The emergence of generative AI in creative industries represents a profound technological watershed, where traditional craft collides with algorithmic possibility. Few places illustrate this tension as clearly as the gaming sector, where studios like Larian — developers of Baldur’s Gate 3 and the newly announced Divinity project — are navigating the complexities of integrating AI without compromising artistic integrity or developer trust.
Larian’s approach reflects this delicate balance. CEO Swen Vincke has acknowledged that generative AI is being used inside the studio, though primarily for low-stakes, exploratory tasks such as drafting presentation materials, experimenting with early concept art, or producing temporary placeholder text. Despite heavy experimentation, Vincke openly admits that the technology has not produced major gains in efficiency — a telling reality check amid broader industry hype.
At the same time, Vincke has made it clear that Larian’s upcoming Divinity RPG will feature no AI-generated content in its final form. All writing, performances, and narrative assets will come from human creators. This stance underscores an important philosophical line: while AI can support ideation, it will not replace the human-driven creative processes that underpin the studio’s identity.
Not everyone at Larian has been fully comfortable with AI’s presence. One former Baldur’s Gate 3 artist publicly expressed frustration about the company’s direction, urging leadership to reconsider its approach and reaffirm its commitment to human craftsmanship. Vincke himself acknowledged internal pushback, but said the studio has since reached a state of broad — if not universal — alignment about how AI should be used.
The conversation becomes even more complex when examining Larian’s broader production strategy. The studio aims to shorten the development cycle of Divinity from the six-year marathon of Baldur’s Gate 3 to a more sustainable three to four years. This acceleration, however, will happen through larger writing and design teams and more parallelized story development — not through AI replacing human creativity. Vincke is clear: the iterative nature of creative work cannot be rushed by algorithmic shortcuts.
This position stands in contrast to the wider gaming industry, where gen-AI tools have sparked controversy. Studios like 11 Bit faced criticism for using AI during production, while others — including Frontier Developments and Aspyr — walked back or justified AI-assisted workflows after public backlash. Even voice talent has raised concerns about unauthorized AI replication, as seen in legal disputes surrounding the Tomb Raider remasters.
These tensions highlight a defining challenge facing modern game development: generative AI offers undeniable utility as a brainstorming tool or production aid, but its role in final creative output remains ethically and artistically fraught. Over-reliance risks homogenized aesthetics, diminished narrative nuance, and erosion of developer agency — outcomes antithetical to the artistry that elevates games like Baldur’s Gate 3.
Looking ahead, the studios that strike the right balance will treat AI not as a replacement for imagination, but as a collaborative companion that supports human-first creation. Achieving this will require transparent standards, rigorous oversight, and a cultural commitment to safeguarding the irreplaceable spark of human storytelling.
For Larian and the industry at large, the challenge is clear: harness AI’s strengths without surrendering the creative soul that defines interactive worlds. The future of game development will belong to those who can expand their toolset without compromising their craft.
This analysis is based on reporting from Game Developer.
Photo courtest of Larian Studios.
This article was generated with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy and quality.
