Talk:Quick time event

Article Image

Whoever decided that that sexualized anime girl should be the image for this article should really be on an FBI watch list. --2600:1700:211:98D0:EC5E:F109:21C4:1D83 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My brother in Christ that is a child ~~(a concerned bystander)

appears that the creep who made it is reverting edits to remove it, unfortunately. --2600:1700:211:98D0:EC5E:F109:21C4:1D83 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, that's Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, the accepted anime representation of Wikipedia. Nothing sexualized about it. Masem (t) 01:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

that just isn't right ~~ 172.125.112.248 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What isn't right? Tomoetron (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that sexualized? Tomoetron (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting page

Just started the page, heard about QTE's all the time and took me a while to figure out what it was refering to so figure a page on it wont hurt. I know that its not the "official" name(there doesnt seem to be one), so trying to make that clear. John.n-irl 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation?

The only citation on this page is one for heavenly sword. I don't think it should be on there, as a list hardly needs citations. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

No one refers to them as Quick Timer Events as far as i can see, while it may originally have been coined that. Im going to try editing the article to reflect that(with a source). (sorry this comes after a bunch of edits, but it needs a source anyway if your changing the name because of Shenmue)John.n-irl (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aargh! I don't really care what it's called, but can people stop doing cut-and-paste moves. It destroys the history. Use the Move tab people! Leithp 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now move protected it for a week anyway, to allow for discussion. The move protection won't stop edits to the article. Leithp 08:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, grand, sorry don't usually move pages John.n-irl (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have too much of a preference one way or the other, it is probably important to have consistency. Currently the article is at Quick Time Event, but the article itself (outside of the reference text quoted from 1up) refers to Quick Timer Events.

For what it's worth, the PAL manuals for Shenmue I and II both use the spelling "Timer", and the US manual for at least Shenmue also uses that same spelling. There has been a short discussion on the subject at User talk:Waka#QTEs.

What we do have that could be useful here is WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests that the article should be at the most common name. So if Quick Time Event is now most common, we should probably keep the article located there, regardless of the original spelling. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It can be noted that Zero Punctuation uses "quick time event". --BranER (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragon’s Lair reference

I have to wonder if a single reviewer’s opinion is enough for an encyclopedia to credit Dragon’s Lair for the introduction of QTEs… —Frungi (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, especially when there's an essential difference between these things and Dragon's Lair: The modern QTE tells you what to do, and then you do it (in one of three ways: 1) one key at a time, 2) from memory like __Simon__, or 3) in quick succession like __Track and Field__), while Dragon's Lair was a trial-and-error process. It didn't tell you what to do--you had to pump your quarters in as you learned what was the right choice in each scene. Dragon's Lair might be a precursor, but it's hardly the same thing. Maxweinberg (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it already the case in Dragons Lair, but in Space Age you did get to see what to do next, but not by exact instruction, but simply by highlighting the item you need to interact with, which for most part tells you which direction to press. Also QTEs like, everything else, are evolving and changing, in Tomb Raider: Underworld for example you have QTEs that don't depend on a single button, but are real gameplay, so when a ledge suddenly breaks, the game will go into slow-mo and give you a second or two to react and jump to a save spot. Heavy Rain is pushing things in a different direction and integrating QTEs as core part of the normal gameplay, removing the requirement for fast reactions and adding optional choices. And in older games like Another World or Heart of the Alien you got QTE-like elements too, that require you to press in a certain direction at a certain point under a time limit, but again without being shown on the screen what to do. -- Grumbel (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, fantastic

First sentence of the article: "A Quick Time Event (QTE) is a method of torture used in video games." A more responsible editor would change this line, but I can't bring myself to do it. Recorded here for posterity. Big props to the original author. --Arperry (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticsm

Quick time event are one of the most criticed things in games so why isn't there a critcsm section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckdudetom (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are they the most criticised things in games? I would've thought bad controls or buggy experiences would be. Even Yatzhee (Zero Punctuation guy) says that they're as good as any other plot device in cutscenes if they're implemented properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatnick (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shenmue? How about Die Hard Arcade?

The article cites Shenmue as the first modern use, but I remember those goofy scenes in Die Hard Arcade when you had to dodge pipes or jump over obstacles during cutscenes. Sorca1701 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Stub-class?

