The independent gaming community has experienced significant tension this week as a dispute over the use of generative AI in game development has come to a head. The conflict was sparked by a statement released by a group of jurors from the Independent Games Festival, which is taking place in 2026. These jurors declared that they would not vote for any games that utilize generative AI in any capacity, a decision that has drawn immediate attention to specific titles in the current lineup.
Shortly after the jurors' announcement, the developers of the popular co-op adventure game Big Walk issued their own response. The studio behind the title, House House, confirmed that it used artificial intelligence sparingly during the final stages of development. The developer stated that these tools were employed to help navigate difficult technical challenges and resolve persistent bugs in the code.
In their joint statement, the IGF jurors noted that while the quality of this year's entries has been incredible, there has been a significant increase in the number of games developed with generative AI tools. This shift has led to intense discussion and disagreement within the jury, with no universal consensus reached. The statement outlined several key beliefs, including the view that generative AI has negative effects and that AI-generated code is not an exception to these harms. The jurors also emphasized that the use of AI tools is not a forgone conclusion in the industry.
Notable figures in the industry signed the statement, including Sam Barlow, the creator of Telling Lies and Immortality, and Lena Raine, the composer for Celeste. The jurors clarified that their statement does not represent the entire IGF organization or all jury members. They noted that some members voiced concern about signing the document without facing professional blowback, highlighting the delicate nature of the debate.
Big Walk has become a central point of contention in this discussion. The game, developed by House House, the team known for Untitled Goose Game, was the subject of specific scrutiny. In a statement posted on its website and shared with media outlets, House House explained that it used snippets from large language model responses as a starting point for code modifications. The studio estimated that well under 0.1 percent of the game's code had any connection to this usage, and generative AI was not used in any other context during the creation process.
The primary use case for the LLMs, according to House House, was to research issues encountered with third-party code via chatbots. A specific example cited was the modification of LLM-suggested code to fix an issue with shadows. The team noted that it turned to the chatbot only after researching the problem extensively and even speaking with an engineer at Unity. The studio confirmed that it disclosed this AI usage as part of its IGF submission, although it did not disclose it on the game's Steam page because the platform does not currently request disclosure of code or chatbot usage.
House House stated that its disclosure is not an endorsement of AI tools, no matter how minimal their use. The developers expressed concern that voluntary disclosures might contribute to the normalization of this technology or lead to it being treated as inevitable. The studio affirmed its support for those working to limit the harm generative AI is causing to video games and the world at large, and it apologized that the LLM usage in Big Walk may not meet the standards of those critics.
The developers admitted that they did not have an AI policy in place when they were developing Big Walk, describing this gap as a failure. House House said it will work to implement a more comprehensive policy in the future to guide its development practices. The studio's transparent approach has added another layer to the ongoing debate about how the indie sector should define its relationship with emerging technology.
Sam Barlow provided additional context after the initial reports, stating that Big Walk was not the impetus for the IGF's discussion. However, he noted that the game became a tricky edge case, raising questions about what to do when a favorite team uses AI in a minimal way. Barlow clarified that the movement is not a call to boycott a specific game or to economically hurt a team. Instead, he explained that it is about a single award among many and what that award should mean as a reflection of the indie alternative to mainstream game development.
Austin Walker, who posted a copy of the jurors' statement, also shared a detailed blog post outlining his position on AI and the IGF awards. The addition of these perspectives from both sides has helped to frame the current disarray, with the community continuing to navigate the implications of AI in an industry that traditionally values unique, hand-crafted creative processes.
