Support NeoGAF

[HRK69]

How about this? Made with just a text prompt.

 

[Meicyn]

I bet that you wouldn't even notice that they have used AI for concept art in the final game.

So who fucking cares? It's not like they are adding completely AI generated art into the game. And even then, if it looks good, I don't care.

People should stop caring about how the sausage gets made and start caring about judging the final product instead

Funny that you used a food analogy, because I actually do care how the sausage gets made. I literally own a meat grinder, guess what I use it for?

I'm not even an anti-AI guy, so your reply to me is kinda weird since it seems to be made absent context of what I said just a few posts earlier in the thread.

 

[Hugare]

Funny that you used a food analogy, because I actually do care how the sausage gets made. I literally own a meat grinder, guess what I use it for?

I'm not even an anti-AI guy, so your reply to me is kinda weird since it seems to be made absent context of what I said just a few posts earlier in the thread.

Sure, but I bet that you don't know how most food you've ingested got made, tho.

But I admit that I haven't looked up your other posts, I was just answering that one specifically. And I'm sorry If I was overly arrogant, but I'm kinda tired about how people are overreacting about the use of AI.

Are people this active about other aspects of their lives and what they consume? Should I be aware and baffled by how much electricity and heat was generated by Avatar's CGI?

Larian was just using it for concept art and they had to deal with a shitstorm. It's ridiculous.

 

[lughnasadh123]

so there'll be like this big, disgusting splotch right in front?...

And the sound of shitting a caboose.

 

[lh032]

this studio talk too much, they better dont screw up the next game lol

 

[Lord Panda]

AI isn't the death of creativity, it's a force multiplier.

In our SecDevOps stack it lets us punch way above our weight and ship more with fewer resources, especially time.

I'm a firm believer that AI will give indie / small creators the ability to produce far beyond their means, ironically eroding the monopoly of the tech giants and the media and publishing conglomerates.

As I said in the other thread, Swen should've just gone full Les Grossman and told the AI pearl-clutchers to fuck off.

 

[Lux77]

This is just PR BS

 

[kpopSuperstar]

Because AI is not sentient.... As simple as that.

That makes no sense, art is not experienced based on what made it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

That makes no sense, art is not experienced based on what made it.

You are talking about AI creating "art"; you are talking about the creation of art, not the one experiencing it.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

You are talking about AI creating "art"; you are talking about the creation of art, not the one experiencing it.

So you think it can be experienced as art, but it can't create art because its not sentient?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So you think it can be experienced as art, but it can't create art because its not sentient?

That would be a contradiction.

There is no such thing as AI "art" ; therefore, it can't be experienced as such.

If AI gains consciousness/metacognition; sentience. We could start taking about actual AI art.

Now, if you wanna be pragmatic and argue about someone getting catharsis experiencing AI "art"... What you are really saying is:

Someone can experience catharsis when engaging with something that uses generative AI (partially or completely). The driving force behind it is still human, tho. This is no different from using a digital audio workstation to make music with samples, or from digital painting using Photoshop

So, can someone experience catharsis from something created using modern tools and technology? Yes, because the driving force behind it is sentient.

 

[Draugoth]

You are talking about AI creating "art"; you are talking about the creation of art, not the one experiencing it.

Plus, I don't think a true sentient AI would like humans ordering us it around to make random pictures.

 

[hyperbertha]

If the novel is good I would read it, but I don't think they can make a full novel without the AI taint just yet, but they can with pictures.

In the past, instruments needed skill to be used, and producing sounds with programs would be seen as anti-music by many, unnatural.

Novels and stories are ultimately about the human condition. How can you read a story written by something that has no way of understanding the human condition? The same goes for art. All good art is about translating the human experience to the medium, whether canvas, or aurally. But then again I'm one of those people who can never enjoy corporate slop like avengers, modern hollywood etc. People who watch such crap, I understand will do just fine with AI.

 

[hyperbertha]

Sure, but I bet that you don't know how most food you've ingested got made, tho.

