
Generative AI continues to be a very hot topic among the gaming community, and this week has seen some interesting swings on either side of the debate.
CEO of Larian Studios, Swen Vincke, caused a lot of upset with his comments on how the team is utilising the controversial tools in the production of its next game, Divinity.
Now, another voice in the games medium has had his say on the matter; Bruce Straley, best known as co-creator and co-director on The Last of Us, has given a thumbs down to gen AI.
In an interview with Polygon about his next title, Coven of the Chicken Foot, he makes it clear that his team at Wildflower Studios is not using it in development, and says it's a creative dead end.
"It's a snake eating its own tail," Straley says. "It can’t grow and think for itself, it just consumes, and it tries to mimic what it’s consumed. That’s the best it can do right now."
Coven of the Chicken Foot features a companion creature that learns from you and aids you throughout the adventure, in a similar way to Trico in The Last Guardian. However, despite this companion being driven by the game's AI, it does not rely on generative AI at all — it's all manually programmed by real developers.
There's some frustration from Straley that discussing the new game is difficult because the term "AI companion" can now be easily misinterpreted.
"It’s difficult to even pitch the concept of this creature, because in my world, NPCs are AI," Straley says.
"AI programmers are a type of personnel you have on staff in the programming department. Now you can’t say that because if somebody does have an opinion about AI, I can’t now call this creature the most advanced AI companion. People are going to think we did machine learning, and LLMs, and all that. No, we did none of that. This is hard work, and a lot of problem solving, and a lot of creative thinking. Which I think makes it more charming. I like art that has chips and flaws. It’s like pottery. It has imperfections because it didn’t come out of the kiln right. That’s the cool stuff about art."
Straley continues, saying that art created by generative AI lacks the soul that makes human art meaningful.
"I feel like without a human being the creation, I personally have zero investment in wanting to watch a TV show made by a robot. I have zero interest in looking at art that is generated by a computer," he says. "I don’t think prompting is art."
There have been several examples this year of games implementing generative AI to some degree. The likes of ARC Raiders, Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, Let It Die: Inferno, and many others have been the subject of criticism and debate among players.
[source polygon.com, via eurogamer.net]





Comments 42
He SHOULD love AI art then... flawed, chipped and imperfect!
(It's a terrible analogy to use in this case, but I get what he meant)
This is what also drawers probably said about the first photographers and musicians about the first DJs. And most photographers today are not artists and most photos are not art, but there are exceptions. And we will see these exceptional AI artists pretty soon; not artificial artists, but real artists using AI.
"It’s difficult to even pitch the concept of this creature, because in my world, NPCs are AI," Straley says.
Yep, in the video game world npcs have always been AI.
In most open worlds I've always thought repeated faces with different skin tones and facial hair are the "bad" AI generated. I quite remember Guerilla saying Horizon uses some procedurally generated environment, isn't that AI....apart from replicating voice actors or concept artists which would be wrong, I feel games have always been using AI in some form...
One thing to look forward to is that, even in an AI future, there will still be creatives looking to do things the proper way, even if it’s harder. The organic food industry is worth a billion dollars, Studio Ghibili do mostly, if not all, hand drawn works, Bugonia filmed everything on a 70mm camera. Slop will always exist and probably be worse but high quality passionate entertainment will still exist, for sure.
@Max_the_German how would real artists use GenAI? Serious question, honestly.
''Generative art lacks the soul that makes human art meaningful''.
This is one of those lines that sounds poignant but ultimately means nothing. What is ''soul''? What is ''meaning''? Survey a hundred people and you'll get a hundred answers.
When I play eFootball 2021 I play against the computer or what is known as A.I.
The computer makes decisions programmed by a human that transfers into Artificial intelligence.
The same concept goes into all gaming calculations imputed into a computer by a human...or am I missing something.
@Max_the_German the difference is photographers take their own pictures and even though DJs might remix other songs they put new ideas and their own touch.
He said it in the article AI is based on information pulled in using other people’s art. It won’t continue to get better and innovate unless there continues to be new ideas.
@TheArt I assumed exactly what you said too.
@Number09 AI is a buzzword. We've had ''AI'' since the very first video games. That line that went up and down on Pong to react to your dot? That's AI.
I don't hate AI. I think that it can have many benefits for humanity if implemented well. But it will never fully replace human-made art. AI just pulls data from the internet, and because of that, it honestly never tells complete to me.
@47Levi
I think it will be mostly interactive art, on websites or in art museums. And I think it won’t be static prompts but prompt generators, created by the artists, which analyse the AI results and continually reprompt to modify the results automatically, with the results morphing into something surprisingly over time.
Think of the demo scene. Some of these people are genuine artists, no doubt, and their products can be stunning and inspiring.
His intentions are good, but the way he's presenting the argument is a bit flawed.
