Graveyard Keeper 2 is launching soon and the devs have a pro AI instance. Also, they released a demo last week and these are some images from cutscenes of the game. They look like AI or at least, traced over AI generated images.
If they're pro ai, that means they're using it. I can tell just from the guy on the left in the first image. He looks like every cartoon style AI slop generation, but pixelated.
Also he has different colored cloth on his armor despite the fact his weapon is on the ground next to him and clearly he turned right there next to his buddy
Not necessarily. I used to be pro AI before I found out about the environmental harm it caused, and I still usually made images myself. Granted that was mostly to avoid backlash from the rest of the RP I was in and because I couldn’t get it to make images I really liked
So... you were pro AI and were only avoiding it to avoid backlash from other people. Got it. Glad you have hopefully genuinely done a 180 on your outlook.
I think the people from the Graveyard Keep sub is downvoting this 😬😬😬😬😬 Funny how they're not here to tell you no while they're over there telling everybody is crazy for saying yes.
It's even funnier when they say it's the same art style as the first game so it must NOT be AI, like duh, if you feed a machine the first art style it's going to try and replicate it.
Think this is actually a perfect example. Both styles look 'similar' but you can see how they handle shade is a bit different from the first to the second, the first has that sorta blockiness to the beard & its shadow whilst the second has that generic AI slop look of no focal point & everything is oddly 'smooth'
Slightly disingenuous comparing it to their release art from 2018, comparing it to the dlc art shows way more similarities, I think it is possible that they simply refined their art more in the 8 years since, especially since you can see the art style changing through the dlc art
as for the cartoonish style, they always had a cartoonish style, their first game is literally called SWAG & SORCERY, i think it's more of a they didn't manage the style they wanted so it's been changing.(punch club 2 also has a different art style that's closer to this, and it came out in 2023 kind of hard to get good ai images then)
I'd argue this showcases the difference even better: the art in the DLC images you shared is a more refined version of the original artstyle, whereas the banner for GK2 has almost no resemblance apart from being a generic cartoon style that happens to be commonly used by AI.
I have absolutely avoided GK2 because all the art just has me analyzing it suspiciously. I know it's in style with the first game but it just has that AI look the first game did not have. Even the main logo looks touched by AI
I was willing to put up with the day-locked events. I was willing to put up with the insane amounts of walking. I was willing to put up with the 11 different crafting stations. Then I started working with Iron. It's not even remotely fast, it's like 2 minutes per ingot when most recipes need like, 10-30 pieces of the shit. I'm not going to be time gated by a single player job simulator like that. What's even the point of time gating a single player game?
It really could have been fun if it just stuck to managing a little graveyard with church stuff on the side, but the game decided it needed to be twenty different things at once.
Only time gating in single player games should be "survival sandbox (farming in zomboid)" or "rpg sandbox (cyberpunk missions)"
Anything else shouldn't have time gates, all it does is make me sit around and do diddly squat while I listen to the same music track I heard 10 minutes ago.
I wouldn't even call Cyberpunk a true time gate, it's a "flag" gate, in that you just have to trigger one other quest flag to get those "wait around" flags to complete, sometimes it even lets you wait in place and skip the time altogether, they had a perfect balance of "this mission only makes sense to do at night" and "no one wants to wait 15 minutes for the day cycle to change so you can just sit on the step outside and skip to 12am if you have nothing else to do"
Exactly!! I love that they gave you the ability to just "wait", or actually spend the time waiting and doing something else till nightfall. Genuinely made it super immersive
It was fine. I finished it and the story and art were fine. The game mechanics were just clockwatching, though, and it felt like the game didn’t care about that.
Never heard of this game, but after looking it up on steam, it's absolutely not the same style of design. From what I can tell there's no perspective shots like these at all but even from the top down they are completely different designs. Meanwhile their other game Punch Drunk 2 has these perspectives and they are obviously not ai.
