Level-5 president Akihiro Hino apologised after generative AI was used in footage for the company’s latest showcase. The statement is real, but claims that Level-5 has now promised to stop using AI are not.
The distinction matters because Hino’s response covers several different things at once: what appeared in the LEVEL5 VISION 2026 II presentation, how the studio says its stories and characters are created, and where it still wants AI-assisted tools inside production. Reading the apology as a blanket reversal erases the most consequential part of the statement.
What Level-5 actually admitted
In a statement posted to X on 12 September, Hino acknowledged that AI had been used for imagery shown during the company’s 10 September presentation. He apologised to people made uncomfortable by it and said the reaction had also raised concern about whether the games themselves were built from generated material.
That concern followed the LEVEL5 VISION 2026 II broadcast, which included projects such as Yo-kai Watch 2, Professor Layton and the Curious Village Remake, Professor Layton and the New World of Steam and DecaPolice. Viewers pointed to visual inconsistencies in the presentation footage and asked whether the same approach extended into those games.
Hino’s answer was that scenarios, character designs and basic settings are created by people. He also said the company does not put carelessly generated output into its released games. A detailed English translation published by Final Weapon makes the boundary clearer: Level-5 says human creators remain responsible for core creative work and that generated output is reviewed rather than dropped straight into a finished product.
The claim that Level-5 is stopping AI is false
Hino did not promise to end AI use. He described the studio’s goal as improving efficiency and digitising human-created work, giving the conversion of original art into polygons as one example. He also said Level-5 is trying to shorten the development cycle for a major game from roughly five years to two.
That is continued use with stated limits, not a ban. The closest thing to a forward-looking commitment was that Level-5 would treat the backlash as a lesson for its next presentation. The statement does not say every AI-assisted process will be removed, nor does it define every tool that falls inside the company’s description of digitising human work.
What the statement does not prove
There are limits in the other direction too. The acknowledgement of AI in a showcase does not, by itself, prove that a specific final game contains generated art. Hino did not provide a title-by-title audit or identify every presentation segment that used AI, so sweeping claims about Professor Layton or Yo-kai Watch go beyond the available evidence.
The accurate reading is narrower. Level-5 admitted AI use in event imagery, apologised for the discomfort and confusion it caused, defended human authorship of its key creative foundations, and reaffirmed an interest in AI-assisted efficiency. Readers can object to that policy, but the objection should be based on what the company said rather than an imagined promise to abandon the technology.
This mirrors the wording problem seen elsewhere in games. When Blizzard workers secured the right to bargain over workplace AI, POPTOPIC explained why collective bargaining was not an AI ban. CD Projekt likewise described The Witcher 4 as predominantly human-made, wording that still leaves room for tools in defined parts of production.
Why the clarification still leaves questions
Level-5’s statement offers principles, but not an independently verifiable inventory. It does not specify the models used, the source material behind them, the exact amount of generated presentation footage or how human review is documented. Those are reasonable questions for a company asking audiences to trust a distinction between assisted production and careless output.
The games industry has also learned that an audience may judge a creator’s earlier public position when a new collaboration appears. The reaction around Ironmouse, Fortnite and AI showed how quickly perceived inconsistency becomes the story. Level-5 now faces a similar credibility test: the next showcase and the finished games need to match the standards Hino described.
Verdict: the apology is authentic, and Level-5 acknowledged AI-generated presentation material. The claim that it promised to stop using AI is unsupported. Its stated position is continued experimentation for efficiency, with human control over core creative decisions and a commitment to avoid careless generated output in released games.
About the author
The conversation
Be the first to join the conversation.