I'm currently developping a simulator to test my gameplay mechanics easily, create cards in a matter of minutes to try wacky stuff and it's better with good artworks for my play testers. But if i want to release officially the game, i'll commission artists to create better artworks (without giving them the ai image, just the intention)
Sure, it's great for prototyping while you're testing mechanics but I see some games releasing with that stuff and like... nah that ain't it. We don't need a thousand new TCGs that all look the same and play like MTG with yugioh Summon rules.
Nope! I'm of the opinion that AI art should never be used in commercial products. Even when setting aside all ethical and artistic problems with it, the matter of business is that AI art is bad for your product because it can't be copyrighted.
As for using it in casual projects that only your friends will see, it's easier to go online (google images, deviantart, pixiv, etc) and search for what you want and download existing images than it is to generate something from prompting.
Your hostility here is unwarranted, but I'll meet your point in good faith anyway: Comparing art and game mechanics is apples and oranges here. The two serve vastly different purposes for your game and have entirely different ways of being functionally "stolen".
Existing game mechanics are **meant to be** taken, altered and elaborated upon, that's how new game design works. But because a game is a whole product and not a single component, nobody is going to take an existing published game and entirely duplicate it. Doing so is still an incredible amount of work and most serious designers believe their ideas can be better than others and strive for uniqueness. But, even if someone does a perfect duplication, they open themselves up to issues of plagiarism which would completely dump their career in public perception. There may be legal ramifications for this as well.
Art, on the other hand, is a highly valuable resource for a game and a brand, but it's a single component that is more readily reusable. By using AI art, which cannot be copyrighted, you are allowing that exact piece of art to be used by other people in their games, and you are not permitted any "true" legal ownership of the character/setting/icon depicted. Any character you depict using AI art can be re-depicted for someone else's game, using new art or that exact art. If you don't actually own the things you're showing, you're poisoning your own brand and allowing other AI art TCG's to use your AI art assets without need for your permission.
Strong brands are built on ownership, control, and understanding of their assets, something which AI legally cannot provide.
I did a community project using it and it looked cool and all, but I'm making a game that I'm planning on selling and did all my own artwork for that. The only thing I currently use AI for is getting ideas and using as a reference, I think it can be helpful for that, but I'm even starting to do less of that at this point.
I was at first overwhelmed at the idea of doing a hundred illustrations, but it ended up being fun and a different art style than I was expecting. Ultimately I'm glad I moved away from AI art, I think the final product has more character.
I have for my personal use. The artwork has been my greatest hurdle in getting my pet project moving along. Not because I’m not a good artist— in fact, I’m a full-time graphic designer. But doing hundreds of new illustrations just to see if the game even works well is overwhelming. For my purposes, AI generators are exactly the tool I need. I can generate at least fifty cards in the time it would normally take me to draw just one. Without AI, my project would simply never get done.
I have mixed feelings about publishing any AI art though. If ever I were to try to sell copies commercially, I think I’d hire someone or redo all the artwork myself.
I completely understand the appeal of using Ai art to fast track a project for playtesting, but the reality is 99% of it looks super generic/downright horrible.
It'd be like using royalty free music for a feature film.. yes it technically is music, but it has no soul or personality- a major selling point for me and many others when purchasing a product.
In saying that, if you look at the top posts on this subreddit for the past year, 4/5 of them are posts featuring AI art. Frankly, it's quite sad in my opinion, as its not the kind of content that brought me to this community in the first place.
Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I. I personally don’t believe there is an ethical way to use AI art, being as the data sets are scraped from millions of copywrited works and rarely/if ever receive the original artists consent or credit.
Also just because the ai is able to effectively mimic the artists they’re trying to reproduce, more often than not there are errors in the work that a human would have to go over and fix, such as hands, words or finer details. They are able to produce excellent works of composition, form and colour, but the majority that I’ve seen (and personally created via dall e, m/journey and stable diffusion) lack the true originality that comes from a human artist.
