I'm sure not all of their Concept Art will be Gen AI (most of it will likely be 100% human-made, or the well-known and well-disliked "Draw over the AI art and fix its mistakes". There is a reason even Vincke says it hasn't improved efficiency), but indeed.
As for their statement that no AI generated content will end up in the actual game - the issue with using Gen AI for concept art is that, unless it is discarded for just not being useful, it will instruct how assets, atmospheres and such are constructed in-game. So, yes, it is indirectly AI influenced. Even ignoring the plagiarism issue surrounding learning models, it's just going to make the general visual direction much blander. AI is not good at having a vision, it "generalizes" into the prettiest thing possible. It's watered down.
It's incredibly rare that concept art simply becomes the finished product.
Most often concept art looks nothing like the final product.
If generative AI is used for concept art, it would most likely be for what generative AI is actually good for. Which is quickly turning a vague idea into something tangible that people can look at. Not for creating actual art designs.
I.e. If someone was like "What would it look like for a T-rex to be riding a mecha-shark that's shooting a laser mini-gun at Adolf Hitler?" instead of having to spend time sketching and drawing this, they just plug it into Gen AI and get a few mocked up scenes which can be used as a prompt for an actual artist if they decide that's a concept they want to include.
This being what Gen AI supposed to be, a tool to help artists. Rather than a replacement for them.
This is also what the purpose of concept art is about. You visualize concepts that will help inspire your final product, maybe you reuse certain details you liked from some of the concepts, but the main thing is just getting the ideas down to see what they look like before you make up your mind and start to create and refine the final product.
@Taril Concept art does indeed eventually turn (or mostly turn) into the finished product. Just because it is iterative does not mean it does not end up picking a direction. The BG3 artbook has many examples of this. It is not always 1:1 as technical limitations pop up, but, like I said: If the root of your visual direction has the centrist approach AI takes, that's not good at all for the final product's artistic vision.
As for the artists, if I am allowed an argument from authority fallacy: as an artist myself, and knowing the general stance of other artists (and former concept artists that worked at Larian that have popped up after this reveal), this is not helping them. They generally don't like working with it.
@Taril Concept art does indeed eventually turn (or mostly turn) into the finished product. Just because it is iterative does not mean it does not end up picking a direction. The BG3 artbook has many examples of this. It is not always 1:1 as technical limitations pop up, but, like I said: If the root of your visual direction has the centrist approach AI takes, that's not good at all for the final product's artistic vision.
As an owner of many artbooks and a watcher of many artists...
I stand by my comment that most concept art does not turn into a final product.
If BG3's artbook has many examples of concept art being directly turned into finished products, then that is an exception (Or it features more early iterations of final art than actual concept stage ideas)
From my experience with the many iterations of concept art, rarely does it directly become a final product and even when it does, it's never an amalgamation of ALL concepts
Originally Posted by jinetemoranco
As for the artists, if I am allowed an argument from authority fallacy: as an artist myself, and knowing the general stance of other artists (and former concept artists that worked at Larian that have popped up after this reveal), this is not helping them. They generally don't like working with it.
That may be the case. But it doesn't mean that AI generated art is being used as a final product, nor does it mean that the ethical use of Gen AI isn't focused on supporting artists by means of allowing them to generate concept art more quickly.
The problem with the AI topic is that there are so many negatives associated with it. From how the many different engines have been developed, to then how everyone in society has decided to use it.
Currently, it is telling me that my sentence structure is terrible, maybe it is but I'm choosing to ignore it for the moment.
Then there is its use to write articles, make videos, create pictures, help develop ideas, be voices you talk with in everyday life or even in computer games, write code along with some other stuff. Is it all bad?
Everyone has their own opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. But that said what is the correct approach, if using AI to help speed up the initial development process shaves 6 months off the time it takes to get the game completed and released to the public isn't a good thing? Should it be used at all? (just a guess by me, I honestly have no idea how much help it actually would be)
I lean towards the idea that it shouldn't be in the finished product, there is something intangible to the art, writing, and design that AI can't replicate but that's just my thought.
I peeked at *hitterhole (X) and see what's the fuss is about.... Holy God.
- One side clutching pearl about any AI use that even remotely related to final product is unethical. Because there is actually an ethical consumption under Capitalism, obviously. - #Them (code name: Rat King/Cockroach Leader) obviously dipping their toes to it and support AI usage. - "Larian Content Creator" like WolfheartFPS scrambling for "Centrist" conclusion. - The "I hate AI no matter what but I love E33 and now that somebody reminded me that the Dev mentioned they used AI, I moved the goal post to "I love the game but condemn the use of AI"".
meanwhile:
Cromwelp says: X GameRadar/PCGamer/Kotako: "LARIAN DEV SAYS X".
