was AI used for the art

[Parli9]

I recently read the reviews, and a lot of people are claiming that the art was AI generated.

Looking at the art style, i havent been able to detect the type of clashing art design that AI usually creates, nor the generic background details.

If it weren't for the reviews, i wouldn't even be asking this question, did the devs use ai images that where touched up, or is this all hand drawn.

[Mysticice]

I was looking for a 2nd opinion on that too. The game does look a bit like AI, in that it's very uniformly rendered rather than having areas with more details and areas with less but it might just be a filter on a 3d image. Like you your self mentioned I could not find any AI weirdness, the game seems overall very competently made both visually and gameplay wise, which you usually don't see from people who cut corners with AI and the fact that steam has a no AI art policy, I really don't know what to say.

That said the conductor is definitely at least AI cleaned up, the screenshots on the storepage have a different version of him that looks less AI and had a better expression if you ask me that does suggest they might have done it in other places.

[ChiliConQueso]

For this, I don't care if it's AI because a) it was supposedly done for a game jam and they needed art fast and b) they're not making any money off of this. If they slapped a price tag on this and left the AI art in, then we might have a problem. But yeah, definitely AI. Very clean AI, but there's still minor wonkiness to give it away. The easiest spot is the game over screen, there are two people holding the same pole/staff/whatever on the right side of the image.

[Parli9]

Originally posted by Mysticice:

I was looking for a 2nd opinion on that too. The game does look a bit like AI, in that it's very uniformly rendered rather than having areas with more details and areas with less but it might just be a filter on a 3d image. Like you your self mentioned I could not find any AI weirdness, the game seems overall very competently made both visually and gameplay wise, which you usually don't see from people who cut corners with AI and the fact that steam has a no AI art policy, I really don't know what to say.

That said the conductor is definitely at least AI cleaned up, the screenshots on the storepage have a different version of him that looks less AI and had a better expression if you ask me that does suggest they might have done it in other places.

Originally posted by ChiliConQueso:

For this, I don't care if it's AI because a) it was supposedly done for a game jam and they needed art fast and b) they're not making any money off of this. If they slapped a price tag on this and left the AI art in, then we might have a problem. But yeah, definitely AI. Very clean AI, but there's still minor wonkiness to give it away. The easiest spot is the game over screen, there are two people holding the same pole/staff/whatever on the right side of the image.

thanks for both the replies btw, and yes i agree with you chili, its a free game, and honestly im fine with AI art if its also been touched up, as AI art makes a great base-plate to work ideas on. The only thing i dislike is when AI art (with the exception of AI-roguelite) is just generically used. Cus when its not touched up there usually tons of inconsistencys, and AI doesn't actually "generate" anything, it simply rearranges pre-existing data that it collected from other sources, which is borderline plagurism.

I think in general, in both academics and product development AI is really good as a TOOL, but atm i feel like too many people, especially when it comes to art, is used too often as a way of "making" art as opposed to helping a person make art.

[kremlin]

the AI art rage is getting pretty silly
I don't get how this even became an issue in this context
Are there people who will sit there with the game paused scrutinizing the background art so them can complain because it wasn't human enough for them?
I mean we're gamers, right? We theoretically play video games because we enjoy them?
Or at least that's what I always thought, before Gamers became a rage culture.

Honestly I don't think I care about those criticisms. I don't think they come from an honest place. I think there's more to life than raging and video games are an escape from that.

It's great if someone finds more fun in raging about video games than actually playing them, why have we let that become a hallmark of video game culture?

People who will YELL ALL THE TIME ABOUT ALL OF IT? Why?

Why not do something else?

[Slywyn]

Originally posted by kremlin:

the AI art rage is getting pretty silly
I don't get how this even became an issue in this context
Are there people who will sit there with the game paused scrutinizing the background art so them can complain because it wasn't human enough for them?
I mean we're gamers, right? We theoretically play video games because we enjoy them?
Or at least that's what I always thought, before Gamers became a rage culture.

Honestly I don't think I care about those criticisms. I don't think they come from an honest place. I think there's more to life than raging and video games are an escape from that.

It's great if someone finds more fun in raging about video games than actually playing them, why have we let that become a hallmark of video game culture?

People who will YELL ALL THE TIME ABOUT ALL OF IT? Why?

Why not do something else?

Most of the issue with AI art comes from the fact that the "AI"(they're not really AI, just particularly complex visual algorithms) were trained on art that was, universally, stolen without permission, used for a commercial purpose, and is now essentially being distributed widely across the internet for anyone to use.

It's like saying "Hey <famous artist>, I'm going to take pictures of all your paintings, make collages out of random bits of them, and then sell them as my own art."

You'd get sued into oblivion, and the only reason it hasn't happened to AI is because it's developing faster than it can be legislated.

[Parli9]

Originally posted by kremlin:

the AI art rage is getting pretty silly
I don't get how this even became an issue in this context
Are there people who will sit there with the game paused scrutinizing the background art so them can complain because it wasn't human enough for them?
I mean we're gamers, right? We theoretically play video games because we enjoy them?
Or at least that's what I always thought, before Gamers became a rage culture.

Honestly I don't think I care about those criticisms. I don't think they come from an honest place. I think there's more to life than raging and video games are an escape from that.

It's great if someone finds more fun in raging about video games than actually playing them, why have we let that become a hallmark of video game culture?

People who will YELL ALL THE TIME ABOUT ALL OF IT? Why?

Why not do something else?

not sure, but in terms of AI art, theres raw AI art, which essentially is just plagiarism, and in the event the person doesnt actually acknowledge its AI generated, a scam.

And then theres AI/human art, in which a person takes an AI image, and then uses it as a base for what they are making, the problems with using AI images include

plagiarism- AI images arent actually "generative", they take pre-existing content, and then just smash it together into a different image.

Visual issues- AI often makes visual mistakes that are very noticable.

Lack of effort- it takes about 2 seconds to make an ai image

generic- ai art cant make a thing relating to the game specifically, only stuff similar to it.

Again tho, none of this applies if the creator used AI art as a base, and built on it, as it saves time, and still gives a quality product.

[Parli9]

Originally posted by Slywyn:

Originally posted by kremlin:

the AI art rage is getting pretty silly
I don't get how this even became an issue in this context
Are there people who will sit there with the game paused scrutinizing the background art so them can complain because it wasn't human enough for them?
I mean we're gamers, right? We theoretically play video games because we enjoy them?
Or at least that's what I always thought, before Gamers became a rage culture.

Honestly I don't think I care about those criticisms. I don't think they come from an honest place. I think there's more to life than raging and video games are an escape from that.

It's great if someone finds more fun in raging about video games than actually playing them, why have we let that become a hallmark of video game culture?

People who will YELL ALL THE TIME ABOUT ALL OF IT? Why?

Why not do something else?

Most of the issue with AI art comes from the fact that the "AI"(they're not really AI, just particularly complex visual algorithms) were trained on art that was, universally, stolen without permission, used for a commercial purpose, and is now essentially being distributed widely across the internet for anyone to use.

It's like saying "Hey <famous artist>, I'm going to take pictures of all your paintings, make collages out of random bits of them, and then sell them as my own art."

You'd get sued into oblivion, and the only reason it hasn't happened to AI is because it's developing faster than it can be legislated.

a lot of it is legal, because google and other browsers have already obtained the information images, texts, etc. over the past few decades and is selling it to chat gpt, but you are right, AI isnt making anything, its just mashing existing things up.