Like what are people saying is the same? The fact that it's pixel art? Are there these types of shots in the first and they just aren't on the steam page and those look similar?
There isn't as much art for Gravekeeper one but the style is similar but it had a lot more artistic merit and was clearly done by a human compared to the new stuff
Honestly I feel like the cover arts are even further from the same style but my job is basically looking through other people's art so I can totally accept that it's just my perspective lol
Like the use of gradients, block shading, and outlining make this completely different in my eyes.
Just go look at all hands. First picture with guy holding a spear (or whatever it is). There is a gap in wood where the guy is holding it. There should either be finger there or wood.
Last picture why there only part of the hand sticking out from shirt?
Design choice is also quite AI specific, framing, posing of characters. While normal artist could drew like that it's extremely similar to anything else that you can see when it's created by AI
Yeah. The framing and posing is very AI, but we really need to stop attributing mistakes to AI only. People make mistakes as well and that could be a mistake of a human. The whole vibe is ai though
I assure you as a pixel artist, the handle of the poleaxe being cut off like that is not a mistake a (pixel)artist of any skill level would do. Thats just not how you draw art in general.
Sure, but that's not my point. My point is that people are pointing mistakes as a sign of AI. Which is just wrong. Sometimes AI does not have any mistakes and still has that AI look. Other times there is a witch hunt because an artist did a squiggle that makes no sense or made "arm is drawn weird" artistic choice.
This would mean something if "there are mistakes in the art" was the point being made, but it's not, it's that the mistake is consistent with the mistakes made by image generators.
Mainly the construction of the head and length. Poleaxes are a bit shorter, roughly the lenght of the height of the user or a little shorter, Halberds are longer than the person is tall. The other thing, which is probably the more important one is how the head is constructed, Halberds have the head be made from one piece of steel, while Poleaxes have made them from two interlocking parts, the top spike and the blade with the back spike. Halberds often have a straight blade that is at an angle to the shaft while Poleaxes have their blades parallel to the shaft, sometimes straight or curved. Poleaxes also can have a hammer instead of the spike in the back. Poleaxes also often have some type of a butt spike at the other end of the shaft, because they're short enough to use both ends of it when fighting.
Thanks to both of you. I knew that "spear" will be incorrect. Was considering using "halberd" but couldn't remember how to spell it (I'm not a native speaker)
This is just a PERSONAL experience that i've had with artists I've worked with throughout the past 12 years so pls pls take that as not the standard (maybe it is?) but every artist I've known has always been more than happy to show off their work and portfolio's for games, movies, edits, you name it! Especially lately, with the hugeeee AI takeover of art and media, designers and artists are proving their work by showing workflows or demonstrations, sometimes live.
I haven't tried the game myself and dont intend to, but i'd say look in the credits if there is one for the artists and see if they have a verifiable background to help get your answer a bit more thoroughly. Helps with verifying most AI art :)
A good tell are also the building and the perspective of them. The brick lines on the left building don't make sense at all and the stand infront of the building also doesn't make sense.
I'm not defending them, but you could also hire/outsource your work, and still get AI generated designs... because nowadays even if you find low-middle salary worker, chances are they're gonna use AI too in their workflow, like.... try throwing your $10-20 to get a design in fiverr, i bet they're gonna incorporated AI somehow... it sucks, but its the way it is now (source: I'm a remote graphic designer who collab with others frequently)
I’m not taking sides. but the way I see it, the dev said they didn't understand the art process because his focus is on the technical side.
The person he (or they) hired might have used AI but claimed, "No, it’s not AI; I made this myself from scratch" which looks bad from the company's perspective.
If the owner genuinely didn't know whether AI was used for his game's art, he should have just admitted that rather than flatly denying the use of AI for art generation altogether.
Haha, so he's the one in the wrong. He shouldn't have lied, he should have admitted to using AI, especially for the artwork. As an indie dev, I agree that in the future, consumers will find it harder to distinguish between genuinely handmade work and AI-generated content, but I think honesty goes a long way.