I think this article should be moved up a class. While it is worth an article, there just isn't that much more to be said on QTE, refs and citations aside. Centrepull (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

rhythm games

What about games such as Parappa the rapper. they would fall under the definition of QTE's atm but parappa isn't seen as a QTE game but a rhythm game. QTE's could be argued to always have a narrative context that music games don't seem to have as strongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NGKrush (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the mechanics are similar. Personally I would see a QTE as something that by definition has a disconnect between action and outcome - so having "B" flash up on the screen in order to dive left is a QTE, being rewarded for tapping in time to a beat and/or playing something resembling an instrument is not. Take out the music from a rhythm game and to my mind it becomes a QTE.

It seems to me that the tendency towards QTEs in games with narrative is a consequence of it being difficult to find gameplay mechanisms that closely map to complex narrative actions; QTEs are a quick and (sometimes) dirty solution. It's this disconnection between action and outcome that QTEs are criticised for, seeing as it goes against the principles of meaningful play.

Of course, it's not really about what we think, it would be interesting to see what's been written on the subject.Playclever (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Quick-time event games?

Can you make a list of games with quick-time events please? It is technically a sub-genre after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.91.220 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo

Hello. I would like to know why we use "Quick Time Event" and not "quick time event". Is there any reason why we dont use lower case? It is no more, no less than MMOG or any acronyms. Thanks a lot. bayo 11:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quick time event/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 01:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"A quick time event (QTE) is a method of context-sensitive gameplay used in video games, in which the player performs actions on the control device shortly after the appearance of an on-screen prompt" could be clarified; it is unclear what "in which" refers to. I would suggest "In video games, a quick time event (QTE) is a method of context-sensitive gameplay where the player performs actions on the control device in response to an on-screen prompt." "QTEs generally involves the player following onscreen prompts to press buttons or manipulate joysticks within a limited amount of time." (singular-plural agreement issue) "They allow for the game designer to create sequences of actions that either cannot be performed or would be too difficult to be performed with the game's standard scheme." (dangling modifier) "the general use of QTE has become panned by journalists and players alike" (was it not originally panned, or has it been panned more in recent years? if not, I don't think "become" is the right verb) "Die Hard Arcade (Sega, 1996) and most notably Shenmue (Sega, 1999) whose director Yu Suzuki coined the Quick Time Event term" - here "Quick time event" is italicized, while in the lead, it appears in quotation marks; choose a style and be consistent with it. Also, choose one of "quick time event" or QTE to use consistently through the article, and also be consistent about the plural of the abbreviation QTE. This article could definitely use a copy-edit for clarity, consistency, and precision.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: looks fine, good length for 10000 character article Layout: good Words to watch: There are instances of weasel words, such as "While some uses of QTE have been considered as favorable additions to gameplay, the general use of QTE has become panned by journalists and players alike" (who panned quick-time events), "Such uses were also seen as giving the player only the illusion of control" (by whom?), "The use of QTE within Shenmue is often praised" (by whom?), "sections which utilized the QTE were considered 'some of the most thrilling in the whole game'" (same), "they also are considered to be a weak addition to gameplay" (by whom?), "They are often considered a 'bane of action games'" (by whom?), "While this example is considered to use QTEs effectively" (who considers it effective?), "This sequence is critically panned" (by whom?). It would be good to include reputable journalists or organizations to support the claims made in the article in-text (such as "Joe Blow from Gamasutra said that quick time events are a 'terrible, terrible mechanic game designers should never use.'") Also, there is a peacock term that needs to be attributed or removed: "A renowned example of this type of QTE is a knife battle in the game Resident Evil 4." Fiction: good Lists: good
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References look fine and reliable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Currently, controversial statements appear to meet the standard. However, when the weasel-y opinions I pointed out in criterion 1 are attributed, those opinions will need citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	At the end of the History section, what criteria are used to determine which video game titles belong on the list of "higher profile titles that focused on [quick time events]"? This sentence just seems to be a magnet for editors to come and add every single game using quick time events, so it would be good add some stated criteria or simply delete the sentence.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No glaring omissions in aspects of quick time events that need to be covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A short and sweet article. Detailed descriptions of games whose use of quick time events has been critically analyzed (Dragon's Lair, Shenmue) are appropriate at the current length they are given in the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article does address both the critical positives and negatives of quick time events. However, I'm not sure whether some reviews or sources are given undue weight. Is any old Flash game parodying the use of a certain quick time event really worth mentioning?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Shenmue quicktimeevent.jpg, the lead image, does not even have an NFUR for the image's use in this article. File:Heavy rain move.jpg has a NFUR for this article, but it fails to address why the image could not be replaced by a free mock-up of a quick time event (perhaps involving motion controls). The NFUR also fails to show why such a replacement would be so detrimental to the encyclopedic quality of the article that the proposed free image could not replace the non-free one currently used. File:Yu suzuki gdc 2011 cropped.jpg is free and tagged, so that image is fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look fine to me. I don't see any need for additional images (except for free replacements of the non-free ones currently in use).
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Placing review on hold to address concerns raised. This article was reviewed March 16, 2011; it will be reassessed seven days from now, on March 23, 2011 RJaguar3 | u | t 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two points to focus on here (I've tried to address the rest wrt to the same case-structure, fixing rationales). On the weasel-word statements, all of these (except for those in the lead, which I'm leaving unsourced as it is a summary) are followed immediately by the ref to support that statement. Are you looking for something different here?

