A disagreement over generative AI has put a practical question before the indie game community: how should developers disclose and assess limited use of these tools? Some Independent Games Festival jurors say they will not vote for games that use generative AI in any capacity. House House, the studio behind Big Walk, says it used chatbot responses in a small amount of code during development.
Jurors draw a firm line on generative AI
A group of IGF jurors published a statement saying they would not vote for games made with generative AI in any capacity. They described this year’s entries as incredible, but said there had been a significant increase in games developed with generative AI tools. That increase had led to intense discussion and disagreement, without a universal consensus.
The signatories outlined concerns about the effects of generative AI, including its use to produce code. They also argued that adopting AI tools is not an inevitable step for the industry. Their statement represents the jurors who signed it, rather than IGF as an organization or every member of the jury.
The signatories include Sam Barlow, creator of Telling Lies and Immortality, and Lena Raine, composer of Celeste. The statement also notes that some jurors worried they could face professional blowback for signing, underscoring the sensitivity of speaking publicly about the issue.
What House House says it used AI for
Big Walk, a co-op adventure game from Untitled Goose Game developer House House, became a focus of the discussion. The studio said it used generative AI sparingly in the game’s final stretch to help with technical challenges and bugs.
House House described its main use of language model chatbots as research into problems involving third-party code. One example involved a shadow issue: after extensive research and a conversation with an engineer at Unity, the team turned to a chatbot, then modified code it suggested.
The studio said snippets from language model responses were sometimes copied as a starting point and changed into game code. It estimated that well under 0.1% of Big Walk’s code was connected to that use, and said generative AI was not used in other parts of making the game.
Disclosure raises questions about expectations
House House said it disclosed its AI use in its IGF submission. It did not add a disclosure to Big Walk’s Steam page, explaining that the platform does not ask developers to disclose code or chatbot use.
That difference points to an unsettled question for game makers: what counts as meaningful disclosure when a tool is used to investigate a technical problem or suggest code that a developer later changes? The jurors’ position treats any use as relevant to their voting. House House, meanwhile, has described the scale and context of its use, while acknowledging that the explanation may not satisfy everyone.
The studio emphasized that its account was not an endorsement of AI tools, even when their use is limited. It also expressed concern that voluntary disclosures could make the technology seem normal or inevitable. House House said it supports efforts to limit the harms generative AI is doing to videogames and the world, and apologized that the use in Big Walk might not meet the standards of those concerned.
A policy gap the studio says it will address
House House said it had no AI policy in place while developing Big Walk, calling that a failure. The studio said it would work toward a more comprehensive policy going forward.
The episode leaves developers facing both practical and cultural decisions. A tool used to troubleshoot a difficult technical issue can still matter to jurors and players who object to generative AI more broadly. At the same time, describing what the tool did, how its output was changed, and where it was used gives others more information to judge the work.
For House House, the immediate response is a commitment to establish clearer rules. For the wider indie game community, the jurors’ statement and the studio’s explanation show that no shared standard has settled the dispute. The debate now includes not only whether AI belongs in game development, but also how teams should set policies and communicate their choices.