By Online Games VIP Editorial
·
IGN’s opinion piece uses Galactic Racer’s Biddy Blas to question whether Epic’s reported AI-first plans can preserve the human choices behind memorable characters.
IGN’s opinion piece argues that an AI-first production model could struggle to create the kind of memorable, unexpected character that made Biddy Blas stand out in Star Wars: Galactic Racer. The argument focuses on the human decisions behind the character rather than on whether software can generate an angry crocodile design, a strange voice, or a piece of dialogue in isolation.
The underlying development report remains unconfirmed in the supplied evidence. IGN describes an apparent push by Epic Games toward an AI-first production model and says that this approach has reportedly delayed a secret Star Wars and Marvel crossover shooter. IGN also says the supposed project is expected to use AI tools for coding and art. Epic has not provided a public development update in the source record, and IGN says nobody outside Epic’s offices has seen a frame of the game.
IGN’s piece is explicitly opinion and analysis, not a hands-on report about Epic’s unreleased shooter. Its central comparison is Galactic Racer, which IGN presents as a strong entry in the under-served arcade high-speed racing genre. The publication highlights the game’s vehicle customization, heat-management mechanics, and opponent-rivalry systems as part of its appeal.
IGN identifies Biddy Blas as one of the racing game’s supporting characters and describes him as a small crocodile-like figure with an outsized angry personality. The character has become the piece’s example of a breakout supporting figure, the sort of creation that can attract attention beyond its apparent importance to the plot. IGN connects that appeal to a fan idea sometimes used for Star Wars side characters: a minor figure whose brief presence makes them a favorite.
The development claim about Epic is narrower than a confirmed announcement. According to IGN, an apparent AI-first shift has reportedly delayed a secret crossover shooter involving Star Wars and Marvel. IGN says the reported production plan would use AI on both the coding and art sides. The source does not identify the game’s title, announce a release window, describe its platforms, or provide a confirmed development schedule.
That distinction matters. The supplied record does not establish that Epic has released the project, shown gameplay, confirmed its tools, or publicly explained a delay. It also does not establish that the game will lack distinctive characters. IGN’s argument is a prediction about the limits of a reported pipeline, not a review of a playable product.
IGN’s analysis separates the ingredients of a character into parts that can be imitated and choices that give those parts personality. A computer system might be able to produce an unusual creature, generate a catchphrase, or create a voice that sounds appropriate. The opinion piece argues that these surface elements do not automatically explain why players respond to a character.
In IGN’s reading, Biddy Blas became memorable through a chain of deliberate human choices. The writers chose a particular nonsense phrase for him, while performer Richard Summers-Calvert delivered it with an exaggerated comic quality. IGN’s point is not that software could never produce similar raw material. It is that the character’s identity came from people deciding which possibilities were funny, surprising, and worth keeping.
The source also draws on comments from actor Will de Renzy-Martin, who is identified by IGN as the lead actor for The Blood of Dawnwalker. The relevant argument is that performance involves more than the sound of a voice. It includes personality, choices made in the room, and interaction with directors or producers. IGN applies that reasoning to game characters, suggesting that an AI-generated voice would still need a human process around it to produce a specific performance.
Analysis: For players, this is a useful way to judge AI claims without treating the technology as a single all-purpose feature. Generating an asset is not the same as making a character worth remembering. A model may help create options quickly, but the player-facing result still depends on selection, timing, writing, direction, performance, animation, and the wider game design. Those roles may overlap in an AI-assisted pipeline, but the source provides no evidence that Epic has decided how they would be handled for the reported shooter.
Most players will not experience a production pipeline directly. They will experience the characters, missions, dialogue, art direction, and systems that pipeline produces. That makes the debate practical rather than purely philosophical. If a studio uses tools to speed up routine work while preserving strong creative direction, players may notice little difference. If the process reduces the number of people making detailed choices, players could notice a flatter cast or less distinctive worldbuilding. The second possibility is analysis, not a confirmed description of Epic’s game.
IGN’s example is persuasive because Biddy Blas is presented as a small part of a larger game rather than its obvious headline feature. A supporting character can become important to players through a few carefully chosen details. The character’s size, attitude, dialogue, and delivery may occupy only a small amount of the total production, yet those details can shape how players talk about the game after they stop playing.
That is especially relevant to a crossover project. IGN suggests that an AI-first approach might be attractive when a company is working with established brands that already have large amounts of reference material. A Star Wars and Marvel game would begin with recognizable settings, characters, and visual languages. But IGN’s analysis draws a line between reproducing familiar ingredients and inventing a new figure that feels like it belongs in those worlds. Reference material can support consistency; it cannot prove that a new character will have the same spark as an unexpected fan favorite.
There is also a difference between novelty and originality. A generated character can be unusual without being meaningful. A strange silhouette, a comic voice, or a surprising line may attract attention for a moment, but players often remember the combination of choices and the context in which those choices appear. IGN uses Biddy Blas to argue that personality is built through taste and judgment, not only through the production of individual assets.
IGN extends the discussion beyond Galactic Racer by pointing to Valve’s hybrid MOBA-shooter Deadlock. According to IGN, the game has drawn record player numbers following its most recent patch, and the publication connects that attention in part to the creative detail in its newly introduced inhabitants of a more developed version of cursed New York City.
IGN specifically highlights the Rat King, whose abilities can trigger individually written and performed dialogue lines naming different rats, and Solomon, a chess hustler whose weapon displays historically important endgames selected by the design team. These examples show the kind of repeated, context-sensitive detail that can make a character feel authored rather than assembled. They also show why a character may encourage players to return even when the broader game is difficult or frustrating.
The comparison does not establish that Deadlock and Galactic Racer use the same creative process, nor does it prove that AI tools could not assist with similar work. IGN’s broader claim is about deliberate authorship. Players are more likely to notice the result when a character contains many small decisions that reinforce an idea, joke, personality, or history.
For readers interested in Star Wars racing while the reported Epic project remains unseen, the catalog includes Star Wars Episode I: Racer. It is a directly relevant game to the subject because it is also a Star Wars racing title, although the supplied source does not establish any gameplay or design relationship between it and Galactic Racer.
This is a bridge to an available catalog entry, not a recommendation based on OnlineGamesVIP’s hands-on testing. The source record contains no review of the catalog game and no evidence that playing it will offer the same features or character work discussed by IGN.
The next useful evidence would come from Epic itself or from verifiable reporting that adds specifics to the current account. Players need confirmation of whether the Star Wars and Marvel shooter exists as described, whether it was delayed, and whether AI is actually part of its coding and art workflow. None of those points is fully confirmed by the supplied source record.
A first look at the project would also answer questions the opinion piece cannot. A trailer, gameplay presentation, developer interview, or released character information could show whether the game has a distinctive visual identity and cast. It would not by itself reveal every tool used behind the scenes, but it would provide evidence about the qualities players can actually assess.
It is also unknown how Epic would divide responsibility between automated tools and human creators. The source does not name the developers involved, describe the approval process, explain how performances would be directed, or identify any policy for training data and creative ownership. Those omissions prevent a firm conclusion about the reported pipeline’s impact.
Analysis: The strongest question raised by IGN is therefore not whether AI can produce a crocodile, a voice, or a line of dialogue. It is whether a production model can preserve the many human judgments that turn those ingredients into a character players want to talk about. Biddy Blas is evidence of what IGN values in game creation, not proof of what Epic’s unreleased shooter will or will not deliver. Until the project is confirmed and shown, the responsible conclusion is that its creative identity remains unknown.