4 ms·

> What follows is millions of derivative Mario levels unworthy of their own game. It doesn't refute your point, but what actually happened was that brilliant t

• levesque 4y ago
  Yeah OP missed the target on this one. Super Mario Maker is a great example of insane creativity demonstrated by a community. AI can't do that though.
  • nextaccountic 4y ago
    AI can't do that by its own yet. AI can be leveraged by an human designer to do that with some effort. Like, humans may have good taste in level design and AI may explore the concrete possibilities. AI might be able to do this in the future by itself
    • levesque 4y ago
      AI models might be able to do this in the future by themselves, though with current paradigms AI will barely generate copies of existing levels with little creativity. Sure, a composition of existing level pieces could lead to an interesting level design, though it would be more by accident than by design. Models do not maximize player enjoyment, there is no metric for that. Maybe engagement metrics could be used, but I don't think players would stick around long enough playing bad levels to reach a viable model. New models and paradigms will come up, but until then I'd say anything AI-generated will feel pretty vanilla and somewhat incoherent.
      • nextaccountic 4y ago
        > Models are do not maximize player enjoyment, there is no metric for that There might be! Just have some people to play and rate the levels. I think that doing this would considerably improve the quality of the levels in MarioGPT or other algorithms for generation of game levels
  • a13o 4y ago
    My point isn't that the Super Mario Maker players weren't having fun flexing their game design muscles. My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game. So what hope does GPT have? Both situations have similar design constraints, which I'm arguing is missing the critical design component necessary to make commercially viable platformers. The reason why commercial viability is of interest is because the article claims this tool will be valuable to game developers and I don't think it will be because it doesn't solve for any problems in the business of making games. Nobody is stuck deciding where the pipes and bricks go. To end on a positive note, lots of open world games use terrain generators as a first pass. AI might have better luck in that domain.
    • mynameisvlad 4y ago
      > My point is that a million makers on a million joycons couldn't generate enough commercially viable content for a single game. How does this criticism follow after seeing a playlist full of creative uses of the limited systems available? What do you expect, these individual makers using a proprietary tool somehow actually making a commercially viable game out of their levels that they can't even export and are entirely based on the closed source engine powering SMM? That never would have happened because of the nature of the platform, not the content being made.
      • a13o 4y ago
        Nintendo released SMM knowing it wouldn't be a direct threat to the Mario franchise. They were able to guarantee this because they know a Mario game with 80 levels needs 80 things we've never seen before. SMM ships with 200 things we've definitely seen before. It's possible that some combination of those things is new, and good for a level worth of content. But there isn't 80 of them. The playlist has stuff like invisible pipes, lag spike inducers, soft lock strategies, etc. This style of troll design is popular(?) within the SMM community but you wouldn't sell a million copies of it in its own game.
        • mynameisvlad 4y ago
  • manojlds 4y ago
    Point then still stands that if SMM2 itself isn't a hit, MarioGPT cannot as well.