Just as remixing a song or creating a song from samples is not the same as trowing a bunch of songs in a AI tool and let the tool brew something. The 1st two are other creative visions on something that already existed with effort and dedication, the later is random AI output.
@@globalistgamer6418it’s not remotely the same morally or in any regard. One is machine learning image generation and the other is an artist taking an existing work and adapting it, adding to it with their own creative vision.
Honestly, yeah. In the end if there's a future where a game has notable features or what-not that is created from AI, and we see it and don't enjoy it, then we'll just have to ask for refunds.
Capitalism and ai can't coexist. If the goal is to maximize profits, why would a company choose to employ a human over ai that can do the same as humans for a fraction of the cost?
AI should be used as a tool to smooth our current workload not replace it. Like imagine instead of having 25GB of textures, but decompressed by AI could smooth it down to 2GB because it's trained to trick high-fidelity details with extreme speeds. That's what I would want to see
or you could have an AI generate materials and textures during gameplay, like a shader compilation step, but instead its an image generation AI trained specifically on materials and textures.
There are two types of compression: lossless compression and lossy compression. Lossless compression means no data is lost during compression, which means that it can be restored to full size with the same fidelity. The issue is, AI is entirely unhelpful for this, if anything it's an unnecessary drain of resources. Lossy compression means there's data cost between compression and decompression, think JPG files. The issue with using AI here is that it will essentially have to invent new data, which means that textures will just look different from time to time.
@@Great.Milenko That technically exists already with tools like Substance and InstaMat (textures generated using node graphs & procedurally generated images). Seen some games use it to generate textures once they're installed, reducing the initial game install size.
I think my only problem with the Bioshock example that isnt really addressed here is that some games have brilliant Art Direction. I would prefer human modders with 3D or texture painting skills offer their own creative takes than an AI with zero creative vision.
Just look at the faces in that demo - the AI one is completely void of emotion. The original looks way more realistic in that regard and vastly preferable to me.
Until you can actually control every little detail of the AI output, not so much. You need total control on every aspect of the output to really make it your own.
@@askers81 Not really. Look at how 2D animation is done today. You used to draw every frame by hand, now you can draw a "model" and animate it with key frames and the computer fills in the rest. Tweakable AI could be just like that.
@@AfterBurnett yea, but the point of ai was to leave the little details to the ai. If you were able to control every little detail, then you may as well do it manually.
@@askers81 But if you can do it by tweaking the results it would still be much faster. It's never going to be perfect and iterating over something would still be much faster than doing something from scratch.
@@AfterBurnett i know but the OP said that the we should be able to control every detail, and that we should have complete control, and that defeats the purpose of AI
If the Woke agenda gets too much in the games people will simy use filters to get the looks they want. It's pretty cool also just in general how you could overall a game to make it with a style you want.
I think that ai will be utilized by devs in this kind of context where they train the ai on how their game is supposed to look at absurd settings that you couldn't replicate normally without killing fps so that they can shove down the native res and let the upscale do the work in a faithful way.
I don't know what the problem is of users doing what they want with their own stuff. If you're a photographer or portrait artist, it's not your business if your customer draws a mustache on it after the sale.
Precisely. People often get weird ideas about their hobby that they don't apply to anything else. So, it helps to thing of non-gaming examples, like yours of someone changing a portrait they bought. Another one would be buying a car and putting on a wrap, a spoiler, and a different front bumper. Do people worry that the car designer is sad now? I doubt it.
It very much could be, depending on the terms of the sale - if you plan to exhibit the defaced portrait publicly, for example, you could be violating the artist's reserved rights.
Disrespectful PFFFF tahts why all these people behind the scene dobt want us to own our games because they can take them away from us once they see we are messing with the code , thats why I sold my entire collection of Xbox one and SX games tbey are trash useless trash half of games on the disc they are basically code in the box basically so if Xbox show me a middle finger why i should care of buying their games I will buy cheap codes frok south America or buy a cheap code for game pass finish games I want to finish try other games and leave it for a month or two and go back to my switch and PS5 that I got recently basically just as an upgrade to my PS4 pro death stranding edition definitely not to play new games as they only have few that are not full of THE MESSAGE (if you know you know ) but if you dont care about fps or resolution there is no point upgrading from your ps4 pro and definitely no point upgrading your Xbox one X 😂😂😂 , I can finally say when I sold my Xbox one/SX collection and PS2 consoles as they are useless to me because if I want to play psx/psone and ps2 games i can do it on my fat ps3 or even emulate games, If industry dont care why should I , all i kept is my MGS collection , Shenmue and games that are nostalgic to me or I have a great memory playing it or even great story getting it there is absolutely no point keeping bunch of crap that i cant olay or i dont have any connection to and i thought I will be sad but when I sold it my collection of VMU (52 of them) amd my Dreamcast games and especially Xbox and i got a proper amount of cash I felt nothing thats meant i already moved on and I dont care if industry do not care who im going to show my collection? My wife ? My kids who instead of playing games they watching some bs on TH-cam during their mobile phone tablet hours ( yes they obly have 3 hours a day ) so if i have no one who is interested and i have ti go to conventions to show my stuff and not sell it luke soke TH-camrs who got big and now are ripping people of on sales then whats the point keeping it at the end of the day the game that I got and never played or im telling myself that I will play one day or the ones I have because it cool to have are just bunch of $hit lying around and catching dust and when I realised that some people will pay thousands now for some of my collections that I have no connection to I moved really quickly with sale , remember prices will go down one day or your games will get old or something might happen to your collection so remember this ITS OK TO CASH IN WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT AND WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU THE ONLY ONE CARRYING ABOUT THIS BUNCH OF PLASTIC , and no I didn't go on the Crouse with my wife we are not thats for low lifes with no class ive invested in my house and got some gold ...BLINK BLINK MOT#ERFU¢KER$ BLING BLINK
It's a fun tool to mess around with for sure. That's all I have to say about it. We're able to modify games anyway. There's even some huge total conversion "mods" out in the wild that pretty much create a totally new game within an existing game!
As long as there is an option in settings somewhere so we can choose to have it on or off then it's fine in my opinion. If it's forced then no I don't want it.
Personally when playing a game I'm always thinking about the people that made it, and the artistic expression they brought into it. From main character designs down to the blades of grass, and how it moves. It's one of the reasons why I like Nintendo, because you can actually see a lot of clever tricks like the "bulging" bushes in Breath Of The Wild whenever you walk through it, or several moving textures that simulate different effects. Or how they painstakingly created a primitive form of global illumination for Sonic Unleashed back in the day. Having AI on top of that, removes all that interest for me, and instantly puts me off. I already have that feeling whenever I see a game that uses a ton of standard/store-bought assets, either for props or even whole environments. The human craftsmanship behind it is what makes the games special, both in visuals as in gameplay. It is what makes it art.
I don't know. I understand a studio wanting their vision seen because that was the point of having an art team in the first place. On the other hand we already mod games to make changes to whatever we want, including the art direction. I can see it feeling bad froma development point of view mostly because of the work, time and money that went into making assets only for them not to be seen. I don't know if this is really a rational fear to have though.
_Most_ of the AI-enhanced graphics I've seen look like they belong in those "hidden objects" adventure games made for mobile devices. Presumably they'll get better, but I do question the long-term effects the push for AI-generated content (in commercial products) will have on wealth disparity and local economies.
@@dr_diddythis happens all the time. Don’t want to mention it’s already been done? Ask practical effects artists when 3D rendering came out. Boom whole industry gone. People are still needed to train and create these Ai programs. They aren’t just a flip of a switch.
@@chrisbrown113096 Employment experts and company CEOs alike are projecting enough job losses from generative-AI in the next 5-7 years to decrease the overall workforce. That prediction alone is unprecedented and suggests this won't be "business as usual".
@@chrisbrown113096 lol Your example doesn't make the point you think it does. Practical effects workers are unionized, but VFX and CGI workers aren't so they're _significantly_ more likely to be taken advantage of by employers.
I think it'll come to something like objects being tagged in game engines by the devs, letting the AI know what it is, and then it'll have specific style/effect assigned to it by the devs. Despite what people think, AI output isn't random, computers themselves are not random, it's 100% possible to have the same output every time by using the same seed. This is even more necessary because all those AI videos cannot distinguish what is and isn't interactive, resulting in an incomprehensible mess that no player is going to be able to parse visually.
