Messages

It's time to vote.

Two fun interpretations of the theme.
So it's time to vote.


Usual voting criteria:
- Concept: Is it a creative interpretation of the theme that also tells us something about the world in which it takes place.
- Playability: Does it have clear walkable areas, things to interact with, etc?
- Artistic Execution: How well was the chosen style executed? - What's the feeling of the place? - Does the image convey the wanted atmosphere?

Voting ends the 23th (or later...basically it ends when I call it; which will be after the 23th).

Granted. 

Great! This time I'll definitely enter... already ideating .

Ildu (and anyone else who still wants to enter), I will keep the Blitz open until somewhere this weekend.
Otherwise I'll have to call it.

We're entering the final days of the competition. So let me know if anyone needs an extension to finish their piece.

Nice sketch Creamy, I like your interpretation of the theme.

I illustrate in Procreate, so a timelapse video is always available. What might be the best way to host and embed a video here (would like to avoid Youtube, and can host my own)?

I thinks it's always great when people show (part of) their process. From sketches, to steps, to time-lapses. So yes, I would certainly appreciate that. As for how to make it available. Well, if you can host it yourself you could add a simple link to the video people can follow. Or a link to a simple HTML page (semi-blog-post) with an HTML-video-element in it.

Looking forward to your interpretation of the theme.

[June 30th]

Safe Space

 

Draw anything that is both safe and (a) space in some way, shape, or form.

(or thought to be)

Deadline: June 30th (Dutch Time)

As usual the entries will be judged on:
- Concept: Is it a creative interpretation of the theme that also tells us something about the world in which it takes place.
- Playability: Does it have clear walkable areas, things to interact with, etc?
- Artistic Execution: How well was the chosen style executed? - What's the feeling of the place? - Does the image convey the wanted atmosphere?

To your pencils!


Additional rules for the use of Generative A.I.
1. The input for the GenAI must be something you created. It can be a sketch, a photograph, a collage of images, &c. Whatever it is, it must originate from you hand and mind.
2. The output of the image created by GenAI (based on your input in point 1) must be significantly altered by you.
3. You must share all three steps (or more if you use multiple GenAI passes): your input, the output of the AI and your altered version (of course I woudl advise to put them in a spoiler-block as to not influence the initial experience of the final piece).
4. You do not have to share additional prompts used.

In short, your decisions and your 'fingerprints' must be all over both the origin and the final version of your piece.

Spoiler

Why have special/additional rules for A.I.?

I have clear opinions on and reservations about the use of Generative A.I. in general and even more so in creative processes (images, music, story, programming (and yes, that is creative too in the same vain as the other examples)). But I also think my opinions should not block anyone from joining this competition in good faith. So it was either: (a) exclude A.I. image generation all together or (b) have a compromise that is at least some sort of framework in the context of this Background Blitz. I choose the latter.

I hope you understand and accept my decision. And if not, please keep your discussions on the subject matter to the following thread: Your thoughts on A.I. art creation or PM me personally if you really want to (but please don't, because that would mean I might have to interact with people).

[close]

Thanks everyone! - Brushfe, great entry with a great retro style (also within the original deadline ).

I'll start a new Blitz in a moment.

in my option, if you're using A.I. image generators and filters you are effectively telling me you don't care about what you're creating. And if you - as the creator - don't care, then I will care even less. And if you do care...then I see no excuse for you not learning at least basic drawing skills. Even if only to share your ideas so you can collaborate with an actual artist to bring your vision to life.

I think you've got that the wrong way around. Someone using AI image generators probably does so because they only care about what they are creating ...

Not at all. While you might argue that they only care about getting to the finish-line or the end-result...that is not the same as caring about what you are creating. There is a reason why many people care more about indie-games and their creators than they do about the tripple-A studios. And that has to do with the actual act of people creating something that has soul not just getting to a generic mediocre end-product they can ship.