Not sure what to think about this. I accept Swen explanation, but feels bad that this inevitably will start hearsay like "Larian use AI for their game" for years to come.
Edit.
Additionally, this will be a bad casus belli and inevitably will push Larian Studio into the Culture War on the internet.
Push for AI, one side will despise you. Push for Anti-AI, the other side will despise you. Staying in the center, risk both side despising you.
One side already making an argument if Larian pulling back from AI, that's the signal that "Larian has gone "woke"", and it will be used to discredit the game when it released.
That ship has sailed. The right wings already condemned Larian, when they had strong women, women that are not dressed like porno stars, a black companion, pronouns, body types instead of gender, same sex romance ... I'm sure, I missed something
As for the AI use: I keep out of it for now and accept Swens explanation, because a lot of tools have AI implemented. I believe him, when says that they use artists for the concept art and only use Ai for trying out placements and such. I condemn AI in the art sector, but I know it is very helpful in the tech sector. And if a person draws something and you use AI to just try some placements and variables, then that is different from using AI to make art in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that this a normal practice and Larian was just honest. If not, we still can get mad, but for now, this is not something, I get riled up over.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
That ship has sailed. The right wings already condemned Larian, when they had strong women, women that are not dressed like porno stars, a black companion, pronouns, body types instead of gender, same sex romance ... I'm sure, I missed something
As for the AI use: I keep out of it for now and accept Swens explanation, because a lot of tools have AI implemented. I believe him, when says that they use artists for the concept art and only use Ai for trying out placements and such. I condemn AI in the art sector, but I know it is very helpful in the tech sector. And if a person draws something and you use AI to just try some placements and variables, then that is different from using AI to make art in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that this a normal practice and Larian was just honest. If not, we still can get mad, but for now, this is not something, I get riled up over.
About that.
According to my personal observations:
Yes, many gamers on the right side of the aisle already deem BG3 'woke.' This is why the "No Alphabet Mod" exists; you can see how many people have downloaded it.
A portion of that same demographic deems it 'woke,' but not as extreme as frequently criticized games like Concord or Veilguard; so they begrudgingly admit that the game is right and avoid the topic of 'woke' entirely.
A large portion of people on the center-right didn't notice that BG3 is 'woke,' mostly because almost all the women are depicted as traditionally attractive. There are no (as far as I know) plus-sized characters or any depiction of women which would be categorized not traditionally attractive who would be deemed 'undesirable.'
Conversely, a portion of the population that the right would categorize as the 'woke left' (mostly AO3 authors) condemned BG3 as offensive due to a lack of content for Wyll. they believe Larian marginalized people of color by prioritizing traditionally attractive companions like Astarion and Shadowheart.
So far, Larian seems to remain firmly in the center, not leaning too far toward either side. However, these conflicting pressures might cause some instability; we’ll see how they handle the damage control. Of course, if a game is good enough to create a super-majority of fans from both sides of the aisle, dissent can be easily mitigated or stamped out.
Regardless, I personally rooting out for Larian, they made the greatest cRPG of all time, I'll be playing BG3 for decades like I did Fallout and BG2. They understand what RPG is, unlike most of the studio that claiming they're making rpg.
Using AI (or ML) for production efficiency is already something of technological space race which every business has to at least at some level keep up with. It's all a matter of finding the areas where that productivity does not cost you in terms of quality.
With Larian upscaling the number of employees to over 500, every extra year the game is in production is a massive increase in cost. Streamlining the productivity is just something they have to consider, but you can streamline a lot of other areas than the creative ones, which is what Swen seems to be trying to say.
That ship has sailed. The right wings already condemned Larian, when they had strong women, women that are not dressed like porno stars, a black companion, pronouns, body types instead of gender, same sex romance ... I'm sure, I missed something
As for the AI use: I keep out of it for now and accept Swens explanation, because a lot of tools have AI implemented. I believe him, when says that they use artists for the concept art and only use Ai for trying out placements and such. I condemn AI in the art sector, but I know it is very helpful in the tech sector. And if a person draws something and you use AI to just try some placements and variables, then that is different from using AI to make art in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that this a normal practice and Larian was just honest. If not, we still can get mad, but for now, this is not something, I get riled up over.
