According to Wccftech, Level-5 CEO Akihiro Hino has publicly defended the use of generative AI in game development, prompted by recent controversies like Sandfall Interactive’s Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 losing a Game of the Year award over its AI use. Hino clarified that rumors his studio is letting AI do all the programming for an upcoming title are a misunderstanding stemming from a project specifically themed around AI. He argues AI provides “time savings that can’t be dismissed” and could shift AAA game development cycles from 5-10 years down to just two years. His core warning is that building a public impression that “using AI is evil” could seriously hinder the progress of modern digital technology. He shared these views in a post on his official X (formerly Twitter) account.
The Knife Analogy
Hino’s argument is the classic “tool” defense, and he uses the knife analogy to make it. A knife can cook or harm; a computer can create games or commit cybercrime. His point is that the problem isn’t the technology itself, but how it’s used. And look, he’s not wrong on a purely logical level. The issue, of course, is that we’re in the messy, emotional early days where the “misuse” – plagiarism, art theft, layoffs – is the dominant narrative. The industry’s anxiety isn’t really about the abstract potential of AI. It’s about the very concrete fear that this tool will be used to cut costs by cutting people, or to shortcut originality by remixing others’ work without credit. Hino is asking for a perspective shift, but that’s a tough sell when the negative examples keep piling up.
The Real Stakes for Gaming
Here’s the thing: when Hino talks about AAA games taking 5-10 years, he’s hitting on the central tension in modern game development. Budgets are astronomical, timelines are bloated, and the risk of a flop is catastrophic. From a pure business standpoint, any tool that promises to compress that timeline is a godsend. The dream of a major, polished game every two years instead of every decade is a powerful vision for both creators and players. But is that what AI will actually deliver? Or will it just enable studios to chase even more graphical fidelity and scale, keeping dev times long but with smaller teams? The promise is efficiency leading to more creativity. The skeptic in me wonders if it will just be efficiency for efficiency’s sake.
I think his plea for creators and audiences to see AI as a tool is the most important part. Because right now, the discourse is binary: you’re either a Luddite or a tech bro. There’s little room for the pragmatic middle ground of developers using AI for brainstorming, for generating placeholder assets, for automating tedious coding tasks. By immediately equating any AI use with “evil,” we risk shaming the thoughtful, ethical experimentation that could actually lead to positive outcomes. But the onus is on the companies to be transparent. You can’t blame people for assuming the worst when studios are secretive about their pipelines.
A Shift in Common Sense
Hino says AI has the potential to “upend common sense in game development.” He’s probably right. But changing “common sense” is a brutal, disruptive process. It reshapes job roles, business models, and artistic workflows. The backlash we’re seeing is the friction of that change. It’s the sound of an industry trying to figure out the new rules before the old ones are completely obsolete. Hino, as the head of a major studio, is clearly trying to steer that conversation toward optimism and integration. Whether players and fellow developers will follow that lead depends entirely on what the next few “AI-assisted” games actually look and feel like. The proof, as always, will be in the playing.