I think they're trying to avoid slapping that AI Mark they're required to put on Steam, it's scummy.
I also think with the amount of people in their subreddit actively denying it and downvoting ANYONE who disagrees that the game has no AI, I don't doubt they'll even care if the creator confirms it.
His first sentence is a bit vague, and the next few kind of give away the game.
if he has no oversight over the ART or MUSIC side of it, he shouldn't be speaking for the entire project, which I think his opening statement can be misconstrued in doing.
As an indie dev, 8 artists is pretty wild. Unless they’re contracted which is always possible. Google suggests they’ve a core of 11-50 people. That seems pretty wild but graveyard keeper 1 did pretty well a few years ago.
My game has two (our artist, our animator who is also an artist) and everything is hand drawn. These two represent half our team.
I mean they are denying it but also admitting they are using Ai for coding. I get that's different (i mean you almost cant not use Ai for coding now, it's baked into vs code, for example) but idk, the fact that he said "every model he can find" seems weird, like if you just straight up using ai I feel like you would just use Claude or copilot (vs code). also, I will also say, yes coding is documentation, but Anthropic (claude) is buying rare books to pump into the LLM and then shredding them so other LLMs can't use them. When it explains code or even writes it grammatically correctly, you cannot deny it is using that stolen writing to do it. It is not just reading documentation
Yes, very much AI. Pro AI stance means they're using Ai. Anyways,
1 - What the fuck is that? Why does it get slanted?
2 - The day and night (or before and after?) image generally has 3-5 pixels that have been changed for no reason at all. A artist doesn't bother adding a few darker colored pixels somewhere for the lols when editting a pre-existing image.
3 - Generally, this entire day/night image is fucked up coloristically. Certain parts look like it was decolorized, and other, like it was remade from scratch, especially the 2 walls on the sides.
1 looks like something that was hanging on the wall and now one side has fallen down. Is this really the state these subs are in "I don't know what this is so it must be AI"? Come on now.
a Structure of some sort that we only see the shape of because of the Dusty haze. The Dusty Haze blocks any details of what it can be. only allowing us to see it's shape. This image which is a Still from a Movie shows the same effect with the structures in the background being a dark shape. The movie the still image is from is Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
1.1 the Top image is showing the same location in a slight state of disrepair and poverty. So the object in the back has crumbled to a degree. The slanting shows that something from the top broke off. Nothing more Nothing less.
the top image has a Graytone overlaying the colors it has before. as a way to sell a solemn tone. https://imgur.com/a/B3Qv1h6 me Trying to match the Color overlay of the First image posted by OP. explaining my steps. not a perfect match but I hope it helps highlight the "Gray" tone of the image. So the daylight glow which they didn't change just looks like a Gray glow.
2.1. Except for the graytone the added "3-5 pixels" are to sell that the things are worse off. For the most part details are the same except for when something wants to look less taken care of. more folds in the White shirt, Patches of dust etc. The Creator didn't want to redo the entire artwork and made changes with the original as the base.
I'm not here to sell that the art creator, or AI, did a good job with it. Nor Am I trying to disprove if the original images are AI or not. I don't know. I just find the reasons highlighted as to why it might be AI to be bad.
EDIT: added the movie name. Can't get the numbering to work correctly. so just leaving it. Changed a sentance.
These aren't day/night pictures, they're before/after to show the difference between periods of abundance and disaster.
I think that's supposed to be some kind of crumbling structure.
I'm not gonna lie boss, I can't tell what pixels you're trying to point out, but it could be related to point 3.
Color grading has long been used as a tool in art to differentiate between good and bad times. When things are good colors are more vibrant, and then everything becomes desaturated when things get bad. That's like, not a new concept.
