Big Walk Won a Golden Joystick Just After Its AI Admission, and It Exposes a Missing Line

Game of the Year favorite and many streamers’ go-to, Big Walk is currently under fire as we head into award season. The indie title, created by House House, the same folks that brought us Untitled Goose Game, recently disclosed that Big Walk utilizes AI. The game was developed specifically with LLMs, or Large Language Models, in the final stretch of the game’s development. The non-disclosure of AI usage has fans in a stir and will likely hurt the game’s chances of snagging GOTY, among other accolades, during The Game Awards this December. The outrage poses a very poignant question for fans and voters about the use of AI hiding without detection and what should be done.

Amidst the conversations about the game, Big Walk took home the Critics’ Choice Award at the Golden Joystick Awards on November 11 despite controversy. Some folks have stated that the game should not lose out on its candidacy for GOTY, given AI was used “minimally,” according to a statement made by House House, while others feel betrayed by the lack of disclosure. I find that the most glaring issue is that, beyond disclosure or feelings of betrayal, there is no standardized way across the industry for companies to use AI. Should House House get a pass because it minimally uses generative AI? Where is the line? Thus far, there is no widely accepted idea of what is to be done about the glaring problem in gaming, which is AI.

There Is No Standardized Use of AI Across the Gaming Industry

AI has slowly integrated into a slew of businesses, from fashion to gaming. Whether we like it or not, and believe me, I hate it, it is now an ever-present factor that has touched all creative spaces. In the world of gaming, time and time again, I have seen industry darlings fall to their knees over the use of AI. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 took a massive hit after Sandfall Interactive disclosed that they utilized AI during the game’s “early development,” experimenting briefly with generative AI tools around 2022 to create backgrounds and placeholder textures like text.

Guess the games from the emojis.

Following this disclosure, the game’s GOTY award from the Indie Game Awards was revoked. Companies have seen the impact their AI usage, however small, has on public perception. It pretty much tanks credibility. As far as Big Walk goes, House House had this to say in a statement via their website under the FAQ tab: “LLMs were used sparingly by House House to help work through difficult technical challenges and bugs. In some cases, snippets from LLM responses were copied as a starting point to be modified into game code—we’d estimate that well under 0.1% of Big Walk’s code had anything to do with this usage, and generative AI was not used in any other context when making the game.” House House continued in their official statement,

We needed to cull shadow casters by distance from the camera, but Unity URP only allows culling shadow casters by distance in camera forwards, so shadow casters behind the player were being rendered at an infinite distance. This made our game run 50% slower for around 20 seconds at sunrise and sunset. We researched the problem extensively, and we looked at the URP code ourselves, but we couldn’t find a way.

These LLMs are specific AI tech that is trained to digest massive amounts of text data and then takes that text data and translates it into natural human language or performs a variety of tasks. This was used for research and troubleshooting purposes in Big Walk‘s case. AI was not used to create the game’s art, writing, music, or any other part of the game’s creation. I’d wager that, big or small, House House still utilized generative AI in their work. The issue I am drawing from this is the addition of a percentage of AI used. There is no standardized way companies developing games should use AI. Either companies are adopting AI full-swing, or renouncing it altogether.

Image via House House
Image via House House
Image: House House, Panic via GameRant

When AI is used, it is coupled with the caveat of “sparing” usage, letting their community know that the tech was just a whisper in their development processes. Since there is no standard, companies like House House are able to, in some part, get away with these partial uses of AI because “they used it sparingly.” These companies tend to quantify their AI usage, as a way to lighten the blow, something that I find never makes the situation any better. Sandfall Interactive took a similar approach following their AI controversy. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33‘s game director, Guillaume Broche, remarked,

When AI first came out in 2022, we’d already started on the game. It was just a new tool; we tried it, and we didn’t like it at all; it felt wrong. We had originally used it as a placeholder for the textures we missed, but we took it out as soon as we found it.

