then dont play it its as simple as that and honestly saying to just learn something is pretty ignorant to say sure you dont need talent its defiantly helpful but art takes along time to learn and most people literally dont have the time to pick it up as a skill now im a consumer i personally dont care how a product from an independent source comes to be weather by ai or actual skill either works for me HOWEVER if i wanted to push out a product on here i would be 100% incapable of doing so without AI because i dont have any knowledge in the first place about doing art AND coding however if i wanted to pick up either skill id personally choose coding but that would take up all the free time i have im an armed security guard i work 12 hr shifts and with consistent days as the company i work for has several contracts i go where and when im needed I am lucky schedule wise in the fact they do keep me on knights but days off are not promised now onto the point as i said its ignorant of you to say just pick up a skill its not so easy when you have a demanding career and other shit going on making art for a product is much more demanding than a doodle you do at the kitchen table anyways in my rant i got scatter brained the point im trying to make is its not as simple as get up and do it especially for art and people with careers and 0 affinity for it to ban AI is really just gatekeeping the means of production
Images are more than fine. Not many are artists on top of being a developer, and hiring an artist is expensive af. AI images can add a lot to most games while also not being what carries the entire package. If it’s that much of an issue for you, cover their artist costs or just avoid them.
AI Chatbots, on the other hand, shouldn’t be here. First off, they’re not even games. Second, what effort is going into that? The AI and base program/site literally does everything for you.
tl;dr “PAY ME PAY ME PAY ME”
You’re not entitled to other people’s money, and frankly, it’s sad you don’t understand that translators also get put out of work by the NEW TECH BAD you’re so shitter-shattered about.
Hi, and… no.
The argument presented here makes several conceptual, logical, and ethical errors common to the technocratic discourse that seeks to normalize the presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in all forms of cultural production, as well as to justify neoliberalism after eight crises in less than a year. This central fallacy lies in equating software-assisted tools—such as Google Translate or Grammarly—with autonomous creative processes of image generation or artistic narrative. This comparison is not only incorrect: it is intellectually dishonest. I am disappointed that someone would respond to my criticism in this way.
To say that “Google Translate has always been a form of AI” is a tautology irrelevant to this debate. The fact that a tool uses algorithms does not make it a substitute for creative human labor. AI used in translation or grammar correction does not replace the author’s subjectivity (I think even a child could realize this), but rather assists in mechanical tasks. Confusing functional automation with aesthetic creation is equivalent to claiming that a calculator is the same as a mathematician. According to Berardi (2023), the contemporary problem is not the existence of technology, but its fetishization (a word never better used than in this context lmao): “the subordination of human thought to the calculating machine, where efficiency is confused with intelligence” (p. 78). This confusion is precisely what sustains the trivialization of art under algorithmic capitalism.
I know this is just a video game creation forum, but there’s a second huge logical fallacy, which is technological determinism: the idea that because a tool exists and can be used locally, its adoption is inevitable and therefore uncontrollable. This is the classic “cat’s out of the bag” argument, which abdicates all ethical and social responsibility. But history shows that societies do regulate and limit technologies that threaten fundamental human values: the indiscriminate use of lead was banned (as in gasoline, for example; I recommend you research this), human cloning was restricted, and nuclear energy was regulated. Inevitability does not equal legitimacy. As Bookchin (2014) warns, the true function of a liberating technology is not to perpetuate itself unchecked, but rather “to expand human freedom and subject technical means to the ethical ends of the community” (p. 12). If a technology destroys creativity, deprives artists of their livelihoods, and standardizes culture, its use should not be normalized.
