You guys have to check this out because it hits on one of the most honest takes on the generative AI debate I've seen in a while and you can tell they really care about what their audience will think. The headline itself — "'They would feel a kind of sadness, right?': Slay the Spire 2 dev on using slightly rubbish placeholder art over AI" — says just enough to make me want to read more. It's about Gideon, who led the first game and is now heading up Slay the Spire II, and he made a very deliberate choice during development that tells you everything you need to know about his approach. Instead of using generative tools for concept art or environment assets — which many indie devs are already turning to as costs rise — he intentionally used hand-drawn placeholder art when things weren't finalized. That sounds counterintuitive in the current climate, but hear me out because the reasoning is what makes this so compelling.
He wasn't just being nostalgic; it was a statement about authenticity and respect for his community. He argued that if people looked at their game's concept stage and saw AI generation instead of hand-drawn art — even "slightly rubbish" art — they would feel cheated in some way, as if the creator had taken a shortcut rather than putting in the work. His response to critics who said this was elitist or unnecessary is telling: he believes that a game's soul comes from human intent and craftsmanship, not from prompting an algorithm for convenient results. He'd much rather ship with unfinished art made by his team than finished-looking assets created by a machine. It's a rare instance of someone being fully transparent about their creative philosophy in a space where the AI question is often handled through vague statements or aggressive dismissal.
For everyone still figuring out how this conversation plays out, it raises bigger questions that I want to get your thoughts on too: is there an ethical line between using generative tools for grunt work and replacing skilled artists entirely? Where do we draw it in gamedev specifically, given the different needs of asset production at various scales? I'd love to hear what you all think about this.
Source: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/they-would-feel-a-kind-of-sadness-right-slay-the-spire-2-dev-on-using-slightly-rubbish-placeholder-art-over-ai
He wasn't just being nostalgic; it was a statement about authenticity and respect for his community. He argued that if people looked at their game's concept stage and saw AI generation instead of hand-drawn art — even "slightly rubbish" art — they would feel cheated in some way, as if the creator had taken a shortcut rather than putting in the work. His response to critics who said this was elitist or unnecessary is telling: he believes that a game's soul comes from human intent and craftsmanship, not from prompting an algorithm for convenient results. He'd much rather ship with unfinished art made by his team than finished-looking assets created by a machine. It's a rare instance of someone being fully transparent about their creative philosophy in a space where the AI question is often handled through vague statements or aggressive dismissal.
For everyone still figuring out how this conversation plays out, it raises bigger questions that I want to get your thoughts on too: is there an ethical line between using generative tools for grunt work and replacing skilled artists entirely? Where do we draw it in gamedev specifically, given the different needs of asset production at various scales? I'd love to hear what you all think about this.
Source: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/they-would-feel-a-kind-of-sadness-right-slay-the-spire-2-dev-on-using-slightly-rubbish-placeholder-art-over-ai