According to Eurogamer.net, Bethesda’s Todd Howard discussed the use of AI in game development at a Fallout season two event this week. He called AI a “tool” that can help developers go through iterations faster, comparing it to using a modern version of Photoshop versus one from ten years ago. Howard stressed that “creative intention comes from human artists” and the goal is to “protect the artistry.” His comments arrive as industry surveys show growing adoption, like a 2023 Unity report claiming 62% of studios using its tools employed AI, with animation as a top use case. The topic is hot, evidenced by the recent cancellation of Postal: Bullet Paradise after feedback suggested it used generative AI extensively.
Howard’s pragmatic stance
Here’s the thing: Howard’s position isn’t really that controversial in the practical, day-to-day world of big-budget game development. He’s not talking about AI writing quests or generating concept art from scratch. He’s talking about it as an accelerator for internal tools—stuff like checking asset consistency across a massive open world or automating tedious parts of the animation pipeline. Basically, it’s about removing grunt work. I think his Photoshop analogy is telling. No one wants to go back to older, slower tools. But the key line is “not in generating things.” He’s drawing a line, however fuzzy, between using AI to assist a process a human is directing and using it to create the final product. That’s the “human intention” he wants to protect. It’s a defensive stance, really. He’s saying, “We’ll use this, but don’t worry, our games will still feel like our games.”
The industry context
Now, Howard’s cautious optimism sits in stark contrast to the wider chaos in the industry. Look at the Postal: Bullet Paradise cancellation. That’s the fear in a nutshell—that a game’s core identity could be built by a machine, and players will reject it. But then you have Tim Sweeney from Epic saying AI will be in nearly everything, and that disclosing it is pointless. Who’s right? Probably both, in a way. For massive studios like Bethesda, with established styles and franchises, AI is a potential efficiency lever. For smaller studios or asset flippers, it’s a way to generate volume at low cost. The surveys don’t lie: use is skyrocketing. Over half of Japanese studios are reportedly using it. The real question isn’t *if* it’s being used, but *how*. Is it being used to make a human artist 20% faster, or to replace that artist entirely? The industry hasn’t decided yet.
The core tension
So we’re left with this fundamental tension. On one side, you have the undeniable pressure to make these increasingly complex and expensive games faster and cheaper. AI promises that. On the other side, you have the belief—held by Howard and, I suspect, many players—that the soul of a game comes from human choices, mistakes, and quirks. Can you protect that “artistry” while fully embracing the tool? It’s a tough balance. Automate too much, and everything starts to feel samey, like it’s all coming from the same digital well. Use it too little, and you risk falling behind competitively. Howard’s Bethesda is in a unique spot. Their games are famously janky and full of human fingerprints—that’s part of their charm. For them, adopting AI is a particularly delicate dance. They can’t afford to lose that “special” feel he mentions, even as they try to modernize their famously creaky development tools.
