The past few years have demonstrated a disturbing trend in game development – the rise of generative AI. Developers have used advanced software to generate background art and dialogue, though it’s not always popular among players.

Generative AI just isn’t the same and nowhere as good as carefully-crafted content coming from real, live human beings who pour their blood, sweat and tears into something. AI isn’t skilled at emulating the conversation flow between people, resulting in robotic and clunky dialogue. The visuals often have a generic and telltale ‘look’ to them that lacks soul and inspiration.

Computer-generated content of this kind is becoming more prevalent, and it recently hit close to home. Recently, one of my friends recommended I play The Great Rebellion, a 2D cyberpunk title he praised for its excellent music and humor. We’ve played games together for years, so I typically trust his opinion. When I went to Steam to read its reviews, a disappointing “AI-generated” content disclosure stopped me in my tracks.

Though I broke down and bought the game to appease my friend, I returned it less than an hour later and got a refund. Admittedly, run-and-gun titles aren’t up my alley anyway, but I found The Great Rebellion’s graphics especially underwhelming. The developers used generative AI to create a few background images and props. While humans manually edited the graphics, they still used AI to generate that art, which left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I’m biased, but there’s no substitute for human-made visuals.

Though I think the AI trend has gone too far, it’s unfortunately become an industry-wide reality. From Steam to Epic, the AI takeover of videogames on the market is glaringly apparent, and I wish we could return to the days of human-led ingenuity.

The best gaming experiences come from developers who pour their passion and talent into projects. From Team Fortress 2 to the Grand Theft Autoseries, humans are capable of creating masterpieces. We understand nuance and emotion more than a computer ever will, so I hope people lead the way instead of abdicating our role to advanced algorithms.

It only takes a cursory glance to see online stores have seemingly given their stamp of approval to low-effort, AI-generated games. For Steam specifically, the change came in January 2024 when it announced a policy allowing such content. Since then, the Steam homepage has become flooded with AI-tinged content. Players can easily find titles with AI disclosures in the “featured” and “recommended” sections. The platform even promotes them through special events and sales.

For example, my Steam homepage suggested the game Stellaris when its ninth season recently became available. Like other content nowadays, this title included a dreaded AI disclosure:

“We employ generative AI technologies during the creation of some assets. Typically, this involves the ideation of content and visual reference material. These elements represent a minor component of the overall development. AI has been used to generate voices for an AI antagonist and a player advisor.”

The developer can describe AI as a “minor component,” but voiceover work is significant. Using a computerized voice means a human doesn’t get paid to put their time and talents into the project.

I also felt bamboozled by Nintendo, as it’s traditionally been among the world leaders in original game creation. Last year, the company said it would not rely on technology alone to achieve its content goals when discussing generative AI. Still, one look at the eShop tells me that AI is part of their priorities despite not having disclosures on their games. Bimfli & His Time Travels: Japan has AI-generated artwork and dialogue boxes that feel less authentic than human-created art.

Unfortunately, the eShop’s AI train doesn’t stop there. Now, computer-generated content has joined forces with shovelware games to create truly awful content for the Switch. Ecchi games are all over Nintendo’s online store, and their suggestive AI artwork isn’t something I want kids – especially mine – to see when they search the eShop.

Bimfli is only available on Nintendo consoles, which raises doubts about the company’s quality control. Exclusive titles can often be representative of a console’s library, which makes me wonder who’s responsible for monitoring the eShop and whether Nintendo will eventually crack down on AI-generated content. As much as I love Nintendo, my loyalty will only go so far if they continue to enable AI like this. At the very least, I’d like to see them put a disclosure on the titles.

While Steam and Nintendo are seemingly tiptoeing around the issue, Sony might be the worst offender. In a recent interview, Asad Qizilbash, the head of PlayStation Productions, said AI will become a more significant part of its future productions.

“In terms of gaming’s future, I envision games becoming more personalized due to advances in technology and AI, enabling customized experiences for each player,” said Qizilbash. He later said technological advancements will enhance emotional depth and make characters more expressive. However, those qualities are not the strengths of generated dialogue, and that sort of writing isn’t what players want. When I play, I want to feel like I’m talking to a human – not a machine like ChatGPT.

So if generated content can’t measure up to something created by a human – and in my book, it can’t – then why use it at all? A common rationale for some developers is that their studio is small and they have limited resources.

For example, This Girl Does Not Exist is entirely AI-generated, from voice acting to the story creation. Play entails letting users solve jigsaw puzzles and select characters from the gallery. Its developers used Midjourney to create the characters’ images after entering prompts. Besides that, not much human work was necessary for the game. Such low-effort, low-quality titles are starting to litter Steam and other distribution services, and I think it’s time to push back.

The argument that AI can benefit smaller studios ultimately holds no water when larger game developers use this excuse. Sadly, many of them have resorted to AI-generated content despite the considerable resources at their disposal.

