Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

yes, sadly, as AI disclosure is here now, everything becomes "AI generated" if you just used a bit. That's exactly what is asked when you upload. 

On Stem they let you explain exactly how AI is used. That works for people that are rational, modern, and live in 2025. But for the "vegan mindset" as you said, it's exactly the same: "AI generated". We could talk about "Photoshop generated" or "filter generated", or "intellisense generated",or a lot more, if we applied the same criteria.

On the other side, many who use AI, specially on art, are not honest, and tend to say "I draw it" or "I painted", when they actually didn't at all, nor even partially.

One can notice very easily: AI tends to produce standardized outputs, and when people don't create their own styles or concepts, or just put the raw output you find:
- On images, they all look the same author (this happens without AI too, actually), as if they all were made by the same person. No personal style at all

- On code, it does very conventional apps and games. 

- On sound and music, does strange stops and incoherence.

And so on. Actually people can notice when something is fruit from a personal style and intervention and when it's not. Those who can't, will be able to notice in a few years. 

But the amount of people that don't want any AI at all, will never accept it. And the tag is for those people, so they can  keep their activity isolated from the games made with AI, specially on art.

I use AI at my art, with a lot of customization and intervention in manual way, but I marked the tag anyway, as I honestly also don't want that kind of public anyway. For an extended explanation they can go to my site, and read the About, or just play the game, watch it, etc.

I recommend any person that uses AI to use the tag. They will save a lot of headaches. Those people will live in their world isolated from the major tendency for the years to come. Also, if you don't make manga it's easier, because that is the only style that most of them like. Some like more things, but the majority doesn't. Probably this is this way because the first generators focused on manga (Waifu Diffusion).

When in one or two years all is made using AI as we use Photoshop, or Blender, everyone will be ok with it. 

The best vaccine to not be against AI and stop fearing it is to use it. You quickly will see the limitations. The crap it produces is massive. Then you start to see the good results it can make if you put intervention in it, or mix it with more things. Mix also coding with your brain, generative art with drawing and painting, composing with small parts of music (I suppose). Then you see that a human is always needed, and the fear stops, unless you want to produce massive amounts of crap (as sadly many do, but I think it's because it's  something new).

(+1)

I see it pragmatically. Most of the "AI" games on Itch would not even exist, if not for AI. Similar to game engines. Single developers usually cannot program a game from scratch. Or have the budget to commission art. Being able to do art and code is rare. Engines helped for the coding. Stock images, things like Blender and other tools for the art. And lately AI generated images. Someone familiar with generating code has an easier time figuring out how to operate an AI system. It is not that easy as some people think. I like to compare it to photography. A photographer can't draw and only clicks a button - to the lay person. Suddenly everyone has a digital camera in their pockets and everyone's a photographer.

Attacking AI for the origin of the training data is short sighted. The outcome will not go away. It will be improved, and probably legally and morally cleansed. Or there will be a procedural gen AI. Anyhow, there still we be a method for lay persons to create images "by click on a button". 

For games and bigger studios, they do have a budget. They better use a professional to create their content. There I have little tolerance for AI usage. They are not lay persons. They are not hobby devs that try to make pocket money or become a professional.

And I think that many people think so, if I judge by the popularity of games. Exactly because AI is so recogniseable when a lay person does it, you spot images and text right away. 

But if I were to see a disclosure that says, we did some boring sub routines with AI helpers in the code, meh, who cares. If they say, they wrote the plot with AI ... that is a different beast. If it is not an experimental game or some such, I would rather not read that.

But currently there is no distinction between AI assisted or generated, so all this is moot. And people would probably try to stretch any definition to their advantage.

Agree in all that you said. 

(+1)

Honestly, for my "tutorial project" its more educational than anything. Once I've done something a few times like set up a new npc.tscn I can do that on my own, I only needed ChatGPT to handhold me for first one or two times. I'm declaring signals, linking them, and rationalizing my way through node interactions more or less on my own.

But like a textbook, each and every time I turn the metaphorical page and see something new I may need to be walked through the process once or twice.

And funny thing, I've noticed ChatGPT can actually catch several of its mistakes if prompted differently.

AI: So, you wanna do $this, var this, and _that().
Me: That function call looks suspicious. Are you sure that's the right one for doing [psuedo-code step here]
AI: Oh yeah, good catch. It's documented that it isn't. Try using _this() instead of _that()
And then that one super specific thing works first try in test play.

Yes that's how they behave. Microsoft Copilot does the same. Just by using them you notice it's just like working with someone that makes mistakes and it's just that they have access to information but are just a help, not what people think, and don't replace anyone.