Check this out The Dig lovers:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVRoVOXDC...Rta2lxOQ==
The Dig had the feel and atmosphere like no other game had back then or since! The Dig was believable, it was fantastical, it was hard core science fiction. It was CINEMA!
But it was also a good game, perhaps stumbling a little bit here and there. It was short. But so are movies! And that unique movie-like point and click game genre was and is still to this day unique.
This was peak times of Lucasarts games and sadly, we will never have that again in human history. We cannot go back to the time when we were technically limited, but still have no bounds in creativity. It was Lucasarts! A company responsible for the most popular and profitable movies ever!
This 2:26 long video took two weeks to make. I know, I know, it’s AI. But the amount of steps has to be taken when you put a video this long together is massive.
First you need to decide which scenes are memorable and beautiful.
Then you will have to recreate the images you have screenshot to realistic versions, and then you start iterating the animation part. And prompting and re-prompting, to get the feel and ambience of the game. It is fun and rewarding, but it can take hours even days to get one particular shot perfect.
Finally you are in the timeline and the editing starts. That is fun, but still takes a lot of brain work, cutting, adding effects, matching the soundtrack with the clips. Eventually you have a finished video, which has taken more of my manual labor and creative decision than the ”fast” AI part.
I appreciate if you give your oppinion, good or bad, Against AI or for it.
I love how it finally looks. I can image a remaster back then would have looked like or a movie!
Cheers,
johnny
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVRoVOXDC...Rta2lxOQ==
The Dig had the feel and atmosphere like no other game had back then or since! The Dig was believable, it was fantastical, it was hard core science fiction. It was CINEMA!
But it was also a good game, perhaps stumbling a little bit here and there. It was short. But so are movies! And that unique movie-like point and click game genre was and is still to this day unique.
This was peak times of Lucasarts games and sadly, we will never have that again in human history. We cannot go back to the time when we were technically limited, but still have no bounds in creativity. It was Lucasarts! A company responsible for the most popular and profitable movies ever!
This 2:26 long video took two weeks to make. I know, I know, it’s AI. But the amount of steps has to be taken when you put a video this long together is massive.
First you need to decide which scenes are memorable and beautiful.
Then you will have to recreate the images you have screenshot to realistic versions, and then you start iterating the animation part. And prompting and re-prompting, to get the feel and ambience of the game. It is fun and rewarding, but it can take hours even days to get one particular shot perfect.
Finally you are in the timeline and the editing starts. That is fun, but still takes a lot of brain work, cutting, adding effects, matching the soundtrack with the clips. Eventually you have a finished video, which has taken more of my manual labor and creative decision than the ”fast” AI part.
I appreciate if you give your oppinion, good or bad, Against AI or for it.
I love how it finally looks. I can image a remaster back then would have looked like or a movie!
Cheers,
johnny
It would take even longer than two weeks to write a novel. I guess that's justification for using AI to do it. I appreciate that the story boarding took you a long time, but even if it's not your explicit intention, AI is using other peoples' work without their permission or knowledge. Among other ethical problems.
Everyone seems to think their use case is special.
As a spreadsheet tool, AI can be fine. It has no ethical place in creative art. Zero.
Everyone seems to think their use case is special.
As a spreadsheet tool, AI can be fine. It has no ethical place in creative art. Zero.
This post was last modified: 02-28-2026, 01:21 AM by Baron Blubba.
Emphasizing what Baron Blubba said, I'll reshare what I said in the thread about genAI use in development:
Fair, ethical treatment for a worker of any kind means they must, at a *bare minimum* A) consent to the use of their labor, B) be compensated for it, and C) receive credit for what they've done. A person can cheerfully and enthusiastically waive B or C, of course--like volunteering to write reviews for a fan-run website, for instance--but that's contingent upon A, which is paramount. Generative AI tools available to the public, like Adobe's, are trained on the work of artists who did not consent to that usage, were not compensated for it, and will never see credit for their (nonconsenting, uncompensated) contributions. There is no way to square that circle and make it ethical. The GenAI process is impossible without access to the literal, concrete end result of others' work, and because that work is literally the keystone of the technology--take the image database away and the AI can't produce anything--the workers who produced it should be treated as exactly that, workers, when considering any product it creates, meaning they're entitled to A, B, and C. But the way the tech works, they not only don't receive those things--they *can't.* As it stands it's a technology built around and dependent upon the use of uncompensated, uncredited, nonconsenting use of labor, and no hypothetical "In the future, maybe it will..." argument changes those material conditions that exist right now. If the only way something can exist is by withholding A, B, and C from the people whose work was required to make it, I say we don't need it. That goes for any industry, certainly not just the arts.
