@Martin_H Thank you. All our lives - we've had to put up with people telling us what we should do - because it was conventional wisdom.. At school - don't use computers... (just about every adult!) If you are going to learn how to use computers - don't use them to make games! (Computer Science Teacher) Go to University (parents & Teachers) Give up making games and get proper jobs (loads of people!) Give us another Simulator game - not a game with a made up Egg character. (David Darling Co-Founder of Codemasters) The list goes on! We are old enough, and hardened enough to listen, but ultimately make our own decisions. We wont always get it right - but at least we're being creative, experimenting, pushing the boundaries and having fun - whilst making fun and giving people jobs. Yes - off the back of the kickstarter success we're hiring another person!
@Sketcz John, thank you for the article and for coming along to our talk. You asked a good and fair question, and you recorded our responses very accurately. We appreciate that, even where we disagree. We know generative AI is contentious. Perhaps the most useful context we can add is why these tools feel creatively liberating to us. In the 1980s, we could make the games we wanted to make. As console development became increasingly expensive, financial considerations played a much greater role in deciding which projects happened. We still found plenty of creative satisfaction in commissioned work, but opportunities to pitch and develop our own original ideas were relatively rare. Glover, Fuzion Frenzy and Firo & Klawd were some of those opportunities. It was particularly lovely to see you mention Firo & Klawd. It received so little attention, and so few sales at the time, so hearing someone remember it fondly means a lot. Later, securing backing for our hugely ambitious online game SkySaga was tremendously exciting. Losing that funding and seeing the project end was devastating. That experience shapes our enthusiasm today. Reducing production costs can give small teams more freedom to pursue ideas without first having to persuade someone to finance a large production. We aren’t suggesting every indie game needs big-budget visuals, or that great games cannot be made without AI. For us, these tools make projects practical that we personally would otherwise struggle to undertake. We recognise that this explains our motivation without resolving everyone’s ethical concerns. On Kickstarter, a couple of comments asked why we’re using it. For a physical product, it helps us establish whether there is demand and gauge how many copies to manufacture. We’re funding development ourselves, with all of those costs incurred before any Kickstarter money arrives. The campaign is there to fund the physical production run. To everyone who has backed us, thank you. - the project is now funded over 100% (within a week). If our use of generative AI, our approach or the genre itself means this isn’t for you, we respect that choice. Our hope is that lower production barriers will give more people - individual creators, small teams and larger studios - the freedom to experiment and bring different experiences to life. Familiar series have their place, including our own, but we’d love to see more room for new ideas alongside them. Philip & Andrew
PZT thank you for you long and considered thoughts and advice. There are some very made points. I don’t think you’ll convince us to not use AI tools as we’ve always strived for efficiency and quality in everything we do (not that we always get that right). But on the point of this first Active Brain Game being for Children (probably 8-12) - so why use kickstarter - I would say that it’s only one way we plan to sell these games & we expect many people to buy these as gifts for young people - just as Dizzy was designed for that age group & often bought by parents as gifts for children. And not bought by adults to play themselves. But thank you for your time & advice. ^P
Thanks for covering Journey to the Emerald City. Given the tone of the article and comments, I thought it worth adding some context about what we're actually trying to create. Andrew and I have been making games for nearly 45 years, and throughout that time people have regularly told us we were doing the wrong thing. It started when we were 12, spending our time with computers and trying to make games. Later, when we chose making games over university, we were advised to get “proper jobs” rather than waste our time on what one journalist called a passing fad. We've always enjoyed being at the leading edge of technology and experimenting with how it can be used to create affordable, mass-market entertainment. Sometimes experiments work brilliantly; sometimes they don't. Even Dizzy was an experiment we weren't sure about, and plenty of people told us an egg-shaped hero was a terrible idea. Thirty-nine years later, he's what we're best remembered for. Journey to the Emerald City is another experiment. We asked whether we could take the exploration, puzzles and interaction we've spent our careers putting into video games and create an engaging game without a screen. In about three months, with a team of only three or four people, we've created a working prototype we're genuinely excited about. It's an interactive