But I admit that I haven't looked up your other posts, I was just answering that one specifically. And I'm sorry If I was overly arrogant, but I'm kinda tired about how people are overreacting about the use of AI.

Are people this active about other aspects of their lives and what they consume? Should I be aware and baffled by how much electricity and heat was generated by Avatar's CGI?

Larian was just using it for concept art and they had to deal with a shitstorm. It's ridiculous.

Never understood why people compare food, clothing etc with art. Art is the one thing where we need the human element behind it. I'm okay with wearing clothes made by machines. I'm not okay reading a story written by an LLM.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

That would be a contradiction.

There is no such thing as AI "art" ; therefore, it can't be experienced as such.

If AI gains consciousness/metacognition; sentience. We could start taking about actual AI art.

Now, if you wanna be pragmatic and argue about someone getting catharsis experiencing AI "art"... What you are really saying is:

Someone can experience catharsis when engaging with something that uses generative AI (partially or completely). The driving force behind it is still human, tho. This is no different from using a digital audio workstation to make music with samples, or from digital painting using Photoshop

So, can someone experience catharsis from something created using modern tools and technology? Yes, because the driving force behind it is sentient.

You start by saying it's not art, but you end with saying it's a tool like any other, driven by a human.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

Novels and stories are ultimately about the human condition. How can you read a story written by something that has no way of understanding the human condition? The same goes for art. All good art is about translating the human experience to the medium, whether canvas, or aurally. But then again I'm one of those people who can never enjoy corporate slop like avengers, modern hollywood etc. People who watch such crap, I understand will do just fine with AI.

But if you don't know who created the novel, it won't matter. I could give you a novel and tell you it's human-made and you might love it, but as soon as I said I lied, you would dislike it? aren't you just lying to yourself then?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You start by saying it's not art, but you end with saying it's a tool like any other, driven by a human.

AI can't act by its own volition. Just like any other software/tool.

There is also a very important aspect:

For art to be art, needs to create catharsis.

So, just because a human creates a pretty painting, drawing, sculpture, or melody, it doesn't automatically mean it can be considered art

 

[kpopSuperstar]

AI can't act by its own volition. Just like any other software/tool.

There is also a very important aspect:

For art to be art, needs to create catharsis.

So, just because a human creates a pretty painting, drawing, sculpture, or melody, it doesn't automatically mean it can be considered art

But if it's driven by a human, and it can create catharsis (which is not a "requirement"), then how is it not real art? isen't prompts human design, why isen't the result then art? you said it's not art because it's not made by a sentient being. Are you saying a picture needs to be physically drawn by hand or mouse to be real art?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

But if it's driven by a human, and it can create catharsis (which is not a "requirement"),

then how is it not real art?

It is the most important requirement. Even for humans; otherwise will just be an artistic expression.

isen't prompts human design, why isen't the result then art?

Art is design because it is meant to communicate something to elicit catharsis. But design is not art because, while it is meant to communicate something, it does so in a utilitarian/pragmatic way; focused on function.

If you are defining a prompt as "human desing" then is not even art to beging with.

you said it's not art because it's not made by a sentient being

And art needs to create catharsis

. Are you saying a picture needs to be physically drawn by hand or mouse to be real art?

If AI gains consciousness/metacognition; sentience. We could start taking about actual AI art

This is no different from using a digital audio workstation to make music with samples,

(not even playing a real instrument)

For something to be "Real Art"

The driving force has to be/have:

Sentient: the ability to experience feelings (emotionally and physically)

consciousness: to be aware as a physical being situated in reality, with moral agency

Metacognition: the ability to think about thinking

 

[Knight of the Round]

Are people this active about other aspects of their lives and what they consume? Should I be aware and baffled by how much electricity and heat was generated by Avatar's CGI?

Larian was just using it for concept art and they had to deal with a shitstorm. It's ridiculous.

Can you imagine someone going to a head chef and telling him, "You started the fire for the cooking not on your own, but by using an artificial heat created by the stove. That immediately made you lose some of my respect for your work.

