"You know what I hate most about making games? The fact that it takes 7 years and 300 people and tens of millions of dollars to make. And the fact that Tom had to spend 500 hours in the studio recording completely generic heckling and generic bars. If AI can help me make an epic game in a year with a smaller team like in the old days, I'm all for it."
"That game will still have an art director, writers, programmers, graphic designers, but they won't have to do the tiresome and boring tasks, they'll have to focus on the essentials. I have ideas for lots of games, but I'm fifty years old and so far it's taken me seven years on average to make one game. If AI helps me realize those ideas faster, I'm all for it."
Larian disclosed using generative AI in its workflow and faced significant social media backlash. Several industry veterans responded, with Daniel Vávra acknowledging personal dislike for AI-generated art but accepting that the technology is here to stay. Vávra argued that AI can reduce development time, enable smaller teams, and remove repetitive tasks while keeping core creative roles like art directors, writers, and programmers. He compared the backlash to 19th-century resistance to industrial change and emphasized that AI could help realize more game ideas faster. Some developers remain opposed for now, but many see AI as an inevitable tool in development.
Read at Kotaku
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]