Ironically I sort of loved the later generation ue3 games..the artstyle was amazing. Dishonored looked like a oil painting. Bioshock was also amazing looking. I played it recently and the art holds up. Using this example for ai is just goes to show that ai enhancement is not going to be a thing. Just another tool for the modding community.
More viable would perhaps be a.i. generated alternatives to assets (not real-time) that are then stored in separate folders and later accessed by the game bypassing original assets. Rinse and repeat outputs until you get something desired
Current AI is ridiculously good at mimicking what you visualize when you're tripping on psychedelics, so at the moment I just want an AI filtered tempest 2000
AI cheat tools that use the game's video output as an input may be more of an issue, providing additional overlays, keeping track of other players, auto blocking/aiming etc.
I actually had the same question. First time I came across such a real-time AI graphics filter on top of a game was 3 years ago in a GTA 5 video called "Enhancing Photorealism Enhancement". Feels like this is the last remaing step game consoles could do to push graphics one last time towards photo realism, cause consoles on their own have pretty much peaked with how realistic they can render graphics in real-time since the PS5 era.
I know nothing about dev or editing but I’d imagine that you’d run an algorithm and could restyle the game based on whatever style you prefer. Similar to modding a game now. Some designer or you could render the game a certain way and then it’s just a matter of loading the files into the game, why do it in real time? That’s just insane
The question should be: why should creators be entitled to dictate how they think we should experience their work. Once we paid for it, we should be free to experience it however we wish 🤷🏻♂️
Personally, I don't think video AI is even close to "being there" yet, but things like voice cloning, AI upscaling etc can help some lone modder make previously impossible stuff.
The truth is that no one really knows how this technology will be used by consumers. I don' t think we'll see the ability to render a realistic reproduction of an old game running in the background, any time soon.
This sort of question always always reminds me of the "is a game a piece of art" argument. In years gone by, an artist would create a piece of art and it would be judged as good art of bad art. The good art would then possibly achieve a mythological status given enough time. It would be inconceivable for an artist to jump the ropes at the Louvre and artistically add a pair of glasses and a moustache to the Mona lisa. However, something akin to this happens with every single game. The Developers release their artistic vision and then it is patched and patched and patched again. Since the advent of modern art and it's acceptance, "art" has become the outcome of any creative process, baking a cake, creating a child, developing a video game etc. There is no human action whether, physical, mental or emotional that cannot in some way be described as a piece of art. A developer may not approve of another artistic take on what they perceive as their art. However, whether you are a developer or not, if you believe a game is art and are prepared to let people at your studio "tamper" (patch) that art, even if they had no input whatsoever into its creation then, you surely do not have the moral right to question someone else expressing their artistic vision of the piece, no matter how far they take it from your original vision, and let's be honest, games are created by a multitude of artists so it can, only very rarely, be described as a singular artistic vision.
Even if games are an art once your purchase something the artist accepts you can do whatever you want with it, if you buy a painting you might hang it in your toilet in and ugly frame, I might even change it completely by painting over it. The artist has no say once it’s yours
@@sirtngThat is completely not true. A game is not sold and does not become property. A license to use a game is being sold, but you never own the game. So no, you can't do with it what you want. This is different when you buy a painting. In that case, the painting does become your property and you can do with whatever you want.
@@colaboytje THIS, there is a complete and utter misunderstanding of ownership in the gaming community. Even if you have the physical media in your hands that you paid money for, all you own is a limited license to the media that can be revoked at any time, there is no ownership, and there hasn't been for going on half a century.
@@colaboytje a licence that can’t prevent you from changing the game, all the licence is there for it to provide t and c round liability if it caused some damage or if you tried to profit off it, there is nothing that can be enforced to stop you changing how the game looks and good luck to anybody trying to argue that in court
I feel like a lot of the debate on all kinds of AI stuff is a bit backwards. It's one thing to talk about the turbulence and social instability that will result from rapid technological chage, and how we best alleviate that. The thing that is surprising to me though is the way many people appear to prioritize protecting the current state of any given profession. The point of a job, a profession is that it exists as consequence of the fact that it provides value. People want what the profession produces. It seems strange to me to prioritize professions as an end in and of themselves. It's a bit akin to "problematizing" cars because they put horse carriages out of work. They don't live up to the artful pursuit of horse carriage riding. It also seems to be a trend in a certain subset of the video game culture to want to demonstrate how virtuous you are by signaling that you're aware of how problematic AI is in every possible way. Sorry if this comes across as a bit ranty, and it's not meant as an accusation specifically at Digital Foundry. It's more the comments section and the whole space in general. I'm just tired of how pessimistic and cynical a lot of the culture is becoming. We're living in this amazing time and everyone is just complaining about how problematic everything is. There are so many aspects of the rapid advancent of AI that has incredible potential applications for gaming and entertainment in general. But many people just look at some incidental flaws that exist at the current moment and don't seem to be able to step back and look at the trajectory. The big AI labs have made huge strides in making hardware and algorithmic optimizations to pretty much all areas of ML, we're seeing new techniques and structures emerge on a weekly basis. Compute will improve, power availability will hopefully improve. I mean not even three years ago it took minutes to render a crappy low resolution picture using DALLE-mini. Now we are getting pretty close to realtime generation of HD video with Runway and Sora etc. Given how much talent and money is being invested in this space and how relatively nascent a lot of the modern progress is, I'm sure there's still a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick. Plus human brains are an existence proof of the physical possibility of crazy things on a much lower energy budget than current GPUs. I also don't understand people thinking that AI is just randomly stiching together "stolen" data. People who say things like this clearly do not have much experience using any of these tools and do not have more than a superficial understanding of how they work.
I don't see how it's weird to prioritize professions in and of themselves. You just pointed out that people value the product, but the relationship between the profession and the product is clearly part of what's valued as well if people are adamant about protecting both.
@@arglebargle5531 I totally agree that it's important to respect and value the professionals working to deliver us the things we value. I was more focusing on the long term goal as a society. Take something more concrete for example, in the same industry but a simpler case. Voice acting for video games. Suppose AI voice models get good enough and efficient enough that you could produce professional quality and low cost. By this I mean that randomly sampled consumers would percieve the results as being at least as good in a blind study. Note that I'm assuming this comes to pass for the sake of the argument, not saying for sure that it will. To simplify things we are now faced with basically two alternatives: either we try to impose regulations to protect the profession of voice acting and limit this new technology, or we allow the market to decide on which way we want to go. If we do not impose regulations, we could potentially have massively more amounts of voice acting in games, of as high a quality (in this hypothetical) for a much lower price. Small studios which could not afford professional voice actors could be able to produce experiences that are way beyond what they otherwise could. Of course this same argument goes for AI art and all other AI related things. Now I'm not saying that the technology by necessity will become indistinguishable or even better, but I'm asking people to keep it in mind as a possibility and to consider the long term outcomes of the different options. What possibilities are potentially being squandered in order to protect the status quo? Just to be reasonable and realistic about it. Another thing is to consider what could be possible if/when we get realtime voice generation of very high quality. Then you could essentially have background setup instructions for different game characters and then be able to speak to them completely freeform as with real human beings. If we just focus on the present day, we may miss these kinds of opportunities. Technology advances, and what was once a reasonable set of professions in a society is not necessarily stable over time. It sucks for those who have invested all their life in something and risks losing their jobs for sure. And I definitely thing we need to consider UBI or other alternatives!
I'm also confused about the emphasis on artist or developer's vision, particularly when it comes to games. The thing that makes games special is that they are interactive, the experience is bespoke to the person playing the game. Dynamically generating parts of the experience just increases the potential for interaction and immersion. Also if people want to interact with a game in a certain way (say by applying a post-processing AI video model in the future), why would developers be against this. The person applying this filter is not forcing anyone else to do it. It would be like a musician telling people they'll be offended if people listen to their music with effects on it. Seems a bit pretentious?
