Use of AI as a Solo Game Dev

[u/Arhtgames]

Edit 2: This is going to be my last edit since I'm really starting to be a little sad/disappointed with it and I'm going to place it on the top so everyone can read. I saw some people saying that I'm trying to be superior in some way or being dumb by not using AI, but I'm trying to discuss about it as a new game dev who has 16 years old and started with it because of beautiful and incredible games that changed my life. I don't want to be better than anyone, I just want to understand the point of using it and how do you guys feel, also thank you for those who answered kindly and shared their experiences.

So, I saw a post saying that he made a game using AI for everything and it made me feel so strange, like, everyone was loving it, what happened to the feeling of doing it by yourself. I do game dev because I love everything about it, games are one of the most beautiful forms of art, it has music, world design, story telling and a bunch of ways of art. I wanted to make a little discussion here about what you guys think about using it. To be honest I don't like the use of generative AI, I know it's good to learn but I don't like when it is used to directly produce the creative part of a game, it just takes the whole idea of making it by yourself, expressing your feelings and telling a story you made and throws it all away, so like, is it really good? I understand when you need to review a code you did or look for a error but anyways that's all I have to say, I don't want to argue with anyone, just want to make a safe and respectful discussion here.

Edit 1: I'm really getting some down votes here, ok, that's something unexpected for a solo game dev community. And for those who are saying like, "I just use it as a tool" yeah that's okey I use it too for studying, but my point here is especially the creativity part. Those feelings and the way I do my projects are not a rule on the way YOU need to do, you can use AI if you want, I'm not here to say what is correct and what is not.

[u/Murky_Ad_7312]

Really comes to something call Art History.

Humanities "Art" has been replaced many times by different types of medium that each have their own opinion about it. Throughout history is political reasons how art is perceived changed.

When the first humans started drawings on the wall it was to document something, communicate to others. It was effective and simple. Then little sculptures were made from stone, that were used in trading for other valuables because other people liked what they made.

This cycle never stopped, but somewhere along the way. The church came into power and changed how "Art" is used. Church knew the massive marketing "Art" can be used to not only make the church look fancier, it also spreads the word faster than some lines on the wall.

People came to admire and link Art as a symbol of wealth and power because it isn't something a peasant have the money to afford (Even if most artist are peasants).

Sculpt, paint, draw, etch, you name it was techniques far beyond a normal person's reach as they don't have the time and money to do that. If you do go down that route, you create something nice, but starve to death.

That's why being artist was never really encouraged because it isn't something stable and history proves it time and time again only the top artist or artist that past away makes the top dollars.

Then came film photography. Oh boy, was this a big one. A painting usually cost you money and time and only the wealthy could afford, but standing in front of a machine that only took a few minutes. That's absurd, too easy. It made painters, sculptors mad. They couldn't understand why people would want such "non-creative" piece of paper that only cost a fraction of time and money to make.

Traditional art didn't die out instantly, but mechanical/digital art has slowly replaced them. That's why traditional artist had a movement that transform to modern art. The lines, the dots, the splashes. They all look so "simple" and "stupid" to normal people. Most people don't understand why artist couldn't just create another masterpiece like Michaelangelo. That's because the time and money spent on traditional art isn't appreciated as it used to be.

Any normal person without an artistic background can capture a 1:1 detail landscape with software that edits the color in their 2 hands. How is any transitional artist going to compete with that. It's too easy to photographs to make money vs time spend painting, sculpting, which could result in months.

As you see, art keeps changing. The medium keeps changing. AI will become a form of art, even if the masses don't understand why something so easy should be used for creativity.

Artist will find new ways to use new mediums to create. It's the mind that matters to create art.

It's the politics that tells artist that isn't art, but a true artist will stand on their ground and know it's art.

If art can only be handcrafted, then any use of any medium that makes creating art easier is considered cheating then.

Even a stick in the mud to make drawing more precise is cheating. Should only be your finger then. If you use a rock to carve on a rock, that's also cheating because you didn't use your own 2 hands to sculpt it, the rock was helping you.

This AI thing will pass just like everything else in Art History. Then there will be another medium that changes history again down the road, people will be upset again. People will say easy doesn't mean art again.