I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.
This is based on the assumption that the AI output is any good, but the actual game devs and writers are saying otherwise.
If the game is too big for writers to finish on their own, they’re not going to have time to read and fix everything wrong with the AI output either. This is how you get an empty, soulless game, not Balders Gate 3.
It’s assuming the ai output isn’t very good. It assumes it can create a framework that necessarily still needs the actual writers, but now they don’t have to come up with 100% of the framework, but instead work on the actual content only. Storyboarding and frameworking is a hodgepodge of nonsense anyway with humans.
The goal is to achieve non-linear scaling, not replace quality writers or have the final product Ai written.
This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.
I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.
Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.
I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together
My experience has been that using AI only accelerates this process, because the AI has no concept of what good architecture is or how to reduce entropy. Unless you can one-shot the entire architecture, it’s going to immediately go off the rails. And if the architecture was that simple to begin with, there really wasn’t much value in the AI in the first place.
I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.
This is based on the assumption that the AI output is any good, but the actual game devs and writers are saying otherwise.
If the game is too big for writers to finish on their own, they’re not going to have time to read and fix everything wrong with the AI output either. This is how you get an empty, soulless game, not Balders Gate 3.
It’s assuming the ai output isn’t very good. It assumes it can create a framework that necessarily still needs the actual writers, but now they don’t have to come up with 100% of the framework, but instead work on the actual content only. Storyboarding and frameworking is a hodgepodge of nonsense anyway with humans. The goal is to achieve non-linear scaling, not replace quality writers or have the final product Ai written.
This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.
I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.
Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.
My experience has been that using AI only accelerates this process, because the AI has no concept of what good architecture is or how to reduce entropy. Unless you can one-shot the entire architecture, it’s going to immediately go off the rails. And if the architecture was that simple to begin with, there really wasn’t much value in the AI in the first place.
Aand you end up with… ta-da-m, same old things, just rebranded. Very creative (no)
What the heck is a ta-da-m? It sounds like some kind of exotic medication 🤭
Boring part: an exclamation meaning “there it is”
/boring mode off
hell, I want a medication with such a name now :)
I’ve literally never heard it with a -m before. Usually it’s just “tada”. :)