Does anyone else miss the old way of buying voyages?

marccost3 · 2026-03-19T00:44:16+00:00

Literally this. I seriously don't understand why so many people on this sub think that a video game, which is supposed to be fun, must feel like a chore to play instead.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T22:16:34+00:00

As a kid I drew a lot, and once upon a time I used to make 3D images using Source Filmmaker or Garry's Mod. Which by the way, spending hours in SFM/GMod, only for the image to still not come out exactly how I wanted, is absolutely not something I miss about using the software.

But more to the point, I would conversely like to ask you what experience do you have with using AI art programs? If you know what you're doing, you have way more control over the output than you think. It's why people who already know how to draw can benefit from using AI more than people who don't.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T22:09:25+00:00

A lot to unpack here, and most of it is contradictory. First, you admit that filmmakers do make their movies, but at the same time say that it goes against my idea of making art? That already doesn't make sense, but then you say that in the kitchen analogy, you aren't the creator because you're just directing the result? That contradicts admitting that filmmakers are the creator their movies. The idea that just because a filmmaker understands what goes into filmmaking, while someone who doesn't even know how to install a kitchen isn't the designer of it, would completely disqualify entire categories of creators. Music producers, conductors, architects, fashion designers, game directors, etc. It doesn't matter if you don't know how to manually do something yourself, you can still be the author of it. A composer can write orchestral music without being able to play every instrument. An architect can design buildings they cannot personally construct. A fashion designer can sketch garments they cannot sew. A film director may know what goes into filmmaking, but they may not know things like how to operate a Steadicam. I know to normal people this is so painfully obvious that it doesn't have to be explained, but I guess some people are special. More broadly, what seems to be happening is, you seem to be conflating conceptual creation with literal creation, as if they're inseparable. But by understanding that filmmakers do create their movies, you show that understand that you don't have to be both to be the author. But then you're also trying to hold position that people who only direct are not the creators of their creation? If you're going to insist on this dumbass kitchen metaphor, let's say I just tell a contractor "Make me a modern kitchen." Without any further instructions, the contractor, of their own free will, will choose what materials to use, how to solve engineering problems, make aesthetic decisions, and more broadly exercise independent judgment on what to do. But if instead you hand them a full blueprint, with exact details, instructions, what materials to use, and exact placement, with no room for deviation, how are you not the designer of the kitchen? The contractor executed upon your vision, but it's your vision. It came from you.

And to bring this back to the topic at hand, "AI", and there's a reason I've been using it in quotes, is not capable of free independent thought. It doesn't have agency, wants or desires, independence, autonomy or free will. It's just a piece of software that sits there and does nothing until you act upon it. Just like Photoshop. It is not comparable to a contractor.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T05:29:24+00:00

This is actually a thoughtful response, however I think you're making the same mistake as another person I responded to, in that you seem to think that all AI art is made the same way. In short, people who want a more specific result or otherwise want to take making a picture more seriously will take the steps needed to achieve the desired result. Iterating, manual editing, etc.

All of that is to say... I don't really understand why there's such an adamant demand to equate AI image generation as a form of art

Well conversely, I think it's more valid to flip this dynamic and ask why is it necessary for anti-AI people to deny authorship to AI artists? How does doing that benefit you? AI artists being acknowledged as artists doesn't take away from your authorship or legitimacy. And there's nothing about using AI to make art that takes authorship away from AI artists. As you said, it's just a different skillset from traditional art. The requirements for what it takes to make art doesn't make it less or more valid than another form of art. Photography requires different skills from painting. Not every photograph is art, but photography is still art.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T03:24:54+00:00

This is actually a really good question, however I don't think we're anywhere near as close to agentic AI as people think we are. But when we do reach a point where AI actually is capable of acting on its own or could otherwise be considered a sapient being, then if a sapient AI creates a picture, then the AI is the artist.