Honestly, this is just an awful take. The problem with your analogy is that you mistake AI for what you want it to be for what it is. A car (tool) replaced the horse (tool). The rich who had horse and carriages still had drivers. AI is a tool, but is currently being used to replace the driver if we follow your analogy. It is trained on works by actual people to generate things that look technically correct, but without the understanding of why things are done in such a way. In a visual format, we get content like the most recent Coca Cola ad, which on top of being visually bad, makes no sense and carries no meaning. "Meaning" is the crucial bit here. For Video games, art direction serves many purposes, aside from making a game look good. For one "looks good" is subjective. Cyberpunk looks good. As does TLoZ: Windwaker. But each is art directed to serve a distinct purpose. The character design environment design, 3D shading, all of these are done purposefully to bolster the story of a game. Done with intention, done with meaning. People don't want slop, human or AI generated. In regards to these game filters, no one is stopping you from using it, that's on you. But I would never want to play a game with AI art direction from the ground up. If they didn't care enough about the game, I shouldn't either.
I have been talking about the potential of making custom datasets for the specific aesthetic you're trying to make in the game, and then you have the raw game just be very raw and simple, and the model would be trained on game scenes and real life recreations of the same scenes (or drawings or whatever else). Everything in the game would be represented in the dataset. The idea of using generic datasets and broad models is off putting to me. But making your own custom models for a specific game, and building the entire graphics around thia concept, is going to be the way.
Just curious, should we treat these AI filters more or less like a another remastered filters? Not something original to the source or just something entirely different.
I think itd be cool once the tech gets soooo good that u could have like ai remastering of old games. Imagine a plug n play thing for gamecube, like an mclassic but for remastering.
not controversial? where do you think will developers/modders get their training data from? surely they'll provide all of it instead of scraping stolen content together. surely.
@benjsarchive I'm an artist myself I understand where your are coming from. But the avarge joe doesn't care let's be honest... AND most importantly when it comes to regulation/goverment involvement it will only be enforced and most likely abused on normal people like me and you. While the mega corporations will most likely be allowed to steal all your art for their AI models without punishment through various legal loopholes. Very naive to ask the government to regulate this so they can keep it for themselves and their corporate friends.
Many years ago, I had gotten a powercolor graphics card that came with some preset shader tweaks at the driver level. I dont remember the exact setting name, but one of them had the look of colorized black and white. This was perfect for Tron 2.0, which I got shortly after getting the card. To this day, I cannot replay the game because, to me, that is the "correct" visual for that game and i havent exactly found a way of doing it without the card. I'll argue that, in 500 years, we'll have enough computing power to run any such AI generated tweaks. In that sense, the article is correct. Exactly when we get there is simply a matter of optimizations and hardware capabilities. Will players want it? Sure, some will and some wont. I think the key thing to look at is how many players actually change the graphics settings and to what degree. If you're a developer of PC games, you're already making a game with a range of graphical features that may or may not be present depending on the preferences and capabilities of your end user. Does that bother you? Does your game support mods which can drastically change your game into a totally different game? Similarly, players who really want to tweak the visual look of a game they enjoy will spend their time, effort, and use the tools they have available to make such changes. Look at what can be done to Cyberpunk with mods; while AI tweaks aren't practical today, they will be leveraged as it becomes practical. As an example, I think we'd all love to have chatGPT in any NPC we walk up to.
Most form of automatization is ruining the gaming industry, is a plague, Broken pseudio ray tracing taking 100fps from your performances, automated broken LODs, AI upscaling tech that still break glowing effects and Alpha textures, broken Nanite in Unreal 5... I miss the era when devs used their own custom engines and tools to offer the best visual experience stutter free.
Maybe developers can train a custom AI for their games that was trained taking some lightweight rendering path and outputing their vision, example they train it taking rasterized graphics and train it to output path traced graphics.
This is the basic principle behind DLSS. However, turning raster into raytracing (correctly) is not possible, because RT requires data not available in the rasterized image (light coming from outside the screen space). However, ML models are quite useful for "filling in the gaps" (see: DLSS) and for finding "optimal" aproximations to expensive computations.
@@SMorales851 they could pass all the lights positions in the input parameters and even the geometry or anything else, no need to limit to screen space. But even in screen space if they train it just for their game, the ai can even be overfitted (that memorizes things) so when seeing some part of the game it knows how the lighting should look as that area was in the training set.
Honestly, not sure why this is a discussion. It’s a product you buy. It’s the user’s right to modify it however sees fit and if anything the dev should be flattered or not care. Anything else is a personal issue. Do you think BMW have issues with all of the pimpin’ garages out there?
Artistic direction is more important that graphical realism these AI filters make that clear... they look horribly out of place but could be fun to use on a case by case basis depending on the game/application why not.
Well that depends right. If such a hypothetical system works well (once it reaches maturity) and is implemented intelligently then I fail to see why it would be a bad thing? You are making the fairly dramatic assumption that the technology will somehow make things worse, and without much basis.
Everything that AI touches ends up looking a bit plasticky/too smooth. I hate when I can immediately tell that something has been "AI'ed", it just sours things for me.
I think in a sense this is just a variation on modding, the problem IMO comes in when you consider the limitations of AI and the ways it could cause problems with the experience. I also think we are further than people want to imagine from this being a really viable solution, that looks good, and runs on hardware that doesn't cost 3500 dollars. Really something like this needs a whole new architecture with a thorough understanding of things like game objects and such, so you dont just end up with over-boiled video-game stew
Ken Olsen, founder of DEC in 1977 "“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.” Bill Gates, 1981 "640K ought to be enough for anybody" Pedro Domingos, 2015 "People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too foolish and they’ve already taken over the world.”
A future where artists and developers have no control over how their own creative expression is viewed. How is this a good thing in any capacity. Not everything has to be tailored to an individual. Edits: Looking back, I wan't to say that ultimately I don't have authority over what someone who bought a game chooses to do with it. It isn't my responsibility to defend the "purity" of the art, and I don't want to be pretentious. I just hope that it will always be an option. I just don't fully trust publishers like EA, Ubisoft, or Activision with even more tools to be lazy. And the over saturation of Ai generated content is truly exhausting.
Okay sure but that's always going to be a niche. Creating something for wide distribution is going to involve your art being perceived in non-ideal circumstances. I don't think Christopher Nolan is happy that people are gonna watch Oppenheimer on a phone or tablet with the tinny speaker. It makes me cringe just thinking about that. But it has happened thousands of times. Similarly, PC games can be made to look terrible just to get them to run on systems people can afford. I'm gonna do that with Indiana Jones. Generative AI slop images are bad for a number of reasons not limited to the environmental impact, the un-artfulness, the lack of soul, theft of images and artwork, etc. But if someone uses some sort of AI filter for their games, that is their choice and they have the right to make it.
@@BonJoviBeatlesLedZep I agree that art is consumed under circumstances it may not be designed for. I could watch a 480p MP4 of Oppenheimer on an iPod Nano, but that would mean I still watched Oppenheimer. Now if I ran Oppenheimer through an Ai filter that made it look like a Pixar movie with Ai voice copies of the actors. Would that still be the same film? Kind of like the Ship of Theseus how much can you change before it's a completely different thing? If I play a game like Jet Set Radio Future with an Ai filter that completely changes its art style. Am I really playing Jet Set Radio Future since its Art Style is among its defining features? I don't want to say I have the right opinion, arguments both for and against it have validity, and consumer choice is a win. I just personally am not comfortable with it, and I hope that I can always have the choice to avoid it. As long as it remains an option and isnt the primary means of rendering, i'm fine with it.
@@flowerthencrranger3854 I feel modding is different, because at least modding takes skill, time, and effort to do. Modding is clearly transformative, unlike Ai which (while I am not exactly sure how it falls under law) I wouldn't consider transformative.
That's been the case for 30 years. The entire MOBA genre comes from a mod on a 2--player RTS game. Games aren't painting or novels and no artists has ever been able to control what the public does with copies of their work.
Sooner or later we're gonna get to the point where AI will hallucinate the whole game from a book or from a simple text input given by the user. At that point the game writing or the game creators will be obsolete.
When creators are obsolete, games are obsolete. There's no point in creative media without creativity (and no, a prompt is not creativity). You'll find it cool for the first few times because of the knowledge of how it was done, if you enjoy that tech's appeal, but when that's no longer fresh and surprising you'll have to engage with the substance of the media itself.
I've already seen an AI that can generate a playable game from a text prompt. You can basically walk around in the 3D world that was created. It still has that weird AI look to it though.
We're rapidly heading to a direction where all the biggest games are going to be gacha, AI generated slop coming out of China and made in Unreal Engine 5.
