Larian Studios Forums Divinity General Discussion Divinity - General Discussion

The work a camera does is different than the work a painter would do -- unless the goal is to be absolutely photorealistic, then the camera provides a shortcut to achieving that, yeah. Using GenAI as references is not the same because you are drawing from the output of something that is already a muddled mess of millions of other images and then: are they painting over it? Are they using that generated piece as a starting point? I would like to see a video that shows one of their artist's process in detail and then maybe things would be much more clear on both ends of the discussion.

I'm not completely against AI being used in the industry. I think there's a lot of parts where it makes sense (like who wants to create 5 difference level-of-detail renditions of every asset you've already made). There's busy work and then there's creative work.

And again, the "art" issue aside I'm not sure there's an ethical generative AI model out there right now.

I don't want to be a spreader of doom and gloom, or unwilling to see reason. I know a lot of people, myself included, who aren't all torches and pitchforks but they are disappointed still, and I think it's ridiculous to not have expected some very loud pushback.

This is not inherent to Gen AI. It's also not unique to it.

Plagarism existed way before Gen AI. Where people literally stole other people's work and either used it directly or painted over it.

Again, this is entirely a "Usage" issue not a "Process" issue. It's all about how it is used.

Just like other tools such as photoshop. Yes, you can just steal other people's work and photoshop it and pass it off as your own work, just like you can Gen AI something and trace over it and call it your own. It doesn't make photoshop bad, it just makes bad uses bad.

Gen AI only gets a bad rep because the vast majority of use cases right now have been bad uses of it. Whereby AI art IS the final product (Bypassing use of actual artists entirely), or people have been tracing over it and calling it their own work.

But not all cases are like this.


You say that, but there wasn't that big of a deal made out of Arc Raiders and their use of AI. Which was actually involving one of the bad uses of Gen AI. Whereby they used AI to replicated VA's to make generated voice overs for callouts instead of having those VA's actually record said lines.

People just passed it over because "The VA's were apparently cool with it" and Arc Raiders is still one of the most popular games right now and has Overwhelmingly Positive reviews as a result.

Companies did this because it's cheaper and easier to implement.

Old game (cRPGs) didn't do it because, usually, no voiced line that use the word his/her.

There will be extra cost to record extra line exclusively for another gender.

It's cheaper and smarter just streamlined dialogue lines into one, instead of recording twice just to call you him/her, so they use "them" or avoid using it altogether because #somebody always going to notice when it used "them" too often.

Historically in cRPG, gender never matters, what matters is your background or skills, that define your character.

AFAIK action adventure "role playing game" like mass effect, AC etc. prioritize selecting gender because they lack literally everything else. Your background in Baldur's Gate 3 stays relevant the entire game, your background in Mass Effect matters once or twice at most in the entire trilogy.

So yes, as avid cRPG player I'm going to advocate to use gender neutral dialogue but it must comes with more dialogue and more choices on top of background which actually define your character not just flavor text.

Except many of the companies that do this still have gendered dialogue. Sometimes it's tied to "Body Type" sometimes they have a selection for what gender you are (That is separate from body type, genitals and voice).

Meaning they still go through all the effort of making gendered differences, but still call it "Body Type A" and "Body Type B" instead of Male and Female just because non-binaries are afraid of said terms.


Actually, it has mattered on occasion. Namely regarding what romance options you have. Some have also had equipment that was gender locked (Ones that were trying for more realism as opposed to the whole magically size altering nature of what we're used to - Whereby you can loot some armour being worn by a Half-Orc and then equip it on your Halfling and it fits just fine... Rather than being like that scene in LotR where Gimli puts on a human sized chainmail which trails onto the floor)

Ironically, gender defined romance options has actually fallen away while gendered dialogue has increased over time. More modern games have romance options being playersexual, whilst also making more of a point to include gendered dialogue.

There are exceptions of course, Rogue Trader for example is more classic, with gendered romance options and lack of gendered dialogue (You are always "Lord Captain" and never referred to by pronoun)


Your background in Baldur's Gate 3 is never relevant. The actions for your inspirations are largely irrelevant fluff. Thus arguably background in ME means more because it's directly referenced 3 times and determines 2 missions. While in BG3 your background is never once referenced, not even a single fluff dialogue option (There are class dialogue options but no background ones)

And yet, the Daisy plot offered a choice and player agency. One can argue about the initial implementation of Daisy, but giving the player options makes it better than the emperor railroad, especially with how badly the emperor is implemented and that according to datamines Orpheus would also have been an part of the Daisy plot.

I played the Early Access since day one and I just don't see it.
I have no idea what are you even basing this judgment on, because that's DEFINITELY not how I remember it.

