this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
880 points (99.3% liked)

PC Gaming

9630 readers
1144 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
880
@steamdb.info‬ "Players have been asking for the ability to filter out games made with Gen AI. We've added an automatic tag on SteamDB based on the AI gen content disclosures on the store pages." (bsky.app)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
141 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Honestly, I'd love that as well, but the problem is that you cannot connect GenAI generations to mechanics because they're too fuzzy. The best way to use them atm is to use them only for fluff. For example to automatically generate the art for encounters, or the flavor text for card games etc. But even then, they tend to converge into generic boring slop. Still I think there's some potential there for some creative roguelike devs to do GenAI fluff kinda OK.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 31 minutes ago

I think you have to be clever with the usage of gen AI to get non-boring things, and just use it as one or multiple elements in a larger pipeline/computation graph. This is my intuition and not battle-tested.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

Disagree. They can be connected to actual game mechanics. For instance, it's quite easy to ask an LLM to output something in json format:

{
  "name": "The Master of Evil",
   "hitpoints": 205,
   "class": "vampire,"
}

and so on. You might object that it could make mistakes here. Suppose the detectable error rate is 10% (I actually think it's lower from what I've played around with.) Rerunning it in the case of a such an error (e.g. malformed json, invalid class name, hit points exceeds bounds, etc.) reduces to 1%, then 0.1% etc., and in the end there can be a non-AI fallback just for certainty. Admittedly, the errors are not i.i.d., but still it should be pretty low. Many traditional procgen techniques, such as map generation, also use rejection sampling in this way, with even larger rejection rates than 10%.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)

It's easy to generate something as generic as that, not as easy to generate mechanics. And if you don't generate mechanics then you're only doing fluff like I said

[–] [email protected] 1 points 33 minutes ago

ah, I misunderstood by what you meant by "generate mechanics." My bad.