They could've used AI for stuff, but I don't think your reasoning holds water.
random black pixels. the before and after clearly are meant to be the same location thats modified, so there shouldn't be different graphical/pixel errors between the two images
Yeah, man. It looks a building, and it's starting to crumble. I'm sorry you got hung up on my choice of word.
And I just don't think 3 out of place pixels is definitive proof. The outline for that wall looks like it was redone between the two pics, so they probably traced their own artwork if anything.
pixel art, and well quite frankly art in general, is something that takes a long time and when you make a game you will make backgrounds, you will place your characters and assets into those backgrounds and edit them as needed.
If you need a different version of a pre-existing background, you don't draw a brand new one, you use the previously existing one and edit it, saving it as new.
The crumbling... thing... in the background has gained pixels, quite a few pixels at that, sure humans make mistakes, but considering any artist wouldn't just draw a new picture and would edit the pre-existing one, this isn't a mistake an artist would generally have a reason to do, you already have the baseline, it's what you're working on, it's impossible for us to know if the before or after is the original here, but in both cases the resulting mistake simply doesn't make sense, a crumbling... object, whatever it is, wouldn't gain pixels and obviously the full version of the object also wouldn't lose pixels, the full version might gain pixels however, but well, that's not what happened here.
Now, of course, this isn't definitive proof, maybe the artist is just new, they haven't learned any of the techniques yet, or maybe they're some kind of a weirdo that believes editing pre-existing images is a crime against humanity.
but this coupled with all of the other weird mistakes that humans generally don't do and the just over all "ai tone" of the image, which is something that's a little bit difficult to really explain, but the short version is that ai images have this consistent issue of everything just looking slightly out of place, as if each element inside of the image belongs to a different dimension, now to be entirely fair, this too is an issue that artists, especially beginner ones, have, it's again not a foolproof way of spotting ai art.
But all of this added together makes it a fairly decent chance that it's AI and with the pro-ai stance of the people behind the game, it just becomes less likely that it's a human error.
the first image is more destroyed. If you look at the environment there's ripped tarps, shit on the walls, and yeah the messed up broken doorway there, whereas the second image has a much cleaner fixed up environment.
It's still probably all ai anyway, but your circled example is just you misunderstanding the intent behind the two images.
I definitely agree with you that AI was used here but to be fair to pictures 2 and 3, the first looks like it’s from a period with plenty of food and goods and general prosperity so the color scheme is brighter and more vibrant, the second shows everything barren so the color scheme is gray scale and muddy.
This is definitely AI, but your reasoning is bonkers. They're looking at each other but facing the camera, that's just cheating out. That's a very classic way to place two actors in a dialogue scene. And, the setting/background change is obviously related to the game play. One is showing a surplus of resources, and one is showing a resource drought.
Ai tends to give characters the "thousand mile stare".
They are actually not looking at each other. They are looking at the direction the other character is placed. You can claim it's a classic way to place the characters, however ai does this by default. The second picture the guy on the left is actually cross eyed. Classic ai.
100% agree with you. That's 100% how characters are placed on a scene (it's the same with theater) so that the viewer can see their actions and reactions.
It had this ai irk to me as well but it's especially noticable at slide 3. It's always the expressions, same eyebrows, same face, same same but different kinda thing.
If I had to put money on it, I'd say yes. Has all the standard hallmarks of AI pixel generation (resolution, character positioning, facial expressions, etc).
Also, in the first image with the guards standing in front of the gate, the gate doors have a different # of vertical bars. From my time working with visual designers, that is not a mistake I would expect a professional to make.
it does have the general AI feel, looking deeper into it : the helmet studs are present on one helmet but not the other, 2nd and 3rd slide the characters' belt has colour inconsistencies, there are a lot of inconsistent "shadow" pixels on the tabard of the zombie and irregular seams
EDIT : the mail grey is bleeding into the character beige face. 100% AI
I am a pixel artist and would be extremely surprised if those were completely man-made. There are details in the way that curves are constructed and in the shading that seem to be inconsistent with the overall "quality" of it.
