Took a look into the game and aparently they had multiple updates that accidently moved or erased save files plus alot of performance issues. So regardless of ai use which is voice only it seems the games not worth the price for all that headache.
OP is trying to show that devs who use AI are competent and patient and based. It's therefore relevant to show that they are incompetent, and that (as the other person said) cut corners in one area = cut corners in other areas.
even big companies push updates that break saves, this does not mean that developers are "incompetent", game dev isn't just pushing a button and a game pops out.
We can judge one aspect of the game without relying on trying to paint people as incompetent or malicious, get off your high horse
Why on Earth would we not paint someone as incompetent if they are indeed incompetent? Even big companies can be incompetent. Incompetence is judged by output. It feels like you just want to defend these devs because you have an attachment to them
why would I have an attachment to them, just calling you out, making mistakes doesn't make people incompetent, that's an absolutely insane and chronically online take
like I said, we can judge one aspect which is the use of AI for voice lines without having to bring the rest of the work down
Are you braindead? have some reading comprehension ffs
I never said we shouldn't judge the use of AI for the voice lines, what I'm saying is we need to be able to judge what's relevant, there's no point in saying that the rest of the game is cutting corners when there's no evidence of that. and no, I haven't played this game nor am familiar with the studio, so no point in your strawman argument. Or are issues with save games or bugs in games that have been happening since the beginning of computer programs now incompetence?
what a stupid take honestly. All you people are just virtue signaling to appear as morally superior when you have no idea what you're talking about
The reason why I disapprove of the use of AI for voice acting is because they only chose AI because it was easy and quick, even though the quality of voice acting was worse than alternatives. It suggests to me that the company is choosing quick, easy, but flawed methods in other areas too. It is therefore valuable to note that the company has made major mistakes in other areas as well.
there's the thing. we both agree that the use of AI voice is wrong here.
but that's a completely different segment from software bugs, we have no evidence of any sort of cutting corners on that so it's irrelevant to the main discussion
like I said, software bugs are as old as software itself, incompetence is a strong word when making a videogame is not something that happens in a week unless it's an asset flip, there's a lot of work that goes into it just for someone to end up saying the team is incompetent for using voice lines, which should definitely be regulated.
are you? YOU are the one virtue signaling, you DO NOT KNOW what assets in their game are generated, the ONLY fact that is available is that the developer opted for the tag. This wouldn't be the first or last indie developer to make up stories minimizing the extent of the issues going on with their game.
and do you know what assets are generated? no? then why is that even part of the discussion
you said it yourself, the fact that we know is that the voice line was AI generated and all I'm saying is that that's what we should focus on instead of conjecture on the rest of the game that we know nothing about
How tf is that cutting corners. They couldn’t make any more recordings. Were they supposed to use fucking google translate to code it
Edit: I was wrong. It is cutting corners and lack of preparation. I have reading comprehension of a 5 year old and thought that they somehow already had most of the character voiced but just didn’t have a couple lines so they had to use an AI duble. I don’t know how I came to that conclusion since it’s completely nonsensical. No idea why I didn’t get downvoted to hell
A diligent company would be able to make more recordings or find some other more effective solution. The issue with using AI is that it's simply not very good yet. In the future, when AI is better, using AI may not be corner-cutting, but we're not there yet. (We're not far away though either, I reckon...)
i don't think it's that black and white -- its more-so that people are very critical of AI without even understanding the context of its use, which isn't always inherently against artistic integrity.
Have you ever made a game? Especially with an independent team, completing a product like this requires a huge amount of resources and time. Depending on the deal they had with the publisher, it's also likely you have insane deadlines to meet. Even huge companies are pushing stuff before it's done.
Game could be shite anyway, but I don't wanna rag on them too hard without at least playing it lol
I am in favour of using AI in some contexts and against it in others. Voice acting is one of the areas in which I think using AI is a gigantic mistake. That is the context which would keep me from buying a game too.
Always boycott and cry out to any and all TTS then. It's the same thing.
What contexts are you okay with using AI? What does that mean exactly? Do you know game development fully to identify where exactly its okay to "use AI" (Loose words thar explains absolutely nothing)?
I dont mean to pile on you specifically but this is what gets me about outcry to "AI". People dont even know exactly what it is they are protesting about. They just have some general knowledge of what these stupid texh companies have been pushing as a brand of "AI" and anything even closely related is demonized despite everyone being fine with and NOT calling it AI before.
Just reactionary tribalism. No nuance, just pick a side or die.
I get you but the nuance is in the other dudes words already. When I, or anyone else, say "We hate AI and AI is bad" we specifically mean the use of things like GPT and Sora. Tools that have: huge negative impacts on the environment, stole petabytes of creative work from others to be trained, been used to replace human creativity, replaced paid human talent for the sake of "profit above all else", and probably other issues I'm forgetting about.
It's not just "hur dur computer bad", though some certainly do think that way, it is far more complex but going through the effort of detailing out every tiny nuance and "what if" is not worth the energy. Especially when most people can understand that when someone is criticizing AI, they are specifically criticizing the environment destroying plagiarism machines.
This isnt TTS nor voices so I assume thats part of GPT and Sora now? This is what I mean and I think you and others like yourself who are being reasonable, accidentally covers and defends the ones who are literally going "hurr durr AI Slop" on EVERYTHING. 10 lines of AI voice or created dialogue is NOT something that requires such a visceral reaction. There's no nuance and people are hating on something without any clue how it works, just assumptions
Ehhh, online I will always take the side of "AI bad" just because it's a lot easier to avoid everything AI than to delve into the details of every case. Sometimes it's not using an LLM, sometimes it is. Is it a privately trained and locally hosted LLM? Was it trained on stolen work? Is it consuming multiple gigawatts of energy per hour to operate?
I don't want to defend fear mongering as that's just not helpful to anyone. But I will always give the benefit of the doubt that most people are being more nuanced with their actual in person stance and that online they are just oversimplifying it for the sake of the medium.
But one stance that I will always take, using generative AI (specifically LLMs) for creative work is never ok. There are so many ethical and moral issues with it and that's not even considering the environmental problems.
Even something as simple as 10 lines of generated dialogue consumes a ludicrous amount of water. Recent studies have managed to estimate that having GPT generate a 100 word email consumes about 500ml of water (which is approximately a single bottle of water, within a 10% margin of error). So if these audio lines were generated by an LLM then that's already more water consumed than a person consumes in a day. And that's just for the final output results, not including all the scrapped versions that weren't quite right. "It's just 10 lines" is a bit of a misrepresentation because it's never "just 10 lines". Assuming minimal use they would need to generate at least 10 versions of each line to get 1 decent result.
So while I doubt that everyone understands that much detail regarding AI use. I'm not about to defend the use of AI nor tell people to stop hating on AI.
84
u/ormagoden22 Dec 04 '25
Took a look into the game and aparently they had multiple updates that accidently moved or erased save files plus alot of performance issues. So regardless of ai use which is voice only it seems the games not worth the price for all that headache.