How do you feel about developers using generative AI in their adventure games?

Well, it depends a bit on what it is used for. By included, do you mean used in the process of developing the game? If AI was used for creating graphics instead of hiring a graphic designer, I am totally and utterly against that. Or for creating dialogue, or music, or any other creative work for that matter. If used for some kind of special effect where AI could be a big help with accomplishing something that is actually impossible for humans to do, I feel I cannot judge that just yet, before I know what that purpose would be. I am therefore leaning between alternatives 2 and 3. Voting 2 just to try to be a bit pragmatic, though I’m really in opposition.

Its not been used well yet, but it's not impossible to imagine a good use. AI assets are about on par with stock assets for me, they need vision and creativity to utilise. This hasn't happened yet.

I'm most familiar with AI images, although think LLMs and audio also need their own consideration.

AI has already hit the photomanipulation industry like a fucking truck. I think there's a lot of "invisible" AI already in use, such as AI background removal and AI photo retouching. Maybe AI will first see major use in genres where photomanipulation and digitization are already used. Maybe it already is being used there.

As for Adventure Gaming in specific... I know that's what the forum is! ...But I don't feel different about its usage per genre. I guess... I expect some graphical spectacle from adventure games and AI hasn't given that.

I've played a couple of excellent games (for example Heartache 101 - Sour into Sweet) that made use of assets from public domain sources and creative commons. Those will always thankfully be available as an alternative option to using generative AI. Useful for developers that just want to get their story across. Interesting observations from both Eirik and Gary so far. I'm keeping my input minimal to avoid swaying the vote too much.

This guy sums up how I feel about AI as a «creative voice». Because it really isn’t.
https://fb.watch/DuM_zrWU31/

Art is fundamentally human, it is maybe the last truly human ting we’ve got left.
I would love for AI to help with my tedious household tasks, but I am totally uninterested in what an AI has to «say» artistically. I would not want to watch a film with an AI-written script, or listen to AI music. Because what are you really listenting to, or watching? It is not based on real human experience, it’s based on prompts, on what has worked before. (It is also theft, but I won’t go into that now...)

The thing about art, is that all kinds of artistic innovation, all new forms of expression within art – be it music, visual art, films or whatever – happen when the artist does something that you do NOT expect! An AI can not do that. And even if AI takes the *next* giant leap where somebody makes some kind of AI algorithm instructed to avoid doing the expected – even that would be just another instruction. It has no artistic relevance, nothing real to say in relation to human experience. It is the algorithmic, auto-generated Spotify playlist of inoffensive background music taken to another extreme.

Now, AI can be used as a tool – in the sound world, AI algorithms have already been of great use in audio restoration for many years, making ancient sound clips sound as clean as possible. And the giant leaps in AI tech the last couple of years have really opened some new possibilities here, that were unheard of before. Those kinds of things I like. And as for image manipulation, I use Lightroom and Photoshop to organize and edit my own photos – I like that there are now new ways to remove objects from photos, and that these kinds of results are better than before.

I’m rambling on, as usual. Carry on… 

I'm fundamentally opposed to generative AI within "artistic" works. It's not art, it's theft. Either put your creative vision to screen, by using your own honed skills, or don't bother at all.

At the very least, those whom use generative AI within creative projects need to put a disclaimer that states as much at the point of sale, so that people with scruples can spend their money on real art instead.

A hard no from me. Generative AI is the antithesis of art.

For me, it depends on the circumstances.

If it's your own work, I can understand using it. The LLM is using your data to learn from and saving you time elsewhere, and I have no problem with that. (That's still Generative AI after all).

If it's "new" work, then no. AI at the moment can't create anything original. As others stated, it's theft, even though I don't know who I'm stealing from.

I voted for "depends".

First I wanted to write that I think it is not okay in general to use it for creative assets. But! When you have trained the model only based on your own artwork, only what you created yourself - right now, I think this might be fine. I don't know if this has been done, but I think it might work. So it could save the artist from doing repetitive work, like filling out in-between frames. I would be fine with this. Because it would still be in the hand of the artist to decide what it is supposed to look like, and based on their own work.

Same with music and anything "writing"/narrative, or even voice (their own voice, although I currently cannot imagine that voice actors would do that).

And I think "game code" (not visible/feel-able/sense-able to players, because it is always in the background) ... should be seen as "writing" as well? Or what do you think? Is programming creative? It needs much knowledge and experience when a human does it, and it would be very awful if this human real experience got lost in case people get lazy and let machines do it instead.

I would say everyone can "produce sounds", or "produce some image", no matter if it looks beautiful or not. Everyone could produce some kind of assets for a game.
But programming needs the knowledge, because it has to work functionally. You either have to learn it, and when you cannot/are not able to, because you don't have the brain for this, you need someone else.

I am wondering if it can be acceptable when you don't have that "someone else", because you are just a person, and you cannot pay anyone either, also because you are just a regular person.

Maybe I am egoistic, coming from art, but for me it feels a bit like ... without code, there would be no game at all. Without "nice" graphics, without "professional" sounds, there could still be a game without using AI or the help of other - skilled - people. And in some cases I might prefer the game to exist that otherwise, without the help of AI/LLM tools, would never have existed.

It's very reassuring that the majority of the forum shares my same viewpoint when it comes to treating AI, for want of a better word, as 'persona non grata' in adventure games. Joey from Beneath a Steel Sky gets a free pass though. 

I have a couple of supplementary questions if you feel like answering them.

1. Why do people use AI to make adventure games rather than using public domain and creative commons assets?

2. Do you also find adventure games that use 'procedural generation' to be really repetitive and gimmicky?

This is just a personal interpretation, but I perceive procedural generation as somewhat of a spiritual predecessor to generative AI. My first encounter with it was in Indiana Jones and his Desktop Adventures demo. It was fun to play at first, but it soon became apparent how random it all is. Basically it is replay value solely for the sake of replay value. Certainly not the bespoke feeling of a hand-crafted game that I ideally desire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1843/indi...dventures/

So it could save the artist from doing repetitive work, like filling out in-between frames. I would be fine with this. Because it would still be in the hand of the artist to decide what it is supposed to look like, and based on their own work.

Funny you should mention that, it reminds me of the development of Broken Sword Reforged (The remaster of the first game). Had you already read the interview where Revolution Software said they were doing in-between frames with AI technology?

https://www.polygon.com/23842925/broken-...les-cecil/

Have a quick look at the clown picture in this next article on Medium. I can't tell if the clown's teeth are the result of human error or AI-induced, either way it does look quite strange.

https://medium.com/@elijahabeahm/broken-...fa61a62723

Side note: I love Revolution Software, I've played the first Broken Sword on the Nintendo Wii, iPad and PC. Buying the Reforged edition for a 4th time is not high on my priority list because I've already played the game heaps.