When Hard Work Gets Dismissed as AI Slop
Positive Concept Games poured years into developing Shrine’s Legacy, an action-adventure RPG that finally launched on Steam in December 2025. Then came the accusations. Steam reviews started calling it “AI slop,” claiming the story was “dogshit mixed with catshit” and insisting the whole thing was “made in CHAT GPT.” The developers responded publicly on Twitter with a simple, frustrated message: “Please don’t do this. We poured years of our lives into this game and only worked with real human artists on everything.”
This isn’t a case where a developer got caught secretly using AI and tried to backpedal. Based on available evidence, Shrine’s Legacy doesn’t show the typical signs of AI generation. The developers insist no AI was used anywhere in the game, from writing to coding to art. Yet they’re still fighting an uphill battle against accusations that spread faster than facts, highlighting a troubling new reality for indie developers in 2025.
The problem is that proving you didn’t use AI is nearly impossible when someone is determined to believe you did. A Microsoft study found people can only correctly identify AI-generated content 62 percent of the time. That means accusations based on “vibes” and perceived inconsistencies carry weight even when they’re wrong. And for small indie studios without the resources of major publishers, fighting back is exhausting and potentially futile.
One Person’s Crusade
The situation gets worse when you dig into who’s making these accusations. According to multiple sources including Reddit discussions, the AI allegations against Shrine’s Legacy appear to stem primarily from one individual who has been systematically targeting the game. This person posted negative Steam reviews, circled portions of the game’s art claiming they’re AI-generated, created what developers believe are alt accounts to amplify the message, and spread the accusations across multiple gaming communities.
The developers responded directly to one particularly detailed negative review, stating “You are almost certainly an alt account of the original person who accused us of AI.” That review claimed the author “did not purchase the game with the intention of playing it, but rather to understand the controversy and look for myself,” then proceeded to pick apart perceived inconsistencies in character art and story beats that supposedly “felt” AI-generated.
This kind of targeted harassment campaign can destroy an indie game’s launch. Shrine’s Legacy currently has over 100 positive reviews compared to roughly 18 negative ones. Less than half of those negative reviews actually mention AI at all. But the damage is done. The controversy generates attention, potential buyers see AI accusations and skip the game out of caution, and developers who spent years creating something watch their work get dismissed based on speculation rather than evidence.
The AI Transparency Problem
Part of why these accusations gain traction is that the gaming industry’s relationship with AI has been terrible. Major companies like Ubisoft have been caught using AI in promotional materials without disclosure. The general approach has been “ask for forgiveness, not permission,” creating an environment where distrust is the default position. When players can’t trust big publishers to be honest about AI usage, indie developers suffer the consequences.
Steam implemented a policy requiring developers to disclose AI usage in their games, which sounds good in theory but creates new problems in practice. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney criticized the policy, arguing that highlighting AI usage is becoming meaningless as the technology gets integrated into nearly all development tools. While Sweeney’s take generated backlash for seeming anti-consumer, he raised a valid point about the difficulty of drawing clear lines.
Where does legitimate AI assistance end and problematic generative AI begin? If a developer uses AI-powered code completion tools in their IDE, does that count? What about using AI to upscale textures? Or employing machine learning for enemy behavior patterns? These are fundamentally different from asking ChatGPT to write your story or using Midjourney to generate character art, but the Steam disclosure system doesn’t really distinguish between them.
Why False Accusations Stick
- People can only identify AI content correctly 62 percent of the time
- Major companies have eroded trust through undisclosed AI use
- Accusations based on “vibes” carry weight in uncertain times
- Proving a negative is nearly impossible
- One dedicated harasser can create the appearance of widespread concern
- Controversy generates attention regardless of validity
What the Game Actually Is
Shrine’s Legacy is a 2D action-adventure RPG inspired by classic Zelda titles and JRPGs. Players explore dungeons, solve puzzles, fight enemies, and uncover the story of a mystical shrine with world-altering powers. The pixel art style combines retro aesthetics with modern polish, featuring detailed environments and fluid combat animations. Development began years ago, long before the current AI generation boom made these accusations common.
