Baldur’s Gate 3 Developers Reject AI Concept Art, Sparking Debate
AI
Gaming
Baldur’s Gate 3
Larian Studios
Generative AI
Concept Art
Divinity
7
Cautious Innovation
Media Hype
8/10
Real Impact
7/10
What is the Viqus Verdict?
We evaluate each news story based on its real impact versus its media hype to offer a clear and objective perspective.
AI Analysis:
While the immediate controversy has subsided, Larian’s clear stance and continued interest in AI’s potential reflects a pragmatic approach – aiming for efficiency and quality without sacrificing creative control. The hype is driven by a broader community conversation about AI’s impact on creativity.
Article Summary
Larian Studios’ stance on utilizing generative AI has become a significant topic within the gaming industry. Following initial reports and a Bloomberg interview where CEO Swen Vincke discussed experimenting with AI tools to explore ideas and create placeholder text, the developer has now issued a definitive statement. During a Reddit AMA, Vincke clarified that while AI might be used to accelerate idea exploration and presentation development, concept art generation will be explicitly avoided to prevent any debate surrounding the art’s origin. The developer has even confirmed that existing AI tools won't be employed for text generation, with writing director Adam Smith highlighting the consistently low quality of AI-generated text compared to human-written content. Despite this firm stance, Vincke remains optimistic about the potential of AI to refine ideas and streamline development, emphasizing a goal of reduced waste and higher-quality game output. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between developers exploring the potential of AI and the gaming community’s concerns about creative control and authenticity.Key Points
- Larian Studios will not use generative AI for concept art in Divinity.
- The company initially discussed experimenting with AI tools for idea exploration and presentation development.
- AI will not be used for text generation, with the team deeming the results consistently low quality.