- Nov 15, 2017
- 541
- 415
In this scenario are you suggesting the main game dev spend dev time mess around with AI art, that he pay his commissioned artist to mess around with AI art instead of drawing, or he hire a separate "AI artist" to mess around with AI art? All three options sound like different degrees of poor choices. That's just from a time/money cost perspective. There's also the general anti-AI sentiment and legal issues that I would personally stay away from if at all possible. It might also get the game banned from Steam.Theres some possibilities with using a base drawn image and AI filtering it to look like AI art, roundscape tested it out with mixed results biggest problem being they didn't touch up the AI art any manually afterwards. In SKA there's many scenes are not very anatomically informed which could benefit from it and it might speed up the implementation of new cg's.
Also, as you mentioned, the anatomy/proportions are all over the place. Excluding a few scenes where I can't "unsee" some of the more extreme proportions I really don't think I would classify it as bad or anything. That said, I don't see generated images being able to match the very stylized visuals of the current art style. Keep in mind that the game's supporters voted to give more money to the same artist rather than getting a second artist. To me that suggests that they were concerned about the art style losing some of its consistency. As such, I doubt they would be too happy if Aura-Dev announced that generated art was being used for "filler scenes" to speed up the development process.