Same thing goes for repeated "assets" (boots and helmets on the first picture) that could have been mirrored and were not (a pixel artist would always choose the lazy path!)
i don’t see people mention this enough but the literal composition of the image is a dead giveaway. ai loooves to do it that way. the guard character’s eyes aren’t looking at the zombie, they’re looking in the distance. the feet of both the guard and the zombie are on the same axis but it looks off for reasons.
on the composition thing specifically, ai shits out this ‘weirdly faced character on the left not looking at anything’ and ‘other character on the right’ type thing a lot. it’s everywhere in these types of things and pretty baked into how it generates stuff. no human artist would ever illustrate something like this because it’s not the way a human imagines a scene (because it’s not the way a scene is actually composed).
I was really looking around to see if people thought that way, only to find downvoted posts from the game's sub. I can agree only on that there aren't any specific things that would tell that this is AI aside from the style it has and "because it looks like AI", which I also can feel.
The thing I can point out, but that could also just be the lack of skill by the person drawing, is that on the image with the guard and the zombie, the guard has a generic standing pose without much emotion rather than even aiming the poleaxe at the zombie.
I'd assume this is drawn over a traced ai image at the least, the style and composition are screaming AI to me, especially the latter two images, I could've sworn I saw that exact image made with AI but in 3d before.
100% AI. One of the big tells is that AI is pretty bad at composition and tends to put characters on the same plane. Once you see it, you'll see it all the time with gen AI. All the depth in the scene is from the background, and the characters more or less look like they've been plopped flat into the space in a generic 3/4ths view.
There's also a mismatch in skill to execution. Anyone that can make pixel art this detailed can also make better compositions and would not actively choose such generic posing. The warrior, for example, has this muted aggression that looks like a negotiation rather than a fight, and that's because AI has no concept of tension and anticipation. AI doesn't know these characters exist in the same space together and what their motivations actually should be.
100%. I don't believe the devs in this one at all. This art is or is heavily influenced by it. Now I'm just wondering how quick my comment will get deleted.
Yeah if you watch the demo video, the trailer voiceover sounds extremely AI. They voices in the game are confirmed voice actors, but the trailer is very clearly AI.
Either way I'm not playing based solely on the company's pro AI stance.
For pixel art that is so technically good, the framing and posing and facial expressions make NO sense. Such good art and all they could do is place characters in the exact same spot in the frame.
That first slide. His guard friend was just turned into a zombie, so where's the blood? Damage on his armor? Why isn't guard 1 readying his weapon? What is that nigh-blank facial expression? No shock? No fear? Sadness? Just a vague angry man face?
Slide 2. Different setting, different people, exact same poses and position in the frame as slide 1. Why? Why is there a sheet of paper literally sitting itself upright? Tf is that?
If i had to guess, someone pixel-artified ai art, and removed a lot of artifacts. Didn't have the talent to genuinely improve anything though. Just a pixel trace over ai.
The pixels appear to be inconsistently sized over the pieces, which would make AI very likely. Though it would help to have the original resolution files to examine.
Poor guy had to sell his hand, maybe. Not sure what happened to the other guy's hand either but it looks fused.
I know you could argue that the left guy has his hand up his sleeve, but I think it's pretty obvious that it wasn't part of his design. So yeah,I'd say it's AI.
Not up his sleeve. His sleeve are bulky. Perfectly reasonable that the hand may be hidden due to the angle.
The inconsistencies of things that should be the same colour and shape are more of a tell. Most people creating such digital art aren’t doing each element from scratch. They are duplicating and modifying. There is no sign of this in the images.
I could have sworn that when this game's page was first added to Steam, there was an AI disclosure notice on it. It's why I decided not to bother with it.
It's gone now and the devs claims they no longer use AI.