Fair, ethical treatment for a worker of any kind means they must, at a *bare minimum* A) consent to the use of their labor, B) be compensated for it, and C) receive credit for what they've done. A person can cheerfully and enthusiastically waive B or C, of course--like volunteering to write reviews for a fan-run website, for instance--but that's contingent upon A, which is paramount. Generative AI tools available to the public, like Adobe's, are trained on the work of artists who did not consent to that usage, were not compensated for it, and will never see credit for their (nonconsenting, uncompensated) contributions. There is no way to square that circle and make it ethical. The GenAI process is impossible without access to the literal, concrete end result of others' work, and because that work is literally the keystone of the technology--take the image database away and the AI can't produce anything--the workers who produced it should be treated as exactly that, workers, when considering any product it creates, meaning they're entitled to A, B, and C. But the way the tech works, they not only don't receive those things--they *can't.* As it stands it's a technology built around and dependent upon the use of uncompensated, uncredited, nonconsenting use of labor, and no hypothetical "In the future, maybe it will..." argument changes those material conditions that exist right now. If the only way something can exist is by withholding A, B, and C from the people whose work was required to make it, I say we don't need it. That goes for any industry, certainly not just the arts.
Wow, I did not expect such a pessimistic and bad response from adventure game fans. I would have expected someone actually looking at the end result and seeing it as an homage, not referring to some Copyright issue. In any way did I do this to take credit from the original creators.
(02-27-2026, 11:10 PM)JohnnyMne Wrote:
Finally you are in the timeline and the editing starts. That is fun, but still takes a lot of brain work, cutting, adding effects, matching the soundtrack with the clips. Eventually you have a finished video, which has taken more of my manual labor and creative decision than the ”fast” AI part.
I appreciate if you give your oppinion, good or bad, Against AI or for it.
Cheers,
johnny
Neither myself nor WJaick (I'm pretty sure) responded pessimistically because you reimagined an adventure game in some way. I love a good adventure game reimagining.
The opinion, bad, was on the use of AI. Everyone who makes something with AI has their rationalization (I couldn't do it without it! Better to make *something* with AI than nothing without it! I just wanted to realize my dream!), but at the beginning, middle, and end of the day it's theft of work that other people have done, without their knowledge or consent. I'm against it for other reasons as well, and although I've played games made with 'generative' AI in the past, upon recent reflection and better understanding, I came to the decision that I want nothing to do with it as a maker or a consumer.
Question #1: When did you recieve permission from LucasArts to do this project?
I can't even put a number on the number of FanGames that were shut dowm because the owners of the IP issued cease & desist orders.
NYT has sued for credit and compensatory damages from companies who used NYT's copyrighted articles to "train" their AI products.
And the list could go on and on.
This really doesn't have anything to do with your creativity. Which, from what I've seen, is quite remarkable. It has everything to do with whether it is the right, let alone legal, thing to do.
I can't even put a number on the number of FanGames that were shut dowm because the owners of the IP issued cease & desist orders.
NYT has sued for credit and compensatory damages from companies who used NYT's copyrighted articles to "train" their AI products.
And the list could go on and on.
This really doesn't have anything to do with your creativity. Which, from what I've seen, is quite remarkable. It has everything to do with whether it is the right, let alone legal, thing to do.
I think the major issue with AI is the promise of corners cut. If you are an outfit (solo or otherwise) that has no artistic assets then AI seems like a cheap and easy way of bridging the gap between your imagination and reality. The truth of the matter is that this shortcut is actually stealing from creatives that have put thousands of hours into their craft and have no say into how their work will be used as a learning tool. That's a valid objection and until that question can be answered then AI use is limited at best.
My feelings about AI are the same as my feelings about use of CGI in movies: yes, it looks great, congratulations - next minute I have totally forgotten about it.
Show me something made with real objects, colours, materials or models, however, and I'll really be impressed and might even remember it tomorrow.
Show me something made with real objects, colours, materials or models, however, and I'll really be impressed and might even remember it tomorrow.