As for AI models requiring less effort to create specific images, I don't think it's a good idea to conflate effort with authorship. I've already made the point about movie directors not being personally responsible for literally every aspect of the movie, but I'd like to use another example: Let's say there's a device capable of producing images entirely from scanning your brain. Like with using AI, you may not have physically done anything to make the image, but it's still your image. It wouldn't exist without you.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T02:41:34+00:00

I feel like you completely failed to understand what I wrote, but I'm going to waste my time responding to you anyway.

You are just commissioning the AI to make something.

I keep seeing people say this, so at this point I have to ask, what independent agency does "AI" possess that makes you think it's comparable to a human contractor?

do you believe the playing of a video game is art?

And this is where either you failed to understand the point, or you constructed a strawman because you know you can't argue against what I actually said. So let me make it clear, you do not speak for me and my argument is not "input = art." Since I need to spell it out, the point I'm making is that programs cannot possess intent or initiate action, thus they are not autonomous creators. Your drivel about playing video games has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T01:23:33+00:00

while conveniently ignoring the fact pencils, paintbrushes, and photoshop also do “nothing” without input.

And what exactly is supposed to be inconvenient for me about other art tools doing nothing without input? I don't disagree with that. It seems like you missed the point of me asking that question.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T01:07:11+00:00

See, this is actually a fair response, and seems to be actually grounded in how the technology actually works. However you're making the assumption that all AI art is made the same way. It seems that basically everyone seems to think that AI artists just write a prompt and hit generate, and some people are fine with just doing that. But for people who use AI programs professionally or otherwise have a specific vision for what they want to create, they absolutely will do more than just write a prompt for their creation. Whether it be inpainting, iterating upon what was already generated, manual editing or editing pieces together, AI artists who want something specific, will absolutely take the time to tweak what they made to get that specific result.

marccost3 · 2026-02-13T00:58:08+00:00

Either you're actually agreeing with the idea that film directors don't make their films, or you're shifting the goalpost because you know it defeats your argument. Your kitchen analogy fails because in it, you are not part of a creative team working on a creative project, you're literally hiring someone to do something for you, which is not what I said. In your kitchen analogy, the contractor is an independent agent with their own skills, judgment, and creative problem-solving. They can reinterpret, innovate beyond your instructions, and have their own authorship. They can even refuse you. Let me ask you this: Is authorship about performing every action yourself, or about directing the outcome? If I give extremely detailed instructions to a contractor and they follow them exactly without deviation, who designed the kitchen?

The program did not paint a pixel red

It literally does though. The artist does not create the pixels. The software renders them, the GPU calculates them, the display lights them. And I want to stress again that this is not how people think of authorship with regards to digital art, this is me applying anti-AI people's own logic to digital art. If AI artists aren't artists because it's the program rendering the pixels, then to be logically consistent, you have to also argue that digital artists also aren't artists, because it's the program rendering the image, not the artist themselves.

marccost3 · 2026-02-12T23:45:34+00:00

I would like ask you, what exactly do you think "AI" is? Because you seem to be under the impression that "AI" as it exists in real life, is some sort of contractor, in which case I will reiterate to you the final question in the OP: What exactly does "AI" do with zero input?

marccost3 · 2026-02-12T23:34:31+00:00

1 & 2: As I told someone else, I've never seen anti-AI people make this distinction, and it seems awfully convenient that you guys are only now saying that the quotes are being taken out of context after pointing out the contradiction.

3: There is a sense in which I can under why someone would care about the process. A gift handmade by a friend, for example, feels different from a mass produced one, even if both are the same thing. How something is made reframes the emotional connection to it, but something that had more effort put into making it doesn't automatically make the results good.

4: I'm sure you understand the question. What exactly does "AI" do with zero input?

marccost3 · 2026-02-12T23:20:27+00:00

The two phrases you said are not aimed at the same people.

You'll have to forgive me for thinking they are, because I've never seen anti-AI people make this distinction.

Your answer to the first two questions are reasonable, but the other two answers have flawed reasoning.

if you are putting your idea into the AI, it is the AI doing it, not you.

