At 4/1/25 09:16 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 08:42 PM, OnixDark wrote:fun fact: there are no rules against AI generated videogame assets as of this writing. though that page may need an update.

While you're technically correct, the games and movies portal applies both rule sets, which is why the main rule page notes a split. Each rule set just covers some specific considerations to each, so the rule is:

'AI Animation

This will be an evolving area. If you are an artist who is using AI to assist you in your process, this is most likely fine. We will be removing things like AI slideshows, however. For example if you take an audio track and play it alongside static images generated by AI, that will likely be removed.

Our enforcement will be largely subjective as we get a handle on what cases are valid uses of AI and what cases are over-dependent on a computer doing the bulk of creative work."

In this case the art assets being mostly/all AI generated, even if the coding was made by the submitter, would not be acceptable. This is a site for independent animators, so AI is not encouraged.

THAT SAID, if the game was under judgement, it may have been BLAMmed

It was removed by mods.

At 4/1/25 09:16 PM, Pingu wrote:While you're technically correct, the games and movies portal applies both rule sets, which is why the main rule page notes a split. Each rule set just covers some specific considerations to each.
In this case the art assets being mostly/all AI generated, even if the coding was made by the submitter, would not be acceptable. This is a site for independent animators, so AI is not encouraged.

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.

If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

At 4/2/25 11:11 AM, BickerySebastian wrote:

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.

You're joking right? Almost *every* submission portal says "don't post AI shit", I don't get how you find using AI (As in AI generative content.) as the bulk of the game remotely acceptable even if it's not stated within the rules. To be fair, no dev would care about those portals, but people make fun of AI all the time, even if it's low brow.

If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

There's no hypocrisy in it, and I'm just saying as a guy who stumbled upon this topic. NG is a place for people to share their creations, AI is not human and presents legal problems since it can plagiarize or even spread misinformation. There's nothing inherently wrong with using AI, people nowadays just don't look at it with a more nuanced view on how production works. The problem they're focusing on is how it essentially uses images from people who didn't even consent to it. How come you, someone who complains about how dull and repetitive people complain about AI, don't say what they're complaining about? Doesn't this contradict the idea of having a "honest and balanced conversation" about AI? Sure, I can understand the sad problem that programmers need to be acknowledged here and there, but I can't understand using AI for the final product. I get not every dev can make beautiful images and would rather use already made assets in the game, but for a dev to just use AI in the final product is frankly disgusting because AI can't create art, why would you go out of your way to stab the artists for the sake of AI? This isn't something you accidently slip in, this is a choice you run with and, like all choices, it has consequences. What justifies going out to commit copyright infringement when AI is designed to mimic only the surface level of art?

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.
If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

At 4/2/25 12:10 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:So let me get this straight—you’re asking random developers if they have money to hire artists, as if that’s just expected. The entitlement is surreal. You have no idea what people’s financial situations are—especially in the indie scene where many of us, like myself, make games entirely for free.

Sure, I have a Patreon, but the game I’ve been working on for almost a year now is fully playable without paying a cent. I’ve poured countless hours into coding, writing, designing—all out of passion. And somehow, because I used AI art to fill in the gaps I couldn’t cover myself, that makes the project “disgusting”? Really?

Let’s also be real—plenty of the same artists who shout the loudest about AI are probably using AI tools themselves in some way, whether for reference, composition, or even writing descriptions and bios. But somehow, those uses don’t violate the "sacred art space." It’s only when a dev uses AI to bring their game to life that the pitchforks come out.

...What’s truly hypocritical is how narrow the outrage is. People scream about how AI is soulless or steals art, while conveniently ignoring that many artists trace, use stock assets, or rely heavily on references—and yet that’s never questioned. Why is AI art “not real,” but tracing over someone’s photo or doing fanart in someone else’s style is? That moral line seems to move a lot depending on who’s holding the pencil. ...
... The constant argument that AI “can’t create” or that it’s “soulless” is just another tired talking point. Meanwhile, you have artists who literally trace other people's work and get praise for it. And if you can’t even look at an AI-generated image and identify a single source that it supposedly “copied,” then is it really plagiarism, or just projection?

At 4/2/25 01:18 PM, BickerySebastian wrote:

At 4/2/25 12:10 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:So let me get this straight—you’re asking random developers if they have money to hire artists, as if that’s just expected. The entitlement is surreal. You have no idea what people’s financial situations are—especially in the indie scene where many of us, like myself, make games entirely for free.