Another problematic aspect of your argument is its cultural relativism: “people can choose what they consume.” This superficial liberalism ignores the structural asymmetries of the digital marketplace. There is no real freedom of choice when platforms massively promote low-cost, high-production AI-generated content, displacing the visibility of human art. Don’t you see this already reflected on the internet? As the Krisis Group (2002) points out, digital capitalism turns every symbolic act into a commodity, and artificial abundance doesn’t imply freedom, but saturation: “labor dissolves into a production of meaningless signs, which hides its emptiness behind the appearance of abundance” (p. 34). Allowing AI to flood creative ecosystems under the pretext of a “free market” is tantamount to accepting the disappearance of artistic diversity. If that’s what you want, great, you’re an enemy of art.
The attempt to minimize the ethical impact with phrases like “it inspires people to write and create” is, furthermore, an emotional fallacy (yes, it exists, as does ad logiquem, the fallacy of deviation, etc.). Inspiration does not justify plagiarism or exploitation. Generative AI feeds on millions of human works, many of them protected by copyright or born from the efforts of independent artists who never consented to their use as algorithmic raw material (this I had already clarified). To pretend that this process is a form of “inspiration” is to ignore that it is, in essence, a massive extraction of other people’s labor. López Arango (2013) already warned that the dignity of creative work lies precisely in the conscious appropriation of one’s own effort, not in its dissolution within a machine without authorship. (I repeat)
Claiming that “there are bigger problems in the world than the prevalence of AI art for porn” is a rhetorical attempt to divert the discussion through what in moral philosophy is called whataboutism: shifting the ethical focus onto other, greater evils to justify inaction. However, the cultural and labor deterioration caused by generative AI is not trivial: it is part of the same logic that empties work, creativity, and human autonomy of meaning. The scale of the problem does not make it less relevant; on the contrary, it makes it urgent, because it defines how we will understand the relationship between humanity and technology in the coming centuries. (If you come across a post that focuses on this topic, do not come and try to censor it by shifting the focus of your narrative in an attempt to divert the topic).
Biblio:
Berardi, F. (2023). Half a Century Against Work. Bifid Canon. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Bookchin, M. (2014). Towards a Liberating Technology. The Anarchist Library.
Grupo Krisis. (2002). Manifesto Against Work. Barcelona: Virus Editorial.
López Arango, E. (2013). Ideologies of Anarchist Thought in the Labor Movement. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires: Ediciones F.O.R.A.
This proves my point: you don’t create art; you only focus on the speed of the process; productivity fallacy.
i’m paying an artist to make my game, I’m not one myself. i just don’t think ai is good, as its destroying the environment
oh? do you genuinely believe that? give me specific things that would prevent you from making art.
This is a good idea to separate prototypes, newbie experiments, and junk products from those who DO put their time, blood, and sweat into it; we can’t deny the virtuosos their right. Or what? Do those who use a ChatGPT prompt deserve the same applause as those with an easel who spent a month on their work? The answer is obvious, and it applies to video games as well, since they are works of art.
The argument that artificial intelligence accelerates development processes and reduces costs overlooks a fundamental principle of artistic creation: speed has never been synonymous with real progress. The history of technology shows that automation without ethical, aesthetic, or cultural direction leads to the degradation of the meaning of human labor (Berardi, 2023). What AI (LACKING CULTURE) accelerates is not creativity, but the mass production of simulations (Baudrillard, 1994). In the field of video games, this does not represent progress, but rather an industrialization of emptiness: cloned games, soulless textures, and characters incapable of conveying real emotion.
I repeat: Productivity Fallacy
Hi, chill dude…
The argument that AI “democratizes art” stems from a serious confusion (too serious, I’m worried they don’t teach this in schools in countries like the UK, the US, Canada, or those “first world countries”): accessibility does not equal creation. Just because anyone can generate an image doesn’t mean they’re CREATING something, just as using a synthesizer doesn’t make someone a violin composer. The tool may facilitate, but it doesn’t replace, the human process of imagining, deciding, and constructing meaning (Bookchin, 2014).
