Yesterday, when a number of IGF jurors took a strong stance on AI-developed video games, we wrote a fairly standard blog about the news, but shortly after the story was first published, additional and deeply controversial discussions emerged regarding one of the best video games of the year.
Although the IGF jurors did not name any particular game when stating their opposition, it took only a few hours for news to emerge on social media that one of (if not the) biggest contributors to “the fairly intense discussion and disagreement between the judges and juries” was the revelation that Great walk had used AI “in the final stretch” of the game’s development.
Developers House House tell Aftermath that “LLMs have been used sparingly by House House to help resolve difficult technical issues and bugs”, and that they “estimate that well less than 0.1% of Big Walk’s code has anything to do with this use.” They also point out that “generative AI was not used in any other context during the creation of the game.”
House House also says it understands the opposition to this news, adding: “We are concerned that voluntary disclosures like this could contribute to the normalization of this technology, or its treatment as ‘inevitable.’ We support the work of those trying to limit the damage that generative AI does to video games and our world, and we apologize that using Big Walk’s LLM does not meet their standards.
Despite this seemingly minor use of AI, the fact remains that the game used AI in development, which for some members of the IGF jury (and beyond) was clearly a huge disappointment, especially given the game’s other progressive stances. For others, however, it is simply a sign of the times, or an example where people’s distrust and exhaustion with technology led them to alienate a game which otherwise made GOTY’s shortlists.
As for why House House is only confirming the use of AI in the game now, rather than at the time of release, they state: “We have not made any disclosure on Steam because the platform does not request disclosure of the code or use of the chatbot. We are releasing this disclosure because it has become a matter of public interest.”
For future games, the studio states that “Big Walk was developed without an internal policy for the use of AI, and we view this lack of policy as a failure. We will work to have a more comprehensive policy in the future.”
Here is House House’s statement in full:
In the latter part of Big Walk’s development, LLMs were used sparingly by House House to help resolve difficult technical issues and bugs. In some cases, snippets of LLM responses were copied as a starting point for modification in the game’s code. We estimate that well less than 0.1% of Big Walk’s code had anything to do with this use, and generative AI was not used in any other context during the game’s creation.
House House’s primary use case for LLMs was to investigate, via chatbots, issues we encountered with third-party code. If you are technically minded and curious, here is an example. We needed to eliminate shadow casters based on camera distance, but Unity URP only allows shadow casters to be eliminated based on distance to the front of the camera, so shadow casters behind the player were rendered at an infinite distance. This made our game 50% slower for about 20 seconds at sunrise and sunset. We have investigated the issue thoroughly and looked at the URP code ourselves, but have not found a solution. Then we were able to speak directly to an engineer at Unity, who asked questions and ultimately concluded that what we wanted was not possible. Finally, we asked the question to an LLM chatbot. After a few dead ends, he suggested a possible solution, and although we had to modify the suggestion significantly, it worked. This fix was approximately 10 lines of code in URP.
We initially drafted a version of the above disclosure as it was a suggested part of our IGF submission. We have not made any disclosures on Steam as the platform does not request disclosure of chatbot code or usage. We are publishing this disclosure because it has become a matter of public interest.
This is not an endorsement or argument for the use of AI tools, no matter how minimal. We are concerned that voluntary disclosures like this could contribute to the normalization of this technology, or its treatment as “inevitable.” We support the work of those trying to limit the damage that generative AI does to video games and our world, and we apologize that using Big Walk’s LLM does not meet their standards.
Big Walk was developed without an internal policy for the use of AI, and we consider this lack of policy a failure. We will strive to have a more comprehensive policy in the future.
Gn tech
