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
- Sonic Forces Review - December 8, 2025
- Pacific Drive: Whispers In The Woods Review - December 2, 2025
- Slime Rancher 2 Review - November 11, 2025
Your comment on Stellaris’ use of AI voices is misleading, as they did pay voice actors for the use of their voice. They used AI because the character is literally part of an advanced AI Civilization in the game, so a robotic, uncanny voice was intentional. Quote from the devs: “The AI voice generation tools we use on Stellaris ensure that the voice actors that signed up and built the models receive royalties for every line we create. Ethical use of AI technology is very important to us – we’re pretty good at exploring dystopian sci-fi and don’t want to… Read more »
Hey Harry, That’s a fair point, and I definitely could’ve been more clear with the explanation of the situation with Stellaris. My point wasn’t to say that they weren’t compensated at all, but that they’re not being paid directly for the voice work they’re doing as many voice actors are contracted to do. While there’s no way to know exactly what royalties they’re being paid or how that compares to what they might’ve been paid to record the lines outright, it is a practice that sets a bad precedent for voice actors as a whole, who have been largely trying… Read more »
Little late to the discussion, but, better late then never.
If I remember correctly (its been a while since I looked into this,) all the voice actors get paid royalties for every line generated.
Stellaris is actually an example of a fairly ethical use of GenAI.
“The developers used generative AI to create a few background images and props.” Serious, not-devil’s-advocate question. Is the issue here, pertaining to the sentence I’m quoting, specifically about the implication that the AI is potentially sourcing images from other artists without credit or compensation? Or is the “generative” process itself at issue? Let’s say it’s the former, which I think is the crux of the ethical problems with AI. But on the topic of the later, “generative” content in video games has existed for . . . well, probably forever, but it’s at the heart of the entire roguelike genre.… Read more »
I think one of the big things the gaming community needs to make a bigger effort is defining the differences between Generative AI and Procedural Generation, because I agree, there are entire genres of games built around generative aspects. But I think one of the key differences is that in procedural generation, all of the individual elements are still being hand-built and created with intention, as compared to AI, which takes away the element of personal creation. I think that arguably the biggest issue with AI is like you said, taking work from other artists without credit or compensation, but… Read more »
“in procedural generation, all of the individual elements are still being hand-built and created with intention”
Yeah, this is a good argument. I love Vampire Survivors, for example, and I’m not going to pretend the random placement of all the enemies is an issue to me, because enemy placement isn’t all that relevant to the way you interact with the game (not to mention the base game is literally $5).
But I guess that makes the issue even more nuanced, because TYPE of game, MEANS of interaction, and PRICE POINT also need to be factored in.
Really thoughtful piece — I appreciate how you unpacked the ethical gray areas of GenAI in game development. There’s definitely a tension between innovation and the devaluation of human creativity, especially in narrative-heavy or stylistic games. I’ve been diving into smaller, independently made titles lately just to see what raw creativity looks like when it’s not filtered through automation. One weird but memorable example is Crazy Cattle 3D — a completely unhinged browser game that’s chaotic, handmade, and honestly kind of refreshing in contrast to all the procedural “perfect polish†we see from AI-assisted pipelines. Thanks for writing this —… Read more »
Thanks for sharing such an illuminating, albeit disturbing, article, Jack. It’s good to see fellow staff writers weighing in on this important issue and knowing that we’re united in our commitment to the devs who continue to inspire us with their ingenuity and passion for gaming. Humans in the gaming industry unite!