Saying “if you don’t like it, ignore it” ignores the systemic impact of these technologies; it’s a crude attempt to avoid addressing the issue. It’s comparable to a bad singer defending their autotune, because without it, they have no virtuosity whatsoever. The saturation of automated content devalues shared creative space, pushes human works into oblivion, and transforms artistic communities into dumping grounds for aesthetic noise (Berardi, 2023). This isn’t about personal taste, but about preserving the integrity of the digital cultural ecosystem. It’s a war to defend art.
Furthermore, arguing that banning AI would affect production is admitting that the community depends on a machine to exist, which demonstrates a structural weakness, not a strength. In fact, if so, it would prove ALL my points. Bakunin (2013) warned that when technology replaces human action, it becomes servitude. Genuine creativity does not flourish under dependence.
Finally, allowing AI under the excuse of “we are not AI” is equivalent to justifying the abandonment of all ethics in the name of mediocrity. If a creative community abandons the effort to learn, cooperate, or improve, what remains is not freedom: it is resignation. And a resigned community does not produce culture, or art, or anything.
Therefore, it is not about elitism, but about defending human value in creation. Someone who defends art made by humans is not a “snob”; they are someone who understands that without humanity in art, there is no art. In fact, a snob, by definition, is the exact opposite.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say several times. LMAOO
This is a fair and profoundly important concern: accessibility should never be taken lightly. But accessibility and automation are not the same thing, and confusing them is dangerous.
If someone cannot physically draw, assistive creative technologies already exist that preserve authorship, from adaptive controllers to eye-tracking software for art, to collaborative creative tools that allow creators with disabilities to direct and oversee human artwork. These tools expand human expression, while AI-generated images replace it with statistical imitation. The distinction is important: one empowers the artist; the other eliminates its need. Please investigate further.
There are plenty of assistive and inclusion apps for people without hands. These SUPPORT the CREATION of art. AI is just a declaration of creative incapacity.
the only problem for me is the ai chatbots they shouldnt be considered games to begin with
dude I’m not going to lie this just a fetish gaming site all your little articles and quotes are nothing but bloat your whole argument getting through it all is “AI bad because its lazy and ugly and I’m scared its going to replace real artist” while you try to disguise it as some noble cause its a FETISH GAMING site its really not that deep its not doing any harm other than being slop as I’ve said before people here have careers and the few who are making things with their skills are defiantly doing this on the side except for maybe a handful all though the one person I’m thinking of i haven’t talked to in awhile…anyways off track AI isn’t replacing anyone its not killing whatever culture on this website if you look around most people put their skilled non ai work up for free and some do charge for it I guarantee their sales don’t change because someone spent a few hours typing prompts for a picture of a fat girl to put in there game. again your whole argument is oh AI takes the hard work out of creating A FETISH GAME so we should ban it because its icky i think your WAY over analyzing everything just need to stick to what you like because it really is as simple as just not using it, its the internet and fetish site its not some college digital arts class talking about the morality and ethics of AI. Im going to say it Probaly again but im gonna beat a dead horse what is your actual argument in your words and don’t respond with all the bloat of quotes from people and articles cause honestly it makes it look like your over analyzing so what’s YOUR issue with AI and THIS SITE because right now this just looks like you came in and started a crusade against ai for no reason other than AI bad and inferior and unskilled, broke or even lazy people shouldn’t be able to spend a few hours to create something and make some pictures and post it because their unskilled heathens or whatever you said this isnt about elitism but i really dont see how its not
Im honestly indifferent to them i think they are neat and i do consider them a game to degree but only as a super minimalist rpg BUT thats just how i went about it when i was checking them out
Art is, one way or another, about suffering and your vision of how everything should look. You can’t just create something without dedicating time and energy to it. If you don’t put effort into what you do, then either you’re not particularly needed in this process, or your work has no value. There is, of course, some dependence in the fact that I order art (not only because of problems with drawing skills, but simply because I want to support the author and see his work in my project), but at least these images retain humanity (a detail or details that can be seen making it unique in its own way). Each person has their own takaranas in their head and they determine how the image will look. But the machine is free of these problems, it just does it and that’s all that explains why AI images are the same.
