Larian Studios' Human-First Philosophy: Why AI-Generated Text and Art Don't Make the Cut in Game Development

In an industry increasingly captivated by the promise of generative AI, one of its most celebrated narrative studios has delivered a verdict that cuts through the hype with the precision of a critical hit. "It doesn't," stated Larian Studios’ head writer, Adam Smith, when asked how AI-generated text helps his development process. His reasoning was brutally simple: the best output from these tools is "a 3/10 at best," a score he considers worse than his own worst first drafts.

This provocative stance emerged in the wake of a December 2025 Bloomberg report that sent ripples through the gaming community, suggesting Larian—the studio behind the universally acclaimed Baldur’s Gate 3—was "investing heavily" in generative AI. The implication that a bastion of human-crafted storytelling might be pivoting toward automation sparked immediate controversy. Larian’s subsequent, forceful clarification has since positioned the studio at the heart of a defining industry debate. In an era of rapid technological adoption, why is a leading RPG developer not just avoiding AI, but publicly doubling down on the primacy of human creativity?

The "3/10" Verdict: Larian's Stance on AI-Generated Content

Adam Smith’s assessment is more than an offhand critique; it is the foundation of an explicit studio policy. For Larian, generative AI has no place in the creation of final in-game content. This means a firm ban on using AI to write dialogue, journal entries, lore books, or any other text players will experience. Smith’s "3/10" rating underscores a belief that AI lacks the nuance, emotional depth, and coherent character voice required for premium role-playing narratives.

This philosophy extends squarely into the visual domain. CEO Swen Vincke has publicly confirmed that the studio’s newly announced Divinity game will contain zero AI-generated art. "There is not going to be any GenAI art," Vincke stated, extending the prohibition to concept art creation. This isn't a tentative exploration; it's a principled stand. Larian is drawing a clear, bright line: generative AI will not be used for final creative output. In a landscape where the boundaries are often blurred, Larian’s position is a rare declaration of intent.

Clarifying the Tools: What AI Is Used For at Larian

The confusion stemmed from a critical distinction: using AI for development is not the same as using AI in the game. Following the Bloomberg report, Swen Vincke moved quickly to clarify the studio's actual practices. AI and machine learning at Larian are strictly confined to early-stage, exploratory, and mundane support tasks.

Vincke outlined specific, pragmatic applications: generating reference images for artists to use as inspirational springboards, creating rough compositional placeholders to block out scenes, and automating repetitive workflow tasks to improve efficiency. The key, he emphasized, is that AI serves as a tool for ideation and acceleration, not creation. Every final asset—every painted texture, every line of dialogue, every recorded voice performance—is crafted by human hands and minds.

The studio contests the characterization that it is "pushing hard" on AI to replace human roles. Instead, it frames its use as a practical means to handle tedious work, thereby freeing its developers to focus on the high-value creative challenges that define a Larian game. This clarification reframes the narrative from one of AI investment to one of human empowerment.

Investing in People, Not Replacements

This philosophy of AI as a support tool, not a creator, is reflected not just in Larian's processes, but in its most important resource: its people. Actions speak louder than words, and Larian’s hiring practices loudly echo its human-first philosophy. At a time when industry anxieties about AI-driven job displacement are at a peak, Larian is actively expanding its creative teams. The studio currently employs 72 artists, including 23 dedicated concept artists, and has multiple job openings listed for more human talent.

Vincke has been unequivocal, stating the studio has "no plans to trim down or replace its teams with AI." This commitment to growing its human workforce stands in stark contrast to a broader industry trend of consolidation and automation. It directly connects to the studio’s culture and the unparalleled player connection forged by games like Baldur’s Gate 3. The subtext is clear: the depth, reactivity, and emotional resonance that players celebrate are the direct products of human collaboration, something Larian believes is worth investing in and protecting.

The Broader Industry Context and Fan Reaction

Larian’s clarification did not occur in a vacuum. It landed amidst a heated industry-wide conversation about the ethics, quality, and transparency of AI use. The stakes were recently illustrated by the case of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, which had awards rescinded after the discovery of AI-generated assets—a powerful demonstration of the community and institutional backlash against opaque AI implementation.

The initial Bloomberg report generated significant discussion among Larian’s fanbase and even prompted a public plea from a former employee urging the studio to reconsider any AI use. This illustrates the intense internal and external scrutiny on the issue. Larian’s clarified stance positions it as a proponent of a nuanced, ethical model in a polarized debate. It acknowledges AI’s utility as a tool while staunchly defending the irreplaceable value of human artistry.

This human-driven evolution continues to shape Larian’s projects. The studio has confirmed its new Divinity title will be a turn-based RPG and will retire niche mechanics like the "flawless armor" system from Divinity: Original Sin 2. These creative decisions, like all others, will be made by people, not algorithms.

Larian Studios’ position offers a compelling blueprint for the industry’s future. It is a model that embraces technology for what it currently does best—augmenting workflow and aiding ideation—while making a non-negotiable commitment to human creativity as the irreplaceable core of artistic expression. For a studio whose reputation is built on narrative depth, player agency, and emotional authenticity, the calculus is simple. When the best AI can offer is a "3/10," and the goal is to create a masterpiece, the human touch isn't just preferable; it's the only tool for the job. Larian's blueprint presents a clear alternative in an industry searching for its ethical and creative footing with AI. As other studios weigh efficiency against artistry, the question becomes: how many are willing to bet that a human '10/10' is worth more than an AI's cost-saving '3/10'?

Tags: Larian Studios, AI in Game Development, Game Writing, Divinity, Creative Industry Ethics