On the images, I probably would agree that a mock-up image (possibly replicating the situation in the Shenmue picture by using free images of Wikipe-tan and a soccer ball) would help. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mock up of a QTE from free elements has been created. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that. It looks like criterion 6 is now satisfied. Regarding weasel words, I believe that the MoS advises for in-text attribution, such as "John Doe, writing for IGN, said that..." That is, a name should be attached in-text to each statement that currently uses the passive voice ("is generally considered" and the like). See WP:WEASEL for more about this. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fail

After re-examining the article, the article still fails to meet criterion 1b, so I will fail the article for now. Once the article has been improved to meet the good article criteria, you are more than free to renominate. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Disability section?

You have got to be kidding me. Why not mention that people who are blind have a hard time with QTEs as well? The last part reads like some sort of personal crusade rather than something belonging in an encyclopedia. People with ALS have a hard time with QTEs? Christ, they have a hard time breathing. I really don't think people with ALS are too concerned with QTEs in video games; such a thing can probably said about other people with non-ALS progressive, terminal diseases. Elderly people have a hard time because QTEs require quick reflexes? I would like to know an action game where slower reflexes aren't detrimental. But the worst part about the section concerning disabillities is the fact that the author is actually telling game designers what they need to do to improve games with QTE's. What are we going to see next, an entry on say, Pulp Fiction, with a section detailing how Quentin Tarantino could have made the movie more enjoyable? The disability section is not only unneeded, it is silly and stupid, for lack of a better word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! This section makes no sense, and unless there's proof that any action games are at all playable by people with severe muscular or brain disorders, complaining about quicktime events make no sense. Not to mention the claim about playing games with a voice syntheser - how can ANYONE play ANY game other than turn-based games with a speech recognition software? And lag on a slow computer, seriously, if a computer is so slow that it doesn't display a quicktime event in time, quicktime events are definitely one of the least problems in playing said game in said computer. In fact, how many PC games even HAVE quicktime events so that you can use VR softwares on them, and that computer lag can be a problem? That's like some guy who can't walk saying everyone should play soccer on a wheelchair so THEY can play it. You can't play a game because of a physical problem, try another game. Games were never meant for acessibility in first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack mcslay (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say voice synthesizer, I said speech recognition. And yes, it works very good. There are several tool such as VoiceAttack, Shoot, Voice Activated Commands, Game Commander and Say2Play. I'm using Voice Activated Commands all the time and I am able to play very quick with it. You can even use dictation software. QTEs tend to require actions too quick for voice recognition, that is true but if you look at the huge command lists of games there is plenty of stuff that you can speak as a means to type the required keys. Reload, Grenade, enter car, leave car, open map/inventory/quests, etc. I'm going that far to say, QTE-only games are not really playable for disabled gamers, but that's just me.

Your example with soccer is not that great by the way. There is powerchair rugby/hockey and even ball games for the blind. Wheelchair Basketball/Tennis. Disabled people ain't dead. They have a live, interests and things to do. Even those you think they can't. Why not include them?

--Wieoftnoch (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Complaining does help. Nowadays developers do listen. The small ones better than the giants but they start to listen.