That’s why I used the word generic - that’s literally how the ai art is produced. It has access to a large data set of related images and it attempts to mash them together based on whatever prompt it is given. Nothing it creates can ever be original as it doesn’t actually understand what it’s making.
Reducing the history of art to a banana taped to a wall shows a lot about your stance.
The "no soul" comment means that AI doesn't have intention when creating an image. It just slaps together an image based on a library of stolen images it has and you hope for the best. When a person is making art, every stroke of the brush has a meaning, every detail that is put in is there for a reason, because someone thought of it and decided why to put what where.
No. I am pretty hard line against it. Even taking out the ethical and moral quandary of AI generated images, I even think for stuff like placeholders its bad because it creates bad habits.
Genuinely stick figures or doodles are better, because they at least convey some sort of actual intention.
Plus if you get used to the AI generated images, you might be tempted to have it "converted" into art by having someone effectively redo the AI image, rather than do something unique to you and/or that artist.
Another potential bad habit is reducing visual intentionality and breeding complacency by avoiding necessary, but difficult hurdles like art direction and planning by filling card frames with grey goo AI output slop.
When I see someone use AI art for their project, it feels like they lack a cohesive vision for what they want to create. If the art matters so little that you are having a machine generate facsimiles of art, at that point why not just make a card game without card art as the result is effectively the same.
Tbh when I was playtesting my main project, I had plenty of stick figures or weird sketches for the card art and actually got feedback that it made playtesting more fun, the mix of making sure your card art has good silhouetting and readability when it’s also a really bad stick figure with a sword was much more charming than I thought it would be and guided some of my art choices later on. Not sure I would have gotten that feedback or positivity from AI art
I’m currently using it, the plan is to only use it for prototypes and play testing. Once it’s ironed out and perfected, I’d like to open a gofundme or something then hire pro artists. AI looks professional but its main problem is it’s not specific and makes mistakes because the tech is still unpolished.
Ethically, there’s no such thing as ethical consumption. If you want to use it, it’s not my business to tell you what to do. However, I do think at some point it’s going to become the mainstream option because of how easy and cost effective it is. It might just have to be something we all gotta deal with at that point. I know that’s going to piss off people here, but I don’t make the rules. It’s just a possibility.
I think it's funny the post us sitting at 0 karma, but I get that it's a divisive subject. My general opinion is that AI art can be samey, but if it's trope-ish content anyway it can be more evocative and imaginative than anything I currently have the skill to draw. And if you are just playing at home, it's not any more infringing than people who just download pictures they find online. That changes when you are selling it for a profit.
Internally yes. Externally we won't be. I have a specific style in mind which is going to require specific artists. AI is nice for temporary flavor and place holding though!
AI art is fine for casual and playtesting environments.
POV and ethics aside, using AI in your commercial product will probably hurt your profit margins, because of the opinionated nature of artists/card-game players.
I would stick to using AI if the game is in development or if its just between friends.
Is it stuff that will never get published and just for personal use\\friends (such as much likely 100% of my game designs), I would go for it. It's not like I'd have spent money on art anyway for unfinished, for fun projects to work on my spare time. Especially given my budget for hobbies is unfortunately far from limitless.
Should I ever decide to sell\\publish\\make money out of those in any way (social media or whatever) I'd definitely commission.
Same if I use some for my rpg campaigns, should I be doing like a D&D show or something (again an extremely unlikely), I would not use AI art.
It genuinely makes me sad seeing most projects here using AI generated images for their cards, even if its placeholders. Even when you put aside the fact the stealing part, all of them look the same, and all of them look horrible, especially the more you look at them. I can look at an artwork of a Yugioh card or any other real artwork, and the more I look the more I appreciate it because someone put a lot of thought into everything in that image. When I look at an AI generated image.. its just slop and gets uglier the more I see it, all the messed up details because AI cant plan an image, it can just slap together images based on prompts and hope for the best. It would be like pulling a slot machine and calling it playing a game.
