AI can be leveraged by an human designer to do that with some effort. Like, humans may have good taste in level design and AI may explore the concrete possibilities.
AI might be able to do this in the future by itself
AI models might be able to do this in the future by themselves, though with current paradigms AI will barely generate copies of existing levels with little creativity. Sure, a composition of existing level pieces could lead to an interesting level design, though it would be more by accident than by design. Models do not maximize player enjoyment, there is no metric for that. Maybe engagement metrics could be used, but I don't think players would stick around long enough playing bad levels to reach a viable model.
New models and paradigms will come up, but until then I'd say anything AI-generated will feel pretty vanilla and somewhat incoherent.
My point isn't that the Super Mario Maker players weren't having fun flexing their game design muscles. My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game. So what hope does GPT have? Both situations have similar design constraints, which I'm arguing is missing the critical design component necessary to make commercially viable platformers.
The reason why commercial viability is of interest is because the article claims this tool will be valuable to game developers and I don't think it will be because it doesn't solve for any problems in the business of making games. Nobody is stuck deciding where the pipes and bricks go.
To end on a positive note, lots of open world games use terrain generators as a first pass. AI might have better luck in that domain.
> My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game.
How does this criticism follow after seeing a playlist full of creative uses of the limited systems available?
What do you expect, these individual makers using a proprietary tool somehow actually making a commercially viable game out of their levels that they can't even export and are entirely based on the closed source engine powering SMM? That never would have happened because of the nature of the platform, not the content being made.
>My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game. So what hope does GPT have?
Your criticism is that the AI doesn't create new game functionality, even though it doesn't have access to create new game functionality?
That's an artificially impossible bar you're setting for the AI. Maybe if it did have access to create new functionality it would be able to?
> My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game.
The toolset is limited, so you end up with Mario levels of LittleBigPlanet.
If you provide a fuller toolset (like UnrealEd or the ability to mod), then you absolutely have viable content, enough for (in the case of CS) the original publishers of the base game acquiring your commercially viable content.
manojlds|3 years ago
nextaccountic|3 years ago
AI can be leveraged by an human designer to do that with some effort. Like, humans may have good taste in level design and AI may explore the concrete possibilities.
AI might be able to do this in the future by itself
levesque|3 years ago
New models and paradigms will come up, but until then I'd say anything AI-generated will feel pretty vanilla and somewhat incoherent.
a13o|3 years ago
The reason why commercial viability is of interest is because the article claims this tool will be valuable to game developers and I don't think it will be because it doesn't solve for any problems in the business of making games. Nobody is stuck deciding where the pipes and bricks go.
To end on a positive note, lots of open world games use terrain generators as a first pass. AI might have better luck in that domain.
mynameisvlad|3 years ago
How does this criticism follow after seeing a playlist full of creative uses of the limited systems available?
What do you expect, these individual makers using a proprietary tool somehow actually making a commercially viable game out of their levels that they can't even export and are entirely based on the closed source engine powering SMM? That never would have happened because of the nature of the platform, not the content being made.
JacobThreeThree|3 years ago
Your criticism is that the AI doesn't create new game functionality, even though it doesn't have access to create new game functionality?
That's an artificially impossible bar you're setting for the AI. Maybe if it did have access to create new functionality it would be able to?
The-Bus|3 years ago
The toolset is limited, so you end up with Mario levels of LittleBigPlanet.
If you provide a fuller toolset (like UnrealEd or the ability to mod), then you absolutely have viable content, enough for (in the case of CS) the original publishers of the base game acquiring your commercially viable content.
bagels|3 years ago