As an artist and passionate gamer, no this is not what I want to happen. I'm still waiting to hear about AI powering the in game AI for NPC interactions and to play against. A potential AI adversary would be so cool. I don't want it changing art styles that's what draws players to games and changing it would be a bad bad bad idea
AI art is all the same style is like industrialising Art and culture making it inauthentic as possible but I am not against AI being used to improve the flow of a game or possibly fix bugs and other things
I can agree that games can be a for of Art, but game’s graphic presentation is often NOT. At least not comparable to other forms of art. When a famous painter from centuries ago was painting a human being, he didn’t said: I would like her to look like she’s a mix between Caucasian European and Arab, so a glod’ish beautiful looking skin, but I don’t have those colors so I’ll just make her plain white. When a sculptor was making a stature he didn’t said “my intention was to give the statue round shoulders and rounded breasts, but I don’t have the necessary tools for that level of precision so I’ll just make them squared. But game devs/graphic designers do say “I would like to make this look this way” but clients don’t have the hardware to run this, and if doesn’t runs, it doesn’t sells, and this is not about creating something beautiful but about making money. There is no art or creative intentions there. The games don’t look the way they do because that’s how devs envisioned, they look that way because our hardware was/is shit and they had to cut a shit ton of corners. Wanna have an approximate idea of what creator’s intents were for older games? Look at the pre rendered trailers and cutscenes they used to do before it became standard to do cutscenes in engine. Talking about disrespecting a game’s creative intent when improving it visually is Hilariously stupid. The only thing disrespected is your sense of nostalgia that ai attached to how it looked and won’t let go.
AI filters could be fantastic for pre-rendered bg games as AI assisted fan remasters of such games are already better than the official studio remasters.
I can see this as a path towards cheap remasters. Rather than doing things in realtime, upgrade the assets using AI, possibly smoothing off some of the rough edges manually. The same game can then be sold again as a new product or an upgrade, and I can image outsourcing studios that special in this existing. If studios try to sell something that's realtime that doesn't result in decent sales (due to being bad), they'll quickly learn their lesson. Then again, I can also imagine Unreal Engine plugins existing that would allow tuning of the output, perhaps scene by scene.
This is the fear that leapt to mind for me. Quick & ugly "remasters" combined with publishers that like to erase the original when their rework comes out (see Blizzard with Warcraft etc). This stuff being just mods might be weird, but as the DF folks said - the original is still there.. when publishers start doing it that might not be the case.
I mean, we already have modding, so people are already free to change the look of their games how they want. Developers pearl clutching over this kind of thing is silly.
all the "none design" roles in video game development will be replaced by ai. 3d modeling, programming, .... these rules will be replaced by new roles in design aspect of a game. concept artists will be the most important . and this change will lead developers to go deep into design and phycological aspect of a game. and that will make the games more exciting!. see this comment in five years ,,,
the filters look like total dogshit as of right now, so I'm sure they'll be deployed aggressively before they're ready by studios looking to save money.
People already use mods to change/replace characters in games. Using an AI to accomplish the same task isn't any bit ethically different. ALso real-time will definitely be possible; right now we use models that are broadly trained for all different types of outputs - but if you're using a tightly-trained AI (say, for your game explicitly) you can get real-time (4k/60fps) speeds at least
Yes, I think it's desirable for at least some games with realistic (not stylicized) graphical style, like GTA or CoD. Obviously wouldn't look good on games like Dragon Ball or Street Fighter.
Well, my sister uses this awful blue-light filter that turns everything yellow. I'm an artist with a deep understanding of color. I absolutely hate that she uses that. But she wants it so meh. 🤷♂ You guys are seriously underestimating how much AI will change gaming. Games will be straight-up generated live.
Just make a GPU that's like 80% tensor cores, 10% CUDA/RT cores. Should be able to handle the AI processing a lot better.. Maybe a standalone AI card kinda like the day's of PhysX by AGEIA, coupled with a card for rasterization. Given how little actual rendering would be necessary though since it's all just going to be replaced in the AI filter, the number of raw CUDA processing cores could be low.
If you play games with a specific AI filter that you like, why bother playing the game when its not the creator's intended vision for what they want to gamer to see? might as well make your own since it will be possible to have an AI make a quick small game that is exactly what you want it to be. Its fine you want to change the look of the game after playing it how it was intended, but having this filter being used on first playthrough of the game is kinda insane as you won't be playing the creator's game, you are playing your own fictional version of it with AI filter, no pun intended.
it already has, alot of articles are just scrapped from reddit and ran through AI, the amount of mistakes and 3rd grade writing is atrocious. It's better to now just follow individuals like Jason Schreier for newss.
In 2 years: you'll be able to make your own feature quality film via a prompt. In 2 more years: you'll be able to make your own AAA game via a prompt. Humans have great difficulty understanding exponential rates of change. ChatGPT first came out only 2 years ago, believe it or not.
Ai is going to end humanity with an lethal amount of ambient occlusion
We will all be living under heavy Path Tracing Shadows with the sun's ultra bloom and heavy god rays that can melt metal.
🤣
Throwing shades there, huh? 😏
How is this different from mods that exist right now? Texture packs, reshades, asset mods can completely change a game’s look.
Just as remixing a song or creating a song from samples is not the same as trowing a bunch of songs in a AI tool and let the tool brew something. The 1st two are other creative visions on something that already existed with effort and dedication, the later is random AI output.
Exactly, ultimately this is ‘morally’ similar to using shaders and filters in Retroarch, which is already happening.
@@globalistgamer6418it’s not remotely the same morally or in any regard. One is machine learning image generation and the other is an artist taking an existing work and adapting it, adding to it with their own creative vision.
@@florisbackx1744 lol who cares
Jesus man.
We can sit here and talk about how we feel, what we wanna see, so on and so forth. If it's something that save game publishers money, it WILL happen.
Honestly, yeah. In the end if there's a future where a game has notable features or what-not that is created from AI, and we see it and don't enjoy it, then we'll just have to ask for refunds.
Capitalism and ai can't coexist. If the goal is to maximize profits, why would a company choose to employ a human over ai that can do the same as humans for a fraction of the cost?
Sure, UE5 stutters like hell but companies still fired their proprietary engine devs to save money while switching to UE
AI should be used as a tool to smooth our current workload not replace it.
Like imagine instead of having 25GB of textures, but decompressed by AI could smooth it down to 2GB because it's trained to trick high-fidelity details with extreme speeds.
That's what I would want to see
or you could have an AI generate materials and textures during gameplay, like a shader compilation step, but instead its an image generation AI trained specifically on materials and textures.
@@Great.Milenko what a gross idea
we dont even need AI for that
There are two types of compression: lossless compression and lossy compression. Lossless compression means no data is lost during compression, which means that it can be restored to full size with the same fidelity. The issue is, AI is entirely unhelpful for this, if anything it's an unnecessary drain of resources. Lossy compression means there's data cost between compression and decompression, think JPG files. The issue with using AI here is that it will essentially have to invent new data, which means that textures will just look different from time to time.
@@Great.Milenko That technically exists already with tools like Substance and InstaMat (textures generated using node graphs & procedurally generated images). Seen some games use it to generate textures once they're installed, reducing the initial game install size.
I think my only problem with the Bioshock example that isnt really addressed here is that some games have brilliant Art Direction. I would prefer human modders with 3D or texture painting skills offer their own creative takes than an AI with zero creative vision.
Just look at the faces in that demo - the AI one is completely void of emotion. The original looks way more realistic in that regard and vastly preferable to me.
6:47 "There's a future where the games journalism that you read is going to be decided by an AI and not journalists"
So based. So true.
Imagine if AI manages to play and review games better than game journalists.
@@CyanRooperit's such a low bar I can already imagine it being true
calling it now. Acid trip simulator uses real time AI to produce images as you walk
Until you can actually control every little detail of the AI output, not so much. You need total control on every aspect of the output to really make it your own.
that kinda defeats the purpose of AI
@@askers81 Not really. Look at how 2D animation is done today. You used to draw every frame by hand, now you can draw a "model" and animate it with key frames and the computer fills in the rest. Tweakable AI could be just like that.
@@AfterBurnett yea, but the point of ai was to leave the little details to the ai. If you were able to control every little detail, then you may as well do it manually.
@@askers81 But if you can do it by tweaking the results it would still be much faster. It's never going to be perfect and iterating over something would still be much faster than doing something from scratch.