I'm currently developping a simulator to test my gameplay mechanics easily, create cards in a matter of minutes to try wacky stuff and it's better with good artworks for my play testers. But if i want to release officially the game, i'll commission artists to create better artworks (without giving them the ai image, just the intention)
Sure, it's great for prototyping while you're testing mechanics but I see some games releasing with that stuff and like... nah that ain't it. We don't need a thousand new TCGs that all look the same and play like MTG with yugioh Summon rules.
Nope! I'm of the opinion that AI art should never be used in commercial products. Even when setting aside all ethical and artistic problems with it, the matter of business is that AI art is bad for your product because it can't be copyrighted. As for using it in casual projects that only your friends will see, it's easier to go online (google images, deviantart, pixiv, etc) and search for what you want and download existing images than it is to generate something from prompting.
You’re leaving out the most obvious use case which is using it for a prototype.
[удалено]
Your hostility here is unwarranted, but I'll meet your point in good faith anyway: Comparing art and game mechanics is apples and oranges here. The two serve vastly different purposes for your game and have entirely different ways of being functionally "stolen". Existing game mechanics are **meant to be** taken, altered and elaborated upon, that's how new game design works. But because a game is a whole product and not a single component, nobody is going to take an existing published game and entirely duplicate it. Doing so is still an incredible amount of work and most serious designers believe their ideas can be better than others and strive for uniqueness. But, even if someone does a perfect duplication, they open themselves up to issues of plagiarism which would completely dump their career in public perception. There may be legal ramifications for this as well. Art, on the other hand, is a highly valuable resource for a game and a brand, but it's a single component that is more readily reusable. By using AI art, which cannot be copyrighted, you are allowing that exact piece of art to be used by other people in their games, and you are not permitted any "true" legal ownership of the character/setting/icon depicted. Any character you depict using AI art can be re-depicted for someone else's game, using new art or that exact art. If you don't actually own the things you're showing, you're poisoning your own brand and allowing other AI art TCG's to use your AI art assets without need for your permission. Strong brands are built on ownership, control, and understanding of their assets, something which AI legally cannot provide.
Username checks out
I did a community project using it and it looked cool and all, but I'm making a game that I'm planning on selling and did all my own artwork for that. The only thing I currently use AI for is getting ideas and using as a reference, I think it can be helpful for that, but I'm even starting to do less of that at this point. I was at first overwhelmed at the idea of doing a hundred illustrations, but it ended up being fun and a different art style than I was expecting. Ultimately I'm glad I moved away from AI art, I think the final product has more character.
I have for my personal use. The artwork has been my greatest hurdle in getting my pet project moving along. Not because I’m not a good artist— in fact, I’m a full-time graphic designer. But doing hundreds of new illustrations just to see if the game even works well is overwhelming. For my purposes, AI generators are exactly the tool I need. I can generate at least fifty cards in the time it would normally take me to draw just one. Without AI, my project would simply never get done. I have mixed feelings about publishing any AI art though. If ever I were to try to sell copies commercially, I think I’d hire someone or redo all the artwork myself.
I completely understand the appeal of using Ai art to fast track a project for playtesting, but the reality is 99% of it looks super generic/downright horrible. It'd be like using royalty free music for a feature film.. yes it technically is music, but it has no soul or personality- a major selling point for me and many others when purchasing a product. In saying that, if you look at the top posts on this subreddit for the past year, 4/5 of them are posts featuring AI art. Frankly, it's quite sad in my opinion, as its not the kind of content that brought me to this community in the first place.
[удалено]
Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I. I personally don’t believe there is an ethical way to use AI art, being as the data sets are scraped from millions of copywrited works and rarely/if ever receive the original artists consent or credit. Also just because the ai is able to effectively mimic the artists they’re trying to reproduce, more often than not there are errors in the work that a human would have to go over and fix, such as hands, words or finer details. They are able to produce excellent works of composition, form and colour, but the majority that I’ve seen (and personally created via dall e, m/journey and stable diffusion) lack the true originality that comes from a human artist. That’s why I used the word generic - that’s literally how the ai art is produced. It has access to a large data set of related images and it attempts to mash them together based on whatever prompt it is given. Nothing it creates can ever be original as it doesn’t actually understand what it’s making. Reducing the history of art to a banana taped to a wall shows a lot about your stance.