And the fact that this site is simply a place where I store fetish games doesn’t obligate anyone to continue playing games that are simply fetish-based (without any idea, moral, interesting ideas, or details).
So, first off, credit where credit is due. You are doing exactly the right thing to advocate your views, your stance on them, the logic behind them, and trying to get others to rally behind you for the action you’d like. Now, that all being said, your stance, logic, and the emotions generated from it aren’t enough, on their own. WG is a privately run site that tends to listen to well founded stances from the broader community. This means you jave 2 options; sway the mods/owners who hold sway or the greater community with good logic. You have already started that process in probably the best way you can, which is great. So, keep on going and do your best for your stance.
With all that, however, there is a collection of very real elements that will make the road ahead fairly hard. First off is the genuine fact that just about all the devs here simply don’t operate on a level beyond, at best, extremely limited resource and mildly seasoned extremely small dev team. Just about all of the devs, from fringe hobbyists to teams with very limited niche commercial success, engage in the creation of fetish content from a place of wanting to create. Game development is a multipronged, layered and complex beast of creation for those that beginany sort or size of project. The reality is simply that, for many, the vast talent pool you need to achieve a subjectively good, finished project simply isn’t achievable for the goal of a potential completed project. The aspiriations for a goal tend to be what keeps a struggling hobbyist dev invested, so without tools to help bridge the struggle, they could very well struggle to even motivation to make any progress. Ai generated content is, indeed, a crutch for those lacking in some department (usually pictures/images, to be fair). So, a question that can be brought forth is; which is preferable, a dead project or a crutch to aid the progress of a project?
I’ll admit that, the whole stance for me, personally, is all pretty weak for my own investement. I have failed miserably to create several small time projects in their infancy before and major investment was made. I fail mostly and continued investment of time, which is neither a lack of artistic ability or game development knowhow, so isn’t relevent to the conversation. I do know, however, there have been devs who utilized Ai generated images to augment their project that had personally written content and proper, personal development of the game’s features in a dev kit. Do the Ai images then depreciate the other effort put forth into the projects? Should they not have been included on the possibility the devs could have lost motivation and experience to utilize in future projects? In all honesty, I don’t think I should be the one to answer those questions, but I also don’t think it’s wrong for others to answer them.
One thing to remember is that, even with hard founded logic, reality is more than a singular dimenional experience. Ask 3 people for their opinion and you’ll get 12 different perspectives. I wish you luck on your push, whatever the outcome.
There are several things that would make it difficult or impossible for people. Advanced MS, missing limbs. Conditions such as dyspraxia that effect motor control.
Confirmation biased assumption. You have taken from my statement that which supports your beliefs in a logical fallacy of assumptive belief. And whilst I do agree that I support your statements to the extent that professional developers and those who have the capacity to finance development teams should not be using generative AI the fact remains that it is an invaluable tool to solo, hobbyist developers.
Its not about the speed of the process. I have spent days working on a single image. Its about having a creative vision and stories to tell and having the ability that never existed before to bring that to life visually in a way that never existed before generative AI without having to hire a team of developers at great expense. That is not a luxury most people can afford - especially in the type of games we make and play through this forum.
Or let’s say you get lucky and you get people volunteering their services for free - that only works when it is a collaborative effort planned out by the whole team from the outset. Every person added is another viewpoint, another set of ideas, another creative vision and these all need to be balanced or you end up with discord and strife and the project collapses. There’s a very good example of that from this very forum - Love is the Way to My Heart.
Now don’t get me wrong - I’m not against people forming development teams to make games. That would be lunacy. But that doesn’t mean that everyone a) wants to do that b) should feel they need to be part of a development team in order to make a game. It would also be the height of arrogance that if I am the “creative director”, for want of a better term, behind a project that I started by myself and was later to bring others in so that I could avoid using generative AI content to demand strict adherence to my creative vision and not allow any input from others. Which changes the nature of what is created. Which is fine from an objective point of view.