@@AfterBurnett i know but the OP said that the we should be able to control every detail, and that we should have complete control, and that defeats the purpose of AI
Gamers gonna change all the games main character with the Stellar Blade chick
🤢
* The Stellar Blade chick with less clothes.
gooner.
Nah I want Linda Lusardi in her prime in every game
If the Woke agenda gets too much in the games people will simy use filters to get the looks they want. It's pretty cool also just in general how you could overall a game to make it with a style you want.
I think that ai will be utilized by devs in this kind of context where they train the ai on how their game is supposed to look at absurd settings that you couldn't replicate normally without killing fps so that they can shove down the native res and let the upscale do the work in a faithful way.
I don't know what the problem is of users doing what they want with their own stuff. If you're a photographer or portrait artist, it's not your business if your customer draws a mustache on it after the sale.
Precisely. People often get weird ideas about their hobby that they don't apply to anything else. So, it helps to thing of non-gaming examples, like yours of someone changing a portrait they bought. Another one would be buying a car and putting on a wrap, a spoiler, and a different front bumper. Do people worry that the car designer is sad now? I doubt it.
It very much could be, depending on the terms of the sale - if you plan to exhibit the defaced portrait publicly, for example, you could be violating the artist's reserved rights.
They are clearly talking about these as products and not fan projects.
It's not yours that's the point once you don't have physical copy it's not yours
Disrespectful PFFFF tahts why all these people behind the scene dobt want us to own our games because they can take them away from us once they see we are messing with the code , thats why I sold my entire collection of Xbox one and SX games tbey are trash useless trash half of games on the disc they are basically code in the box basically so if Xbox show me a middle finger why i should care of buying their games I will buy cheap codes frok south America or buy a cheap code for game pass finish games I want to finish try other games and leave it for a month or two and go back to my switch and PS5 that I got recently basically just as an upgrade to my PS4 pro death stranding edition definitely not to play new games as they only have few that are not full of THE MESSAGE (if you know you know ) but if you dont care about fps or resolution there is no point upgrading from your ps4 pro and definitely no point upgrading your Xbox one X 😂😂😂 , I can finally say when I sold my Xbox one/SX collection and PS2 consoles as they are useless to me because if I want to play psx/psone and ps2 games i can do it on my fat ps3 or even emulate games, If industry dont care why should I , all i kept is my MGS collection , Shenmue and games that are nostalgic to me or I have a great memory playing it or even great story getting it there is absolutely no point keeping bunch of crap that i cant olay or i dont have any connection to and i thought I will be sad but when I sold it my collection of VMU (52 of them) amd my Dreamcast games and especially Xbox and i got a proper amount of cash I felt nothing thats meant i already moved on and I dont care if industry do not care who im going to show my collection? My wife ? My kids who instead of playing games they watching some bs on TH-cam during their mobile phone tablet hours ( yes they obly have 3 hours a day ) so if i have no one who is interested and i have ti go to conventions to show my stuff and not sell it luke soke TH-camrs who got big and now are ripping people of on sales then whats the point keeping it at the end of the day the game that I got and never played or im telling myself that I will play one day or the ones I have because it cool to have are just bunch of $hit lying around and catching dust and when I realised that some people will pay thousands now for some of my collections that I have no connection to I moved really quickly with sale , remember prices will go down one day or your games will get old or something might happen to your collection so remember this ITS OK TO CASH IN WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT AND WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU THE ONLY ONE CARRYING ABOUT THIS BUNCH OF PLASTIC , and no I didn't go on the Crouse with my wife we are not thats for low lifes with no class ive invested in my house and got some gold ...BLINK BLINK MOT#ERFU¢KER$ BLING BLINK
It's a fun tool to mess around with for sure. That's all I have to say about it.
We're able to modify games anyway. There's even some huge total conversion "mods" out in the wild that pretty much create a totally new game within an existing game!
As long as there is an option in settings somewhere so we can choose to have it on or off then it's fine in my opinion.
If it's forced then no I don't want it.
1:05 Their faces kind of remind me of the guards in Goldeneye if you pause lol
Personally when playing a game I'm always thinking about the people that made it, and the artistic expression they brought into it. From main character designs down to the blades of grass, and how it moves. It's one of the reasons why I like Nintendo, because you can actually see a lot of clever tricks like the "bulging" bushes in Breath Of The Wild whenever you walk through it, or several moving textures that simulate different effects. Or how they painstakingly created a primitive form of global illumination for Sonic Unleashed back in the day.
Having AI on top of that, removes all that interest for me, and instantly puts me off. I already have that feeling whenever I see a game that uses a ton of standard/store-bought assets, either for props or even whole environments. The human craftsmanship behind it is what makes the games special, both in visuals as in gameplay. It is what makes it art.
I don't know. I understand a studio wanting their vision seen because that was the point of having an art team in the first place.
On the other hand we already mod games to make changes to whatever we want, including the art direction.
I can see it feeling bad froma development point of view mostly because of the work, time and money that went into making assets only for them not to be seen. I don't know if this is really a rational fear to have though.
fear is ppl will lose jobs and in the end ull have just ai games and no other option
_Most_ of the AI-enhanced graphics I've seen look like they belong in those "hidden objects" adventure games made for mobile devices. Presumably they'll get better, but I do question the long-term effects the push for AI-generated content (in commercial products) will have on wealth disparity and local economies.
less people in jobs and more soulless media. oh boy, the future looks amazing...
@@dr_diddythis happens all the time. Don’t want to mention it’s already been done? Ask practical effects artists when 3D rendering came out. Boom whole industry gone. People are still needed to train and create these Ai programs. They aren’t just a flip of a switch.
@@chrisbrown113096 Employment experts and company CEOs alike are projecting enough job losses from generative-AI in the next 5-7 years to decrease the overall workforce. That prediction alone is unprecedented and suggests this won't be "business as usual".
@@chrisbrown113096 lol Your example doesn't make the point you think it does. Practical effects workers are unionized, but VFX and CGI workers aren't so they're _significantly_ more likely to be taken advantage of by employers.
I think it'll come to something like objects being tagged in game engines by the devs, letting the AI know what it is, and then it'll have specific style/effect assigned to it by the devs. Despite what people think, AI output isn't random, computers themselves are not random, it's 100% possible to have the same output every time by using the same seed.
This is even more necessary because all those AI videos cannot distinguish what is and isn't interactive, resulting in an incomprehensible mess that no player is going to be able to parse visually.
Ironically I sort of loved the later generation ue3 games..the artstyle was amazing. Dishonored looked like a oil painting. Bioshock was also amazing looking. I played it recently and the art holds up. Using this example for ai is just goes to show that ai enhancement is not going to be a thing. Just another tool for the modding community.
More viable would perhaps be a.i. generated alternatives to assets (not real-time) that are then stored in separate folders and later accessed by the game bypassing original assets. Rinse and repeat outputs until you get something desired
Current AI is ridiculously good at mimicking what you visualize when you're tripping on psychedelics, so at the moment I just want an AI filtered tempest 2000
Tempest 4000 is pretty much that. LOL.
1:40 just "hypothesizing" uh? I see what you did there, maybe we'll hear more about this at Nvidia's CES 2025
AI cheat tools that use the game's video output as an input may be more of an issue, providing additional overlays, keeping track of other players, auto blocking/aiming etc.
I actually had the same question. First time I came across such a real-time AI graphics filter on top of a game was 3 years ago in a GTA 5 video called "Enhancing Photorealism Enhancement". Feels like this is the last remaing step game consoles could do to push graphics one last time towards photo realism, cause consoles on their own have pretty much peaked with how realistic they can render graphics in real-time since the PS5 era.
Let alone peaked with how good graphics can be considering the amount of time and manpower that they would really require to make them better.
Yeah raytracing & photogrametry still don't quite reach the realism of AI.
I know nothing about dev or editing but I’d imagine that you’d run an algorithm and could restyle the game based on whatever style you prefer. Similar to modding a game now. Some designer or you could render the game a certain way and then it’s just a matter of loading the files into the game, why do it in real time? That’s just insane
Yeah: AI - driven material response will be next. More than just ray recon; it'll cover texturing and diffuse lighting to accelerate ray traced GI.
The question should be: why should creators be entitled to dictate how they think we should experience their work. Once we paid for it, we should be free to experience it however we wish 🤷🏻♂️
i can't believe people agree and think this is ok, what a horrible future.
