Level-5 has addressed the generative-AI debate that overtook discussion of its recent game showcase, with president and CEO Akihiro Hino confirming the company used the technology in parts of the presentation and apologizing to viewers who found it unwelcome.
The issue followed Level5 Vision 2026 II: Dreams, a roughly 50-minute presentation that brought together looks at projects including Professor Layton and the Curious Village, DecaPolice, and Yo-Kai Watch 2: Haunted Domain. Instead of remaining focused solely on the returning series and new releases, online conversation quickly turned to imagery that viewers believed looked generative-AI-produced. The disputed material was largely seen in backgrounds and presentation visuals, but that distinction has not stopped the concerns from becoming a wider argument about how the studio is making its games.
Hino’s response confirms that AI was part of Level-5’s process. At the same time, he drew a line between that use and what he characterized as the creative identity of the games themselves. He said that scenarios, character designs, and foundational world settings are made by people, while AI has been used mainly to make the digitization of human-created assets more efficient. One example he gave was converting original art into 3D polygon models.
That explanation is important because it attempts to answer the biggest fear expressed by fans: that a beloved studio’s new games might be assembled from uncurated machine-generated material rather than shaped by artists, writers, and designers. Yet the response has also made clear that the disagreement is not simply about whether AI appeared in a finished background. For many players, the concern is the presence of generative tools anywhere in the pipeline.
What Level-5 says happened
Hino described the studio’s use of AI as experimentation with newer technology and offered an apology to people who were put off by it. He maintained that released games will not contain content that was simply generated by AI, emphasizing that the key components that establish a title’s personality remain in human hands.
His argument for the technology is primarily an efficiency argument. In Hino’s view, time saved through AI-assisted work can give creators more room to spend on the parts of development that require the most direct creative attention. He also said Level-5 wants to cut the development cycle for major projects from about five years to two years.
That is a striking target, especially for games with the visual polish, animation, narrative work, and broad platform ambitions associated with Level-5’s headline projects. But it also clarifies why the reveal video itself became such a flashpoint. Hino acknowledged that AI was used extensively for this particular presentation because the team wanted to make a show that was visually impressive and easy to understand. He said the company would treat the reaction as a lesson for future presentations.
Level-5’s position is that AI can assist in turning human-made work into production-ready digital assets, while the defining creative work stays human-made.
Related coverage includes Level-5 Responds to Generative AI Criticism After Vision 2026 II Showcase.
There is still an important unanswered question inside that description: what does “primarily” mean in practice from project to project? The statement gives an example and a general philosophy, but it does not provide a specific future policy, a list of tools, or a game-by-game outline of which tasks may involve generative AI. Hino did not lay out a concrete plan for changing development practices after the backlash.
Why the explanation has not ended the argument
Fans who object to generative AI are raising concerns that extend beyond the final pixels on screen. Some object on ethical grounds, arguing that the systems behind generative tools can be trained on artists’ work without sufficient consent. Others fear that using such tools displaces artists or makes creative labor less secure. A separate concern is one of trust: once a company confirms AI use in one portion of a project, some fans worry they may never know with certainty which parts were made conventionally and which were touched by automation.
Those objections help explain why assurances about human-written scenarios and human-designed characters have not fully reassured the community. For a portion of the audience, the problem is not limited to whether a finished character portrait, piece of music, line of dialogue, or environmental asset began as a prompt. It is the decision to include generative AI in the workflow at all.
That does not mean every player will draw the same boundary. Some may see a meaningful difference between generating a final asset from a text prompt and using a tool to speed up technical conversion of an artist’s original work. Others may be most concerned with the quality of a released game and whether the company can clearly explain its process. But the strong reaction shows that terminology alone will not settle the issue. Words such as “assist,” “streamline,” “digitize,” and “human-created” carry different implications depending on what a fan believes the tool actually does and what material contributed to its creation.
For Level-5, that leaves an unusually difficult communications task. The company is trying to sell the idea that technology can shorten production time without replacing the creators responsible for its stories, characters, and worlds. Its critics are asking whether faster schedules are worth the artistic, labor, and confidence costs they associate with generative systems.
The showcase became the story
There is an irony in how the dispute emerged. Vision 2026 II: Dreams was intended to spotlight a slate built around recognizable Level-5 names, including Professor Layton and Yo-Kai Watch. Instead, visual choices in the show prompted viewers to scrutinize frames, backgrounds, and stylistic inconsistencies. The presentation format became inseparable from the games it was supposed to promote.
That matters because a showcase is not a neutral container. It is the first or most concentrated chance to establish tone, signal quality, and build confidence before players can judge a final game for themselves. When attendees spend the days afterward debating the origin of background art, the intended excitement around new trailers has to compete with a production-method controversy.
The situation also arrives while there is plenty for Level-5 followers to track beyond the AI discussion. Professor Layton and the Curious Village, a remake of the original 2007 game, is planned for PC and consoles in 2027. Meanwhile, Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is due this December. The franchise therefore has both a revisit of an earlier adventure and a separate forthcoming entry on its calendar.
Players looking beyond the Layton conversation can also keep tabs on the broader release landscape through our roundup of indie games to put on your radar. For Level-5, however, the immediate focus will remain on whether future trailers redirect attention back toward the games rather than the tools used to prepare their presentation.
What fans can reasonably watch for next
Since no detailed policy changes have been announced, the next meaningful signals will likely come from the studio’s actions rather than from another broad assurance. Fans may be watching future Level-5 presentations for clearer visual direction, more explicit credits or production notes, and a sharper explanation of where AI is or is not used. They may also look for evidence that the company has changed the way it prepares promotional materials after acknowledging that the heavy use seen this time was a mistake in judgment.
It is worth separating what has been confirmed from what remains uncertain. Level-5 has confirmed generative-AI use in aspects of its work and said it made extensive use of AI in crafting this showcase. Hino has said the essential elements that define its games—including narrative, character designs, and foundational settings—are human-made. He has also said finished releases will not include content simply generated by AI. What remains unclear is the precise scope of AI involvement across individual games and whether the company will adopt a more formal disclosure approach.
For fans who value Level-5’s distinctive style, that uncertainty is central. A promise that human creators are still responsible for the heart of a game will matter most when audiences can see how the promise translates into future trailers and, eventually, completed releases. Level-5 has made its defense: efficiency should free creators to focus on creative work. The response from many fans is equally direct: confidence in the human work has to be earned, not merely asserted.
