Can you point to where the game is? Was there an interesting story crafted by a game designer for you to experience? Did you have to learn, through world-building and subtle cues developed over decades and your own experience with past games, what actions you can take with your character and how you can navigate the game world? Was there a skill gap that created a challenge and motivation for you to overcome and become good enough at the game to progress through the story and complete the quest? Finally, most important of all, did you have fun?
The answer to all of these questions is "no".
Is it impressive that Nano Banana can generate these images of a Legend of Zelda ripoff with just a few text prompts? Perhaps it is to some, but why not just play an actual Legend of Zelda game? They exist. They are good.
I'm not even saying that a game has to have all or even any of the qualities I mentioned above (they were just some examples off the top of my head). What I do think, however, is that whatever this is it's definitely not a game and you're definitely not playing it.
Exploring the possibilities and limitations of a new technology is fun.
Obviously this is just a quick experiment lacking a whole lot you'd expect from a regular game, but there's also a lot to be curious about and different directions it could be taken in. With a harness could it generate a background, sprites, and collision mask so the player/NPCs can walk around in real-time? Could you limit commands from the player to reasonable actions ("I attempt to kick down the door") without the full god-mode world control? Or alternatively, could you allow a player to act as god of the world dictating changes, with NPCs or other players living within it (like as a tool for DnD)?
> why not just play an actual Legend of Zelda game? They exist. They are good.
One of their posts under "Latest" at the bottom is "Things I appreciate about Ocarina of Time", so presumably they have. Playing a game doesn't mean you can't also play around with experiments like this.
Somehow I thought that would be obvious? Do I really have to preface every bit of AI-related content with a disclaimer that you should not take everything I say pain-stakingly, excruciatingly literal? Was "1 frame a minute" not the slightest hint that I didn't literally believe I was playing a game? Can't we just get to a point where we look at the tech and say "Hey, it's good enough that it's almost like I'm playing with a game, and that's just a natural side-effect of the model being good? Isn't that neat?" Or are you going to well-actually any admission of excitement or interest with "No, you are not excited, it is not a TRUE game, it isn't a 100% accurate simulacrum of a real game!"
Do you really, truly not understand any sense of metaphor or simile? Did you point at Asteroids when it came out and say "this is not the same as being on a spaceship!" Did you look at the first animated movie and say "This isn't the real world!" Obviously this isn't a game! It's its own thing, and whatever it is seems kind of cool.
> Finally, most important of all, did you have fun?
Yes, I did.
Nano Banana is so good that you can use it to play a RPG at 1 frame a minute
Nano Banana is so good that you can use it to "play" a RPG at 1 frame a minute
I think it's reasonable for people to react badly to that.
It feels like if I made a title saying "Make page loads feel instant" and everyone came in to say "actually no, in your post it took 0.2 seconds to load your page, and that's not instant."
(Ok, a bit unfair maybe as OP never demanded the LLM to be consistent)
But it reminded one of the firsts prompts I tried with ChatGPT back in 2022. I asked him to simulate a text-based adventure (based on the discworld universe) and every command I gave it would behave as an open world text RPG. It was pretty mindblowing
Pwntastic•1mo ago