We have mods for like 30+ years.
Is that would somehow different? ;-)
@@igorthelight There's a difference between a user mod made with passion by a fan and corporate AI slop.
@@hihihi1q23 100% agree!
Personally, I don't think video AI is even close to "being there" yet, but things like voice cloning, AI upscaling etc can help some lone modder make previously impossible stuff.
The truth is that no one really knows how this technology will be used by consumers. I don' t think we'll see the ability to render a realistic reproduction of an old game running in the background, any time soon.
This sort of question always always reminds me of the "is a game a piece of art" argument. In years gone by, an artist would create a piece of art and it would be judged as good art of bad art. The good art would then possibly achieve a mythological status given enough time. It would be inconceivable for an artist to jump the ropes at the Louvre and artistically add a pair of glasses and a moustache to the Mona lisa. However, something akin to this happens with every single game. The Developers release their artistic vision and then it is patched and patched and patched again. Since the advent of modern art and it's acceptance, "art" has become the outcome of any creative process, baking a cake, creating a child, developing a video game etc. There is no human action whether, physical, mental or emotional that cannot in some way be described as a piece of art. A developer may not approve of another artistic take on what they perceive as their art. However, whether you are a developer or not, if you believe a game is art and are prepared to let people at your studio "tamper" (patch) that art, even if they had no input whatsoever into its creation then, you surely do not have the moral right to question someone else expressing their artistic vision of the piece, no matter how far they take it from your original vision, and let's be honest, games are created by a multitude of artists so it can, only very rarely, be described as a singular artistic vision.
Even if games are an art once your purchase something the artist accepts you can do whatever you want with it, if you buy a painting you might hang it in your toilet in and ugly frame, I might even change it completely by painting over it. The artist has no say once it’s yours
@@sirtngThat is completely not true. A game is not sold and does not become property. A license to use a game is being sold, but you never own the game. So no, you can't do with it what you want.
This is different when you buy a painting. In that case, the painting does become your property and you can do with whatever you want.
Isn't that exactly what this L.H.O.O.Q. painting was? Mona Lisa with a mustache, worth 750 000$?
@@colaboytje THIS, there is a complete and utter misunderstanding of ownership in the gaming community. Even if you have the physical media in your hands that you paid money for, all you own is a limited license to the media that can be revoked at any time, there is no ownership, and there hasn't been for going on half a century.
@@colaboytje a licence that can’t prevent you from changing the game, all the licence is there for it to provide t and c round liability if it caused some damage or if you tried to profit off it, there is nothing that can be enforced to stop you changing how the game looks and good luck to anybody trying to argue that in court
I feel like a lot of the debate on all kinds of AI stuff is a bit backwards. It's one thing to talk about the turbulence and social instability that will result from rapid technological chage, and how we best alleviate that. The thing that is surprising to me though is the way many people appear to prioritize protecting the current state of any given profession. The point of a job, a profession is that it exists as consequence of the fact that it provides value. People want what the profession produces. It seems strange to me to prioritize professions as an end in and of themselves. It's a bit akin to "problematizing" cars because they put horse carriages out of work. They don't live up to the artful pursuit of horse carriage riding. It also seems to be a trend in a certain subset of the video game culture to want to demonstrate how virtuous you are by signaling that you're aware of how problematic AI is in every possible way.
Sorry if this comes across as a bit ranty, and it's not meant as an accusation specifically at Digital Foundry. It's more the comments section and the whole space in general. I'm just tired of how pessimistic and cynical a lot of the culture is becoming. We're living in this amazing time and everyone is just complaining about how problematic everything is.
There are so many aspects of the rapid advancent of AI that has incredible potential applications for gaming and entertainment in general. But many people just look at some incidental flaws that exist at the current moment and don't seem to be able to step back and look at the trajectory. The big AI labs have made huge strides in making hardware and algorithmic optimizations to pretty much all areas of ML, we're seeing new techniques and structures emerge on a weekly basis. Compute will improve, power availability will hopefully improve. I mean not even three years ago it took minutes to render a crappy low resolution picture using DALLE-mini. Now we are getting pretty close to realtime generation of HD video with Runway and Sora etc. Given how much talent and money is being invested in this space and how relatively nascent a lot of the modern progress is, I'm sure there's still a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick. Plus human brains are an existence proof of the physical possibility of crazy things on a much lower energy budget than current GPUs.
I also don't understand people thinking that AI is just randomly stiching together "stolen" data. People who say things like this clearly do not have much experience using any of these tools and do not have more than a superficial understanding of how they work.
Found the plagiarism defender.
I don't see how it's weird to prioritize professions in and of themselves.
You just pointed out that people value the product, but the relationship between the profession and the product is clearly part of what's valued as well if people are adamant about protecting both.
@@arglebargle5531 I totally agree that it's important to respect and value the professionals working to deliver us the things we value. I was more focusing on the long term goal as a society. Take something more concrete for example, in the same industry but a simpler case. Voice acting for video games. Suppose AI voice models get good enough and efficient enough that you could produce professional quality and low cost. By this I mean that randomly sampled consumers would percieve the results as being at least as good in a blind study. Note that I'm assuming this comes to pass for the sake of the argument, not saying for sure that it will. To simplify things we are now faced with basically two alternatives: either we try to impose regulations to protect the profession of voice acting and limit this new technology, or we allow the market to decide on which way we want to go. If we do not impose regulations, we could potentially have massively more amounts of voice acting in games, of as high a quality (in this hypothetical) for a much lower price. Small studios which could not afford professional voice actors could be able to produce experiences that are way beyond what they otherwise could. Of course this same argument goes for AI art and all other AI related things.
Now I'm not saying that the technology by necessity will become indistinguishable or even better, but I'm asking people to keep it in mind as a possibility and to consider the long term outcomes of the different options. What possibilities are potentially being squandered in order to protect the status quo? Just to be reasonable and realistic about it.
Another thing is to consider what could be possible if/when we get realtime voice generation of very high quality. Then you could essentially have background setup instructions for different game characters and then be able to speak to them completely freeform as with real human beings. If we just focus on the present day, we may miss these kinds of opportunities.
Technology advances, and what was once a reasonable set of professions in a society is not necessarily stable over time. It sucks for those who have invested all their life in something and risks losing their jobs for sure. And I definitely thing we need to consider UBI or other alternatives!
I'm also confused about the emphasis on artist or developer's vision, particularly when it comes to games. The thing that makes games special is that they are interactive, the experience is bespoke to the person playing the game. Dynamically generating parts of the experience just increases the potential for interaction and immersion. Also if people want to interact with a game in a certain way (say by applying a post-processing AI video model in the future), why would developers be against this. The person applying this filter is not forcing anyone else to do it. It would be like a musician telling people they'll be offended if people listen to their music with effects on it. Seems a bit pretentious?
Honestly, this is just an awful take. The problem with your analogy is that you mistake AI for what you want it to be for what it is. A car (tool) replaced the horse (tool). The rich who had horse and carriages still had drivers. AI is a tool, but is currently being used to replace the driver if we follow your analogy.
It is trained on works by actual people to generate things that look technically correct, but without the understanding of why things are done in such a way. In a visual format, we get content like the most recent Coca Cola ad, which on top of being visually bad, makes no sense and carries no meaning. "Meaning" is the crucial bit here. For Video games, art direction serves many purposes, aside from making a game look good. For one "looks good" is subjective. Cyberpunk looks good. As does TLoZ: Windwaker. But each is art directed to serve a distinct purpose. The character design environment design, 3D shading, all of these are done purposefully to bolster the story of a game. Done with intention, done with meaning. People don't want slop, human or AI generated.
In regards to these game filters, no one is stopping you from using it, that's on you. But I would never want to play a game with AI art direction from the ground up. If they didn't care enough about the game, I shouldn't either.
I have been talking about the potential of making custom datasets for the specific aesthetic you're trying to make in the game, and then you have the raw game just be very raw and simple, and the model would be trained on game scenes and real life recreations of the same scenes (or drawings or whatever else). Everything in the game would be represented in the dataset.
The idea of using generic datasets and broad models is off putting to me. But making your own custom models for a specific game, and building the entire graphics around thia concept, is going to be the way.
I’m excited for a game that is designed to specifically take advantage of ai . Like allow you to mod it to ai as you go. Like a ai sandbox
Just curious, should we treat these AI filters more or less like a another remastered filters? Not something original to the source or just something entirely different.