I haven't read the now-deleted section, yet -- I'm definitely gonna search the History for it and do so, however -- but my initial reaction is, hey, can't we at least feel sorry for the poor bastard, a little bit, even as we delete his inappropriate and unencyclopaedic work?

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For those hoping to have a laugh at something amusingly huffy and self-righteous, don't bother.

To my surprise, I found the section (which isn't called "Disability", it's called "Concerns regarding accessibility") to be thoughtful and well-written, brief, and to the point. At the very worst, I would call its last paragraph somewhat unfortunate, with its suggestions for coding alternatives to QTEs. The section needed work, not wholesale deletion.

The criticism being leveled here on the Talk page seems to boil down to an incredulous "Whaaa? If you're DISABLED, aren't you, like, PRACTICALLY DEAD ANYWAY? Dude! You CAN'T play games." Which is -- it should be needless to say, yet, sadly, isn't -- a load. Clearly, not a pair of med students, there. There are scores of disabilities that would leave the disabled person still able to play games -- and hundreds of games they should be able to play.

All games should strive to be playable by people with disabilities, at least including an option. It's like closed captioning. It's an option. Why should this anger those who are fortunate enough not to need it? Imagine if, instead of DVDs including optional English-language Closed Captioning for the Hearing Impaired, instead we got a message saying "Deaf people CAN'T watch MOVIES! Nobody wants to see a bunch of WORDS on the screen during a movie!"

Despite the fact that a robot tagged it with the "essay or personal reflection" tag, I thought it was about as encyclopaedic in tone as the rest of the article, if not more so. I mean, c'mon, this is an article about one obscure aspect of video games. Can we come back down to Earth and not take our childish hobbies so fucking seriously?

There were no sources to the section, but there are literally millions of statements, on thousands of topics, which go un-sourced year after year. Deleting a WHOLE SECTION because it does not yet cite sources has always struck me as akin to shoving your car off a cliff because it's out of gas.

It was morally wrong to have removed this section, the criticisms of it on this Talk page are minor and intellectually dishonest (they might as well have called it a "buzzkill"), and the section should be reinstated.

I hope the original writer has found a place to make his/her voice heard on this issue, a place that matters.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of said paragraph and I have to say that it feels like there is some ignorance towards gamers with disabilities. Nobody should criticise things he obviously hasn't the faintest clue about.

Of course people with ALS are able to play games. You don't get the diagnosis and die five days later. It isn't the same situation for all patients. Some progress quicker than others and some have long phases of stagnation. Same goes with Muscular Dystrophy and many other degenerative illnesses.

It is not right to segregate gamers with disabilities just because they criticise certain game mechanics. It is part of an open and honest entry into an encyclopedia to not only praise existing mechanics and inventions in the gaming industry but to be honest that there are possible drawbacks. Ignoring the fact that some gamers have problems with QTEs is not only ignorant, it also shows that there is a lot to be done in order to make it known that QTEs ain't necessarily the best way of interaction inside a game.

What is there to lose? It seems that some feel entitled to something they ain't. It can hit anyone anytime and *boom* no easy going gaming for you anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is unnecessary to never use QTEs anymore. What I was and what I'll continue to plead for is optional alternatives. Optional means that there is an option to not being required to do the QTEs or easier ones. He who doesn't need the option doesn't need to change anything. It's the disabled gamer who has to switch said option on.

I don't understand the problem of some to include criticism of QTEs in this article.

By the way I'm not a poor bastard and I'm not whining around. I made an important addition and contributed to the quality of the page. I know hundreds of people with disabilities who are apt gamers and there is nothing wrong about criticising accessibility issues. I have DMD and I play any kind of games. Razing, shooting, RTS, reaction games, games with QTEs (e.g. Witcher 2). Only once a game was I unable to finish because of a QTE. Resident Evil 5. But I'll ask you this: why is it stupid to want to be able to play a certain game? Why is it absolutely normal to tell somebody not to do something because the environment is this and that? Why is the first impulse to think that somebody wants to take something from me. Why is it okay to dismiss disabled people just because they talk about accessibility issues?

Here's an article [2].

There are 30 million disabled citizens in the US alone. Make it 10 percent who would like to game. That's a fair number. Are they all stupid bastards we have to pity and to segregate?

--Wieoftnoch (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs improvement on the mechanics.

