Is Brave New Wonders proof there's a place for AI in indie games?

SC: The AI command system is a core part of the game: it understands players’ intentions and helps them achieve what they want to do. Instead of using AI just to streamline development, we wanted it to be an essential gameplay feature that enables experiences only possible with AI.

In traditional automation games, there’s no easy way to create new routines. You’re limited to what an automaton or factory is designed to do, no matter how long the feature list is. In Brave New Wonders, you can type whatever you want to command automatons: whether it’s reacting to signals or communicating with other buildings, things that are usually very complex to set up in other games.

We also made it easy to reuse and edit existing commands, and designed detailed tutorials and tasks to help players get familiar with the system. Once they get the hang of it, they tend to spend hours experimenting and creating all kinds of interesting and creative instructions.

SC: Yes. We were very clear from the beginning that we would only use AI in gameplay to understand player intent and generate automaton instructions.

We do not use AI to create in-game assets. We strongly believe in the role human artists have had, and will continue to have, in this industry. We don’t support the use of generative AI that exploits artists by denying them fair compensation or diminishing the value of their work.

SC: We don’t really have this concern because we don’t use procedural systems to generate visuals in our game. It simply isn’t part of our pipeline. All visuals are created by our artists. The AI system is only used to interpret player intent and translate it into automaton actions; it doesn’t affect the visual side at all.

SC: The player. The AI system only interprets the player’s intent and translates it into automaton actions; it only does what the player wants. Whoever gives the commands is the author.

SC: For us, this isn’t really a concern. The AI system only exists in the gameplay layer and doesn’t affect any art elements. All visual direction is fully controlled by our artists, so AI-driven behaviour doesn’t interfere with the game’s visual identity.

SC: No. We’ve been very clear that we only use AI in gameplay, to understand player intent and generate automaton instructions. We do not use AI to create in-game assets. Our artists are still fully responsible for creating all visual content, just as they normally would be.

SC: In our case, AI exists in the gameplay, not in the art, so it shouldn’t disappear. It’s meant to be felt and interacted with.

Since launching the demo, players have found the AI command system really exciting. It’s powerful and flexible, and it lets them get creative and come up with all kinds of wild commands. Without it, Brave New Wonders would just be a traditional factory game. It would still be fun, but it wouldn’t stand out as much.

Based on that feedback, we adjusted the opening of the game to introduce the AI command system earlier and even made it mandatory, so players don’t miss out on what makes the game special.

SC: For Brave New Wonders specifically, the biggest misconception is that people assume the game’s art was made by AI, simply because it looks so good. It’s gotten to a point where if something looks “too good” for an indie studio, people assume it must be AI-generated.

Five years ago, people would have just said it’s beautiful art. It’s true that some larger studios have reduced hiring because of AI, using it as a cost-saving tool. However, AI is still just a tool, it has also helped solo developers create things they wouldn’t have been able to achieve on their own.

I don’t think players hate AI art itself; they react to whether something looks good or not. In our case, we don’t use AI-generated art simply because it doesn’t reach the level of quality we want compared to work created by human artists.

SC: AI’s creativity is essentially a broad average of all the art it has learned from. Strong models can get very nuanced and subtle, but they still lack real emotional expression. That’s why we value human artists so much. That emotional touch is something AI can’t truly replace.

SC: No, on the contrary, it turned out to be more fun than we expected. It was easier to implement than we thought, and also more powerful than we anticipated. Large language models are very good at interpreting different languages, so they naturally enable localization within the command system. Throughout the process of using AI to develop gameplay, it kept surprising us in a good way.

SC: AI is just a tool; it’s only as good as the person using it. I think studio roles will largely stay the same, but they’ll benefit from AI. The biggest impact will be on repetitive and time-consuming tasks. AI is good at handling those, which lets people focus more on the creative side of their work.

It’s much harder for AI to come up with truly innovative gameplay, because that requires ideas it hasn’t seen before. So creativity won’t be replaced. If anything, people will offload the boring parts to AI and spend more time on what actually matters creatively.