I think itd be cool once the tech gets soooo good that u could have like ai remastering of old games. Imagine a plug n play thing for gamecube, like an mclassic but for remastering.
This just looks like the extension of mods
at least for Single Player games, This shouldn't be controversial at all. YOU buy the game YOU modify it however you want.
not controversial? where do you think will developers/modders get their training data from? surely they'll provide all of it instead of scraping stolen content together. surely.
Unfortunately we don't buy the games, we buy the licenses
@benjsarchive I'm an artist myself I understand where your are coming from. But the avarge joe doesn't care let's be honest... AND most importantly when it comes to regulation/goverment involvement it will only be enforced and most likely abused on normal people like me and you. While the mega corporations will most likely be allowed to steal all your art for their AI models without punishment through various legal loopholes. Very naive to ask the government to regulate this so they can keep it for themselves and their corporate friends.
@@benjsarchive 𝘐 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐'𝘮 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘉𝘜𝘛 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘐 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰.. 𝘴𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘨𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘨𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘠𝘖𝘜𝘙 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴.
@@johnjohnson7743Not always.
Many years ago, I had gotten a powercolor graphics card that came with some preset shader tweaks at the driver level.
I dont remember the exact setting name, but one of them had the look of colorized black and white.
This was perfect for Tron 2.0, which I got shortly after getting the card.
To this day, I cannot replay the game because, to me, that is the "correct" visual for that game and i havent exactly found a way of doing it without the card.
I'll argue that, in 500 years, we'll have enough computing power to run any such AI generated tweaks. In that sense, the article is correct.
Exactly when we get there is simply a matter of optimizations and hardware capabilities.
Will players want it? Sure, some will and some wont. I think the key thing to look at is how many players actually change the graphics settings and to what degree.
If you're a developer of PC games, you're already making a game with a range of graphical features that may or may not be present depending on the preferences and capabilities of your end user. Does that bother you? Does your game support mods which can drastically change your game into a totally different game?
Similarly, players who really want to tweak the visual look of a game they enjoy will spend their time, effort, and use the tools they have available to make such changes.
Look at what can be done to Cyberpunk with mods; while AI tweaks aren't practical today, they will be leveraged as it becomes practical. As an example, I think we'd all love to have chatGPT in any NPC we walk up to.
Most form of automatization is ruining the gaming industry, is a plague, Broken pseudio ray tracing taking 100fps from your performances, automated broken LODs, AI upscaling tech that still break glowing effects and Alpha textures, broken Nanite in Unreal 5... I miss the era when devs used their own custom engines and tools to offer the best visual experience stutter free.
It's early days yet, but I can see people doing this 3Dfx style with a separate add in card running a model. This I analogous to a modern ENB, etc.
Maybe developers can train a custom AI for their games that was trained taking some lightweight rendering path and outputing their vision, example they train it taking rasterized graphics and train it to output path traced graphics.
I would guess it'll start like that. Maybe just a lightweight 'filter' that just makes the image more believable and coherent. Will be nice.
This is the basic principle behind DLSS. However, turning raster into raytracing (correctly) is not possible, because RT requires data not available in the rasterized image (light coming from outside the screen space). However, ML models are quite useful for "filling in the gaps" (see: DLSS) and for finding "optimal" aproximations to expensive computations.
@@SMorales851 they could pass all the lights positions in the input parameters and even the geometry or anything else, no need to limit to screen space.
But even in screen space if they train it just for their game, the ai can even be overfitted (that memorizes things) so when seeing some part of the game it knows how the lighting should look as that area was in the training set.
@@SMorales851this isn’t how DLSS works at all lol.
No chance, the whole point is making lighting consistent and realistic. Which AI will fail to do.
Honestly, not sure why this is a discussion.
It’s a product you buy. It’s the user’s right to modify it however sees fit and if anything the dev should be flattered or not care. Anything else is a personal issue.
Do you think BMW have issues with all of the pimpin’ garages out there?
Artistic direction is more important that graphical realism these AI filters make that clear... they look horribly out of place but could be fun to use on a case by case basis depending on the game/application why not.
Is it viable? Maybe. Is it desirable? Absolutely not.
Well that depends right. If such a hypothetical system works well (once it reaches maturity) and is implemented intelligently then I fail to see why it would be a bad thing?
You are making the fairly dramatic assumption that the technology will somehow make things worse, and without much basis.
Everything that AI touches ends up looking a bit plasticky/too smooth. I hate when I can immediately tell that something has been "AI'ed", it just sours things for me.
I think in a sense this is just a variation on modding, the problem IMO comes in when you consider the limitations of AI and the ways it could cause problems with the experience. I also think we are further than people want to imagine from this being a really viable solution, that looks good, and runs on hardware that doesn't cost 3500 dollars. Really something like this needs a whole new architecture with a thorough understanding of things like game objects and such, so you dont just end up with over-boiled video-game stew
i effing hate ai, it will eventually ruin and destroy every aspect of human creativity
Damn that'd be awesome. ...Intergalactic sure could use an AI enhanced lead character...
AI's really struggling to find any really useful application beyond 5 minutes of mindless experimentation.
What about an AI quest generator???
@SWOTHDRA No idea what that is and neither am I interested to figure out.
Idk man, that one video of an AI generated Batman comic was pretty good.
Ken Olsen, founder of DEC in 1977 "“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.”
Bill Gates, 1981 "640K ought to be enough for anybody"
Pedro Domingos, 2015 "People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too foolish and they’ve already taken over the world.”
This will finally end the need for remasters and force developers to actually remake games.
I've been waiting for this for years. Ever since I saw the image gen with a prompt I was like "how do we run video games thru this at 60fps?"
Its the only way to get photorealistic gfx since the devs cant cut it
A future where artists and developers have no control over how their own creative expression is viewed.
How is this a good thing in any capacity. Not everything has to be tailored to an individual.
Edits: Looking back, I wan't to say that ultimately I don't have authority over what someone who bought a game chooses to do with it. It isn't my responsibility to defend the "purity" of the art, and I don't want to be pretentious.
I just hope that it will always be an option. I just don't fully trust publishers like EA, Ubisoft, or Activision with even more tools to be lazy. And the over saturation of Ai generated content is truly exhausting.
Okay sure but that's always going to be a niche. Creating something for wide distribution is going to involve your art being perceived in non-ideal circumstances.
I don't think Christopher Nolan is happy that people are gonna watch Oppenheimer on a phone or tablet with the tinny speaker. It makes me cringe just thinking about that. But it has happened thousands of times. Similarly, PC games can be made to look terrible just to get them to run on systems people can afford. I'm gonna do that with Indiana Jones.
Generative AI slop images are bad for a number of reasons not limited to the environmental impact, the un-artfulness, the lack of soul, theft of images and artwork, etc. But if someone uses some sort of AI filter for their games, that is their choice and they have the right to make it.
Honey, havent we been modding games since the 90s?
We've been going against artistic vision ofr some time now.
@@BonJoviBeatlesLedZep I agree that art is consumed under circumstances it may not be designed for. I could watch a 480p MP4 of Oppenheimer on an iPod Nano, but that would mean I still watched Oppenheimer.
Now if I ran Oppenheimer through an Ai filter that made it look like a Pixar movie with Ai voice copies of the actors. Would that still be the same film?
Kind of like the Ship of Theseus how much can you change before it's a completely different thing? If I play a game like Jet Set Radio Future with an Ai filter that completely changes its art style. Am I really playing Jet Set Radio Future since its Art Style is among its defining features?
I don't want to say I have the right opinion, arguments both for and against it have validity, and consumer choice is a win. I just personally am not comfortable with it, and I hope that I can always have the choice to avoid it.
As long as it remains an option and isnt the primary means of rendering, i'm fine with it.
@@flowerthencrranger3854 I feel modding is different, because at least modding takes skill, time, and effort to do. Modding is clearly transformative, unlike Ai which (while I am not exactly sure how it falls under law) I wouldn't consider transformative.
That's been the case for 30 years. The entire MOBA genre comes from a mod on a 2--player RTS game. Games aren't painting or novels and no artists has ever been able to control what the public does with copies of their work.
Sooner or later we're gonna get to the point where AI will hallucinate the whole game from a book or from a simple text input given by the user. At that point the game writing or the game creators will be obsolete.