Generative A.I. results in generic mediocrity. And for the record. That is not an opinion but an actual fact based on the way this technology works. If you want to create a generic mediocre game then sure, it's probably the right technique for you. But why would you want to and why should I care?

Spoiler

Complete rejection is a position that renders itself irrelevant; people are just going to tune you out.

I do not completely reject the technology. It's impressive. And we can definitely have a technical conversation about it. We can talk about how the first A.I. computer program was written in the same year as the invention of superglue or the first airing of I Love Lucy (1951). How artificial neural networks were first developed in the same year as the Seven Samurai and Hichcock's Rear Window (1954...though some sources claim 1958). How the first natural language programming computer program ELISA was developed from 1964-1967 during the tenure of Sean Connery as James Bond. How small language models were achieved in the '80's (like for example WarGames with Matthew Broderick) and the first large language models were created in de '90's (the decade when Hackers, the Net, and The Matrix came out). This is not a new technology and it would not be available without two major developments: A) cheaper hardware and B) a vast repository of information called 'the internet' that they could scrape.

We can talk about all that.

But here's the thing. I have yet to see a single actual use-case for generative A.I. that delivers on its promises. And I'm looking at technology, business, enterprise software development, art, fact-checking, science, semi-search-machines &c. &c. Everyone keeps telling me 'yes, but in two years or even a few months'. And they have been telling me this for years now. But there is not a single use-case that has actually delivered that even remotely validates the costs of keeping ChatGPT running (which for ChatGPT 3 in 2023 was around $700 000 to a million per day, and all evidence we have shows it's much higher now).

So without any actual use-case and a lot of investors wanting to see a return on their money, and an unsustainable amount money that is needed to keep it running at all...where do you think this is going. The 20 dollar / month price-tag for the Plus version of ChatGPT is not going to cut it. That's less than a dollar per day per user. Even the 200 dollar / month Pro version would not get them their money back. That's even when you have a single provider, but there are multiple (not counting free local models). And with very little to distinguish from the competition you effectively have a limited pool of people who can throw money at you because they have little to no reason to pay for multiple models. Basically we're giving you the first bag of drug for free so you get hooked and we can milk you for everything you've got.

And I'm not even going to philosophize about the ads that are definitely going to be part of responses or the - already proven - fact that a certain government is working closely with ChatGPT to 'curate' the information so ideas and philosophies they disagree with will not be part of the output (let's just accept that some governments want to use this as a propaganda machine).

Where was I, oh yes. Then there's the fact that many independent scientific papers say we are reaching or even have reached a quality-cap/-wall which is worsened by the fact that A.I. models not cannibalize A.I. creations. Which leads to inbreeding-depression (if you take a biological analogy) or for the moviegoers among you it's Multiplicity (1996) with Michael Keaton. And while Altman from ChatGPT denies this, he did try to push people to create more original content for them to scrape. Also, insiders have claimed that ChatGPT 5 is worse than 4 in many aspects. Sure, these are rumors and most of these problems will probably be ironed out. But the fact that 5 has been delayed might tell you something about whether it's ready for prime-time.

We could talk about that.

Or we could go the other route. And talk about how the US Copyright Office stated 'that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements'. What constitutes 'insufficient' we do not yet know. But by using A.I. generated images you might actually make parts of what you created free for others to use without your consent (which is of course somewhat ironic considering where A.I. images 'come' from). Basically you're giving up ownership because it wasn't yours in the first place.

Maybe we could discuss how the use of A.I. generated whatever has already shown signs of decreasing the skills and muscle-memory of skilled-laborers (at least with programmers).

We can discuss all this and much more. But still, that won't change one simple fact and that is that I (and I'm talking purely about me) do not care about what you 'created' because I (still talking about me) feel you don't either. This is not an opinion. It's also not objective (like the whole rant above). It's how I feel about this. And here's the kicker...I don't think you should care about how I feel on this subject unless you explicitly want me to be a potential buyer of the game.