Novels and stories are ultimately about the human condition. How can you read a story written by something that has no way of understanding the human condition?

Prompt:

[Sinestra wakes up in the middle of the night, the sound of her window opening. It's Cloud, and he has a talk with Sinestra, explaining why Tifa did what she did, why Cloud and Barret had her spy on the crone, and what Tifa now really thought of Sinestra.]

(This is what the A.I. wrote with this prompt)

--------------------

Chapter Thirteen: The Visitor in the Night

The wind outside Midgar howled like a dying machine.

Sinestra stirred in her bed, disturbed by the sound of her window unlocking with a faint click.

She sat up sharply, eyes narrowed, one hand reaching for the call button.

"I wouldn't," came a voice in the shadows.

Cloud stepped out of the darkness, standing at the edge of her ornate bedroom. His sword was not drawn, but he stood with the weight of someone who could end a fight before it began.

Sinestra's breath caught. "You. The mercenary."

Cloud gave a slight nod.

"I'm not here to hurt you."

"You broke into my home."

"I'm here for Tifa."

The old woman's fingers curled around her cane, though she didn't rise from the bed. Her silver-white hair glowed faintly in the moonlight, casting long shadows across her sunken cheeks.

"She lied to me," Sinestra said coldly. "Everything she said—her name, her work, her reasons for being here. All of it."

Cloud stepped closer. His eyes, always distant, softened just slightly.

"She lied because we asked her to," he said.

Sinestra blinked.

"She didn't want to. We were the ones who didn't trust you. We thought you were just another tyrant in the long line of tyrants. Another monster hiding behind promises of reform."

He paused.

"But she didn't see a monster."

Sinestra turned her face away, shadows hiding her expression.

"Tifa came to spy," Cloud continued. "But she stayed because she believed in you. She kept defending you—even when we doubted. She saw who you really were. And that scared her more than anything."

 

[nowhat]

I use AI on a daily basis as a software developer and it is a very effective tool, but it still needs people telling it what it needs to do. In a lot of ways it is like an incredibly useful idiot.

I'd argue that in addition, you'll have to be competent enough to verify that the code AI outputs does in fact do what was requested, without introducing any unwanted side-effects. "Trust, but verify" as the saying goes. It's great for "scaffolding code" if $FRAMEWORK requires certain conventions be followed though. Old man yells at a cloud time: I feel kinda sad for the aspiring programmers these days, they seem to rely on AI far too much. Sure, you can get your coursework done way quicker, even if you'll have to spend some extra time to make the result look like "totally not created by an AI, I swear!" But in doing so, you're doing your future self a disservice.

(And at least personally, while the course has not benefited me in my professional career in any way, the most fun I had at uni was algorithm programming. Instead of for example just using a particular sorting algorithm from a library, you implement it yourself. In ANSI C, making sure that there are no segfaults or memory leaks, and also trying to make it as performant as possible. That shit was fun!)

 

[niilokin]

How about this? Made with just a text prompt.

Looks like just another soulless computer generated stock image to me... art is expression and a craft, every individual piece of art having it's own unique human style and touch, while this is a conveyor belt product from the same mold as billion other similar images. Sure there must be some visual value to it but one should ask do they regard something so sought after by commercial departments to generate more and more $$$ as art.

 

[Sentenza]

The argument if "AI art" should count as genuine art is really fucking stupid, because the only correct answer is that it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

The issue is if generative AI can be an useful production tool, not if it pass an arbitrary certification of authenticity.

Can it be reliably used to get results?

If a developer can get GOOD and usable 3D assets made out of a concept art or if it can obtain good quality motion capture and animate 3D models just by feeding a video to an algorithm rather than spending thousands in equipment and mo-cap sessions, I want to hear a SENSIBLE argument against it that it isn't just the retarded "it will take someone's job ".

If, say, a developer like Owlcat can have voiced lines and a customized portrait for every single minor NPC in their next RPG because it uses some form of AI, I'll take that over having a mute character with a question mark as portrait.

Is procedural generation of terrain, dynamic lightmapling, physical based rendering or the use of SpeedTree to generate vegetation real art?
Is automated lip-sync real art?

Does anyone without pink hair and "pronouns in bio" genuinely give a fuck?
Why?

 

[Soodanim]

It is the most important requirement. Even for humans; otherwise will just be an artistic expression.



Art is design because it is meant to communicate something to elicit catharsis. But design is not art because, while it is meant to communicate something, it does so in a utilitarian/pragmatic way; focused on function.

If you are defining a prompt as "human desing" then is not even art to beging with.



And art needs to create catharsis




(not even playing a real instrument)

For something to be "Real Art"

The driving force has to be/have:

Sentient: the ability to experience feelings (emotionally and physically)

consciousness: to be aware as a physical being situated in reality, with moral agency

Metacognition: the ability to think about thinking

I'm willing to bet that the crux of this discussion is the varying definitions of what art is. Some are giving it attributes that others might not agree with.

Art is ultimately subjective, so one person's assertion of what art has to be or do can't apply to everyone.

For some, an AI that draws upon previous works and puts together an aesthetically pleasing image will be acceptable because they aren't looking for deeper meaning or to feel something. Someone isn't wrong to like what they like.

 

[Knight of the Round]

I'm willing to bet that the crux of this discussion is the varying definitions of what art is. Some are giving it attributes that others might not agree with.

Yup. Some people think that taping a banana to a wall with scotch tape is apparently art. I think it's fucking horseshit.

 

[OGM_Madness]

People losing their minds over AI usage in E33 and the whole controversy following Larian's comments on using AI will have the exact opposite effect those people wanted:

Soon, all gaming companies will use AI the same as any other industry and they'll simply not disclose it. I don't have to tell anyone my email asking for a meeting was partially written with AI. Like wise, if the author of a piece of art used some sort of AI to complete or draft the image and then fixed it up and signed it, is it still AI? Is it AI because he said so? Or is it not because he didn't disclose how the sausage got made?

This AI witch hunt will simply result in less transparency with gaming developers. Woo. Hoo. An industry known for working in the shadows just turned their lights off.

 

[Knight of the Round]

People losing their minds over AI usage in E33 and the whole controversy following Larian's comments on using AI will have the exact opposite effect those people wanted:

Soon, all gaming companies will use AI the same as any other industry and they'll simply not disclose it. I don't have to tell anyone my email asking for a meeting was partially written with AI. Like wise, if the author of a piece of art used some sort of AI to complete or draft the image and then fixed it up and signed it, is it still AI? Is it AI because he said so? Or is it not because he didn't disclose how the sausage got made?

This AI witch hunt will simply result in less transparency with gaming developers. Woo. Hoo. An industry known for working in the shadows just turned their lights off.

The entire thing being a controversy is just so insane to me. Why deprive developers from tools that make their jobs easier? "No, you motherfucker, I want you to waste an entire week of gaming development in order to design a wolf's head yourself on the tip of the hilt of the sword the foot soldiers carry. Otherwise you're just 'making slop' if you tell a computer to make that wolf head and put it on the hilt."

 

[ahtlas7]

tweet generated by ai?

 

[Polaris]

You start by saying it's not art, but you end with saying it's a tool like any other, driven by a human.

Unless you wanna call the actual Adobe Photoshop software, a pencil, or a chisel "art", then no.
It's not art.

 

[OLED_Gamer]

The movement against AI is going to be as effective as standing in front of a train with your hand up.

I'm just going to keep saying MicroSlop just because Nadella hates it. Its not much, but it just feels right.

 

[Parazels]

Why make such unrealistic statements?

Sooner or later they will have to admit they used AI tools and walk back their own claim!

 

[Zeusexy]

No, it's not about being a mob or a faction. Personally, I want creativity to remain human. AI wasn't meant to be used like this. We will inevitably come to a future in which entertainment will be 100% automated. Think about it, we're 2-3 years in and publishers already go all in on AI slop content.
Is this really the future you want for gaming?

 

[Knight of the Round]

Is this really the future you want for gaming?

I want a future where developers are allowed to use whatever tools they have and need at their disposal to make the best game they can make, without the need to overwork themselves, and without online mobs asking for their heads for doing so.

 

[simpatico]

How do these companies still not learn that no amount of pandering to the lunatics will be enough? Now you've just given them a taste of blood and some inspiration that they can continue to get what they want with these tantrums. Larian now deserves the fate coming to them.

 

[ContrarianAsshole]

AI isn't the death of creativity, it's a force multiplier.

In our SecDevOps stack it lets us punch way above our weight and ship more with fewer resources, especially time.

I'm a firm believer that AI will give indie / small creators the ability to produce far beyond their means, ironically eroding the monopoly of the tech giants and the media and publishing conglomerates.

As I said in the other thread, Swen should've just gone full Les Grossman and told the AI pearl-clutchers to fuck off.

But developing concepts is the first stage of creativity, isn't it? In fact these days when people talk about creativity, most of them aren't even referring to a whole process, but rather the part where the artist comes up with ideas.

 

[Knight of the Round]

But developing concepts is the first stage of creativity, isn't it? In fact these days when people talk about creativity, most of them aren't even referring to a whole process, but rather the part where the artist comes up with ideas.

Human artists use somebody else's ideas as a framework for their own stuff since the dawn of time, without giving them any compensation for it. How is A.I. any different?

Instead of taking Deathstroke as inspiration for Deadpool, Rob Liefield today could have used A.I. to give him inspiration or ideas by giving the prompt 'anti-super hero dressed in spandex' or something, and then working on and expanding on one of the ideas the A.I. offered.

 

[ContrarianAsshole]

Human artists use somebody else's ideas as a framework for their own stuff since the dawn of time, without giving them any compensation for it. How is A.I. any different?

Instead of taking Deathstroke as inspiration for Deadpool, Rob Liefield today could have used A.I. to give him inspiration or ideas by giving the prompt 'anti-super hero dressed in spandex' or something, and then working on and expanding on one of the ideas the A.I. offered.

It's not about compensation or stealing, if that was the case people would not be talking about the death of human creativity. Sure, artists use heavy inspiration from other artists, to use an euphemism (good artists copy, great artists steal and all), but even looking around, searching for inspiration is a creative process, something that still takes time, something that, when you find it and the pieces fit, you feel in intense sense of accomplishment because even stumbling on inspiration that sets you on a breakthrough is rare in itself. You need to know what you're looking for, you need to be persistent, you need to be devoted and engrossed to a field before you know what to search for. And at the very least you're copying another human, not a machine.

 

[Sentenza]

How do these companies still not learn that no amount of pandering to the lunatics will be enough? Now you've just given them a taste of blood and some inspiration that they can continue to get what they want with these tantrums. Larian now deserves the fate coming to them.

Yeah, I agree. Their biggest mistake from the beginning was acknowledging validating these complaints.
Case in point: the Resetera thread about this AMA is full of morons patting each other on the back and repeating "Bullying actually works" every two replies.

 

[simpatico]

Yeah, I agree. Their biggest mistake from the beginning was acknowledging validating these complaints.
Case in point: the Resetera thread about this AMA is full of morons patting each other on the back and repeating "Bullying actually works" every two replies.

Here's this great tool to help crunch culture and the cost of making a game! "ban it"

 

[Knight of the Round]

Here's this great tool to help crunch culture and the cost of making a game! "ban it"

Which brings me back to my favorite conclusion: These people do not want solutions to problems, they just want to complain about problems. Because if problems were solved, there would be nothing to complain about. And complaining is the only thing they like doing.

For them, a world deprived of problems is like a world deprived of oxygen.

 

[simpatico]

Which brings me back to my favorite conclusion: These people do not want solutions to problems, they just want to complain about problems. Because if problems were solved, there would be nothing to complain about. And complaining is the only thing they like doing.

For them, a world deprived of problems is like a world deprived of oxygen.

Solve it but differently. The narrative has to make me feel warm and heroic.

 

[SportsFan581]

The movement against AI is going to be as effective as standing in front of a train with your hand up.

Exactly. It's always going to be the quality of the work in the end. If the end-user can't tell, nobody cares. If the game has slop graphics/animations, no one will buy it.

 

[Zeusexy]

I want a future where developers are allowed to use whatever tools they have and need at their disposal to make the best game they can make, without the need to overwork themselves, and without online mobs asking for their heads for doing so.

Wake up. At this rate, there's not gonna be any developer left. Publishers are only using AI to save money and profit more. The future you want is a fairytale.

 

[No Banana]

Larian can't possibly be the "worst offender" in using A.I., but it's just one of the biggest targets that would actually care to respond (Microsoft would just do a stream of AI responses to placate the masses).

Larian catering to the people crying out, though, isn't going to help them much. Placating the screamers won't keep them quiet, it'll just make them louder and more demanding.

 

[Zeusexy]

Here's this great tool to help crunch culture and the cost of making a game! "ban it"

You are delusional. Help crunch, lol. In 5 years all big studios will be composed of a maximum of 50 outsourced indians monitoring AI. That's the way the industry operates. And if you think otherwise, you're not thinking hard enough or fail to see the big picture.

 

[hyperbertha]

But if you don't know who created the novel, it won't matter. I could give you a novel and tell you it's human-made and you might love it, but as soon as I said I lied, you would dislike it? aren't you just lying to yourself then?

It doesn't look like you've ever read a good novel, if you think an AI will replicate a good story without understanding what it feels to be human and having lived and felt the same emotions. Storytelling like most art forms come from lived experience. How will an AI replicate that? But for the sake of debate, lets assume it somehow manages to trick me. Even if an AI manages to perfectly replicate the human experience to the point it fools me into thinking its human made, the moment I learn its AI, just like my previous music example, I'll lose the emotional enjoyment and will no longer look at the novel fondly, and it will stop giving me the warm memories I get when i think about novels like harry potter. But why are we debating impossible cases? You are not going to trick me into reading an AI novel. I'm not going to go seeking for AI novels.

 

[hyperbertha]

Can you imagine someone going to a head chef and telling him, "You started the fire for the cooking not on your own, but by using an artificial heat created by the stove. That immediately made you lose some of my respect for your work.

Prompt:

[Sinestra wakes up in the middle of the night, the sound of her window opening. It's Cloud, and he has a talk with Sinestra, explaining why Tifa did what she did, why Cloud and Barret had her spy on the crone, and what Tifa now really thought of Sinestra.]

(This is what the A.I. wrote with this prompt)

--------------------

Chapter Thirteen: The Visitor in the Night

The wind outside Midgar howled like a dying machine.

Sinestra stirred in her bed, disturbed by the sound of her window unlocking with a faint click.

She sat up sharply, eyes narrowed, one hand reaching for the call button.

"I wouldn't," came a voice in the shadows.

Cloud stepped out of the darkness, standing at the edge of her ornate bedroom. His sword was not drawn, but he stood with the weight of someone who could end a fight before it began.

Sinestra's breath caught. "You. The mercenary."

Cloud gave a slight nod.

"I'm not here to hurt you."

"You broke into my home."

"I'm here for Tifa."

The old woman's fingers curled around her cane, though she didn't rise from the bed. Her silver-white hair glowed faintly in the moonlight, casting long shadows across her sunken cheeks.

"She lied to me," Sinestra said coldly. "Everything she said—her name, her work, her reasons for being here. All of it."

Cloud stepped closer. His eyes, always distant, softened just slightly.

"She lied because we asked her to," he said.

Sinestra blinked.

"She didn't want to. We were the ones who didn't trust you. We thought you were just another tyrant in the long line of tyrants. Another monster hiding behind promises of reform."

He paused.

"But she didn't see a monster."

Sinestra turned her face away, shadows hiding her expression.

"Tifa came to spy," Cloud continued. "But she stayed because she believed in you. She kept defending you—even when we doubted. She saw who you really were. And that scared her more than anything."

What the fuck are you trying to say?

 

[Knight of the Round]

What the fuck are you trying to say?

That the A.I. is actually very decent at writing literature.

 

[N30RYU]

Use it as you see fit... is another tool

 

[BbMajor7th]

Can you imagine someone going to a head chef and telling him, "You started the fire for the cooking not on your own, but by using an artificial heat created by the stove. That immediately made you lose some of my respect for your work.

Prompt:

[Sinestra wakes up in the middle of the night, the sound of her window opening. It's Cloud, and he has a talk with Sinestra, explaining why Tifa did what she did, why Cloud and Barret had her spy on the crone, and what Tifa now really thought of Sinestra.]

(This is what the A.I. wrote with this prompt)

--------------------

Chapter Thirteen: The Visitor in the Night

The wind outside Midgar howled like a dying machine.

Sinestra stirred in her bed, disturbed by the sound of her window unlocking with a faint click.

She sat up sharply, eyes narrowed, one hand reaching for the call button.

"I wouldn't," came a voice in the shadows.

Cloud stepped out of the darkness, standing at the edge of her ornate bedroom. His sword was not drawn, but he stood with the weight of someone who could end a fight before it began.

Sinestra's breath caught. "You. The mercenary."

Cloud gave a slight nod.

"I'm not here to hurt you."

"You broke into my home."

"I'm here for Tifa."

The old woman's fingers curled around her cane, though she didn't rise from the bed. Her silver-white hair glowed faintly in the moonlight, casting long shadows across her sunken cheeks.

"She lied to me," Sinestra said coldly. "Everything she said—her name, her work, her reasons for being here. All of it."

Cloud stepped closer. His eyes, always distant, softened just slightly.

"She lied because we asked her to," he said.

Sinestra blinked.

"She didn't want to. We were the ones who didn't trust you. We thought you were just another tyrant in the long line of tyrants. Another monster hiding behind promises of reform."

He paused.

"But she didn't see a monster."

Sinestra turned her face away, shadows hiding her expression.

"Tifa came to spy," Cloud continued. "But she stayed because she believed in you. She kept defending you—even when we doubted. She saw who you really were. And that scared her more than anything."

Honestly, that's not great, but then neither is most writing in films, games and television these days. It suffers from the same ticks modern authors do: particularly the use of cinematic language in a prose setting. Notice how everything is a description of some visual detail, character movement or a line of dialogue? That's cinema. 'Cloud stepped out the darkness' is classic reveal shot that turns up in movies all the time. You don't need this in literature: you're a narrator, you can explain things in simple terms without using visual shorthand to imply it (those techniques were developed by filmmakers to close the gap).

Most modern writers struggle to separate the two. In prose you can say:

'Howard's room was freezing - barely above thirty degrees. An icy blizzard had swept into New England after midnight. It had rode a polar vortex from the tip of Greenland, through Portland and Providence, before plunging the whole of New Hampshire into a deep chill that stole beneath Howard's tired duvet every time he moved. It's what his brother Benny - who died in the late summer of 1982 - would have called 'an Arctic bitch slap'.

Most modern writers wouldn't do that, they'd go with something like:

'The thermometer that hung above Howard's bed read 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Howard lay huddled beneath his sheets trembling, his breath stammering from his lips in a white fog. Across the room a news broadcaster danced like a puppet in front of a map of New England, gesticulating wildly to a series of thick blue arrows sweeping in from the coast.'

The first one can only work in prose; the second one you could film easily, because it's borrowing cinematic language to communicate things visually in a medium that doesn't require it. Some people are so accustomed to it now, that they'd probably prefer the second version, but the first is using prose to do things that film can't and, to my mind, you should always work to leverage a medium's greatest strengths.