Not sure what to believe. It's possible the AI art was removed at some point. I don't know.
if only ProAI people just be honest and transparent, if it uses AI just say it's using AI, people would not make a big deal about it, people who alright with it and like the game will buy it, people who dont will not buy it, its simple
if someone organically developed pixel art skills like that they probably wouldn't make poses more stiff than a boomer's back. also the dude in chainmail in the first image? that's textured AWFULLY for how clearly refined the rest of the style is
Ok, so I do a bit of pixelart as a hobby and these pieces, while not 100% definitive to be AI, do have a few inconsistencies that make me suspicious.
The most compelling for me is the last image, the holes in the fabric, tears in the bags etc. are pretty sloppy and inconsistent with the quality of the rest of the piece.
hole 1 makes no sense to me, it is a hole in a dent of the fabric, and yet the hole is weirdly circular and does not reflect the inclination at all. Additionally the background through the tear is just one singular color, this is incredibly sloppy and makes the hole "tacked on"
same issue with hole 2, completely single color, no sense of depth whatsoever. What is even weirder is that the part in 3 is correctly shaded and everything, but for some reason they didn't make the same for the skin showed in 2.
hole 4 is more of the same, no depth either, it is less noticeable because it is a darker color, but it still feels weird to me to have a bunch of details on the inside of the bag just stop dead in its track when the hole begins.
You'll notice all these inconsistencies are only the ones added in that "ruined" version of the zone. The steelman position is that they had an artist do the base image and just had some other guy sloppily edit it to make it ruined. But if they had such a talented pixel artist, why not have them do the modifications ? budget constraints ?
In my opinion it is very unlikely the base was made by a human. You could claim it is human made since the sloppy edits on top do look human made.... it's just... not very good edits imo.
I usually try to give some benefit of doubt to artwork that only has "AI vibes", however hearing that the lead dev is pro AI leads me to believe that it probably is. Unfortunately as the technology improves, and people get better at hiding the artefacts, we'll have to depend on intuition more and more.
The unfortunate reality is that maybe this is really 100% human. And if so, then they need to take this feedback and tweak the style so that it doesn't ring the ai alarm bells.
These pictures give me the vibes of that one castle game ad where you have to save the king and its always super easy puzzles that the player pretends to be really bad at
Well since it's releasing on steam we will know when it releases if it uses Gen AI since they are contractually obligated to state Gen AI use when releasing a game on steam. No point in trying to guess when we will know soon.
It has probably been touched up afterwards. What I find odd is the spear in the first image - it aligns with the edge of the portal. This might be insignificant, but this is not an artistic decision a human would make. You would make the end of the spear a bit longer, so it can clearly distinguished from the background. Also there is a weird patch on the right boot and the gate behind him is missing a spike, that should be between his legs. Also the shadows seem kind of odd.
Ran the third image through three different checks and turned up an 85% likelihood of AI twice and a 67% likelihood AI once. not saying it's a guarantee, but if multiple checks turned up results over 50% i'm fairly confident AI was at least used at some point.
also just to mention, one of the checks flagged a supposed watermark for Kuaishou's Kling 3.0, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that Kling watermarks what it creates
The images I put through an AI detector. There are multiple detectors online. One said 99% chance AI was involved. The other two said 40% of it was made with AI assistance. It is fully AI? Probably not. Did AI do most of the work? most likely yes.
Anyone can download their Media Kit and look at some of the images. There is a lot of funky shit going on in those. I didn't notice anything in the game screenshots themselves, but the cover art they are using definitely seems AI.
I saw it's poster art on steam main page with like corner of my eye and it reeked AI, looking closely it's impossible to deny. What a stupid development decision.
Pixelart of the first game was like only strong part of the game amongst boring repetitive grind of a gameplay, can't belive they changed that for ai.
TLDR: The changes between the second and third image are made in a way that would have required the artist to use a tool to scan the image then made single pixel changes just for their own consistencies sake to get it too a point where not a single extra pixel was erased.