I was shocked to see Activision use generative AI for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops 6. From banners to emblems, it’s obvious how much AI influence the esteemed Call of Duty series has had. For Black Ops 6, Activision said, “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in-game assets.” Surely, a company with a $74 billion market cap could afford to expend some capital on humans and creative resources, right? 

In late 2024, Activision unveiled season 1 Reloaded and featured new artwork for the Christmas theme. One of the loading screens featured a zombie Santa Claus with six fingers clearly displayed toward the front of the image. I’m not the best at math, but I can count to six. Paying a real artist might have helped them avoid this embarrassing mistake.

While disappointing, that wasn’t the only issue. Another loading screen depicted a hand with only four fingers, omitting the thumb. Generative AI can struggle with such artwork because of the unique shapes and the number of fingers visible in the images it trains on. I have a hard time believing a human would’ve incorrectly drawn these hands.

Black Ops also used AI to create prestige icons with visible errors. For example, a zombie is holding an oddly shaped gun with no stock, and its arm appears to have multiple sleeves. Within the gameplay, there’s wall art with morphed fingers – another slip-up they could have steered clear of by hiring a person.  

These days, I appreciate developers’ hard work more than ever, especially those who work for indie houses. However, the rise of AI-generated content makes genuine, human-created productions much harder to find. Part of the problem lies with storefronts for promoting such titles, and part lies with the developers who use the technology. However, the consequences will be dire for nearly everyone.

The ramifications start with artists and developers losing their jobs in favor of AI-generated content. Companies like Activision can and will lean on AI if it means they can cut personnel and production costs.

Research indicates about 268,000 people in the U.S. work in the video game industry. Then, we must consider those working in Japan and other integral locations. What will they do if they get laid off? While some may find different roles in their company, others might have to leave the industry entirely. Therefore, we won’t get to benefit from some of the best creative minds in the business.

In 2025 and beyond, companies will rely on fewer employees to get the job done. The Game Developers Conference (GDC) quantified the layoffs in its annual report, and the numbers aren’t pretty. The report said 11% of game developers were laid off in the past 12 months, and 41% said the layoffs impacted their teams.

Unfortunately, nearly 60% of respondents said they were concerned about more reductions in 2025.

While some developers can find another spot in the industry, others have left entirely. Recent stories have shown former employees going back to school or working in the restaurant business. In other words, they’ve been kicked out of their desired field due to reduced budgets and the AI takeover. 

Even those who keep their jobs have already seen their efforts suppressed as they take a back seat to computer-generated content. The GDC’s report said one in three developers are using generative AI to streamline game development. One-third of the process is a big deal, as somebody will be pushed out of the process to favor AI-powered software.  

While we should fear the future of AI in gaming, it’s becoming worse right now. Fifty-two percent of the surveyed developers said their company has implemented generative AI. What’s worse? About 36% of them use AI tools in some capacity. 41% of developers said the technology has spread to production and team leadership.

However, those affected won’t only be our friends and family who work in game development – AI impacts all life on Earth. For example, companies require significant energy usage for their computers and the massive datasets that power generative AI. When developers increase their usage of this technology, they burn more fossil fuels and strain existing energy grids. Therefore, more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, raise surface temperatures and adversely affect food and agriculture.

Industry leaders must realize how much energy standard game development requires. For example, generating images uses as much energy as charging your smartphone. Despite this, we’re seeing developers increasing their AI usage nearly across the board. The data centers AI models rely on already consume about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity, and experts say AI’s energy demands will grow by 50% each year until 2030, so stopping the rise of this technology goes beyond game development.

Limiting or eliminating the use of AI will benefit the environment through a lower carbon footprint. So, how can we prevent it from taking over the industry entirely? It starts with listening to experts who have worked with AI and game development. Gamers like me are cynical about the generative AI trend in video games, but industry professionals are also raising the alarm.

Chris Knowles, whose past work includes Runescape, told the BBC that indie developers are less enthusiastic about AI because of cloned games. People are becoming smarter and discovering how to copy another person’s creation using AI-powered software. It’s not yet possible with just AI, but the days are coming soon.

“Anything that makes the clone studios’ business model even cheaper and quicker makes the difficult task of running a financially sustainable indie studio even harder,” he said.

The video game industry is at a crossroads, and I hope it chooses the correct path. AI-generated content isn’t worth the hype because it devalues the product and will likely cost hardworking people their jobs.

Human-created content has worked for over four decades, so I see no reason to stop using it. Generative AI gave us This Girl Does Not Exist, Oasis and Genie 2, while hands-on developers produced unforgettable experiences like Super Mario Odyssey, Portaland Red Dead Redemption.

For myself and for the industry, I know which path I’d rather go down.

— Jack Shaw

The post The Harm Of GenAI In Game Development appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH The critique of AI domination in society.