When creators are obsolete, games are obsolete. There's no point in creative media without creativity (and no, a prompt is not creativity). You'll find it cool for the first few times because of the knowledge of how it was done, if you enjoy that tech's appeal, but when that's no longer fresh and surprising you'll have to engage with the substance of the media itself.
I've already seen an AI that can generate a playable game from a text prompt. You can basically walk around in the 3D world that was created. It still has that weird AI look to it though.
Get ready to swim in the slop then
@@joechapman8208 the point is fun, entertainment, and personal enrichment. Just like children with their toys, there's no author needed.
That thumbnail is fking cursed
Like many modern games
What does that mean
That's arguably the best frame of the "demo" too. The rest of the footage shown looks even more cursed.
@@talion7268 I think it’s just another way of saying weird. Odd. Undesirable.
Heck yeah they should be. FF9 has the best AI upscaling in Moguri, and honestly I won’t even bother if square drops it now.
We're rapidly heading to a direction where all the biggest games are going to be gacha, AI generated slop coming out of China and made in Unreal Engine 5.
As an artist and passionate gamer, no this is not what I want to happen. I'm still waiting to hear about AI powering the in game AI for NPC interactions and to play against. A potential AI adversary would be so cool. I don't want it changing art styles that's what draws players to games and changing it would be a bad bad bad idea
Game devs should be excited, not worried..
AI should be used to assist developers, not replace their work
AI art is all the same style is like industrialising Art and culture making it inauthentic as possible but I am not against AI being used to improve the flow of a game or possibly fix bugs and other things
I would LOVE to turn an old GOATed game like Call of Duty World at War with SUPER REALISM..
If you think blurry graphics full of temporal antialiasing and ghost effect is advancement well, think twice and good luck with your eyes health.
Same with mods: 1% of players will ever use this and only on PC. It is not a real concern.
I can agree that games can be a for of Art, but game’s graphic presentation is often NOT.
At least not comparable to other forms of art.
When a famous painter from centuries ago was painting a human being, he didn’t said: I would like her to look like she’s a mix between Caucasian European and Arab, so a glod’ish beautiful looking skin, but I don’t have those colors so I’ll just make her plain white.
When a sculptor was making a stature he didn’t said “my intention was to give the statue round shoulders and rounded breasts, but I don’t have the necessary tools for that level of precision so I’ll just make them squared.
But game devs/graphic designers do say “I would like to make this look this way” but clients don’t have the hardware to run this, and if doesn’t runs, it doesn’t sells, and this is not about creating something beautiful but about making money.
There is no art or creative intentions there.
The games don’t look the way they do because that’s how devs envisioned, they look that way because our hardware was/is shit and they had to cut a shit ton of corners.
Wanna have an approximate idea of what creator’s intents were for older games? Look at the pre rendered trailers and cutscenes they used to do before it became standard to do cutscenes in engine.
Talking about disrespecting a game’s creative intent when improving it visually is Hilariously stupid. The only thing disrespected is your sense of nostalgia that ai attached to how it looked and won’t let go.
Perfect for emulators if it's ever possible. Imagine PS2 games with lifelike graphics.
I'm a developer and I have no interest in coding shaders but I need them - if AI could make me some cool graphics shaders I'd be stoked :D
AI filters could be fantastic for pre-rendered bg games as AI assisted fan remasters of such games are already better than the official studio remasters.
If I don't have to play as a black lesbian....yes give us the power to play as a character gamers want
What's crazy is @OLIEMACK already looks like an AI generated character specifically his eyes and mouth
photorealistic ai graphics willl be real time in 10 years for sure...amazing.
I can see this as a path towards cheap remasters. Rather than doing things in realtime, upgrade the assets using AI, possibly smoothing off some of the rough edges manually. The same game can then be sold again as a new product or an upgrade, and I can image outsourcing studios that special in this existing. If studios try to sell something that's realtime that doesn't result in decent sales (due to being bad), they'll quickly learn their lesson. Then again, I can also imagine Unreal Engine plugins existing that would allow tuning of the output, perhaps scene by scene.
This is the fear that leapt to mind for me. Quick & ugly "remasters" combined with publishers that like to erase the original when their rework comes out (see Blizzard with Warcraft etc). This stuff being just mods might be weird, but as the DF folks said - the original is still there.. when publishers start doing it that might not be the case.
RTX REMIX. IT'S ALREADY HERE. Maybe you have to "load" and generate assets, so it won't be real time, but it's here already.
A.I. that can make the already beautiful Elizabeth look even MORE beautiful is fine by me!
I mean, we already have modding, so people are already free to change the look of their games how they want. Developers pearl clutching over this kind of thing is silly.
all the "none design" roles in video game development will be replaced by ai. 3d modeling, programming, .... these rules will be replaced by new roles in design aspect of a game. concept artists will be the most important . and this change will lead developers to go deep into design and phycological aspect of a game. and that will make the games more exciting!. see this comment in five years ,,,
That's the next frontier. Active Ai filters.
Games will likely go down a design of making stick figures with qr codes instead of textures and the ai processing will fill in the gaps
yup. minimal poly count qr code painted walls and floors, reference model characters, etc
the filters look like total dogshit as of right now, so I'm sure they'll be deployed aggressively before they're ready by studios looking to save money.
Humans like all life, finds a way. Save this video and replay in 10 years.
People already use mods to change/replace characters in games. Using an AI to accomplish the same task isn't any bit ethically different. ALso real-time will definitely be possible; right now we use models that are broadly trained for all different types of outputs - but if you're using a tightly-trained AI (say, for your game explicitly) you can get real-time (4k/60fps) speeds at least
Game developers should be worried about their jobs primarily.
Look at atari 35 years ago and just imagine what will be possible in the next 35 years
Sarah Conner warned y'all but you didn't listen.
As a consumer, I dont want it.
Yes, I think it's desirable for at least some games with realistic (not stylicized) graphical style, like GTA or CoD.
Obviously wouldn't look good on games like Dragon Ball or Street Fighter.
This is rhe new way that graphics will be created. This is not a mod and the filters are an archaic implementation.
If you sell me a product, you don't get to tell me how I can use it!
AI Video game would only work for horror games it would be so scary to play tbh
And not funny? AI is literally great at both.
Oh no Someone has paid for a product and they would like to modify it to suit their needs. How dare they.
Developers need to get off their high horse.
Its going to happen if it saves or makes money.
Its going to happen sooner than we think if its good enough.
Well, my sister uses this awful blue-light filter that turns everything yellow. I'm an artist with a deep understanding of color. I absolutely hate that she uses that. But she wants it so meh. 🤷♂
You guys are seriously underestimating how much AI will change gaming. Games will be straight-up generated live.
Just make a GPU that's like 80% tensor cores, 10% CUDA/RT cores. Should be able to handle the AI processing a lot better.. Maybe a standalone AI card kinda like the day's of PhysX by AGEIA, coupled with a card for rasterization. Given how little actual rendering would be necessary though since it's all just going to be replaced in the AI filter, the number of raw CUDA processing cores could be low.
Sure, itll be available on the 6090 @ no more than $3200!
If you play games with a specific AI filter that you like, why bother playing the game when its not the creator's intended vision for what they want to gamer to see? might as well make your own since it will be possible to have an AI make a quick small game that is exactly what you want it to be.
Its fine you want to change the look of the game after playing it how it was intended, but having this filter being used on first playthrough of the game is kinda insane as you won't be playing the creator's game, you are playing your own fictional version of it with AI filter, no pun intended.
@6:55 😂 true. Journalism will be affected before any controversial game visuals.
it already has, alot of articles are just scrapped from reddit and ran through AI,
the amount of mistakes and 3rd grade writing is atrocious.
It's better to now just follow individuals like Jason Schreier for newss.
In 2 years: you'll be able to make your own feature quality film via a prompt.
In 2 more years: you'll be able to make your own AAA game via a prompt.
Humans have great difficulty understanding exponential rates of change. ChatGPT first came out only 2 years ago, believe it or not.
In 2 more years: my body will be used as a battery to power the AI.
@john_hunter_ 😂. Really tho that premise in the Matrix makes no sense lol. But that was funny as heck
this is just depressing
For original Resident Evil 2 1998 would be awesome
devs will become redundant.
there will be a skeleton crew to produce AAAA slops in the future.