No, but it does empower solo indie creators to do something beyond that. Like a dude who’s a solo programmer can now make a reasonably okay looking game without dipping into “programmer art”.
Obviously once their game gets enough traction they should pay a real artist to do it right but it’s not a bad idea to prove the concept first using low effort AI art.
As someone with a game collection so large I won’t able to finish in two lifetimes, game art is important enough to make me decide for a game and not for another one.
It is so true that certain games do not reach wider audiences because their art style is not as skilled as in other projects.
I find AI art derivative, mediocre and dull.
It IS of surprising quality and at the same time incredibly boring.
And I feel this blob of grey will increase as it becomes standardized and more AI art games become the norm.
Corollary: If someone shows you a picture made by AI and tells you nothing but to rate it, you’ll probably just shrug.
Yes, but you can’t have professional art during the whole process of development. It’s far more efficient for a solo dev to test first before paying an artist to make the final assets.
Game development is so chaotic, I’ve seen people throw away thousands of dollars of art because it turns out the game never needed those assets in the first place.
As an oldtimer in the video game industry, you use placeholders when you start out. Free stuff. Boxes and spheres. Old assets from other games. Then when things come around, you get the artists on board.
No, but it does empower solo indie creators to do something beyond that. Like a dude who’s a solo programmer can now make a reasonably okay looking game without dipping into “programmer art”.
Obviously once their game gets enough traction they should pay a real artist to do it right but it’s not a bad idea to prove the concept first using low effort AI art.
As someone with a game collection so large I won’t able to finish in two lifetimes, game art is important enough to make me decide for a game and not for another one.
It is so true that certain games do not reach wider audiences because their art style is not as skilled as in other projects.
I find AI art derivative, mediocre and dull. It IS of surprising quality and at the same time incredibly boring. And I feel this blob of grey will increase as it becomes standardized and more AI art games become the norm.
Corollary: If someone shows you a picture made by AI and tells you nothing but to rate it, you’ll probably just shrug.
Yes, but you can’t have professional art during the whole process of development. It’s far more efficient for a solo dev to test first before paying an artist to make the final assets.
Game development is so chaotic, I’ve seen people throw away thousands of dollars of art because it turns out the game never needed those assets in the first place.
As an oldtimer in the video game industry, you use placeholders when you start out. Free stuff. Boxes and spheres. Old assets from other games. Then when things come around, you get the artists on board.
Yep, what I’m saying is that placeholders just got better, that’s all.
Sounds quite useless to me to spend time on. At meast if you make a real game.
The whole point is that AI art doesn’t take time or effort.
Placeholders is even faster and lesser effort 🤷🏼♀️
Also, if your game isn’t fun without good looking graphics, then that’s a serious problem (IMO), and using placeholder assures that to some extent.