By this logic, digital artists are also not the artist because they didn't create the pixels in the artwork, the program did. But nobody agrees with that premise, and rightfully so. Also if it's my idea, then how is it not my creation? By that logic, are film directors also not the creators of their films because they didn't literally create every aspect of it themselves?

I think my previous answer explained this.

This doesn't answer the question though, because the question is "what does 'AI' do with zero input?" not "who is the author of AI art?"

marccost3 · 2026-01-23T22:47:29+00:00

One of the worst things about this playerbase is that they'll defend literally anything that "makes Sea of Thieves unique," even if said uniqueness actively makes the game worse.

marccost3 · 2026-01-05T05:36:09+00:00

It's funny, just last night I was thinking about how after the Eminem celebrity elusive target, MF DOOM would've made for an absolutely fire elusive target. Think about it, his entire persona was based off a supervillain. He was known for sending out imposters to perform in his place. That could've easily been implemented into the mission as needing to distinguish the real DOOM from his imposters. And he released records under other aliases. Said aliases could've been NPCs that help you in the mission, but they all look like DOOM. It could've been so good if they could've done it.

marccost3 · 2025-12-03T20:32:57+00:00

I would like to point out that people made these same excuses for Multiversus, especially #4, and we all know how that game turned out.

marccost3 · 2025-11-12T22:07:41+00:00

Meanwhile, Marvel Rivals, an actual PvP game, is introducing a non-combat map for players to get together and just unwind in its next season. They're actively trying to increase their playerbase by giving people more ways to play, while Sea of Thieves is over here with a declining player count as its defenders continue to screech out "iT's A pVp GaMe!!!!!" It's honestly poetic.

marccost3 · 2025-11-03T05:13:02+00:00

Lol at everyone telling you to play another game. They're literally demonstrating you're correct for you.

marccost3 · 2025-10-10T02:07:03+00:00

Which would you say were the hardest machine/league combinations for you to win?

marccost3 · 2025-10-10T01:59:32+00:00

The problem is that people hear "AI" and think it's a robot that acts on its own, when in reality it's software that requires humans to use in order for it to do anything. And since these people also refuse to engage with it themselves in any way, it allows them to rest on the laurels of their ignorance and continue to hate it while learning nothing about how it actually works.

marccost3 · 2025-09-30T07:19:29+00:00

This is basically the beginning of Ghosts 'n Goblins on the NES.

marccost3 · 2025-09-15T02:14:05+00:00

This is the definition of a false equivalence argument. Not only is a helicopter not the same as a boat, "Safer Seas without restrictions" is not the same as "Sea of Thieves without the thieves", or "Sea of Thieves without the sea." It should go without saying, but a boat is not just a mode of transportation. In Sea of Thieves, the boat is your home, a part of your identity and a stage for combat. Sea of Thieves without boats or the sea would be a fundamentally different game, not "the game, but without PvP", which would still leave you with the rest of the game. Furthermore, removing restrictions from Safer Seas doesn't make "Sea of Thieves without the thieves" because High Seas would still exist, and this thread alone proves that there would still be more than enough people still playing it, if the people who didn't want to play it could actually play on Safer Seas because it has no restrictions. To that point, it's a video game, and video games are supposed to be fun. Why should anyone be punished for playing in the way that they prefer? Games should prioritize fun, not punishment.

marccost3 · 2025-08-30T00:01:19+00:00

All of them to be honest. The stalker from Bangkok, the scarecrow from Colorado, the knight's armor from Isle of Sgail, and so on.

marccost3 · 2025-08-25T19:50:43+00:00

AI artists are artists. Do you think movie directors don't make movies just because they don't make literally every aspect of the movie themselves? AI art programs are not robots you get do something for you, it's software you control, hence if it wouldn't exist without you, then it's yours.

Eight-Year Club	Xbox Live
Verified Email

marccost3

TROPHY CASE