Excited to announce v(1.0) of Digi, the future of AI Romantic Companionship, for IOS and Android 🤖Site: http://digi.aiTwitter: @digiaiapp A quick thread on features, and where we go from here (1/13)
I write characters for a dating sim and reading this is making me reconsider my life choices. I’ve fought against having the characters be summed up like this, with a single sentence of “attractive” qualities like they’re just a product for sale at a market, but this is sending a chill down my spine anyway. Am I contributing to this same system? Am I actively pushing people into parasocial relationships with characters who are just a collection of “attractive” traits? I try to give them actual character but at the end of the day the goal is to simulate a relationship. My initial goals with the project were to actively go against the grain of how most of these sorts of games function, where it is less of a “reach a threshold of 1000 love points and unlock the next stage of the relationship” thing and more of an organic thing, where the player spends time with the characters. But I’m just not sure if I can actively challenge the conventions of the genre while remaining within it. This is a project I do to pay my bills, so if I have to choose between what I want and what the audience wants I have to do what they want. And they want this. Boiling people down to a series of simplistic RPG style values with a predictability, a “solvability” sort of thing, where you just say the “right thing” and you “win” the relationship. I’ve been unable to escape it.
I started this project to try and help the sort of people who play these sorts of games, to emphasise that forming a relationship isn’t about filling up an RPG style experience bar, or grinding on skills to get them to a high enough level, but instead to emphasise the organic nature of forming a connection with someone, that there isn’t some magical formula to do so. I’ve resisted showing off the player’s “stats” or some kind of “love meter” or something with the characters the whole time, despite it being one of the most common requests. I’m always shifting between wanting to make this something great and wanting to make this something that the audience loves. If I actively try to challenge the conventions of the genre the project will fail. If I actively just follow what people want, it will be empty and soulless and I won’t be proud of my work. It’s an awful balancing act and I hate it. I wish I could just have it be something that the audience wants without all this baggage and RPG-ification of relationships.
Sorry, this is very random out of place rant, just seeing these character AIs being shown off like this made me feel a lot of things.
the girlfriends have business astrology integrated
If your name is Raven, The Goth DM me. I know about systemic racism
Big Data Goth GF
astrology = birthday racism, Meyers-Briggs = business astrology
You love to see it
Business astrology. I like that one. More percise than my description.
“Business astrology” is now part of my lexicon.
They really didn’t proof their ad copy did they
I mean, they copied and pasted two of the descriptions, too, so at least they’re saving some costs on the grift
I write characters for a dating sim and reading this is making me reconsider my life choices. I’ve fought against having the characters be summed up like this, with a single sentence of “attractive” qualities like they’re just a product for sale at a market, but this is sending a chill down my spine anyway. Am I contributing to this same system? Am I actively pushing people into parasocial relationships with characters who are just a collection of “attractive” traits? I try to give them actual character but at the end of the day the goal is to simulate a relationship. My initial goals with the project were to actively go against the grain of how most of these sorts of games function, where it is less of a “reach a threshold of 1000 love points and unlock the next stage of the relationship” thing and more of an organic thing, where the player spends time with the characters. But I’m just not sure if I can actively challenge the conventions of the genre while remaining within it. This is a project I do to pay my bills, so if I have to choose between what I want and what the audience wants I have to do what they want. And they want this. Boiling people down to a series of simplistic RPG style values with a predictability, a “solvability” sort of thing, where you just say the “right thing” and you “win” the relationship. I’ve been unable to escape it.
I started this project to try and help the sort of people who play these sorts of games, to emphasise that forming a relationship isn’t about filling up an RPG style experience bar, or grinding on skills to get them to a high enough level, but instead to emphasise the organic nature of forming a connection with someone, that there isn’t some magical formula to do so. I’ve resisted showing off the player’s “stats” or some kind of “love meter” or something with the characters the whole time, despite it being one of the most common requests. I’m always shifting between wanting to make this something great and wanting to make this something that the audience loves. If I actively try to challenge the conventions of the genre the project will fail. If I actively just follow what people want, it will be empty and soulless and I won’t be proud of my work. It’s an awful balancing act and I hate it. I wish I could just have it be something that the audience wants without all this baggage and RPG-ification of relationships.
Sorry, this is very random out of place rant, just seeing these character AIs being shown off like this made me feel a lot of things.
Ora, The Gamer and Patti, The Teacher have some Clark Kent/Superman shit going on.