This is what a pipeline which includes genAI tools should look like: using them for placeholders/prototypes/internal demos only, and making sure everything is properly labeled so it's replaced by correct, production assets created by real artists.
Good for them to disclose this and do the right thing. Seems to be the expected path for follow in 2026 now that the hype cycle is crashing to a halt.
Personally I don't care that much if a developer uses generative AI. There's a lot of single person studios out there that could greatly benefit from pushing some of the tedious tasks onto AI so they can get back to actually making the game run well. I think it's pretty obvious when a developer leans too hard into AI and makes a game that either just looks like slop or is indistinguishable from other cheaply made games in the genre.
I'm playing Trepang2 right now. They used AI to write some of the messages found on papers and devices in the game. Finding them, or even reading them, has no bearing on the gameplay. They just help contribute to the lore and offer better insight into the world. I think there's some fun unlockables for finding them all. They found a way to add value to the game without drawing too much developer focus away from critical tasks (adding new levels and fixing bugs).
Same with marketing materials. As long as the marketing doesn't misrepresent the game, I don't think it's a big deal that they used AI to make a 2D pixel art drawing in the poster for a 3D game. It's something else entirely if they used AI generated 3D characters in marketing materials for a 2D pixel art game. I think developers need to be careful when using AI, they have to ask themselves if the generated content either misrepresents the game or dilutes the creativity.
From the article, their claim is only about AI-generated assets (both in the game and its marketing), not logic. This is what people usually refer to when they say a game is "AI-Free"
This is what a pipeline which includes genAI tools should look like: using them for placeholders/prototypes/internal demos only, and making sure everything is properly labeled so it's replaced by correct, production assets created by real artists.
Good for them to disclose this and do the right thing. Seems to be the expected path for follow in 2026 now that the hype cycle is crashing to a halt.
Personally I don't care that much if a developer uses generative AI. There's a lot of single person studios out there that could greatly benefit from pushing some of the tedious tasks onto AI so they can get back to actually making the game run well. I think it's pretty obvious when a developer leans too hard into AI and makes a game that either just looks like slop or is indistinguishable from other cheaply made games in the genre.
I'm playing Trepang2 right now. They used AI to write some of the messages found on papers and devices in the game. Finding them, or even reading them, has no bearing on the gameplay. They just help contribute to the lore and offer better insight into the world. I think there's some fun unlockables for finding them all. They found a way to add value to the game without drawing too much developer focus away from critical tasks (adding new levels and fixing bugs).
Same with marketing materials. As long as the marketing doesn't misrepresent the game, I don't think it's a big deal that they used AI to make a 2D pixel art drawing in the poster for a 3D game. It's something else entirely if they used AI generated 3D characters in marketing materials for a 2D pixel art game. I think developers need to be careful when using AI, they have to ask themselves if the generated content either misrepresents the game or dilutes the creativity.
My perspective is similar:
I don't mind AI, as long as the game is good and fun.
If your game is unfun and/or looks like crap (though this is subjective), then I want nothing to do with it whether you used AI or not.
But if noone bothered to write it why shoul I read it?
Why?
Thank you for virtue signaling I guess. So I’m guessing you didn’t use any A.I. for the code as well because otherwise it would hypocritical.
No it wouldn't.
LLMs are of course generative AI. If they use that then their claim is not correct.
From the article, their claim is only about AI-generated assets (both in the game and its marketing), not logic. This is what people usually refer to when they say a game is "AI-Free"
They should call it Gen AI-light!
What kind of cope is this? You know damn well they are using LLMs and are being hypocritical which is ironic for a virtue signaling post.
Yes it would.