Yes, developers SHOULD hire artists if they have the money. I know this sounds mutually exclusive with making games for profit and making games for nonprofit, but unless you have friends willingly to do it for free, people need money and aren't going to just give you assets for free. What's exactly "entitled" to give artists money on the basis of "it's a job" if you're willing to do so? Oh I know, employees SHOULD be entitled to be paid for their WORK.

Sure, I have a Patreon, but the game I’ve been working on for almost a year now is fully playable without paying a cent. I’ve poured countless hours into coding, writing, designing—all out of passion. And somehow, because I used AI art to fill in the gaps I couldn’t cover myself, that makes the project “disgusting”? Really?

Okay, where's that Patreon? Because if I'm essentially being funded by a bunch of people with real money, what's the excuse of not paying an artist to fill those gaps? At least when I pay an artist, not only do they get money, but I have the complete rights to use their work in my game and no copyright law can fuck me over this way.

Let’s also be real—plenty of the same artists who shout the loudest about AI are probably using AI tools themselves in some way, whether for reference, composition, or even writing descriptions and bios. But somehow, those uses don’t violate the "sacred art space." It’s only when a dev uses AI to bring their game to life that the pitchforks come out.

...So by your logic, you use AI as well? I mean, you talk about AI a lot and you're defending it poorly, unless there's a good distinction here, you're using AI.

...What’s truly hypocritical is how narrow the outrage is. People scream about how AI is soulless or steals art, while conveniently ignoring that many artists trace, use stock assets, or rely heavily on references—and yet that’s never questioned. Why is AI art “not real,” but tracing over someone’s photo or doing fanart in someone else’s style is? That moral line seems to move a lot depending on who’s holding the pencil. ...
... The constant argument that AI “can’t create” or that it’s “soulless” is just another tired talking point. Meanwhile, you have artists who literally trace other people's work and get praise for it. And if you can’t even look at an AI-generated image and identify a single source that it supposedly “copied,” then is it really plagiarism, or just projection?

Oh boy, I love "whatabout-isms!"
Homie, as much as Kyxlect already said, please stop trying to accuse using AI just because everybody else does it. Sure, tracing sucks because as an artist myself, tracing a person's work and present as your own is plagiarism and presents a lack of creativity, but a wrong and a wrong don't result in a right, because AI is void of creativity, but it's certainly full of copyright infringement.

At 4/2/25 12:35 PM, Kyxlect wrote:

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.
If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

You know what else is getting old? The sad excuses and justifications people like you give when it comes to the usage of AI. What's this one? "AI is affecting my field of work so that entitles me to use it to steal from people in other respectable fields!"

Artists don't make art for you to come along and do whatever you like with it. That's why copyright exists. You see how easy it is to dismiss your sad excuses? The fact of the matter here is that there is no acceptable excuse or justification, you just don't do it as a matter of principle and out of respect.

At 4/2/25 01:39 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/2/25 12:35 PM, Kyxlect wrote:

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.
If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

You know what else is getting old? The sad excuses and justifications people like you give when it comes to the usage of AI. What's this one? "AI is affecting my field of work so that entitles me to use it to steal from people in other respectable fields!"

Artists don't make art for you to come along and do whatever you like with it. That's why copyright exists. You see how easy it is to dismiss your sad excuses? The fact of the matter here is that there is no acceptable excuse or justification, you just don't do it as a matter of principle and out of respect.

You sound like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum, so let me break it down for you.
What exactly am I stealing? Be specific. Because using a tool that generates new, original outputs based on learned data isn’t the same as ripping off someone’s painting and slapping my name on it. That’s not how this works, no matter how loud you scream "theft."
You talk about “respect” and “principle,” but what you really mean is control. You want to dictate who can create and how, just because technology makes creation more accessible—and that threatens your sense of gatekeeping.
Newsflash: the world changes. Tools evolve. Artists adapt—or they get left behind. You don’t own creativity. You don’t get to decide what’s “respectable” and what isn’t because it makes you uncomfortable.
So unless you can actually point to something being stolen—not imagined, not theoretical, but concrete—maybe take a step back and rethink who’s actually making the sad excuses here.

At 4/2/25 02:05 PM, CrimsonKero wrote:

At 4/2/25 01:39 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/2/25 12:35 PM, Kyxlect wrote:

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.
If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

You know what else is getting old? The sad excuses and justifications people like you give when it comes to the usage of AI. What's this one? "AI is affecting my field of work so that entitles me to use it to steal from people in other respectable fields!"

Artists don't make art for you to come along and do whatever you like with it. That's why copyright exists. You see how easy it is to dismiss your sad excuses? The fact of the matter here is that there is no acceptable excuse or justification, you just don't do it as a matter of principle and out of respect.

