Professional Services
Order outsourcing

Duke Nukem Remastered Developer Apologized for Using AI Art

It seems the studio wasn't aware the image was AI-made.

One does not simply use AI-generated art for games, especially famous ones, and Blaze Entertainment had to learn it the hard way.

On June 1, the company announced its partnership with Gearbox to bring Duke Nukem 1+2 Remastered to the Evercade retro handheld. The news was accompanied by the game's key art, which was quickly accused of being machine-made. Keen eyes noticed some issues with the character's fingers and feet, and Blaze had to publish a statement apologizing for the image.

"It is abundantly clear from the response on social media that the work on this commission has fallen below the expectation and standards demanded by fans due to the artists’ use of AI in the process.

We are immediately removing the art where possible to do so and will be announcing a replacement commission in due course that better meets the high standard expected."

This situation reads like a warning: tensions are high, do not use AI-generated art for promotion if you don't want to face a backlash.

Read the statement here and don't forget to join our 80 Level Talent platform and our Telegram channel, follow us on Instagram and Twitter, where we share breakdowns, the latest news, awesome artworks, and more.

Join discussion

Comments 2

  • Anonymous user

    AI rulez. I am desperately waiting when game makers finally embrace Gen AI. I mean, if you roam around abandoned houses of Last of Us and see in every room the same picture assets hanging on the wall - it's so meta, it breaks immersive. Every game maker would say: it's a helluva time-consuming thing to create thousands of pictures, book covers, and street posters in different genres and styles. This is the best case for GenAI in game-making. Otherwise, we will have again the same picture hanging on every wall of every flat in the city. GenAI will help game makers to enrich the world and keep their health sane. Fully agree - AI is a tool, an important one. Otherwise, why do people visual game engines - they killed the coder jobs, right?

    Yes, I see the point of datasets being an issue - and here we have to work together on creating copyright-safe and bias-free datasets instead of whining about tech-apocalypse.


    Anonymous user

    ·a year ago·
  • Anonymous user

    The fight against AI art is as shallow and pathetic as every fight against every new medium ever. It's yet another case of the current medium artists freaking out that a newer more accessible medium is available. Every single argument boils down to one thing. Money.
    When watercolors started becoming popular the art community said watercolor wasn't "real art" until John Signer Sargent proved them wrong. But the art community was angry because water colors were AFFORDABLE. It meant art was no longer an exclusive thing.
     Fast forward. Acrylics were released. Watercolor and oil painters cried foul together. This new cheap "fake" paint was going to devalue art! Once again, it was just a cover for the fact that artists didn't want to share their business with newcomers. Angry that art because even MORE accessible.
      Fast forward a few more decades to computer programs like Corelle and Adobe. Water color, oil, and acrylic painters together raged against this "fake" art done with computers. How can it be art if you can't HOLD it? If it's a file than people can make infinite copies so art will have no value anymore! You're not even painting it's the COMPUTER doing it!
      Fast forward to fractals, truly generative art that requires intense amounts of programming to create. Digital artists, acrylic artists, watercolor artists, oil painters, all together cried foul! The computer is making it FOR YOU! the programs don't even cost money! It can't be art! Because again, they were afraid of a new more accessible medium.
    And now we have AI, where the same tired and DISHONEST arguments are being used by selfish greedy artists who don't even understand HOW it works, they're just freaking out because once again, the ability to create has become even more accessible.

    Combine that with the LIES told about AI art. It's not theft. It's not using your art. It's generating completely new pieces based off training from LOOKING at existing art. The same way a student taking an art class would be taught "this is what a nose looks like, this is what a shadow looks like" . But even IF the lie were true, a 500x500 pixel image would have 250,000 individual pixels. Your art that's supposedly being stolen would be.. 1 pixel. That's extreme collaging. If you think collage art isn't art, go talk to Hannah Höch.

    And if you say "not doing anything except providing an idea and having it created for you isn't art" than I suggest you study John Cage's 4'33

    No apology is needed from any dev that uses AI art.

    I'm an artist. 3D, acrylic, watercolor, digital, and writing. And I fully support AI. Because it's a TOOL.


    Anonymous user

    ·a year ago·

You might also like

We need your consent

We use cookies on this website to make your browsing experience better. By using the site you agree to our use of cookies.Learn more