Two problems I noticed in this article: 1. "QTEs" and "QTE" are used interchangably when "QTEs" would seem to be the choice. Even if they were all changed to "QTE" instead (i.e., "More recent uses of QTE includes blah blah blah"), at least that would be consistent

2. Three paragraphs in a row begin with "More recent games ...'; "More recent use of QTE ..."; and "More recently, ..." There's gotta be a way to re-write these sentences so that doesn't happen. It's just one of those things, like wearing clean underwear, you just gotta try to avoid that sort of repetition.

I'm not changing these things myself because this is a topic on which I know very little, and I'm reluctant to mess with the mechanics when I don't know the topic. Especially redrafting the paragraph-opening sentences.

--Ben Culture (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Potentially useful source

I don't have time to incorporate it myself, but there's a lot of useful content in this article by Raph Koster that could be used as a source for improvement. JulesH (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

rhythm games and QTE

While one can argue that rhythm games are essentially large-scale QTEs, this is original research, so we need a reliable source for including this comment. This means that a user blog is not sufficient (that's an WP:SPS). I've done some looking and not seeing anything better than blogs and forum posts to support this stance. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but since when were blogs and forums not good sources. If anything that should prove how pop culture responds to different topics. I don't know. Beginning to start to hate this website, for real. Boaxy (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs and forums by those that are otherwise not considered experts in the field as Self-published sources and are generally not reliable. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quick time event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141208054145/http://www.gamespot.com:80/reviews/shenmue-review/1900-2540599/ to http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/shenmue-review/1900-2540599/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quick time event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193528/http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3150543 to http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3150543

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

"Pressing the X button can stop Wikipe-tan from being hit by the football."

"Pressing the B button can stop the player's character from being hit by the car."

As an IP says, this should get a discussion rather than unexplained reverts. In the absence of freely licenced screenshots of videogames for this article, which mocked-up version should the article use?

Pinging User:Masem as the creator of the original on the left. I replaced it with the AI-generated image on the right a couple of days ago, with the intention of taking it closer to the kind of thing that might be seen in a 2000s-era videogame. Belbury (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased, since I'm against the usage of AI in general, but in my eyes AI-generated images should only be a necessity if we have nothing that can actually take the place of one. We do have an image, which is the Wikipe-tan quick time event mockup. Not to mention the possible copyright concerns from such an image given the tendency of artificial intelligence being trained on the stolen works of others. So, in my eyes, the AI version isn't necessary here and we should use the Wikipe-tan image that we know won't cause any issues. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are copyright concerns with image models. Most the claims I've heard about e.g. training data being stored in the model weights are physically impossible; it seems like kind of a stretch to say that the mere fact of artistic skill being built through a process of observation is stealing, on the basis of intellectual property law or on any plausible moral grounds (certainly it is a divergent perspective from the previous forty-five thousand years of artistic practice).

The main issue at hand is which image clearly illustrates the article. Well, they both do, so then it is a matter of which one we like better. Uh, I think Wikipe-tan is cool, and this image has always been kind of a classic, so I prefer the one on the left, but probably the one on the right is more true-to-life in looking like a vidya game. Who knows. jp×g🗯️ 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I did check Commons when that was uploaded, and their policy is right now, the copyright concerns related to training data do not impact that AI images are generally uncopyrightable under US law. But editors should use them with care.

I created the original Wikipe-tan image but that was before we had anything like AI generators. Masem (t) 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

In my eyes, there's a difference between a "process of observation" and simply just feeding the works of others who did not consent to having their works used into a program that essentially copies them. A human being can observe the works of others and gain inspiration from them. On the other hand, AI does not legitimately think and thus does not have the ability to do such a thing; it's not observing works. The definition of art by most counts relies on a human element of imagination or skill; AI wouldn't fall under such a category because it's not skillful or imaginative, simply pulling together what it perceives as correct. There's no artistic skill in the generation of AI imagery because there's no actual legitimate thought or effort being put into the "works" it creates. It's simply interpreting what it thinks to be correct and mashing together the results, all while doing this off of the training of millions of works without any sort of consent from their creators.

I don't want to clutter up this talk page with my bickering about AI though because it'd distract from the main topic of the original post. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue with these claims but I agree that philosophy of mind is probably quite beyond the scope of this talk page section. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)