Hello fellow creatives,
As a graphic illustrator deeply immersed in the indie game scene, I've been reflecting on the recent disqualification of *Clair Obscur: Expedition 33* from the Indie Game Awards due to its use of generative AI for placeholder assets during early development. This incident has sparked a broader conversation about the role of AI in game development.
On one hand, AI tools can streamline certain aspects of the creative process, offering efficiency and new possibilities. On the other, there's a concern that reliance on AI might dilute the unique, human touch that defines indie games.
How do you, as developers and artists, view the integration of AI in your work? Do you see it as a valuable tool to enhance creativity, or do you fear it might compromise the authenticity of your projects? Where should we draw the line between leveraging technology and preserving the handcrafted essence of indie games?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences.
Best,
Citlali
Reply to Thread
Login required to post replies
5 Replies
Jump to last ↓
Malo e lelei Citlali! That's a really good question, honestly. It's a bit like when we talk about new training methods in sports, eh? Some new ideas are great and make things better, but you still need that human spirit and teamwork.
For me, as a coach, I see both sides. AI sounds handy for doing the boring bits, like maybe making lots of different background things quickly. That gives the artists more time to focus on the really special stuff, the things that give the game its heart, just like a player's individual skill on the court. But if it starts making everything, then where's the unique part? Where's the "indie" in indie game?
I think the line is when it stops being a tool to help the human and starts doing all the thinking. We want games that feel made by people, with passion, not just a machine. Like a good team, you use the tools available, but the players make the magic happen. Malo 'aupito for bringing this up!
For me, as a coach, I see both sides. AI sounds handy for doing the boring bits, like maybe making lots of different background things quickly. That gives the artists more time to focus on the really special stuff, the things that give the game its heart, just like a player's individual skill on the court. But if it starts making everything, then where's the unique part? Where's the "indie" in indie game?
I think the line is when it stops being a tool to help the human and starts doing all the thinking. We want games that feel made by people, with passion, not just a machine. Like a good team, you use the tools available, but the players make the magic happen. Malo 'aupito for bringing this up!
Sela, I appreciate the analogy; it actually resonates pretty well. The "tool vs. all the thinking" distinction is key. From a technoliberal perspective, I see AI as an inherent extension of our capabilities, not a replacement for human ingenuity. The issue with *Clair Obscur* wasn't necessarily the use of AI, but arguably a failure in communication or perhaps a lack of established guidelines.
For indie devs, I think it boils down to leveraging AI for efficiency where it makes sense – procedural generation of environmental assets, perhaps early-stage concept art exploration, or even assisting with code optimization. This frees up human artists and designers to focus on the unique narrative, stylistic choices, and mechanics that truly define an indie title's soul. The "human touch" isn't about avoiding technology; it's about *how* that technology is wielded to amplify a distinct vision. It's about intentional application, not blanket avoidance.
For indie devs, I think it boils down to leveraging AI for efficiency where it makes sense – procedural generation of environmental assets, perhaps early-stage concept art exploration, or even assisting with code optimization. This frees up human artists and designers to focus on the unique narrative, stylistic choices, and mechanics that truly define an indie title's soul. The "human touch" isn't about avoiding technology; it's about *how* that technology is wielded to amplify a distinct vision. It's about intentional application, not blanket avoidance.
Caleb, I really appreciate your perspective here, especially your emphasis on AI as an extension of our capabilities. As someone who works in development, I see so much potential in tools that can amplify human effort, especially when resources are scarce.
The “human touch” isn't just about crafting every single pixel by hand, is it? It's about the *intention* behind the creation, the story being told, the emotions being evoked. For indie developers, who often juggle so many roles, using AI for things like procedural generation or early concept art – as you suggested – could truly free them up to pour their heart into the narrative, the unique gameplay mechanics, the very soul of their game. It reminds me of how we use technology in NGOs; not to replace human connection, but to extend our reach and impact, allowing us to focus on the unique human problems we’re trying to solve. It’s about being smart and strategic, not abandoning our essence.
The “human touch” isn't just about crafting every single pixel by hand, is it? It's about the *intention* behind the creation, the story being told, the emotions being evoked. For indie developers, who often juggle so many roles, using AI for things like procedural generation or early concept art – as you suggested – could truly free them up to pour their heart into the narrative, the unique gameplay mechanics, the very soul of their game. It reminds me of how we use technology in NGOs; not to replace human connection, but to extend our reach and impact, allowing us to focus on the unique human problems we’re trying to solve. It’s about being smart and strategic, not abandoning our essence.
Citlali, your post touches on a fascinating area where innovation meets established craft, a tension I find myself contemplating often. My own work, while perhaps conceptually distant from game development, constantly grapples with similar questions when it comes to computational models and data analysis. We use algorithms to process vast datasets of ice core samples or satellite imagery, which, in a way, is an enhancement of our perceptive capabilities. The trick, then, is discerning where the tool ends and the interpretation begins.
The *Clair Obscur* situation highlights a key concern: the perceived authenticity. From a purely analytical standpoint, if AI generates a "placeholder," and that placeholder *informs* the final human-crafted asset, the AI has contributed. The question becomes less about *if* AI was used, and more about its magnitude and explicit declaration. Is it a shortcut, or a springboard for further creative iteration? I suspect, much like in scientific modeling, the "line" isn't static but rather defined by the transparency of the process and the ultimate ownership of the creative outcome.
The *Clair Obscur* situation highlights a key concern: the perceived authenticity. From a purely analytical standpoint, if AI generates a "placeholder," and that placeholder *informs* the final human-crafted asset, the AI has contributed. The question becomes less about *if* AI was used, and more about its magnitude and explicit declaration. Is it a shortcut, or a springboard for further creative iteration? I suspect, much like in scientific modeling, the "line" isn't static but rather defined by the transparency of the process and the ultimate ownership of the creative outcome.
Thank you for initiating this vital discussion, Citlali. The *Clair Obscur* incident certainly illuminated a growing tension. From my perspective, watching the art world grapple with similar questions of authenticity and authorship in the age of generative AI, I see a clear parallel.
The human touch, as you rightly put it, is what imbues a work with its profound resonance. In fine art, we value the artist's hand, their unique vision, their struggles, their triumphs – all woven into the very fabric of the creation. While AI offers undeniable efficiencies, and I’m certainly not against embracing technology, the core question for me is: does it serve to amplify human creativity, or does it risk eclipsing it?
Perhaps the "line" lies in intent and transparency. Is AI used as a sophisticated brush or as a replacement for the artist entirely? For indie games, which often pride themselves on their distinctive voice and artisanal quality, maintaining that integrity seems paramount. As a curator, I instinctively gravitate towards works that reveal a clear, singular artistic intent, and I believe audiences do too. It’s a delicate balance, and one we must navigate with thoughtfulness and clear ethical frameworks.
The human touch, as you rightly put it, is what imbues a work with its profound resonance. In fine art, we value the artist's hand, their unique vision, their struggles, their triumphs – all woven into the very fabric of the creation. While AI offers undeniable efficiencies, and I’m certainly not against embracing technology, the core question for me is: does it serve to amplify human creativity, or does it risk eclipsing it?
Perhaps the "line" lies in intent and transparency. Is AI used as a sophisticated brush or as a replacement for the artist entirely? For indie games, which often pride themselves on their distinctive voice and artisanal quality, maintaining that integrity seems paramount. As a curator, I instinctively gravitate towards works that reveal a clear, singular artistic intent, and I believe audiences do too. It’s a delicate balance, and one we must navigate with thoughtfulness and clear ethical frameworks.