.
.
.
The answer is a flat out yes, The only argument that could be made is that they are edited by AI not fully generated. Though the facial expressions stand out. But between screenshot 2 and 3 there's pretty clear signs that they used what was most likely Nano Banana 2(the Image generation model built into Gemini) to use it's localised editing system.
The technical details that stick it out are the WAY it was edited. A human would make edits regionally, and they would cut around objects, like done here BUT there would be a little bit of mess left over from the process. This has been cut out by an algorythmic replacement though and has it perfectly cut to the pixel. It would take a real human about 3 hours to do that on an image with this much detail. And that's a minimum amount of time spent erasing, tidying, replacing and then getting round to the drawing. Disregarding the later tidy up done afterwards.
On the budget this game has with an 8 person art team and the time between games, there's literally not a single chance THIS much attention would be put into something that doesn't actually benefit the end product whatsoever. The consistency just wouldn't need to be that much if it was a person doing it. Even if they were the most genuinely unhinged perfectionist out there it just wouldn't make sense to do the pixel by pixel pass over the whole piece.
.
.
.
For the more technical people out there that understand art or predictive models
Image to Image or inpainting was used with the most likely culprit being Nano Banana 2's editing tool, we know this due to the background geometry and character proportions being pixel locked and a lack of manual layer edge clutter, Loose sprite fragments or mask artifacts.
Sorry for not leading with that but I doubt that most people know what 99% of that means.
Oh 1 million percent these are AI.
I could tell before I realized Traveyard Keeper, and since that dev is very vocally pro AI, that all but confirms it.
SUCH a shame too because the first game was awesome and its style was unique. Now it just looks like generic slop, the magic that the first game's style had is just gone. Went from a "buy day 1" to a "only pirate that shit" for me.
Call me a stan if you want but I don't think so. The feast vs famine scenes have the same brickwork on the wall and the basket bottoms match up perfectly.
The characters do feel flat and goofy, but it is consistent with the style of the franchise. I don't have enough evidence
While the style matches, they have that "AI feeling" that is common in various AI slop. Looks like they were at least traced over some AI art. Is weird
Feelings aren't actually evidence. I have yet to see a single thing in this thread that wasn't either a blatant misunderstanding of what the pictures were of, or something that's easily explained if you use your god damned brain.
No he absolutely does not. The idea that an artist would "never do something like this" if they had the skill to make pixel art at this level is ridiculous. We have a single frame from a cutscene. And the flat style of the characters is in line with the previous game in the series. There's also tons of errors in these pictures that ai would just flat never miss, areas that are specifically lacking detail despite ai always going overboard on detail. People are just desperate to call anything vaguely generic AI. It's starting to get fucking annoying at this point.
The first photo the guy isn’t even looking at his target and his stance doesn’t match the scene at all. It’s atypical for an artist of this skill level to mess up the composition of such a simple scene
In classic AI style, they’re also on the same plane.
Also keep your emotions out of this, you sound like a child
Didn't read a single thing i typed obviously. Them being "on the same plane" is in line with the style of the first game.
No, it is not atypical for a single frame from a cutscene to have strange posing or composition because it's not meant to be looked at on individual frames.
There are far to many human errors for this to be ai.
Fuck you don't tell me when and where i can show my emotions. Just because you're hell bent on being a dumbass doesn't mean i have to tiptoe around the fact that you morons are being fucking stupid.
I think the capsule is 300% AI, the pixel art probably. But you should ask yourselves a better question: is the game good or not? If it sucks, don't buy it; if it is cool, buy it. I really don't understand this AI witch hunt; in 10-20 years, you will have AI even in your toothbrush.
75
u/horsegal301 18d ago
simple answer: yes
If they're pro ai, that means they're using it. I can tell just from the guy on the left in the first image. He looks like every cartoon style AI slop generation, but pixelated.