About that.
According to my personal observations:
Yes, many gamers on the right side of the aisle already deem BG3 'woke.' This is why the "No Alphabet Mod" exists; you can see how many people have downloaded it.
A portion of that same demographic deems it 'woke,' but not as extreme as frequently criticized games like Concord or Veilguard; so they begrudgingly admit that the game is right and avoid the topic of 'woke' entirely.
A large portion of people on the center-right didn't notice that BG3 is 'woke,' mostly because almost all the women are depicted as traditionally attractive. There are no (as far as I know) plus-sized characters or any depiction of women which would be categorized not traditionally attractive who would be deemed 'undesirable.'
Conversely, a portion of the population that the right would categorize as the 'woke left' (mostly AO3 authors) condemned BG3 as offensive due to a lack of content for Wyll. they believe Larian marginalized people of color by prioritizing traditionally attractive companions like Astarion and Shadowheart.
So far, Larian seems to remain firmly in the center, not leaning too far toward either side. However, these conflicting pressures might cause some instability; we’ll see how they handle the damage control. Of course, if a game is good enough to create a super-majority of fans from both sides of the aisle, dissent can be easily mitigated or stamped out.
Regardless, I personally rooting out for Larian, they made the greatest cRPG of all time, I'll be playing BG3 for decades like I did Fallout and BG2. They understand what RPG is, unlike most of the studio that claiming they're making rpg.
I was making a joke, because I remembered the people coming in here during EA of BG3 and absolutely went ballistic over the points, I made
As for Wyll - that was unfortunate, but I don't think, it's because of racism. They should have taken a bit more time to round out his and Karlachs story, because both are suffering from lack of content.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Using AI (or ML) for production efficiency is already something of technological space race which every business has to at least at some level keep up with. It's all a matter of finding the areas where that productivity does not cost you in terms of quality.
With Larian upscaling the number of employees to over 500, every extra year the game is in production is a massive increase in cost. Streamlining the productivity is just something they have to consider, but you can streamline a lot of other areas than the creative ones, which is what Swen seems to be trying to say.
That was my understanding too of Swens statement.
You won't be able to completely ignore AI nowadays and it has it's uses, outside of art and creative spaces.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
I really hate this. Who asked for this? Who ever uses Body Type A/B in normal life? Do it like sims with separated selections for sex and gender (if gender is even evaluated in the game) but at least use real words.
I personally find this whole situation hilarious. I've always held an opinion that ones complaining about AI ruining something for them are the lasiest people there is. The whole human history was about either adapting or becoming irrelevant.. The final product will speak for itself.
I really hate this. Who asked for this? Who ever uses Body Type A/B in normal life? Do it like sims with separated selections for sex and gender (if gender is even evaluated in the game) but at least use real words.
I couldn't care less about it honestly. It's a non issue.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Nei Newbon has something to say about AI use. His line of job could be directly threatened, but he considers it a useful tool nevertheless. Not a one shot generator, but definitely something that is helpful.
In another recent interview, Swen makes it a point to say that in this game they're putting in a lot of work to build out the setting/universe, because they learned from making BG3 how important it is to have a strong, well-developed and detailed universe where everything fits together and makes sense, which he admits has never been the case with their setting in past Divinity games. This matters hugely for me, because the #1 criticism I've had of the D:OS games, by far, is how utterly pathetic and trite the setting is in those games. Swen even specifically says that "world building" was never Larian's thing in the past, and that is a courageous and welcome Larian mea culpa. For me, world building is the foundation for a good RPG. So, if this indeed happens with Divinity, and I have no reason to believe it won't happen, then that goes a very long way to making me excited for this game. TB combat systems always suck, but I can hold my nose and live with that. It's these other essentials for a good RPG that matter most to me.
I think AI is a tool. It depends on how it's used: as support for the artist, or does it replace the artist?
People probably thought similarly about photography back then.
It is a interesting comparison. Photography used as basis for art has some of the same issue as AI used as base.
In photography you have the perspective and object all picked out. Often the colors are wrong. Artist using these as a source to paint from all have a similar look. In AI you use a limited amount of data scraped from the internet (with or without permission) to generate scenarios. That ultimately will be kinda similar.
The human can go out and look at the world and make a unique conclusion based on emotion and personal desires. For example a monster based on a monkey. They could go the zoo and draw. Maybe get inspiration from something they saw on the way there. Looking at the monkeys in motion, how they interact gives them ideas.
I just think the human make more interesting stories when they get to use original input.