retelling of L. Frank Baum's 126-year-old The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The player takes Dorothy's place and progresses through a beautifully illustrated story using inventory cards, a cipher wheel, and eventually a sealed map. Everything has been designed to work together as part of the adventure. Yes, we've used generative AI tools, and we've never hidden that. We've always explored new technology and believe AI will increasingly become more popular with creatives. As with all tools, it takes skill to get the best results. We understand some people strongly disagree with its use, and respect their right to do so. Equally, Baum's story is in the public domain and our use of it is very deliberately an homage and celebration of his work. It's also worth remembering who we're making this for. Emerald City is primarily aimed at families and children aged eight and over. That's familiar territory for us - from our early Spectrum and Amstrad games through to later games involving Barbie, Bratz, SpongeBob and many others, we've always enjoyed creating entertainment for younger audiences. Not every game is intended for everybody. Experimentation means some ideas will work better than others, but we'd rather continue trying new things than spend our careers copying others or simply repeating our past successes. So I don't personally feel we're “tarnishing our legacy”. Experimenting with new technology, working with small teams, making games for younger audiences and trying ideas other people might consider a little odd is our legacy. Nearly 45 years after we started, Andrew and I are still curious, still experimenting and still enjoying creating new forms of entertainment. I hope we never lose that.
@diatron5 I appreciate you taking the time to share your feelings, and I want to clarify our intentions.
RichCast is a no-code platform designed to empower creatives to build and distribute interactive titles without needing a programmer. How people choose to create their media – whether hand-drawn art, photography, audio recordings or generative tools – is entirely up to them. We don’t dictate that.
While developing the platform we also need to produce content ourselves, and for small experiments like Ghost Hunters we felt it was reasonable to use generative AI tools to reduce cost and time, especially as the title is completely free. That’s why I don’t recognise the idea that this was a “cash grab” – there simply isn’t any cash involved.
I understand that many creatives question the ethics of how some AI systems are trained. That’s a valid debate, and the companies behind those models should absolutely act within the law and uphold good moral standards. I’m not claiming to be an expert on those issues. What I do recognise is that the creative environment is changing rapidly, and Generative AI is not going to go away. Throughout our careers we’ve always adapted to new tools: programmers moved from assembler to higher-level languages, and artists moved from paint and canvas to Photoshop. Generative tools feel like the next step in that long progression. You don’t have to like that direction, but change is happening whether we embrace it or not.
As teenagers we created EasyArt and Panda Sprites to help other people make art and games. We used those tools ourselves to build many of the 8-bit titles that got us started. That success eventually allowed us to build a large studio employing many talented people and producing hundreds of games over many years. In many ways, what we’re doing with RichCast is simply a continuation of that original idea: creating tools that open up interactive creation to more people.
I understand you may not agree with our position, but I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. This will be my final comment on the thread, and I wish you well in your own creative work. Wishing you all the best, Philip
Thanks for taking the time to look at our new Ghost Hunters experiment. I completely understand why people feel strongly about generative AI, and I accept many of the flaws highlighted in the article. They're the same things we saw ourselves. This project was a quick test made by 5 creatives (non-programmers) wondering what could be achieved in a month, and it wasn't created to sit beside modern console titles or AAA productions. It's a test, we know it was flawed, so obviously we made it free.
RichCast itself doesn't use AI. It's a no-code platform that lets people structure their own interactive stories and simple 2D games, using whatever art, audio or video they choose. The goal is to let creatives build and publish interactive content without needing a programmer. It is an inconvenient truth that Programmers are unfortunately often bottlenecks for creatives, and we wanted to remove that barrier. Please note the RichCast editor will only be released to the public when we are happy with it and we know there's a lot more needs to be done before that can happen. We this lead to more AI Slop? Arguably yes. But we acknowledge that everyone has to start somewhere. People will need to learn the tools and the skills. Our early games were terrible - but through practice and effort our skills improved until our games got a whole lot better. Some of the early efforts were dreadful - we know!