Calling generative art “soulless” misses the point. The issue isn’t spiritual, it's practical. Generative AI lacks creativity because it lacks agency. It does not form goals, or understand what it produces.
Its outputs are generated by optimizing patterns in existing data not by attempting to communicate or create new ideas.
@Max_the_German wouldn’t say I’m necessarily a fan of that but I get what you mean and respect your viewpoints.
@Number09 @LifeGirl I think there's some confusion here, which is what I think Straley is trying to get at when he points out that you cannot say "the most advanced AI companion" anymore without people assuming generative AI has been used somehow.
Traditional game AI, like pathfinding, decision trees, finite state machines, etc, is algorithmic. It’s deterministic and designed by programmers to simulate intelligence in NPCs. This is what Straley appears to mean when he says “AI programmers” and “NPCs are AI.” It’s been part of games for decades; the behaviour of the NPC paddle in Pong would have been controlled by such an algorithm.
LLMs like GPT or diffusion systems that learn patterns from massive datasets and generate new outputs (text, images, audio) rely on statistical inference, not handcrafted logic. A recent example is machine learning used by the developers of ARC Raiders to program the movement of the ARC robots.
Using AI as a blanket term is probably unhelpful these days. Straley's right to note there has been a shift among the public in their understanding of and use of the phrase "AI" though. Maybe the terms we use need to update with the times.
@TheArt well, there is a major difference between what, for example No Man’s Sky did (handcrafting an engine and using real human artists) versus COD putting a prompt in a generator. The former is a creative choice, the latter is being lazy. Unfortunately, AI has been streamlined into one thing, mostly to please investors.
EDIT @StrickenBiged seems you explained it a lot better than I did
I have an ai opinion! I have an ai opinion! Me, too!
Absolutely sick of AI, and the main reason is that absolutely everyone is going on about it all the f***ing time and it has become another battlefield for people to fight on any time anyone even utters the words 🙃🙃🙃
@LifeGirl
Exactly my thoughts. Soul to me seems like an illusion in ourselves, and a placeholder for the deterministic actions we can’t understand in others. People are no less iterative in their use of external stimuli than AI, you just can’t look into their brains in the same way we can an AIs coding.
I'm all for it if it reduces the development time from 7-5 to 3 years max. These AAA games are taking too long to develop.
In the unrelated news… Horsea the horse isnt a fan of the automotive industry.
Using AI is pretty reckless, because of how devastating it is environmentally. It should only be used for very specific things, and not be made widely available until it isn’t consuming vital water and energy supplies, among other things.
Information about how serious its environmental impact is being publicly available, it is disappointing that any game studio is choosing to use it. Disappointing so many individuals are using it too.
@TheArt Procedural generation usually takes pre created “blocks” that are designed to attach to other blocks and having a coded routine pick random blocks and attach them together. It’s a technique that I believe dates to the 80s.
I believe there is video footage of a Guerrilla environment artist live altering the environment in HZD by taking these blocks, placing and manipulating them in the environment in real time. I expect most non-indie open world games work in a similar manner.
Edit: not the actual video I was looking for but it shows the system used
https://youtu.be/KRJkBxKv1VM?si=a5W0sigaPYs5pmrc (20:30)
Removed - unconstructive feedback
AI is here to stay, wherever we like it or not. With my business work we've had to use it, it can be helpful and it can be a hinderance, its like a very fast and eager assistant that can give quick results and info, but make tons of mistakes and nonesense up if you dont manage him and knowledge check. When it comes to using in the creative field, i understand the controversy, but my personal analogy there is that its like a Formula 1 race car, i can buy one, but if i dont have the skills to drive, i can crash or harm others, if i do know, i can make it sing. That said, AI can never replicate talent, talent will always be in demand.
Prompting is an art form! I don't care what anyone say. I'm all in on AI.
I create color books for my kids to color. Lesson plans and fun videos that my kids would watch that I know are safe. I curate their YouTube channel with videos I make for them.
Prompting is an art form. Writing words in such a way that those words create art is an art form. Being a great speaker is an art form.
I don't get what the issues are, everyone imitates everyone. Look at Apple. AI has been around us for some time now and we used it and cannot live without it.
Now all of a sudden it's bad. I call ***** on that.
@LifeGirl When people use the term AI in the modern-day, they're usually referring to generative AI, not the AI that is used to code NPCs in video games. And generative AI in its current form didn't really exist until the late 2000s.
Also, when people say that AI-generated art is "soulless," they're typically referring to the fact that it lacks any creativity. Since generative AI can't actually create anything new and only uses existing sources to generate new images, it is currently unable to fully replicate the level of artistic creativity that can come from humans. AI-generated art is sort of like a Frankenstein's monster; you can see the seams of images stitched together more often than not, giving it that distinctive (and often ugly) AI sheen. Even iterative human art, barring artwork that outright plagiarizes other art, usually doesn't have that distinct lack of creativity in it.
