Big Walk AI Usage: What House House Has Confirmed as of November 10, 2026

Verified November 10, 2026, at 1:09 p.m. UTC.

Australian developer House House says it used large language model chatbots during the final stretch of Big Walk’s development to help investigate technical problems and bugs. In some cases, developers copied snippets from responses as starting points and modified them into game code. The studio estimates that well under 0.1% of the game’s code had anything to do with that use.

The disclosure gives players a clearer basis for deciding how they feel about the cooperative game. House House says generative AI was not used in any other context while making it. That is the studio’s account; the percentage is its estimate, not an independently verified audit.

Destaques

• House House says chatbot use focused on researching technical issues, including problems with third-party code.
• Some AI response snippets became starting points for code that developers modified; the studio estimates the affected share was well under 0.1%.
• The studio says it did not use generative AI elsewhere in making the game and did not disclose the coding use on Steam because, it says, the platform does not request that disclosure.
• Some Independent Games Festival jurors say they will not vote for games using generative AI in any capacity. The effect on Big Walk’s awards prospects remains unknown.

How was AI used in Big Walk’s development?

House House’s official FAQ describes using large language models, or LLMs, sparingly to work through difficult bugs and technical challenges. An LLM chatbot generates responses to prompts; in this case, the studio says its main use was researching issues involving code from other companies.

The distinction between research and shipped code matters. House House says developers sometimes copied parts of a chatbot’s response and used them as a starting point for code they then modified. Its estimate covers code that had anything to do with that process. It does not establish that a particular percentage of the finished game was written entirely by AI, nor does it quantify the amount of developer time involved.

The FAQ does not name the chatbot or model used, provide a complete list of prompts or fixes, or publish an independent audit of the code. Readers should treat the numerical estimate and the stated scope as the developer’s disclosure.

What problem did the chatbot help solve?

House House gives one example involving shadows in Unity’s Universal Render Pipeline, or URP. The team says a rendering issue caused objects behind the player to cast shadows at an infinite distance. According to the studio, the problem made the game run 50% slower for around 20 seconds at sunrise and sunset.

The developers say they researched the issue, examined URP code and consulted a Unity engineer before asking a chatbot. After several unproductive suggestions, the chatbot proposed a possible fix. House House says the team modified that suggestion extensively and that the resulting fix represented about 10 lines of code inside URP.

That example explains one use, but it should not be read as a complete inventory of every AI-assisted interaction. The studio describes the broader use as help with technical challenges and bugs.

Did Big Walk use AI for its art, writing or gameplay?

House House says generative AI was not used in any other context when making the game. Its statement therefore does not describe AI-generated art, writing, voices or other creative assets. It also does not describe an AI chatbot operating as a feature players interact with during a session.

That is a different question from whether the developers used a chatbot while building the game: the answer to the latter is yes. Players who consider any generative AI use relevant can weigh the coding disclosure accordingly, while those concerned specifically about generated assets can look at the narrower claim the studio has made.

Why is Big Walk’s AI use being discussed now?

House House says it initially wrote a version of its disclosure as a suggested part of its Independent Games Festival submission and later posted the information because it had become a matter of public interest. The studio says it did not make a Steam disclosure because the platform does not request disclosure of code or chatbot use. That is House House’s explanation, rather than a finding here about whether any particular disclosure was required.

The discussion comes as a group of IGF jurors has publicly said its members will decline to vote for games using generative AI in any capacity, including for code. Their position is a statement by those signatories, not a policy attributed to every juror or to the festival as a whole. They cite concerns about creative labor, consent and environmental effects.

House House says its disclosure is not an endorsement of AI tools. It also says it supports efforts to limit generative AI’s harms, apologized to people whose standards its use may not meet, and called the absence of an internal AI-use policy during Big Walk’s development a failure. The studio says it will work toward a more comprehensive policy.

Could the disclosure affect Big Walk’s awards chances?

It could matter to individual jurors who apply the stated no-generative-AI standard, but the outcome is not known. A juror’s decision not to vote for a game is different from an official disqualification, and the available information does not establish that Big Walk has been disqualified.

The IGF submission information says individual jurors nominate games and that nominations are tallied to determine finalists. It lists the 2027 finalists announcement for January 2027. Until the festival announces its results, any claim about whether the disclosure changed Big Walk’s chances would be speculation.

FAQ

Did Big Walk use generative AI?

Yes. House House says it used LLM chatbots for technical research and debugging, with some response snippets modified into game code.

Was 0.1% of Big Walk written by AI?

That is not what the studio says. It estimates that well under 0.1% of the game’s code had anything to do with the described LLM use; it does not say that share was wholly AI-written.

Was Big Walk disqualified from the IGF?

No official disqualification has been established by the information checked for this article. Some individual jurors have said they will not vote for games using generative AI.