarily ready to directly tackle these problems with the same principles that a human animator would.

This is perhaps adding in my own preferences, but I think either a single still image, or maybe a rudimentary 2D animation, with a couple of keyframes and/or a smear frame to indicate the demon's motion or its villainous activities, might have gotten the point across. (Since it's a couple-of-seconds long portion of a short trailer, it certainly wouldn't need to be an involved or expensively-modelled animation.) If I have some spare time this evening maybe I'll draw up a small sketch, a picture being a thousand words. One-to-three images of the demon lord draining power out of computer servers, or smashing them, or "uploading demonic energy to the network" would go a long way towards both figuratively and literally grounding the scene.

- the boxart's dark knight lurking in the background

This is hand drawn. The box cover elements are hand-drawn. Alex spent a lot of time on the image and I think it looks great, but I may not be in the majority in my opinion. Are you saying it looks like it's AI-generated?

Whoops, my bad. Yeah, with the mention of AI use in the trailer I thought it was plausible that the boxart had AI involvement, but it didn't.

That's a good suggestion. KS doesn't let us modify this text after launch. It also doesn't let us show off anything visually here to illustrate an example.

Oh, I see, that's a shame. Again, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, I think it's unnecessary to refer to ads to say we used AI in making the game, because that content is not in the final product.

Sure, the walkthrough sequences might not be in the final product, but the characters will be in some form or another. Saying that "we used AI to promote the game" raises questions about how much AI was used in the game assets themselves, even if the answer turns out to be "minimal or none".

Maybe it's just me, but this critique feels way harsher than anything we received on the art and production quality of Twisty Little Passages.

I can't speak for other people, but as I see it, the generative AI / large language model / etc. stuff is one aspect of a lot of wider contentious social issues and harms, so I think that's attracted people to both simultaneously criticize the use/endorsement of that AI stuff and offer other critique of the art at the same time, as an attempt to explain what it is about the actual art produced that they don't like, beyond just saying that the use of AI itself is bad. I think there's also a lot more attention on this given that this is promotional material for the game, "the face of the game", rather than AI usage for some incidental asset in the back corner of the gamebook.

I went ahead and watched the Twisty Little Passages trailer for comparison's sake, and I think I like that one better since, like the Time Fenix trailer, it does a good job showing off both the heroes and dangerous creatures involved, and the game mechanics and maps actually involved in the product. It's less complicated and less flashy, which I think is actually more appropriate at clearly showing what the game is about. There's a still image of the demon lord there, an evil laugh, it fits in nicely and isn't as incongruent.

I don't think standards for trailers have necessarily changed that much year to year, it might instead be the combination of wider advertising among more communities, and this AI hangup, that's resulting in greater attention and louder criticism. Personally, if I only had really minor nitpicky critiques I'd be more cautious about whether it was worthwhile to bring them up or not, but there's likely a tipping point where once it's worth talking about something larger it's also worth including the smaller items too, so it seems like a lot altogether.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 653
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but this critique feels way harsher than anything we received on the art and production quality of Twisty Little Passages. No one said anything like "I don't like how the Demon King looks in your trailer" for TLP, and that image wasn't even animated. Is this a 2025 thing where expectations are simply higher now?

One of the strange knock-on effects of the AI-paranoia seems to be the belief by some that human creation is somehow perfect, and thus if there are any mistakes then it must be AI and thus they have free reign to criticise extensively with impunity (that's not to say that the criticisms by Chaco above are necessarily wrong, but I do think he would've been far less harsh had he not mistakenly thought certain elements were AI).

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 07-03-2025 09:43 PM]

ErikH2000
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2810
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

I see the Kickstarter was canceled.

I don't know if this is related to the conversation in this thread. I hope not.

Lots of appreciation for people's work on this project. If you restart the campaign, I'll definitely re-pledge.

Also, I can tell you that towards the end of any multi-year release, it gets super-hard, like Zeno's Paradox, to finish it. And people get really raw. It's a good time to be nice.

-Erik

____________________________
The Godkiller - Chapter 1 available now on Steam. It's a DROD-like puzzle adventure game.
Decent Apps - open source tools for writing and deploying privacy-focused LLM-based web apps.

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1507
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

navithmastero wrote:

mrimer wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but this critique feels way harsher than anything we received on the art and production quality of Twisty Little Passages. No one said anything like "I don't like how the Demon King looks in your trailer" for TLP, and that image wasn't even animated. Is this a 2025 thing where expectations are simply higher now?

One of the strange knock-on effects of the AI-paranoia seems to be the belief by some that human creation is somehow perfect, and thus if there are any mistakes then it must be AI and thus they have free reign to criticise extensively with impunity (that's not to say that the criticisms by Chaco above are necessarily wrong, but I do think he would've been far less harsh had he not mistakenly thought certain elements were AI).

I’ve been on the receiving end of this kind of paranoia too, and I just want to say it hurts. It’s painful to have your own original work and effort swept aside as “AI-generated.” In some circles, it almost feels like the default posture has become one of harsh rejection, even when the work is very much human.

I’ve tried to post on LessWrong three times now. English isn’t my native language, and I tend to be verbose. So to make my ideas more accessible, I used an AI tool to help compress and structure the text. But the underlying thoughts were fully my own (often highly complex in ways I know are well beyond what current LLMs can produce).

Still, each time, my posts were rejected. After the second time, I thought: “Okay then. I’ll submit one of my most ambitious essays, with almost no AI-generated content. Surely this won’t be flagged as machine-written.” And yet… it was. What was meant as an act of defiance ("Look at what you get when I don't use AI to compress my work"), turned into a cosmic joke.

I tried to explain why I found that absurd:
“My text is written in clunky verbose English (clearly by someone whose native language is not English)... ...”

My point is this: Even if someone feels AI tools shouldn’t be used at all (and maybe they’re right!), it’s still deeply demoralizing to have real, thoughtful human work automatically dismissed as machine output. Maybe we could be a bit more careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 653
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Blondbeard wrote:
My point is this: Even if someone feels AI tools shouldn’t be used at all (and maybe they’re right!), it’s still deeply demoralizing to have real, thoughtful human work automatically dismissed as machine output. Maybe we could be a bit more careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yep, totally agree, and that's how some of the posts here feel to me.

As for the Kickstarter, I really hope that it's just a temporary measure. It does also strike me as quite sad that despite all of the positive contributions that Mike has made to everyone's lives here, that appears to at times in this thread have been forgotten.

Edit: the fact that I've been downmodded for showing support for Mike is pretty laughable. Would've loved to see some actual engagement in this thread rather than downvoting every comment I've made relating to AI

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 07-04-2025 03:14 PM]