You sound like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum, so let me break it down for you.
What exactly am I stealing? Be specific. Because using a tool that generates new, original outputs based on learned data isn’t the same as ripping off someone’s painting and slapping my name on it. That’s not how this works, no matter how loud you scream "theft."
You talk about “respect” and “principle,” but what you really mean is control. You want to dictate who can create and how, just because technology makes creation more accessible—and that threatens your sense of gatekeeping.
Newsflash: the world changes. Tools evolve. Artists adapt—or they get left behind. You don’t own creativity. You don’t get to decide what’s “respectable” and what isn’t because it makes you uncomfortable.
So unless you can actually point to something being stolen—not imagined, not theoretical, but concrete—maybe take a step back and rethink who’s actually making the sad excuses here.

Ignoring the "theft" aspect: AI is, for the most part, cheap and lazy.

You type in a prompt, the computer does all the work in 3 minutes. Usually it provides tons more detail than if you picked up a pencil and sketched for 3 minutes, but it's all sloppy, text is nonsense, anatomy and fingers are fucked.

Of course, you can use newer models, try to guide the AI manually, even using original drawings so that you don't get those errors, but at the end of the day, it's still AI, only it's just that bit harder to tell.

At 4/2/25 02:31 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/2/25 02:05 PM, CrimsonKero wrote:

At 4/2/25 01:39 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/2/25 12:35 PM, Kyxlect wrote:

At 4/2/25 10:26 AM, darkforgestudios wrote:

At 4/1/25 07:01 PM, Pingu wrote:

At 4/1/25 03:59 PM, darkforgestudios wrote:Any mod?

How many of your assets were AI generated? From the stills on the project it looks like a lot.

So it really was because of AI use? Honestly, the idea seemed so absurd I didn’t even consider it at first. There were no clear rules about it in the game submission guidelines either.
If that’s truly the reason, I find it incredibly hypocritical. Developers like myself—who have been working in this field for years—are just as affected, if not more, by the rapid developments in AI. Yet somehow, the outrage always centers around “the artists,” as if we're not part of the same creative ecosystem.
AI isn’t going anywhere. The constant demonization of it, along with the same tired echo chamber of complaints, is getting old. It’s time for a more honest and balanced conversation

You know what else is getting old? The sad excuses and justifications people like you give when it comes to the usage of AI. What's this one? "AI is affecting my field of work so that entitles me to use it to steal from people in other respectable fields!"

Artists don't make art for you to come along and do whatever you like with it. That's why copyright exists. You see how easy it is to dismiss your sad excuses? The fact of the matter here is that there is no acceptable excuse or justification, you just don't do it as a matter of principle and out of respect.

You sound like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum, so let me break it down for you.
What exactly am I stealing? Be specific. Because using a tool that generates new, original outputs based on learned data isn’t the same as ripping off someone’s painting and slapping my name on it. That’s not how this works, no matter how loud you scream "theft."
You talk about “respect” and “principle,” but what you really mean is control. You want to dictate who can create and how, just because technology makes creation more accessible—and that threatens your sense of gatekeeping.
Newsflash: the world changes. Tools evolve. Artists adapt—or they get left behind. You don’t own creativity. You don’t get to decide what’s “respectable” and what isn’t because it makes you uncomfortable.
So unless you can actually point to something being stolen—not imagined, not theoretical, but concrete—maybe take a step back and rethink who’s actually making the sad excuses here.

Ignoring the "theft" aspect: AI is, for the most part, cheap and lazy.

You type in a prompt, the computer does all the work in 3 minutes. Usually it provides tons more detail than if you picked up a pencil and sketched for 3 minutes, but it's all sloppy, text is nonsense, anatomy and fingers are fucked.

Of course, you can use newer models, try to guide the AI manually, even using original drawings so that you don't get those errors, but at the end of the day, it's still AI, only it's just that bit harder to tell.

“Three minutes of work,” right. Of course. All those AI-generated images just magically slap themselves into the game, fully polished. In fact, in my roguelike, the AI not only created the assets — it also animated the sprites, cut them into proper sheets, positioned them on screen, adjusted layers, and implemented the logic. Hell, I guess it even balanced the combat system for me while it was at it.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Typing a prompt isn’t where the work ends — it’s where real work begins if you’re actually building something. Integrating visuals, adapting them, refining them to fit a cohesive style, testing, fixing—that’s the work. But of course, it’s easier to scream “lazy” from behind a keyboard than to try using the tech or producing anything of your own.
I don’t even know why I keep wasting time arguing with self-appointed forum warriors who’ve never used the tools, never shipped a project, and wouldn’t know “effort” if it smacked them in the face. But thanks for the unsolicited TED Talk on something you’ve never touched.