By Online Games VIP Editorial
·
Level-5 says it used generative AI during development and apologizes after fans questioned background footage shown in its latest presentation.
Level-5 has acknowledged using generative AI during development after viewers questioned imagery shown in its latest game presentation. In reporting published on September 12, IGN said the studio apologized for the way that use appeared in footage from projects including Professor Layton and the Curious Village, Yo-Kai Watch 2: Haunted Domain, and DecaPolice.
The controversy followed Level5 Vision 2026 II: Dreams, a 50-minute presentation built in the style of a Nintendo Direct. IGN reported that discussion around the showcase quickly shifted away from its game announcements and toward fan suspicions that some of the displayed material had been produced or altered with generative AI. The available reporting does not establish that every disputed image used AI, but it does confirm that Level-5 used the technology in some parts of its development process.
Level-5 president and CEO Akihiro Hino later addressed the reaction on X/Twitter, according to IGN. His explanation focused on the distinction between the human-created elements that define the studio's games and AI-assisted work involving production assets. It did not, however, settle every question raised by viewers about the presentation footage or provide a detailed policy for future projects.
IGN reported that Hino described Level-5's use of generative AI as experimentation with current technology and apologized to viewers who found the result off-putting. The apology was paired with a description of how the studio says the tools were used rather than a denial that AI was involved.
According to IGN's account of Hino's statement, Level-5 says its scenarios, character designs, and foundational settings are created by people. The studio also said it uses AI primarily to streamline the digitization of assets made by human creators. One example given was converting original artwork into 3D polygon models.
That explanation is important because it sets out Level-5's stated boundary, but it does not amount to a full technical breakdown of the individual scenes seen in the showcase. IGN did not report a scene-by-scene list identifying which backgrounds, models, images, or other assets were processed with AI. The studio's comments therefore clarify its general approach without confirming the production history of every frame that drew attention.
IGN also reported that Hino argued time saved through AI-assisted processes could allow creators to spend more effort on creative work. Level-5 linked that efficiency goal to a proposed reduction in the development cycle for major games, from about five years to two. That is the company's stated ambition, not a confirmed delivery schedule or an independently verified result.
The presentation included first looks at several upcoming projects, and IGN reported that fans focused on what they believed were inconsistent or unnatural details in background scenes. The disputed material was described as being mostly limited to backgrounds, although viewers also raised questions about character imagery connected to Yo-Kai Watch 2: Haunted Domain.
Some online reactions compared older artwork with newer material associated with Professor Layton and the Curious Village. Other posts pointed to an apparent change in the appearance of a character in a Yo-Kai Watch 2 trailer. These reactions are part of the public response documented by IGN, not findings independently verified by OnlineGamesVIP. The supplied reporting does not confirm that the specific details highlighted in those posts were generated by AI.
That distinction matters when examining a trailer or showcase recording. A short promotional video can combine finished assets, temporary material, edited transitions, presentation graphics, and footage captured before development is complete. Nothing in the available evidence identifies which of those categories applies to each contested image. The video itself, as described in the source record, cannot prove the origin of an asset without a statement from the developer or production documentation.
Analysis: the central issue is therefore broader than whether viewers can identify a machine-generated image by looking at it. Fans were asked to assess the presentation while lacking information about the studio's workflow. Once Level-5 confirmed that generative AI had been used somewhere in development, suspicions about particular scenes gained a stronger context, but the confirmation still did not verify every example circulating online.
IGN reported that Hino said the extensive use of AI was partly motivated by a desire to make the presentation visually striking and easy to understand. He also said Level-5 would treat the experience as a lesson for future presentations. The statement offers an explanation for why the technology appeared in the showcase process, but it does not provide a revised standard for promotional footage or a promise to remove AI-assisted material.
The response also did not include a specific plan for changing Level-5's development practices. IGN said Hino did not outline how the studio would adjust its plans going forward. There was no reported commitment covering disclosure labels, public asset audits, restrictions on generative tools, or a list of games that used the process. Those subjects remain unconfirmed.
IGN further reported that some members of the Level-5 community remained opposed to generative AI even after the explanation. Their objections were not limited to whether AI created a finished game asset. They also concerned the training of generative systems, the possible replacement of artists, and the effect of AI use on trust in a game's authorship. Other reactions argued that a longer development cycle would be preferable to using the technology at all.
Analysis: this explains why the apology did not end the dispute. Level-5 addressed how it says the tools fit into production, while some fans are challenging whether the tools should be part of that production at all. Those are separate questions, and the source record does not indicate that the studio has resolved the second one.
Professor Layton and the Curious Village is a remake of the original 2007 game, according to IGN's report. The remake is slated for PC and consoles in 2027. The source does not provide a more specific release date, list the platforms individually, or explain whether the AI-related discussion will affect its launch plans.
IGN also reported that another game in the series, Professor Layton and the New World of Steam, is due out in December. The supplied source does not specify a year in that sentence, and it does not provide a revised date or further launch details. It is therefore safest to treat the timing as reported by IGN while noting that the exact release information remains limited in the available record.
Yo-Kai Watch 2: Haunted Domain and DecaPolice were among the other games associated with the showcase reaction. IGN's reporting does not say that either game has been delayed, changed, or confirmed to contain AI-generated final content. It also does not state that the visual material shown in the presentation represents the final versions of those projects.
The distinction between a showcase and a finished game should not be used to dismiss the audience's concerns. Promotional footage is part of how a studio presents its work, and viewers can reasonably judge the material placed before them. At the same time, the evidence currently supports a narrower conclusion: Level-5 used generative AI in some development processes and used the technology extensively for this presentation, while the status of individual disputed assets remains unclear.
The next useful information would be a clearer account of which parts of each game were created by artists, which were processed with software, and which were used only for presentation purposes. Level-5 could also clarify whether its reference to human-created assets covers all final game content or only the core material listed by Hino. Neither point was settled in the response described by IGN.
Players should also watch for changes in future trailers and showcases. Hino said the studio would learn from this experience, but IGN reported no concrete production or communications policy. A future presentation could show whether Level-5 changes how it presents background art, identifies assisted assets, or discusses its use of generative tools before fans have to infer it from the footage.
For now, the confirmed story is narrower than the online debate. Level-5 has apologized for the reaction, acknowledged using generative AI, and said human creators remain responsible for the scenarios, character designs, and foundational settings of its released titles. IGN's reporting also makes clear that the statement did not identify every asset in the showcase or satisfy all critics. Until the studio supplies more detail, viewers can assess the presentation's images, but they cannot reliably determine the origin of each contested element from the footage alone.