A few people have said we're somehow drifting away from our legacy, but I don't feel that way at all. From the age of 12 we've always explored new technology as it appears. When we were young, being interested in computers made us geeks and out casts at school. Over time the environment changed and that same curiosity by us and others like us became the foundation of a whole industry. Technology keeps evolving, and like anything in nature, we either adapt to the new environment or we get left behind. For us, continuing to experiment and learn is exactly what we've always done.
It's also worth addressing the comparisons. Flash was never judged against PlayStation games, because it played a completely different role. It enabled lightweight multimedia experiences, browser games, educational titles and interactive storytelling on almost every desktop worldwide. RichCast sits in that same space, but rebuilt for today: no plugins, no coding, mobile-first, instantly shareable and future-proof. We're not trying to compete with high-budget 3D games. We're building a modern interactive media platform for people and organisations who need something accessible, affordable and easy to distribute across every smart screen.
I'm sympathetic to concerns about how generative AI affects creative industries. It will change workflows, just as every major technological shift has done. We can't change the environment. This small Ghost Hunters experiment used some of those AI tools, and like any new tools, it takes time and skill to get good results. We're learning, the tools are improving fast, and these quick tests help us understand how RichCast itself needs to evolve.
I genuinely appreciate the passion behind the article and the comments, even when they're critical. We'll keep improving, keep adapting and keep experimenting - exactly as we always have. Our output may not be for everyone - but that ok. We're not attempting to please everyone - just those that want what we can make.
Comments 7
Re: "If I Didn't Have These Powerful Tools, I Wouldn't Do It at All" - The Oliver Twins Explain Why They're Dizzy About GenAI
@Thad "We wont always get it right". Sorry. We must try harder and we will try harder!
Re: "If I Didn't Have These Powerful Tools, I Wouldn't Do It at All" - The Oliver Twins Explain Why They're Dizzy About GenAI
@Martin_H Thank you. All our lives - we've had to put up with people telling us what we should do - because it was conventional wisdom..
At school - don't use computers... (just about every adult!)
If you are going to learn how to use computers - don't use them to make games! (Computer Science Teacher)
Go to University (parents & Teachers)
Give up making games and get proper jobs (loads of people!)
Give us another Simulator game - not a game with a made up Egg character. (David Darling Co-Founder of Codemasters)
The list goes on!
We are old enough, and hardened enough to listen, but ultimately make our own decisions. We wont always get it right - but at least we're being creative, experimenting, pushing the boundaries and having fun - whilst making fun and giving people jobs. Yes - off the back of the kickstarter success we're hiring another person!
Re: "If I Didn't Have These Powerful Tools, I Wouldn't Do It at All" - The Oliver Twins Explain Why They're Dizzy About GenAI
@Sketcz John, thank you for the article and for coming along to our talk. You asked a good and fair question, and you recorded our responses very accurately. We appreciate that, even where we disagree.
We know generative AI is contentious. Perhaps the most useful context we can add is why these tools feel creatively liberating to us.
In the 1980s, we could make the games we wanted to make. As console development became increasingly expensive, financial considerations played a much greater role in deciding which projects happened. We still found plenty of creative satisfaction in commissioned work, but opportunities to pitch and develop our own original ideas were relatively rare. Glover, Fuzion Frenzy and Firo & Klawd were some of those opportunities.
It was particularly lovely to see you mention Firo & Klawd. It received so little attention, and so few sales at the time, so hearing someone remember it fondly means a lot. Later, securing backing for our hugely ambitious online game SkySaga was tremendously exciting. Losing that funding and seeing the project end was devastating.
That experience shapes our enthusiasm today. Reducing production costs can give small teams more freedom to pursue ideas without first having to persuade someone to finance a large production. We aren’t suggesting every indie game needs big-budget visuals, or that great games cannot be made without AI. For us, these tools make projects practical that we personally would otherwise struggle to undertake. We recognise that this explains our motivation without resolving everyone’s ethical concerns.
On Kickstarter, a couple of comments asked why we’re using it. For a physical product, it helps us establish whether there is demand and gauge how many copies to manufacture. We’re funding development ourselves, with all of those costs incurred before any Kickstarter money arrives. The campaign is there to fund the physical production run.
