I actually wrote something about this in a review

YES

Hey, congrats! That's awesome.

Have a good one yourself, Des

Excellent, excellent work.

I do say so, because it's factually incorrect to say it's "half the review". There's like a paragraph's worth of words that amounts to what you call "a rundown of how the studio uses AI", and what follows is the reviewer explaining how he feels that compromises the game.

I mean, that's just not true. In any case, the point is that the specific use of AI is thematically relevant. Also that whole section begins by saying "while I am deeply sceptical of AI use in game development, it's important to emphasise the nuances at play here".

Ah yes, the old "AI is here to stay so we'd best just get used to it instead of bothering to ever call it out" argument.

But then you seem to be confusing the purpose of a review by calling it out for "bad reporting" in the first place.

You do realise you're contradicting yourself here, right? What you're saying is essentially: "I have no problem with the thesis of the review, I just have a problem with the reviewer omitting a specific fact which to my mind negates the thesis of the review."

Again, that fact matters little to the thesis of the review. The point is, as the review says, it's a game "about the tragedy of humans being replaced by robots" that replaces humans with robots. Thus, it is artistically compromised.

I mean, you're completely moving the goalposts now. You were pointing the finger saying "this is bad reporting" (about an opinion) and being incredibly condescending towards the writer, clearly intimating that he wasn't aware of how this tech was being used

That has no bearing on the thesis of the review. It also mentions "re-hiring actors", so the writer demonstrably understands that fact

Yeah, because there's definitely no way you could plan any of that stuff in advance and write/record dialogue accordingly. Also, the point is that it is the humans that make this game special, and the writer believes that they (and in turn the game) are devalued by the use of this tech.

You don't know, is the point. You're just assuming that they were totally fine with it, and equally that their decision to allow their work to be used this way should be respected

As someone who found the 'twist' in Before Your Eyes ruinously mawkish and manipulative, I'm alarmed at the suggestion that this is *more* sentimental

The point is totally valid, particularly as it pertains to the game's narrative elements and how it compromises them. This stuff is a slippery slope, and the reviewer calling it out is completely fair. It's fine to disagree, but intimating it's down to a lack of education is wildly condescending.

Think you missed the line: "Carving up human voices and reassembling them like a digital Victor Frankenstein". And how many of those actors felt pressured into giving Embark permission to use those tools because they needed the work? Feels like you're making excuses because you like the game.