As domestic game companies actively use AI in game development, cases are mounting in which users push back because AI was used for characters, illustrations and content. While the use of AI images and content is spreading quickly in other industries, critics say resistance remains strong among game users to images generated by AI rather than human creators.
According to the game industry on the 6th, SHIFT UP released the music video for the soundtrack "Wanna be in LOVE" of its next title "Stellar Blade: Blood Rain" late on the 31st, and the video drew a strong backlash from game users. The video, known to have been produced using AI, was criticized for prominent AI-specific unnatural expressions in characters' movements and facial expressions and in scene transitions, and the controversy spread so much that fewer than seven days after release it had drawn about 8,300 comments. Users panned it as "AI slop," meaning low-quality AI-generated content.
As the controversy grew, SHIFT UP CEO Kim Hyeong-tae said on X (formerly Twitter), "The character 'Eve' at the center of the video is a character that our artists and modelers devoted themselves to creating for more than a year; it was not made by AI from the start," and "AI was used as a (rendering) tool to draw the character based on company-made data, design and craftsmanship." The point was that there is no issue because AI was used as an auxiliary means with the creator's intent involved.
As content made with Generative AI has increased this year, whether AI is used has emerged as a sensitive flashpoint in the game industry. Pearl Abyss' "Crimson Desert" faced criticism after its March launch that AI might have been used because a horse in the game appeared to have three legs. As the controversy grew, the company formally apologized to users and revised the related elements. "ARC Raiders," developed by Embark Studios under Nexon, faced a backlash after it became known that it used not image generation but voice generation AI (TTS). In response, Embark Studios re-recorded some lines with the actual voices of voice actors.
Industry watchers analyze that beyond simple quality issues, perceptions of creative value underlie game users' sensitive reactions to AI creations. They feel repelled not only by AI-specific unnatural expressions but also by the very fact that the result did not pass through a human creator's hands. In particular, for content like games, where fandom forms around intellectual property (IP) and creative elements such as characters and illustrations carry significant weight, aversion to designs in which AI took part is greater than in other fields.
Negative perceptions surrounding how Generative AI learns have also played a role. Most image-generation AIs create new images by training on existing works' data, so copyright infringement controversies have been consistently raised. Because game users view characters, illustrations and voices as single works and pay expense accordingly, they show a reaction that it is hard to recognize equivalent value in results produced by AI. This aversion is especially pronounced among users in Western markets, where wariness of Generative AI is strong.
As a result, whenever a new title is unveiled, users keep trying to verify whether AI was used, and game companies are even put in positions of having to explain. Smilegate's "Chaos Zero Nightmare" and Netmarble's "Tower of God: New World" faced suspicions that the released illustrations were made by AI, prompting the developers to directly say they did not use AI.
A game industry official said, "Users do not feel aversion to using AI as a development tool itself, but backlash is strong when AI replaces human creative domains," and noted, "Early on, there were forecasts that AI would replace game design, but for core creative works users value—such as characters and illustrations—it is highly likely the approach of people making them directly will continue."