This blames companies that wholeheartedly embrace generative AI, shifting the conversation to a team that might utilize AI capabilities to the fullest extent. It is a back-and-forth blame game that isn’t productive to the broader conversation about what should be done with AI, or how AI usage should be regulated. If regulation is put in place, which it very well should be to keep the sanctity of creativity alive, we first need to enforce transparency, making sure that, ahead of time, players know about AI usage before it is too late. While not totally effective, Steam has adopted a policy like this to arm consumers with this information before purchase.

Image: House House, Panic
Image via House House
Image via House House

In the case of Big Walk, however, House House did not disclose their AI use to Steam because “the platform does not request disclosure of code or chatbot usage. We are posting this disclosure as it has become a matter of public interest.” How can a company best rein in AI use so it doesn’t affect the creative process or reception of the game? Is my AI usage ethical? Standardization should alleviate concerns for both consumers and the companies that make these games. If companies are electing to use AI in some capacity, it should be regulated so that consumers and devs alike can continue to keep their eyes on it.

Enforcing a specific metric or creating a framework that can easily be referenced will help clear up confusion and give individual teams clear boundaries to work within so that they don’t step on any toes. Let it be known that some companies are encouraging their devs to utilize AI in some capacity, giving them no say in the matter. If AI usage is going to take place, companies should disclose it and then designate usage to a specific task, like fixing technical issues, while maintaining artistic integrity, like in Big Walk‘s case. This also means that companies with AI task forces hired to keep AI in check should all be on the same page, following the same guidelines for widespread success. The most productive way to regulate or even abolish AI is to call out AI and then work out an agreed-upon solution.

It is worth noting that Big Walk was submitted to the 2027 Independent Games Festival. In a note posted to social media, IGF jurors stated that said they would not vote for any game developed with generative AI. While the IGF hasn’t yet corroborated whether they will take on the jurors’ stance, this statement is a telling one. It might be a reflection of how voting and nomination will go for Big Walk in the near future. IGF’s finalists will be announced in January 2027. No game in particular was mentioned in this juror’s letter, but Big Walk devs immediately sprang into action, commenting on their use of AI soon after the jurors spoke out. I will be interested to see if or how this affects games that utilize AI’s candidacy going forward.

An Indie Game’s Usage of AI is Particularly Devastating

Image via Sandfall Interactive
Image via House House
Image via Panache Digital Games

On the consumer’s side, when devs don’t disclose their AI usage, there is a sense of betrayal, especially for something like an indie game. Indie titles are the underdogs, seemingly prioritizing creativity, sometimes over profit. You want to root for their process where, through blood, sweat, and tears, these devs came out on the other side with a tremendous game without the backing of some big corporation to do it. If I am playing devil’s advocate here, these indie studios reach for AI precisely because they don’t have a lot to work with and need help to meet deadlines, etc.

Indie games are a passion project, and when AI is thrown in the mix, that project seems less fueled by passion and more by monetary gain. It feels tainted because devs are utilizing generative AI to seemingly cut corners or speed up production. While I can’t speak to this feeling as it pertains to Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, I can share my feelings on this for Big Walk. I love indie games because they are often on the “weirder” side. Experimental games are some of my favorites because they don’t fit the norm and are willing to be different in a world full of similar games.

I was pretty heartbroken to learn that a fun-loving, slow-paced puzzle game like Big Walk was created with even an ounce of AI. Going on an exciting walking adventure with friends seemed less pure, less sacred. I am certain that the perception of this game will never be the same. Folks will remember the game for its fun, yes, but also for the bad taste that AI left in their mouths. Already I’ve begun to read about people fighting for refunds for the game, and I am not really surprised.

I work in a creative field, and was drawn to said field because I loved to write. Like many creatives, I have seen firsthand how damaging AI can be, not only to the environment but to the people who work in the same fields. It taints credibility and makes everyone look lazy, as it should. AI is not a replacement for creativity. If it is used, it should be utilized for menial tasks rather than replacing artistic expression. Indie games are the best example of artistic freedom in the gaming world. If they’re being knocked down by big AI scandals like this, then what is left for gamers to cherish?