360
submitted 5 days ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 44 points 5 days ago

"We might deal in derivative IP, but it's our derivative IP!"

[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 39 points 5 days ago

Derivative over generative any day if you ask me.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 days ago

To be fair Nintendo was heavily inspired by other artists work when designing Pokemon.

[-] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Nintendo wasn't "inspired" by shit. They made an ice cream cone a Pokémon. Keys on a ring? Pokémon. 8 varieties of elemental flavored dog? Check. Oh hey cool look a 2d image on a computer oh wait it's actually a Pokémon. Dog? Cat? Snake? Bird? Horse? All Pokémon. IMO nothing in Pokémon is actually "inspired", only ripped off.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago

Im casually suggesting they were "inspired" by other artists work. Many of the Red/Blue era were rip offs.

[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

What a silly thing to say.

Is Mickey Mouse uncreative because it's just a mouse? Is Yogi Bear uncreative because it's just a bear?

Is Sherlock Holmes uncreative because it's just a British guy? Especially if giving things magical abilities doesn't count, then vampires, zombies, magicians, pretty much the entirety of fantasy is just "ripping off" humans. You think Tolkien was a good writer? You fool- the Ents are just trees, how boring! Gandald is just an old human, frodo is just a short dude!

So what does that leave that is original? Should all of our ficitiln need entirely new ideas? Do our writers need to invent new qwarks and new rules for how they interact, so that fictional universes can have different elements where we can imagine life forms without carbon that interact? Would it still be derivative to you if we keep the strong nuclear force the same in this fictional universe?

[-] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Inspiration is taking your peanut butter and putting it in my chocolate. You can't just take the chocolate slap some eyes on it, and call it chocomon. Make it do cool shit like turn into a giant angel or trex or some shit like a properly inspired pocket monster. Or make a funny little blue slime guy and give him apocalypse level magic spells or something. Yeah That sounds good.

[-] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago
[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

There's Rock, Rock With Arms, and Big Rock Snake

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

They made Goth Mommy GF into a pokemon with "Gothita"

How many sentient clouds are also pokemon? Or that one that's literally just a balloon?

I swear pokemon ran out of creativity by gen 3 - and I'm not even a pokemon fan.

[-] jaselle@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Derivative IP is so fucking different from gen AI. It's stupid IP laws that force what could have been a commercial fangame to instead be legally distinct.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 22 points 5 days ago

I think it could work to give dynamic and varied answers to secondary characters given good prompts and other guardrails to preserve the immersion. As long as the core elements of the games are not AI generated slope, and developers are honest about where it was used.

[-] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

You'd think that that's the one thing LLMs should be good at – have characters respond to arbitrary input in-character according to the game state. Unfortunately, restricting output to match the game state is mathematically impossible with LLMs; hallucinations are inevitable and can cause characters to randomly start lying or talking about things thy can't know about. Plus, LLMs are very heavy on resources.

There are non-generative AI techniques that could be interesting for games, of course; especially ones that can afford to run at a slower pace like seconds or tens of seconds. For example, something that makes characters dynamically adapt their medium-term action plan to the situation every once in a while could work well. But I don't think we're going to see useful AI-driven dialogue anytime soon.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 3 points 5 days ago

You seem to imply we can only use the raw output of the LLm but that's not true. We can add some deterministic safeguards afterwards to reduce hallucinations and increase relevancy. For example if you use an LLM to generate SQL, you can verify that the answer respects the data schemas and the relationship graph. That's a pretty hot subject right now, I don't see why it couldn't be done for video game dialogues.
Indeed, I also agree that the consumption of resources it requires may not be worth the output.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

If you could define a formal schema for what appropriate dialogue options would be you could just pick from it randomly, no need for the AI

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It would not be a fully determining schema that could apply to random outputs, I would guess this is impossible for natural language, and if it is possible, then it may as well be used for procedural generation. It would be just enough to make an LLM output be good enough. It doesn't need to be perfect because human output is not perfect either.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah that's kind of my point. That's a vastly more complicated thing than SQL.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 4 days ago

But it also doesn't need to be as exact as SQL, which removes some kind of complexity.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I am really praying for the day corporate drops this foolish nonsense of foisting it on their company and employees - maybe even gasp enabling their teams to access and use the tools that help them do better and more creative jobs.

Because AI can fit into a lot of people’s toolsets really nicely, especially in creative fields like game design. Just need to drop the idea that AI is an authoritative final answer to our design problems and instead realize that it’s just another tool to help us get to those solutions.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

We don't believe in AI, says the developer of AI Art Impostor

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

With how badly that game was received, maybe they understood the point. Maybe

[-] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 5 days ago

Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley

Any relation to loss guy?

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

We're all cousins, so probably?

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Isn't that Garfield's owner

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

That's Jon Arbuckle

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
360 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

12578 readers
281 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS