No Artist Credited

[hr][/hr] [table] [tr] [th][b]MY RATING:[/b][/th] [th][b] ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ [/b][/th] [th][b]0 / 10[/b][/th] [/tr] [/table] Yes, it's free, but free doesn't necessarily mean it's good, and in this case, it clearly isn't. For one thing, it's simply not a game and therefore has no place on Steam, and for another, it's just bad AI-generated crap. God knows there are much better AI images that you can view for free without having to go from one room to the next looking at the bad and often similar AI-generated images. [url=]https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3502385338[/url] [url=]https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3502385424 [/url] If you still want to check it out, even if it's neither worth the download nor the time, you should set your mouse to low DPI settings or have a vomit bucket ready, because you can't change the sensitivity, and it's simply way too high (humming top). Since almost no one has been enthusiastic about the "game" so far, its status on Steam is still Profile Features Limited and will probably stay that way. Ergo, the game doesn't count as a +1 for your library, so you can just leave it alone with a clear consci…

"No Artist Credited" is AI slop that's been dumped on Steam as if it was a game, but it's not a game. It's just a virtual art gallery with no art, just some diffusion based AI slop. Not even good AI slop. I thought Valve wasn't allowing AI slop on Steam? I guess they missed this one, and that's a shame. It's not harmless dumping this kind of crap on Steam. It gives indie devs a bad name. It makes it harder for genuine indie devs who did the right thing and made real games for gamers to find their audience, as they have to compete for visibility with this trash. It makes it harder for gamers to find genuinely made games by real artists and real developers. This is "free" enough, at least you won't be expected to spend any more money after you download this, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's good. The poor quality of this game is also reflected by how many people spent time with it. At the time of this review, SteamDB shows the game all-time peak player count was only ONE player. That's right, only one person ever played this at a time. When I played this for the purposes of reviewing it, I equalled the peak player count for the game. OUCH. The only …

⠀

图片重复度太高，有的展厅里面能有四张类似的图。即使是AI画的也太敷衍了，起码给点不同的提示词啊。 (The repetition of images is too high, with some exhibition halls having four similar pictures. Even if they are AI-generated, it's too perfunctory. At least give some different prompt words. Translated with ChatGPT)

A simple yet evocative museum which exhibits a poignant collection of AI generated artworks. Each room features a description by the developers that explains the themes of each group in homage to the way traditional museums describe the intent of human artists. However, every piece has the same attribution - no artist credited. One comes to wonder if this is the future of artwork; creations on the walls of digital halls made by artificial artists can only be interpreted by humans as we appreciate on the sidelines. This simple game is an effective commentary on the future of art and design for a species on the cusp of a controvertible new technology.

Deadbug's principal effort provides an opportunity to reflect on questions surrounding the relation of art, images, AI, and humans. It is important to note that this title doesn’t seem to attempt to provide us with any definitive answers regarding the nature of art or its relation to AI, but rather from the opening lobby we are invited to consider “the questions AI raises about what it means to be an artist and a creator in an ever-evolving digital world.” I suspect that many people have an immediate answer to whether or not they consider images generated by AI to be art. What is perhaps more important than that answer (or at least more important than having an immediate answer) is considering what art is in the first place and *why* that’s the case. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to have the attribute of being art? What are the requisite components of art? The creator? The intent? Quality? Beauty? Emotive force? Display of skill? The ability to elicit a reaction? Accessibility? Perceived value? If we’re able to come to a working agreement/understanding on what art is in the first place, is there room for that definition to change over time? If imag…