So here is a open minded topic.
It started with a self communication about the possible future of general game development, and how this would impact the developers.
The setting is this:
[quote:j757v6p5]When AI becomes smart and able enough to create complex games for u, meaning u only have to tell it what u would like, nothing more. Resulting in any player becoming a "developer" and vice versa.
The question that came with it is this:
[quote:j757v6p5]Would the term "developer" then no longer be adequate, because the AI takes that role.
It is a interesting topic because it got me going about: "Thinking" compared to developing.
So then would the term "Game Thinkers" be better?
In this possible future any gamer could tell the AI what the game should be like, even while playing.
The AI making the changes instantly without any wait on playtime.
So the player becomes the thinker about what should happen. (If they want to, or they could leave that to the AI)
And if so, would there still be a generation of Players apart from Game Thinkers.
Or would a Game Thinker be the ultimate merging of what we now know as players & developers.
So what do u think about the influence of the Question asked.
PS: (Its not about if this type of AI is possible.)
I always saw that, due to the heavy part of game design, thinking a game is already quite necessary, and I see that concept being more about reducing the time, knowledge and money necessary down in the largest way possible.
So to the question, I would say that:
-Not everyone would create their games even with this, as it is still a pretty daunting task to actually know what to put in the game so you can enjoy it, and everyone can too.
-Those who would use that potential technology would be more on sharing content too, which can be a good thing, as we would see a lot more of game design discussions rather than programming ones.
As for "game thinkers", I kinda call that a game designer in a way, just with a more direct approach, but in a way this question is more "if anyone could do a game easily with no actual effort being done, would they do it?", which is basically confusing as they would still need to decide what to put inside, so an interesting question but I am not sure the actual answers are really worth it.
Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.
There are two states to ai, the first being programed by a person, the second as self conscious.
The first state would only be as good as the person programming the ai, not really capable of plane jumping, and therefore not able to produce new content.
The second state might be able to create new ideas, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be interesting, or even make sense.
Androids may dream of electric sheep, but they may cause nightmares to you and I.
The AI referred to in this topic is full aware of how to make games.
Thus anyone can tell it what he/she would like to see/play while playing at any time.
But no further effort would be needed.
That is the foundation the question starts with.
In that case, the term developer could still apply if the person see what the IA does and suggests changes I guess.
I see Aphrodite wat u are saying.
Then the question is, what is the requirement for the label, developer.
Does a side line spectator "develop" a game when they only suggest a change.
Or does the AI deserve the title developer as it implements the changes suggested.
It seems like a thin line between the 2.
I guess the number of changes suggested and the precision of them can make the difference between the two, however that is a weird question still as I don't think it is a case we can resume simply, like if tommorow every car became a automatic car you just ask for the destination, what defines a driver or even a taxi driver then, hard to say..
Exactly, wich could make those today used definition obsolete all together.
That i find a very interesting perspective when acurate.
As such, what could potentionaly be the consequence for game developers as we know it.
Would they become a nishe themselves in the game industry?
Would they be called Retro
Ooo! Its thinky time.
[quote:1pkf7d7t]Would the term "developer" then no longer be adequate, because the AI takes that role.
I love questions like this, so thank you for asking it!
There are so many variables that go into this. I think developer would no longer be adequate to answer the question bluntly (From a layman at least )
AI is only going to get better, and likely at an incredible pace too. If they were introduced to games, I think the big thing that AI would need is player feedback. someway that the AI can understand if a player likes or dislikes its creation. It then will be able to build off that data over and over making better and better games, even still, the variables... I imagine this would require fully modular game development, at least to start with as well as for speed, with the AI's ability to create modules to then switch them between its games and modify at will. The feedback given to the AI for if the game was fun, or more specifically, was this feature fun, giving things scale ratings, such as; How easy was the inventory to use? 1-10 , was the combat fun to use? 1-10 It would change the lower rated objects first and keep the 10 rated modules as close to their base as possible. This is how I would imagine going about it.
Eventually, years down the road, the AI just spits out intuitive, fun, creative games. Its hard to know what those will be like, But i feel that the human interaction of being able to review features in the game and if a game idea is getting old it will stay fresh (hopefully)