I think the definitions of these terms are clearer and more accepted-upon than you're making them out to be. That being said, I do think it's possible that AI-generated art will soon be able to match human-made art in terms of creativity and "soul." Generative AI has already advanced so much in the last few years, who's to say it doesn't become perfected in a few more? And if some company ever actually develops an artificial general intelligence or an artificial super-intelligence, then AI may finally have the ability to create (or at least simulate the concept of creating) its own ideas.
@White_oyster flying a jumbo jet is bad for the environment but we all take trips!
A rocket blasting off is bad for the everything but space X is seeking one trillion valuation.
Plastic is bad for the environment but yet everything comes wrapped in plastic.
I don't get your point. AI has a benefit and we benefit from AI every second of the day and we don't ever realize it.
Anyone who peddles gen AI is missing the spark in their heart that makes them a real human. It’s a sign of true sociopathy and arrogance to think that an aggregator can mimic human creativity. I’m not a particularly religious person but humanity (and some other animals) has a unique element and that’s the ability to dream and to create. Gen AI does not have aspirations, it does not love, it does not hate, it does not have any real intentions behind anything it does. Ask yourself if you’d rather look at a drawing your child has made for you or a cartoon knock-off of the Mona Lisa. It’s not about fidelity and it never has been, it’s about the heart behind the art. If you can’t see that then you’re beyond help.
@nessisonett " does not have aspirations, it does not love, it does not hate, it does not have any real intentions behind anything it does" reminds me of a lot of People.
I love that Steam has a generative AI disclaimer on its game pages. I’m not ever spending a single penny on a game that has one.
So, he's afraid to call his AI companion AI because it will generate backlash? If he can't properly explain what GenAI is when compared to programming patterns for autonomous NPC, he shouldn't be in the industry.
BTW most people also think videogames aren't art either.
@nessisonett it’s really sad how bleak many people’s relationship with video games seem to be. I loved video games from the start because of how amazing and creative they were. Going into these different wonderful worlds and seeing these different characters. And having it all created by people who have to carefully craft it to make it work for so many different players. It just absolutely excited my imagination as a kid. It was always so exciting to see what amazing things the makers of my favorite games and series would come up with next. It’s just so sad to me that so many gamers treat the medium as nothing more than a consumable to fill time before they’re eventually lowered into the grave. You have so many gamers who literally argue that video games aren’t art. It’s just so sad to see that some of the most contemptuous people towards video games are gamers themselves.
I'm not directly defending AI, but art has been so loosely defined in the last few decades, that it's really ironic that people are now drawing such a tight border around it.
Really brings back that "What is art?" vibe. Obviously, it's the human element that defines it, but the fact people were taping bananas to walls and calling it art, kind of makes this seem like you brought it on yourselves.
@White_oyster Can you explain more how it’s harmful to the environment? It’s fine if you don’t, i’ll do my own research
@themightyant His way of saying what it is is spot on a snake eating its own tail. You feed it stuff which it mixes up into something new. AI cant create so it sounds spot on. That is why 90% of AI art is so simulair.
@nomither6 Quite easy it takes 10 of the energy in the Netherlands, it uses drinking water to cool, and it takes up tons of space without making new Jobs.
@Propaperpusher No. It's not a form of art, i don't care about ai or human artists but calling prompting a form of art is copium from talentless people
.
If 5 years ago someone told an artist exactly to draw something, word to word and that artist did that, no one in 1 billion years would have called that guy the creator, he is just the employer. Now that artist is a GPU somewhere in a data center.
Writing words in it does not make art nor does it make you an artist. If you could create real music or real art, you would have known the difference.
It's great you like ai gen but don't act like it's something which is not. It's just slop, stolen slop made from real art.
Gen AI is regurgitation. It's sort of like a very convincing collage, torn from other work. As far as I'm concerned, AI cannot really learn anything new from the information it is typically fed. It can only grind up, reconstitute, and return.
Far and away from Antonov pulling inspiration from his home nation of Bulgaria, for example. He applied emotion and lived experience to world building. AI cannot do that. It probably never will.
@LifeGirl As simply as possible, we could substitute soul and experiential. I think they're both interchangeable. AI does not experience, it just mathematically breaks down.
A human experiences, through emotion, sensation, memory, etc. There are scores of definitions for "soul," but I don't think many would deviate from the abovementioned.
@SeaDaVie
Looking at your avatar. So you say, using AI in creative processes is bad, but using plagiarism is ok? I mention plagiarism in relation to Marathon, yes.
@SeaDaVie Do you deny they did it?
@SeaDaVie
Thank you for confirming, that is what I asked, simple yes or no.
There is no need for the damage control you did there. Especially, because that was not 3-4 decals buddy, and you know it
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...