acedia000

Yes, I strongly agree with these points, but particularly the second half. "Real art" is not at all under threat by AI, which has effectively no ability to even touch, let alone dilute the supposed magnitude and breadth of the human spirit in expression. The existence/proliferation of AI is not going to infringe upon the abilities or opportunities of a bus driver who comes home every day after work to work covertly on an entire house full of sprawling, elaborate tinfoil miniatures which aren't discovered until after his death.

The inconvenient reality of most "creative" work that AI has excelled at supplanting is that it already is, and has been, exactly what people accuse AI to be doing to the form: pure commercial churn, meant solely to occupy temporary space, occasionally brilliant, mostly by accident, but nearly always produced lazily, insincerely, and without pride by people who are not paid enough to care and would rather be working on anything else. AI accelerates human mediocrity not because it is inherently mediocre by nature but because most people, and the things they produce, are. And I very squarely place the bulk of all my own creative efforts and accomplishments within that category too.

This is largely ignoring the fact that Manichaeism was uniformly and severely persecuted under virtually every empire (and respective theology, or lack thereof) it came into contact with, which the Wikipedia article portrays pretty thoroughly.

Also, this is pretty ignorant of the fact that one of the most significant theological and philosophical movements of recent western history was the Reformation, which was specifically staked on the claim that "reasoning-your-way-to-God" was a fundamental right and responsibility of all believers, not just a limited caste of priests. This had implications far beyond theology, and is arguably the foundation of most western ideas of self-determination to begin with.

No offence to the author, but this feels like a pretty poorly planned study at virtually every data point. To start, there's little in the first place to suggest anything resembling a causal relationship between "open-world design" (which runs a pretty wide gamut of potential definitions, formal or otherwise, and is questionably encompassed by the similarly named genre tag on IGDB) and Metacritic scores. The hypothesis itself has a bunch of untested assumptions in it, none of which are relevant to "open-world design", which the rest of the study either completely glosses over or fails to account for. Et cetera...

I personally don't believe games are getting worse. From my perspective, as someone who makes them and plays a lot of them, sometimes for the sake of making them, sometimes for the sake of playing them, sometimes both, games are not really that much better or worse than they have been historically, in terms of what they are able to offer individually as pieces of entertainment and artistic craftsmanship.

But I do think tastes have changed tremendously, and more than that, the ways in which people talk about playing games, and how they actually go about talking about playing games (from a mechanical/technological perspective), have changed even more tremendously. There's a lot more public scrutiny now, and a lot of that scrutiny, because of the way social media platforms, where people talk about stuff, tend to work, that scrutiny is simultaneously much more intense and broader in effect, which makes things FEEL a lot worse than they are.

I think there's also a lot of nostalgia from people who grew up in one media generation and now, as more risk-averse, time- and attention-starved adults, they bemoan the fact that things have not only changed from that, but that they're different and cater to a different audience, which is not them, with different tastes, which are not theirs.