To everyone who has backed us, thank you. - the project is now funded over 100% (within a week).
If our use of generative AI, our approach or the genre itself means this isn’t for you, we respect that choice.
Our hope is that lower production barriers will give more people - individual creators, small teams and larger studios - the freedom to experiment and bring different experiences to life. Familiar series have their place, including our own, but we’d love to see more room for new ideas alongside them.
Philip & Andrew
Re: "Of All The GenAI Slops You've Ever Seen, This Is The Sloppiest Of Them All" - The Oliver Twins Tarnish Their Legacy Further With 'Wizard Of Oz' Board Game
PZT thank you for you long and considered thoughts and advice. There are some very made points. I don’t think you’ll convince us to not use AI tools as we’ve always strived for efficiency and quality in everything we do (not that we always get that right). But on the point of this first Active Brain Game being for Children (probably 8-12) - so why use kickstarter - I would say that it’s only one way we plan to sell these games & we expect many people to buy these as gifts for young people - just as Dizzy was designed for that age group & often bought by parents as gifts for children. And not bought by adults to play themselves.
But thank you for your time & advice. ^P
Re: "Of All The GenAI Slops You've Ever Seen, This Is The Sloppiest Of Them All" - The Oliver Twins Tarnish Their Legacy Further With 'Wizard Of Oz' Board Game
Thanks for covering Journey to the Emerald City. Given the tone of the article and comments, I thought it worth adding some context about what we're actually trying to create.
Andrew and I have been making games for nearly 45 years, and throughout that time people have regularly told us we were doing the wrong thing. It started when we were 12, spending our time with computers and trying to make games. Later, when we chose making games over university, we were advised to get “proper jobs” rather than waste our time on what one journalist called a passing fad.
We've always enjoyed being at the leading edge of technology and experimenting with how it can be used to create affordable, mass-market entertainment. Sometimes experiments work brilliantly; sometimes they don't. Even Dizzy was an experiment we weren't sure about, and plenty of people told us an egg-shaped hero was a terrible idea. Thirty-nine years later, he's what we're best remembered for.
Journey to the Emerald City is another experiment. We asked whether we could take the exploration, puzzles and interaction we've spent our careers putting into video games and create an engaging game without a screen. In about three months, with a team of only three or four people, we've created a working prototype we're genuinely excited about.
It's an interactive retelling of L. Frank Baum's 126-year-old The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The player takes Dorothy's place and progresses through a beautifully illustrated story using inventory cards, a cipher wheel, and eventually a sealed map. Everything has been designed to work together as part of the adventure.
Yes, we've used generative AI tools, and we've never hidden that. We've always explored new technology and believe AI will increasingly become more popular with creatives. As with all tools, it takes skill to get the best results. We understand some people strongly disagree with its use, and respect their right to do so. Equally, Baum's story is in the public domain and our use of it is very deliberately an homage and celebration of his work.
It's also worth remembering who we're making this for. Emerald City is primarily aimed at families and children aged eight and over. That's familiar territory for us - from our early Spectrum and Amstrad games through to later games involving Barbie, Bratz, SpongeBob and many others, we've always enjoyed creating entertainment for younger audiences. Not every game is intended for everybody.
Experimentation means some ideas will work better than others, but we'd rather continue trying new things than spend our careers copying others or simply repeating our past successes.
So I don't personally feel we're “tarnishing our legacy”. Experimenting with new technology, working with small teams, making games for younger audiences and trying ideas other people might consider a little odd is our legacy.
Nearly 45 years after we started, Andrew and I are still curious, still experimenting and still enjoying creating new forms of entertainment. I hope we never lose that.
Re: If The Oliver Twins' Ghost Hunters Is The Future Of GenAI Gaming, Then We Have Nothing To Worry About
@diatron5 I appreciate you taking the time to share your feelings, and I want to clarify our intentions.
RichCast is a no-code platform designed to empower creatives to build and distribute interactive titles without needing a programmer. How people choose to create their media – whether hand-drawn art, photography, audio recordings or generative tools – is entirely up to them. We don’t dictate that.
