Image Source: Aftermath
IGF games are at the center of an intense awards debate after House House confirmed that its acclaimed title Big Walk used large language models during the final stretch of development. The studio says the technology was used sparingly for technical research, debugging, and problem-solving, but the disclosure has still divided members of the Independent Games Festival judging community.
The revelation followed a statement from several IGF jurors opposing games made with generative artificial intelligence. Although the jurors did not identify specific titles, discussion quickly spread across social media about whether Big Walk was among the games contributing to disagreements within the judging and jury pools.
IGF Games Debate Intensifies After Big Walk Disclosure
House House told Aftermath that LLMs were used to help the team work through difficult technical challenges and bugs. The developers estimate that well under 0.1% of Big Walk’s code was connected to this use. They also emphasized that generative AI was not used for any other part of the game’s production.
According to the studio, the main use case involved researching problems connected to third-party code through chatbot conversations. In one example, the team was trying to improve how Unity’s Universal Render Pipeline handled shadow casters. A rendering issue caused the game to run approximately 50% slower for around 20 seconds during sunrise and sunset sequences.
House House said it researched the problem internally and consulted a Unity engineer before turning to an LLM chatbot. After several unsuccessful suggestions, the system proposed a possible fix. The developers then modified the recommendation extensively, producing a solution that represented approximately 10 lines of code inside Unity URP.
A Small Amount of AI, but a Major Ethical Dispute
The limited role of AI has not ended the controversy. For some IGF jurors and developers, any use of generative AI is unacceptable because of concerns surrounding training data, creative labor, environmental costs, and the broader impact of automation on game development.
Others see the situation differently. They argue that using a chatbot to investigate a technical issue is not equivalent to generating artwork, writing, music, dialogue, or other creative material. From that perspective, the debate reflects a difficult reality for studios that increasingly encounter AI tools during ordinary software development.
The issue is especially sensitive because Big Walk has been associated with progressive positions outside its game design. That context has made the disclosure particularly disappointing for some supporters, while others believe the studio’s transparency should be recognized even if they disagree with the decision to use an LLM.
Why House House Revealed the AI Use Now
House House said it did not disclose the chatbot and code usage on Steam because the platform does not request that information. The studio explained that it had prepared a version of the disclosure for its IGF submission, but it is now making the information public because the matter has become newsworthy.
The developers also acknowledged that voluntary disclosures can unintentionally normalize generative AI or make its spread seem unavoidable. House House said it supports efforts to reduce the harm AI is causing to video games and society, and apologized if Big Walk’s use does not meet the standards of critics.
The studio further admitted that the game was developed without an internal AI policy. House House called that lack of policy a failure and said it intends to create more comprehensive rules for future projects.
What the IGF Games Controversy Could Mean
- Awards eligibility: Jurors may continue debating whether any AI-assisted development should affect a game’s consideration.
- Disclosure standards: Developers could face growing pressure to explain how AI tools were used, even when their contribution is extremely small.
- Industry policy: Studios may introduce formal rules covering chatbots, code generation, art tools, and other automated systems.
- Player expectations: Audiences may demand clearer information about the technology behind the games they support.
The controversy does not establish that Big Walk has been removed from consideration, nor does it confirm a final decision by the IGF. Instead, it highlights the unresolved standards facing awards bodies and independent developers as AI becomes more common in technical workflows.
For now, the discussion surrounding IGF games is likely to continue well beyond this particular title. House House’s statement offers a detailed account of limited LLM use, but it also shows why even a small amount of AI assistance can trigger serious questions about authorship, fairness, transparency, and the future of game creation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Big Walk use generative AI to create its art or writing?
No. House House said generative AI was not used for art, writing, music, dialogue, or any other creative context. The reported use involved technical research and code-related problem-solving.
How much of Big Walk’s code involved AI assistance?
House House estimated that well under 0.1% of the game’s code had anything to do with LLM usage.
What was the main AI-assisted task?
The studio used an LLM chatbot while investigating a Unity rendering issue involving shadow-caster distance and performance during sunrise and sunset scenes.
Has Big Walk been disqualified from the IGF?
The available statement does not confirm that Big Walk has been disqualified. The debate concerns how jurors should treat games that use generative AI in any capacity.
Will House House change its development practices?
Yes. House House said it considers the absence of an internal AI policy a failure and plans to create a more comprehensive policy for future games.
