The dispute began with a disclosure about Big Walk, a game whose developer said generative AI had been used sparingly during the late stages of production to fix bugs. What might once have read as a behind-the-scenes technical detail instead became a flashpoint for the indie-game community.¹

The developer’s position is narrow: AI was not presented as the engine of the game’s creative work, but as a tool used to resolve bugs near the finish line. That distinction matters to developers who argue that the circumstances and scale of AI use should shape any judgment.

Some Independent Games Festival jurors, however, have drawn a brighter line. In response to the disclosure, jurors said they would not vote for games that had used generative AI.² Their stance turns the argument from one about how much AI was used into one about whether its use is acceptable at all in a competition meant to celebrate independent creative work.

That leaves Big Walk at the centre of a broader reckoning. Both sides are responding to the same disclosure, but they disagree on what it signifies. The developer’s account asks audiences to weigh intent and limited use; the jurors’ response treats generative AI as a disqualifying production choice regardless of how late, small or practical its role may have been.

The immediate question is whether the game can still be judged on its finished work. The larger one is whether indie festivals can develop standards nuanced enough to distinguish a last-minute bug fix from AI-driven creation — or whether the category itself has become too contentious for such distinctions.