You have mentioned I don’t create art - this is true. In as much as visuals go. And at no point have I claimed to be creating art - or if I have I meant it in the vague sense of calling “visual assets” for a game “the artwork”. In a work that is principally about story, with the visuals merely window dressing, the art is in the tale that is told. If I can make even one person feel something with the words I have written then I have done my work. The written word is as much an art form as any form of visual media. Arguably, it is the most true expression of art. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words - but words are the means by which we derive meaning, they are at the very core of human connection and interaction.
And to circle back to my original point regarding confirmation bias - this is not an academic forum for peer review. You can reference all the articles in support of your arguments that you like - it doesn’t make your point of view any more valid. If anything, it dilutes it. Not standing on its own merits but propped up by reliance on the crutch of the work done by others, not unlike the AI you so abhor.
In hindsight, I should have avoided this whole needlessly inflammatory thread and seen it for what it is before engaging but I was bored. “Feedeth ye not the trolls, lest ye be shat upon.”
Making a game takes many types of artistry, and no game can be fully completed without at least five different types of creative input.
You need:
Planning, Concepts, Scripting, Writing, World building, Programming, UI-conceptualization and utilization, Art and asset direction, Visual artistry (digital or manual) and so much more to complete a game experience that people will enjoy.
While there are obviously those out there that can do many of these things to perfection (or at least half decently), most normal human beings have strengths and weaknesses. I myself think I am pretty good at world building, a decent writer and planner, and I can do decent styling or UI for games. I have made games in about 8 different game engines (not all linked to the fetish community) and have helped many others get off the ground by providing my services in what I know for free to those who have needed or wanted it.
I can however not for the life of me draw anything but simple sketches unless it’s of something like an oak cabinet or a dog house. Visual art is, and will probably always be, my Achilles heel. For the projects I have released on this site where the love for the fetish community and providing an experience I would enjoy myself has usually come first I’ve chosen to use AI to provide the parts I can’t supply my projects with myself (images). That still means however that I have provided all the other aspects to these games entirely on my own time and with my own skill. Doesn’t that at least deserve a little recognition?
I have played a lot of the games on here. Never think I played one where every part of the game was amazing. Usually you get a two out of three ratio of good to bad. Pick two: Writing, Art and Gameplay. You usually don’t get a game where all three feels perfect, and that is certainly also true about my own output as well.
I fully agree the use of AI should be tagged. I also fully agree it is each person’s choice if they want to play a game that uses AI or not. However: using the logic of “all AI bad” to put down all the other work a single dev puts into releasing something for us to enjoy, is the kind of thing I see hurting the community in the long run. Sooner or later the ideas and creativity new members lacking a certain skill do have will be stifled, and the output of games will start to die. We all take those first waddling steps before running, and AI is a tool that can be used to prevent a complete nosedive in that situation. Remember that a lot of the guys making games on here are like me: a guy with normal life commitments besides grinding on their latest hobby project and that really just love to make their own little universes for people to play in.
No: that does not mean having AI do all the development for you is ok, but maybe having it help with the one thing you can’t quite do is ok sometimes if it lets you and others enjoy something that otherwise wouldn’t have existed.
Now: let us unclench our collected anuses (ani?) just enough our rage-boners die down a bit. Art doesn’t have to be deathly serious, or of the highest quality, all the time. Some people just prefer a good burger to a full steak dinner, and I’ve certainly enjoyed a lot of B and C flicks way more than the big AAA titles in my lifetime. Let’s boot up a few slightly dodgy .exe files, load a mod or play a few badly scripted renpy games we found on this forum and lets just enjoy ourselves. After all: Isn’t that what this site is supposed to be all about?
-WeirdoBeardo89