My feelings might change if - by some miracle - we have an actual good and working use-case and can reap actual benefits that go being a 'party-trick'. I've kept track of this technology since before ChatGPT came out and I will be keeping track of it and its capabilities in the future. But so far the thing I'm most impressed by (not counting the fact that the technique itself is impressive) is how hard it's being forced on you (at least in the field I am working in) because this is going to be the holy grail in a few years just you wait and see because <magic hands> A.I. </magic hands>

[close]

Complete rejection is a position that renders itself irrelevant; people are just going to tune you out.

Form a certain point of view one could argue that the 'complete rejectionists' are on the side of generative A.I. because they reject the desire to learn, the wish to grow, and the want for skill. While those arguing the other side are actually the 'absolute advocates' for all these things.

One could even argue that I have more faith in them than they have in themselves. Because I actually believe they can learn if they just pick up that pencil and practice, while they have already given up on themselves and are willing to settle. And yes. That saddens me. If only because as a cynic I wonder if that tells me something about humanity as a whole.

Spoiler

Also, someone who truly advocates for the use of Generative A.I. will tune out anyway if you start to criticize it. Just like an opponent will tune out when discussing it with someone who completely and utterly embraces it. To quote ABBA: that's the name of the game.

[close]

Ps. I for my part, I will not engage in this discussion any further. This has nothing to do with any of you (I am not offended, or 'angry' about your opinions, or anything). It's just that I've found that over the years I enjoy this forum most when I'm simply entering the competitions while the other threads eventually lead to me leaving for long periods of time if . Right now I want to make sure I'm still here tomorrow. So this will be my final post on this subject. You can agree. You can disagree. But if you need me you can find me scribbling away in the Blitzes and Jams. That is where I belong and that is where I'm going to be.

A little surprised that the conversation turned to AI ethics, plagiarism, and legal issues.

I think I get where you're coming from. I mean...it's like having a discussion about junk food and people suddenly start to talk about health. It not like these things are inherently connected right?

but for a person with zero artistic skills right now (May 2025) it's not a viable solution

Doesn't every single person with artistic skill start out as a person with no artistic skill? - Maybe I'm old, but I honestly thought all you needed to learn was a pen(cil) and a sheet of (cheap) paper. I mean...sure It's not pixel art (although you could use a box of ministeck for that) but it worked for me.

Basically - without taking things like the effects of junk food on health into consideration - in my option, if you're using A.I. image generators and filters you are effectively telling me you don't care about what you're creating. And if you - as the creator - don't care, then I will care even less. And if you do care...then I see no excuse for you not learning at least basic drawing skills. Even if only to share your ideas so you can collaborate with an actual artist to bring your vision to life.

On the other hand, you could ask Generative A.I. to write the 'story', use Vibe-Coding to write the 'code', A.I. image generators to create the 'visuals', and A.I. generated music, sound-effects, and voice. And when everything is finished, A.I. bots can play it. This might sound harsh, but when you remove your own identity from the equation...what is left?

Ps. Grab a piece of paper. Take out a pencil. And create something only you could have created. That's all I'm asking. Create something. Draw anything.

What I don't get: don't all traditional human artists train on existing art? I imagine that art teachers will show a bunch of Picasso paintings to their students and tell them "Now do something similar" and people will look at the pictures and copy parts of it or only concepts into new paintings. Heck, even the old masters learned by just copying other paintings.
Why is it different here?

I actually think there is a fundamental flaw in this statement. As - at least in my opinion - the old masters did not learn by just copying other paintings. They learned from trying to understand the decisions made by other people in those paintings.

I like exploring other people's styles (as can be seen in many of my Blitz entries). Yet I never copy anything. But rather I try to make it my own and adapt what I see and understand into my own signature. In a way this is also the reason why I tend to be quite slow with my drawings...because every line is intentional. Everything is a decision. Everything has purpose. Even though some things are drawn from muscle memory (and yes, happy accidents do exist in what might appear as random lines to others).