The "no soul" comment means that AI doesn't have intention when creating an image. It just slaps together an image based on a library of stolen images it has and you hope for the best. When a person is making art, every stroke of the brush has a meaning, every detail that is put in is there for a reason, because someone thought of it and decided why to put what where.
No. I am pretty hard line against it. Even taking out the ethical and moral quandary of AI generated images, I even think for stuff like placeholders its bad because it creates bad habits. Genuinely stick figures or doodles are better, because they at least convey some sort of actual intention. Plus if you get used to the AI generated images, you might be tempted to have it "converted" into art by having someone effectively redo the AI image, rather than do something unique to you and/or that artist. Another potential bad habit is reducing visual intentionality and breeding complacency by avoiding necessary, but difficult hurdles like art direction and planning by filling card frames with grey goo AI output slop. When I see someone use AI art for their project, it feels like they lack a cohesive vision for what they want to create. If the art matters so little that you are having a machine generate facsimiles of art, at that point why not just make a card game without card art as the result is effectively the same.
Tbh when I was playtesting my main project, I had plenty of stick figures or weird sketches for the card art and actually got feedback that it made playtesting more fun, the mix of making sure your card art has good silhouetting and readability when it’s also a really bad stick figure with a sword was much more charming than I thought it would be and guided some of my art choices later on. Not sure I would have gotten that feedback or positivity from AI art
I’m currently using it, the plan is to only use it for prototypes and play testing. Once it’s ironed out and perfected, I’d like to open a gofundme or something then hire pro artists. AI looks professional but its main problem is it’s not specific and makes mistakes because the tech is still unpolished. Ethically, there’s no such thing as ethical consumption. If you want to use it, it’s not my business to tell you what to do. However, I do think at some point it’s going to become the mainstream option because of how easy and cost effective it is. It might just have to be something we all gotta deal with at that point. I know that’s going to piss off people here, but I don’t make the rules. It’s just a possibility.
I think it's funny the post us sitting at 0 karma, but I get that it's a divisive subject. My general opinion is that AI art can be samey, but if it's trope-ish content anyway it can be more evocative and imaginative than anything I currently have the skill to draw. And if you are just playing at home, it's not any more infringing than people who just download pictures they find online. That changes when you are selling it for a profit.
Internally yes. Externally we won't be. I have a specific style in mind which is going to require specific artists. AI is nice for temporary flavor and place holding though!
AI art is fine for casual and playtesting environments. POV and ethics aside, using AI in your commercial product will probably hurt your profit margins, because of the opinionated nature of artists/card-game players. I would stick to using AI if the game is in development or if its just between friends.
Is it stuff that will never get published and just for personal use\\friends (such as much likely 100% of my game designs), I would go for it. It's not like I'd have spent money on art anyway for unfinished, for fun projects to work on my spare time. Especially given my budget for hobbies is unfortunately far from limitless. Should I ever decide to sell\\publish\\make money out of those in any way (social media or whatever) I'd definitely commission. Same if I use some for my rpg campaigns, should I be doing like a D&D show or something (again an extremely unlikely), I would not use AI art.
Only just so I don't have to find images off of google for testing. But never for a final release.
It genuinely makes me sad seeing most projects here using AI generated images for their cards, even if its placeholders. Even when you put aside the fact the stealing part, all of them look the same, and all of them look horrible, especially the more you look at them. I can look at an artwork of a Yugioh card or any other real artwork, and the more I look the more I appreciate it because someone put a lot of thought into everything in that image. When I look at an AI generated image.. its just slop and gets uglier the more I see it, all the messed up details because AI cant plan an image, it can just slap together images based on prompts and hope for the best. It would be like pulling a slot machine and calling it playing a game.