gameplay is inherently a human experience. you can’t AI data train your way into a computer understanding what “feels” fun. you need humans arguing about that and almost destroying their friendships to get there
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
They fundamentally don't know why people connect with art, just that they do. Content is Content.
If they see games as Key Janglers that people spend time/money on, do you think we could show them that certain types of Key Jangling are better than others?
I'm sorry. But just pointing out that we know better than most what applying pattern-based computer logic does to human-connection-based art. It sure as fuck doesn't make it BETTER. But it also doesn't leave many survivors in the field, either.
I've been discussing this with some colleagues who are more into AI, and told them. Think of all the cool small stories in games, secret rooms like Chris Houlihan in Zelda. Even in movies, while dumb, Godzilla 98 poor attempt at mocking Siskel and Ebert. That's human input that no AI can do.
I think we're getting a little glimpse of how AI is gonna provide feedback by looking at forums and YouTube reviews. An opinion from one or two influential people will be parroted by thousands, if not millions of, followers or copycats. Rendering any data useless.
Comments
If they see games as Key Janglers that people spend time/money on, do you think we could show them that certain types of Key Jangling are better than others?
Would they care to know the difference?
"Your Audience prefers blogs to be 900 words long and use [KEY PHRASE] 17-23 times."
This will be that. "The most popular games require players to move the control stick 1.4 times per second."