While developing the platform we also need to produce content ourselves, and for small experiments like Ghost Hunters we felt it was reasonable to use generative AI tools to reduce cost and time, especially as the title is completely free. That’s why I don’t recognise the idea that this was a “cash grab” – there simply isn’t any cash involved.
I understand that many creatives question the ethics of how some AI systems are trained. That’s a valid debate, and the companies behind those models should absolutely act within the law and uphold good moral standards. I’m not claiming to be an expert on those issues. What I do recognise is that the creative environment is changing rapidly, and Generative AI is not going to go away. Throughout our careers we’ve always adapted to new tools: programmers moved from assembler to higher-level languages, and artists moved from paint and canvas to Photoshop. Generative tools feel like the next step in that long progression. You don’t have to like that direction, but change is happening whether we embrace it or not.
As teenagers we created EasyArt and Panda Sprites to help other people make art and games. We used those tools ourselves to build many of the 8-bit titles that got us started. That success eventually allowed us to build a large studio employing many talented people and producing hundreds of games over many years. In many ways, what we’re doing with RichCast is simply a continuation of that original idea: creating tools that open up interactive creation to more people.
I understand you may not agree with our position, but I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. This will be my final comment on the thread, and I wish you well in your own creative work.
Wishing you all the best,
Philip
Re: If The Oliver Twins' Ghost Hunters Is The Future Of GenAI Gaming, Then We Have Nothing To Worry About
Thanks for taking the time to look at our new Ghost Hunters experiment.
I completely understand why people feel strongly about generative AI, and I accept many of the flaws highlighted in the article. They're the same things we saw ourselves. This project was a quick test made by 5 creatives
(non-programmers) wondering what could be achieved in a month, and it wasn't created to sit beside modern console titles or AAA productions. It's a test, we know it was flawed, so obviously we made it free.
RichCast itself doesn't use AI. It's a no-code platform that lets people structure their own interactive stories and simple 2D games, using whatever art, audio or video they choose. The goal is to let creatives build and publish interactive content without needing a programmer. It is an inconvenient truth that Programmers are unfortunately often bottlenecks for creatives, and we wanted to remove that barrier. Please note the RichCast editor will only be released to the public when we are happy with it and we know there's a lot more needs to be done before that can happen. We this lead to more AI Slop? Arguably yes. But we acknowledge that everyone has to start somewhere. People will need to learn the tools and the skills. Our early games were terrible - but through practice and effort our skills improved until our games got a whole lot better. Some of the early efforts were dreadful - we know!
A few people have said we're somehow drifting away from our legacy, but I don't feel that way at all. From the age of 12 we've always explored new technology as it appears. When we were young, being interested in computers made us geeks and out casts at school. Over time the environment changed and that same curiosity by us and others like us became the foundation of a whole industry. Technology keeps evolving, and like anything in nature, we either adapt to the new environment or we get left behind. For us, continuing to experiment and learn is exactly what we've always done.
It's also worth addressing the comparisons. Flash was never judged against PlayStation games, because it played a completely different role. It enabled lightweight multimedia experiences, browser games, educational titles and interactive storytelling on almost every desktop worldwide. RichCast sits in that same space, but rebuilt for today: no plugins, no coding, mobile-first, instantly shareable and future-proof. We're not trying to compete with high-budget 3D games. We're building a modern interactive media platform for people and organisations who need something accessible, affordable and easy to distribute across every smart screen.
I'm sympathetic to concerns about how generative AI affects creative industries. It will change workflows, just as every major technological shift has done. We can't change the environment. This small Ghost Hunters experiment used some of those AI tools, and like any new tools, it takes time and skill to get good results. We're learning, the tools are improving fast, and these quick tests help us understand how RichCast itself needs to evolve.
I genuinely appreciate the passion behind the article and the comments, even when they're critical. We'll keep improving, keep adapting and keep experimenting - exactly as we always have. Our output may not be for everyone - but that ok. We're not attempting to please everyone - just those that want what we can make.
Philip Oliver (one of The Oliver Twins)