LOW The actual use of gen AI.

WTF The auctioning of bodies.

The games industry is in a crisis caused by generative AI, and its hype. The emergence of this tech seems to attract corporate greed, which in turn leads to the loss of jobs and creative work. Perhaps worse, the advent of games that are written, designed, and manifested mostly by AI is a daunting prospect.

Uncover the Smoking Gun piqued my interest with its premise – it uses actual generative AI as a conversational and investigational dynamic.

Speaking of myself personally, I might be gen AI’s harshest critic, but its implementation in game design deserves an honest evaluation. I was also intrigued by the prospect of examining the devs’ stance on gen AI’s and its use, as revealed via their sci-fi world. In both cases, Smoking Gun offers an excess of material for reflection.

In Smoking Gun, we play as a yet-to-be-known male protagonist, living in a classically-styled detective’s office. The area also functions as a hub world to the campaign’s five cases and a tutorial that allows us to uncover clues about the protagonist himself — such as a note from his wife reminding him not to forget his medicine, and a nearby award for excellence in solving criminal matters.

The setting of Gun reveals itself naturally by means of investigation. We live in 2030, and apparently it’s already game-over for most of humanity as robots have taken their place in most everyday jobs, including accounting, cleaning, curating, directing, and thinking. Humanity evolves alongside them, and scientists are working on optimizing the human condition in the context of a strong artificial intelligence presence. On cue, robots now show signs of resistance and evil intent — such as murdering their human ‘owners’ — which then stages the cases to be solved by the mysterious player-character.

In these cases, the player can explore freely, interact with objects point-and-click-style, and examine all sensory data as evidence, and the menu helpfully (or perhaps spoilery?) shows how many clues are left to be obtained. The detective dynamics are basic, but work well. Mainly, the player can interact with objects containing an interface to collect a hint. These hints can be linked manually, and the sense of player freedom in exploration and clue interpretation made most discoveries feel unscripted and hard-earned, which is satisfying in any detective experience.

Most of the encountered suspects are robots, and they can be interacted with and freely questioned using gen AI. Once the player feels as though they know enough, they can ‘solve’ the case, which then triggers a newspaper report that essentially highlights the facts uncovered (and missed) by the player.

The over-arching story is written by human developers (assumedly not AI) and the five main cases have the necessary overlap which ultimately leads to a general conclusion. While none of the writing is particularly brilliant in prose or world-building, the sense of mystery and impending discovery is built effectively, and I was not able to put the game down before finishing whatever case I was working on. (Each typically requires more than an hour to complete.) For example, one case involved a research lab with an assassinated professor, another the death of an artist in his own gallery. Both appeared to be murdered by robots.

The only significant shortcoming in Gun is — predictably — the generative AI.

While the chatbot function worked solidly for trivial matters (I could ask a bot what they thought of a book we had both read or the detective games they liked best) the interrogations went less smoothly. Bots would not interpret my questions correctly, even if specifically framed, and would give me answers which were explicitly underscored for signification at other times. This led me to avoid interrogation entirely for most of each investigation.

The newspaper articles at the end of each case appeared to be AI generated, offering awkwardly-phrased conclusions to my efforts, even when I got all the case’s answers right and there was only one way to interpret what happened. I’d much rather see a handcrafted final message, if only to stress the vital work of human journalists in capturing societal crises.

This leads me to a final reflection on the developer’s stance regarding AI. Going where many sci-fi tales have gone before, human/AI coexistence appears bound for catastrophe, yet, it requires human cooperation to get to this stage. The power vested in the player, and their opposition to the story’s human antagonists, tells us that the threat is looming, but far from out of our control. We have the ability to refrain from surrender to AI if we can resist its temptations of promised ease and luxury, while stressing the value of actual human work.

Thus, as a game, Uncover the Smoking Gun pits the player as a free-roaming individual against those harnessing the power of AI for a distorted idea of humanity’s future. In our role as the detective, we are reminded of the necessarily human skills of connecting dots and interpreting our world, and of protecting what is sacred to humankind. The same should go for the games industry, which demands courage to refrain from the temptations of AI and should double down on the more appreciable fruits of actual human creative labor.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Disclosures: The game is developed and published by ReLU Games. It is currently available on PC. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher. Approximately 7 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. There are no multiplayer modes.

Parents: Uncover the Smoking Gun has no ESRB rating, but its PEGI rating on the Steam Store states 12+. I would agree, as the game does not feature explicit gore, but implies some mature truths that can be interpreted as disgusting. Implications of violence, murder, and severe maltreatment are present. The audiovisual style is also catered to more mature players.

Colorblind Modes: There are no colorblind modes available.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: This game offers subtitles. The subtitles cannot be altered and/or resized. Audio clues are insignificant to the game’s progression.

Remappable Controls: No, this game’s controls are not remappable.

The post Uncover The Smoking Gun Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.