 |
| Big Walk official in-game screenshot. |
House House, the Australian studio behind Untitled Goose Game, has confirmed that generative AI tools played a limited role in developing Big Walk. According to the developer, large language models (LLMs) assisted with technical troubleshooting during the final stages of production, with substantially less than 0.1% of the game's code connected to their use.
The disclosure comes amid growing opposition to generative AI in game development, particularly after 19 jurors for the 2027 Independent Games Festival (IGF) announced they would refuse to vote for games that used the technology in any capacity.
How House House Used AI in Big Walk
In its official Big Walk AI disclosure, House House explained that chatbots were primarily used to investigate difficult technical problems involving third-party code. Some suggested code snippets served as starting points, but developers substantially modified them before implementation. The studio emphasized that generative AI was not used elsewhere in the game's development.
One example involved Unity's Universal Render Pipeline (URP). A shadow-rendering limitation caused the game to run approximately 50% slower for around 20 seconds during sunrise and sunset sequences. After extensive investigation and consultation with a Unity engineer failed to produce a solution, an LLM suggested an approach that the developers adapted into roughly 10 lines of code.
This distinction matters because House House describes AI assistance with debugging and programming rather than generating artwork, dialogue, or other creative assets. Nevertheless, the studio acknowledges that even limited AI involvement raises ethical questions.
IGF Jurors Take a Stand Against Generative AI
The controversy follows a November 9 statement from 19 IGF jurors opposing generative AI in submitted games. As reported by Aftermath, the signatories said they would decline to vote for any game developed using generative AI, regardless of whether it contributed to artwork, audio, writing, or programming.
The jurors argue that programming deserves the same creative recognition as other parts of game development. However, their position does not represent an official blanket ban by the IGF, and the statement acknowledges differing opinions among festival jurors.
The situation also highlights a distinction from previous gaming controversies. For example, Crimson Desert faced criticism over AI-generated artwork that remained in its released game. Big Walk's disclosure instead concerns a small amount of code developed with chatbot assistance.
House House Promises a Clearer AI Policy
House House says the initial disclosure was prepared for its IGF submission. The studio did not publish a corresponding notice on Steam because, according to its explanation, Steam does not require disclosure of chatbot-assisted programming or code development.
The developer also acknowledged that Big Walk was produced without an internal AI usage policy, describing that omission as a failure and committing to establishing more comprehensive guidelines. The controversy adds to wider questions about transparency in gaming, previously explored in the debate over AI disclosure labels on game storefronts.
For now, Big Walk illustrates how even a few lines of AI-assisted code can become contentious. As developers increasingly encounter AI-powered programming tools, the industry still faces a fundamental question: should minimal technical assistance be treated differently from AI-generated creative content?