It was still a bunch of cutscenes where you were simply having dialogues with HER -so in that sense nothing really changed- except she just wasn't working as a character, because she failed spectacularly at achieving the supposed goal of alluring/convincing the player that she was a credible ally.
The overwhelmingly dominant theory among the almost-entirety of the fanbase back then was that her identity was just "the tadpole trying to fuck you over".
Which to be fair was a suspect even with the "Guardian", except she was far more convincing at arguing their case and insinuating on the players the doubt she was actually on their side and acting on their best interest. Something that the "Daisy" never achieved for a fraction of a second.

With Daisy you had the option to join her "Down by the river", complete with its own music theme.

First and foremost, huge thanks to the entire team. We know all too well how game studios, once they reach the top, tend to lose their edge and turn into factories churning out sterile, safe, meticulously calculated products.

Which is exactly why it’s so valuable to see that you haven’t just held onto your balls-to-the-wall energy — you’re deliberately flooring the gas pedal. While the industry lines itself up into neat rows of identical “correct” releases, you kick the door in and hurl sacrifices, orgies, and vomit-soaked imagery straight into the audience’s face. Loud. Filthy. Without apologies.

This is art that doesn’t ask to be loved — it provokes, irritates, repels, and at the same time refuses to let you look away. A constant walk along the razor’s edge of “this is too much” — and that’s exactly why it deserves gratitude.

Thank you for the courage to be uncomfortable, for the willingness to shock, and for staying alive in an industry where that’s becoming increasingly rare.

Oh, please.
A lot of what Larian did with BG3 was calculated up to the misleading marketing. They are not shining knights of artistic expression. The only difference is that they targeted a new demographic formerly ignored by game studios.

I'm just here to say one thing. DO NOT give in to the loud minority of anti-AI activists. They only want to control you. We have seen this over and over from these people with every trendy thing they decide to jump on over the past decade or so. Give them ONE inch, and they'll demand a mile.

If you don't believe me, look at their social profiles and feeds. Most of them will have politics plastered all over their timelines, and their bios will have badges of all the other trends they've been activists for. Hell, go one step further and search YouTube for anti-AI videos. They're stereotypical activists, and they do nothing but spread misinformation to push their agenda. I had one commenter call me a republican just because I said he had AI Derangement Syndrome, and he went on to tell me AI was political because Elon owns X and OpenAI (Yeah, he really thinks Elon owns OpenAI. lol).

These people are just nutjobs who jump from trend to trend to have something to fight over and try to control people. They're sick in the head. Tell them off, or at the very least, ignore them.

Your statement effectively reduces to zero the work of a large number of people and their right to free creative expression. My position was not about idealizing the creators or rejecting criticism, but about expressing support for authors who produce meaningful and valuable content — guided by their own artistic vision, something that has become increasingly rare today.

I disagree with the claim that the team is supposedly targeting a “new” audience. They create their work for anyone who is willing to engage with an authorial statement without preconceived labels and without reducing the discussion to moral judgments. At the same time, the team does listen to audience feedback, but deliberately retains the right to its own creative vision and sets clear boundaries regarding which ideas can or cannot be implemented. This is not closed-mindedness, but a normal practice of any mature creative process.

This is not about dividing an audience, but about a mutual choice: the authors make their games in the way they believe is right, and players decide for themselves whether they are willing to accept that approach.

And yet you are idealizing them.

Larian quite deliberately targeted a specific demographic and modeled their game to cater to them, not different than what for example Bethesda or EA does. The difference between them and Larian is that Larian was the first studio to target the demographic that also caused the Romfantasy genre to boom, which is also why romfantasy books and BG3 have so much in common. Fanfiction level plot mixed in with steamy romance and a touch of sex.

And Larian, like all businesses, was very aware about what customers wanted which is why their marketing was so deceptive like warning for grave consequences of overusing the tadpole a few days before release so that they also got the role players to buy the game.

And like any other business, sales were a lot more important than artistic vision. We have several examples of that.

1. Rewrite of companions because they were not liked enough.
2. Change of the tadpoles from threat to harmless powerups because people did not use them (at least thats the official reason for why it was changed).
3. Adding Halsin as companion, thereby throwing away the whole Sorrow story and the end result being of very low quality compared to other companions.
4. Altering Astarion's kiss, and therefor the entire conclusion of his character arc because their target demographic wanted it.

Larian is no different than any other bigger developer for whom money comes first.

So now as Larian cornered the Romfantasy video game genre, what do you think their next game will be?

I thought I'd look at the conversations you mentioned as they sound easy to find. You're on there calling everyone slurs, N-word included, and shortening your AI derangement syndrome to "AIDS" for the joke. I'm not surprised people might have strong opinions when talking to you if this is how you approach them.