1666: Amsterdam AI in Conception and Pre-Production Analysis

The spicy part of the 1666: Amsterdam AI story is not just whether a texture, concept image, or placeholder made it in front of players. It is that Panache Games said the tool was used at the start, when a project is still wet clay and every weird little choice can harden into identity. According to TechPowerUp, co-founder and creative director Patrice Désilets said the AI had been used mostly at the beginning, in pre-production, and that it had been removed. That is not a tiny footnote. That is the part of development where the game decides what kind of goblin it wants to be.

PC Gamer Raises the Right Alarm: The Mold Sets Early

PC Gamer framed the issue around the phrase that matters most here: the tech was used in "conception and pre-production," which the outlet described as arguably the most creative phase of the whole process. That is the receipt, not the vibes. Players tend to fixate on final assets because those are visible, but conception is where tone, references, silhouettes, mood boards, quest ideas, and whole visual languages start elbowing each other for space. If AI is in that room, studios should treat it like a credited collaborator, not like a harmless vending machine for vibes. On my extremely scientific scale, Panache's reversal is an 8 out of 10 governance save and a 3 out of 10 first disclosure. The save matters because the studio did not dig a trench and start yelling about innovation like a LinkedIn boss fight. But the first disclosure still matters because players are not NPCs waiting politely outside the dev room. If a tool shapes the early creative map, pretending it only counts when it ships is the inventory system of ethics, all nested menus and no usable sort button.

TechPowerUp Shows Why Placeholder Is Not a Magic Word

TechPowerUp reported that Panache Games had previously acknowledged AI-generated assets in the 1666: Amsterdam prologue after its Summer Game Fest appearance. The studio said those were "early versions of assets" and promised they would be replaced by human-made versions in the full release, according to TechPowerUp. That distinction is useful, but it is not a cheat code. A placeholder can still set expectations, teach the team what looks cool, and nudge the project toward a specific flavor of spooky Amsterdam sauce. TechPowerUp also reported that Désilets later said, "Yes, we use some AI in the process, mostly at the beginning, in pre-production. It's been totally removed, and we won't be using AI anymore." That is clearer than the usual corporate fog machine, and clarity deserves credit. Still, the phrase "mostly at the beginning" is exactly why this story has legs. Early use is not automatically harmless. It can be the recipe card, not the garnish.

PC Gamer Points to the Governance Problem, Not Just the Art Problem

PC Gamer's focus on conception and pre-production turns this from a screenshot argument into a production governance case study. Studios should decide where generative AI is allowed before a trailer, demo, or prologue exists, then write it down somewhere more durable than a producer's Slack shrug. If AI can be used for internal reference, say what kind, by whom, and whether outputs can influence final art direction. If it cannot touch narrative, visual identity, characters, or worldbuilding, say that too. This is not about making every indie team hire a compliance wizard in a robe. It is about drawing the line before the line gets monetized, marketed, and memed into oblivion. The practical version is boring, which is how you know it might work: keep an asset provenance log, label AI-assisted exploration internally, review what survives into production, and prepare a public explanation if anything AI-shaped reaches players. Boring governance is cheaper than surprise backlash. Ask anyone who has patched a launch week disaster while Discord turns into a haunted microwave.

TechPowerUp Leaves One Question Studios Should Answer Next

TechPowerUp noted that it was unclear whether Désilets meant the studio would avoid generative AI for the rest of development more broadly, beyond the removed assets and stated process. That uncertainty is the next boss fight. Panache has made the important public move, but the stronger version would be a plain policy that says what "won't be using AI anymore" covers. Concept art, marketing images, outsourced work, localization support, internal pitch decks: studios should name the zones instead of letting players fill the gaps with worst case fan fiction. For players, the lesson is to ask better questions than "is there AI in the game?" Ask when it was used, what it influenced, whether it was removed, and how the studio tracks the handoff from experiment to production. For developers, 1666: Amsterdam is a useful warning without being a funeral pyre. The risky part of generative AI in games may start long before the final asset review, right when the project is deciding what soul it has. Watch whether Panache follows the pledge with a concrete policy, because that is where trust stops being a trailer line and starts being a build process.