As a result, my work is based on understanding, purpose, and story (my skills are just the 'interface' to put these on (digital)paper). The output of genAI (and people who only copy/trace the work of others) lacks each of these. And without understanding, purpose, and story whatever you create is - in my opinion - mediocrity. It might be mediocrity wrapped up in style over substance. And people might love it. But for me...when I draw something, the end-point is secondary to the road to get there (which is among the many reasons why I tend not to use the word 'art' to my drawings). This is also the reason why genAI won't ever stop me from picking up that pencil (but I can understand why it would be disheartening to professionals who try to make a living; and I hate the fact that genAI is based (almost) completely on the stolen works of others).

So my question would not be: Why is it different here? because to me that is obvious. A much more interesting question would be: How is this similar?

ps. I don't think this is the thread for this discussion. So I've said my piece and will now stick to my drawings again.

[Using IA to create game graphics]

Using IA to create game graphics
What bring me back here is the recent implementation of IA to generate all kind of art...

I am going to interpret IA as 'Incredible Artists'...in which case I'm all for it. 

[Story:]

Unfortunately I'm not the fastest illustrator; so I had to take my time.
An scrolling backgrounds are - well - bigger. But I'm out of time, and that means it's finished.
And here's my entry.



Story: You play as Nynke. A Frisian huntress. One day she returns from the hunt to find her village in flames with her only family (her sister) gone. So she sets out to save her. Later on the huntress finds out her sister was sold as a slave to the Shackled Queen. And what started out as a personal story might actually save the world.

I kinda envision this as a dark-fantasy/black-comedy. Hence the muted colors (but I also added a more vivid version for those interested).

Image 100%:

Spoiler

[close]

Image 50% (vivid colors):

Spoiler

[close]

Inspiration:

Spoiler

I wanted to do something different. So rather than a scroll in X or Y I decided to scroll in Z while also zooming-out. Also, I kinda liked the top-down map from Conquest of Camelot:

So I ended up with both the entrance to and a top-view of the castle. And I had to connect these two. So to make my life a little bit easier (because I simply didn't have the time to do anything better) I decided to use the foliage from the trees to move to the forest and then to a view from above. I probably should have added an additional tree in the foreground to make the effect a bit clearer...but again, there was no way I was going to hit the original deadline with this idea (thank you Creamy for the extension) and I didn't have time to adjust the composition to make the second tree work.

[close]

Ps. Our cat turns 20 years old this Saturday, so naturally he has to be in the image.

@Creamy: My entry is moving along. But I already know I'm probably going to need an extra week to finish it. I'll try to hit the deadline, but might require an extension.

[WeeklyJournal]

Well...considering no one else want to have their vote counted (and as a host I personally only vote on a tie), I'm calling it:

WeeklyJournal: 1 vote
Eric: 2 votes
Creamy: 3 votes

So Creamy, the floor is yours.

Oh great...scrolling-backgrounds. It's like drawing multiple images for the price of one.

Well, at least I do have an idea that I really want to try and is completely different from the last scrolling background I did.

any non-participants want to cast their vote? - Remember: voting, it's like your second-favorite thing to do on the internet

[WeeklyJournal]

Time to vote.

I count three entries:

WeeklyJournal


Creamy


Eric


Voting categories are:
1. Character - Does the character have...well...character?
2. Quality - How well does it execute the chosen style?
3. Usability - Does it work well within a game (doesn't have to be a 3rd person point-and-click game though)?

Voting ends the 24th (though keep in mind my track-record for keeping these deadlines )

I've never liked using illustrator for my drawings even though I like using vector. Personally I prefer Corel Draw or Affinity Designer (the latter of which is currently my go-to for vector). I don't often show my vector-work here though; But it's a really nice approach to get from sketch to a clean drawing...though it loses some of it's 'life' I do have when drawing with pencil or (Corel) Painter. There are, however, many advantages, and I do tend to like the look you can achieve with it.

I'm extending the deadline a few days...to give WeeklyJournaling (and hopefully others) time to finish their piece.