Neil Druckmann Has No Business Pushing Generative AI

May 29, 2024

46 3 minutes read

Untitled design6 — 10 neil druckmann has no business pushing generative ai.jpg

A whole news cycle about Neil Druckmann’s recent comments has come and gone, and I’m still mad about it. In an interview published by Sony, Druckmann allegedly made some controversial comments, saying that Naughty Dog’s new game could “redefine the mainstream perceptions of gaming” and that AI would “revolutionise how content is being created”, helping to “reduce costs and technical hurdles”.

Is it strange that I’m using the word ‘allegedly’ in reference to an interview that should be using Druckmann’s own words? Yes. But it turns out that he never said the former statement at all, and that Sony had misquoted him, inadvertently causing a discourse firestorm because of its bad phrasing and, in some instances, outright fabrication.

Because of this, I can’t be sure that his statements about AI are his own words either, but considering he hasn’t come out on social media to clarify these statements the way he did about the other misquote, I’m assuming that this wasn’t a misrepresentation.

Assuming it’s true, I must say: et tu, Druckmann?

This Isn’t Out Of The Ordinary For Execs…

This is far from the first time we’ve seen people in the video game industry say that generative AI is the future of game development. In November 2023, Xbox partnered with Inworld to “build AI game dialogue and narrative tools”, with the intention of delivering “state-of-the-art AI tools for game developers of any size”. Bobby Kotick even wants to use generative AI to spearhead a new Guitar Hero.

Ubisoft leaned hard into the technology when it revealed the first generative AI NPC, and everybody hated it because it sucked. EA’s CEO said that 60 percent of its “development processes” could be affected by generative AI tools one week after EA laid off five percent of its staff. The list goes on.

… But It’s Egregious For Druckmann To Say This

Druckmann seems to believe generative AI can “create nuanced dialogues and characters, expanding creative possibilities” as long as people “precisely direct these tools to achieve the intended outcomes”. He briefly mentions “ethical issues” with no elaboration, spending most of the interview extolling that AI can revolutionise development processes and “empower creators to bring their visions to life”.

Perhaps I’m just not jaded and cynical enough, but I didn’t expect Neil Druckmann of all people to throw in with the companies pushing generative AI. The Last of Us and its sequel are renowned for their stories and writing, and that’s what garnered them so much cultural clout and recognition as some of the best games of their respective generations.

They tell extraordinarily human stories, created in collaboration with talented writers and directors that are overlooked in favour of the cult of personality so often built around ‘auteurs’. ‘Precise direction’ isn’t the same as having personal, creative input from multiple passionate writers. Also, imagine if Druckmann was left to his own devices – we might have gotten The Last of Us, but misogynistic.

Fun fact: auteurs don’t exist in triple-A gaming. Games are intensely collaborative projects, and no one person can or should control every aspect of a game that size.

I’m particularly interested in how other developers, fans, and industry professionals have reacted. Dragon Age setting creator David Gaider said that it seems that Druckmann believes “the only thing preventing AI from improving on Naughty Dog’s own writers, apparently, is the ability to provide it nuanced direction” and that his statements ignore the value of collaboration. YouTuber and writer Jacob Geller said, “Naughty Dog diving into AI because it can’t find human workers to grind into the dirt anymore”. Josh Sawyer, the director of Fallout 76 and Pentiment, simply posted this.

It’s incredibly bleak to see the face of a company like Naughty Dog claim that AI can “enhance storytelling” and essentially do a better job than human writers, especially when you consider that generative AI in its current state definitely doesn’t have the capability to do that. Maybe, in a couple of years, Druckmann will be proven right, and he’ll finally be able to shed the shackles of having to deal with human employees who don’t want to crunch and say his ideas come off as problematic. Who’s to say?