Early supporters who followed development closely have defended the game. One reviewer wrote “This is abhorrent. I played, beat and reviewed Shrines Legacy and followed their development closely” in response to the AI accusations. Development videos and interviews from 2021 show the team discussing their creative process, design decisions, and challenges in building the game. None of this evidence matters to someone determined to believe the worst.
Looking at screenshots and trailers objectively, the game doesn’t exhibit common AI art tells. The character designs maintain consistent proportions and anatomy. The pixel art shows deliberate choices about color palettes and sprite construction that AI generation typically struggles with. The environments feature the kind of intentional detail and coherent design philosophy that comes from human artists making conscious decisions. But in an environment of distrust, “looks fine to me” isn’t enough.
The Broader Impact on Indie Developers
What happened to Shrine’s Legacy represents a nightmare scenario for indie developers. You spend years building something with real human artists, programmers, and writers. You launch with excitement and hope. Then one person with an ax to grind starts accusing you of using AI, and suddenly you’re defending your entire creative process rather than celebrating your release. The accused becomes guilty until proven innocent, and proving innocence is functionally impossible.
This creates a chilling effect on indie development. Small studios can’t afford extensive documentation proving every asset was human-created. They can’t hire PR firms to combat misinformation campaigns. They’re vulnerable to bad-faith actors who know accusations spread faster than corrections. The result is that legitimate indie developers suffer while actual AI-generated slop games slip through because their creators don’t care about reputation.
The gaming community needs better tools for distinguishing between legitimate concerns and coordinated harassment. Steam reviews serve an important function for consumer protection, but they’re also vulnerable to manipulation. One person shouldn’t be able to tank a game’s reputation through alt accounts and persistent negativity. But implementing safeguards against abuse without silencing legitimate criticism is extraordinarily difficult.
What Happens Now
Positive Concept Games continues defending their work on social media and Steam forums. The majority of reviews remain positive, suggesting most players who actually tried the game found it worthwhile. But the damage lingers. Potential buyers see “AI controversy” in their research and decide to skip it. The developers’ dream of a successful launch gets replaced with exhausting damage control.
The situation also raises questions about accountability. If the AI accusations are indeed coming primarily from one person using multiple accounts to amplify their message, that crosses the line from criticism into harassment. But proving coordinated harassment is difficult, and platforms like Steam have limited tools for addressing it. The accused developer can’t exactly sue for defamation when the accuser is pseudonymous.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Shrine’s Legacy actually use AI?
The developers explicitly state they did not use generative AI anywhere in the game and only worked with real human artists. Based on available evidence including development videos from 2021 and analysis of the game’s art style, there’s no substantive proof supporting the AI accusations.
Why are people accusing the game of using AI?
The accusations appear to originate primarily from one individual who has targeted the game across Steam reviews and gaming communities. Their criticism cites perceived inconsistencies and subjective feelings that elements “seem” AI-generated, rather than concrete evidence of AI usage.
How can you tell if a game used AI?
According to a Microsoft study, people can only correctly identify AI-generated content about 62 percent of the time. Common tells include anatomical inconsistencies, strange text rendering, and unnatural patterns, but skilled AI users can mask these issues, and human artists can create things that look “AI-like” without using AI.
What is Steam’s policy on AI in games?
Steam requires developers to disclose if they used generative AI in creating game assets, writing, or other content. This policy aims to provide transparency to consumers, though it’s controversial because AI tools are becoming ubiquitous in development.
Can developers prove they didn’t use AI?
Proving a negative is extremely difficult. Developers can share development progress videos, show early sketches and iterations, or provide statements from their artists, but none of this definitively proves AI wasn’t involved. The burden of proof falls uncomfortably on the accused rather than the accuser.
What’s a review bombing campaign?
Review bombing is when a game receives a large influx of negative reviews over a short period, often for reasons unrelated to the game’s actual quality. This can happen due to controversies, political statements by developers, or in this case, AI accusations. It can significantly harm a game’s sales and reputation.
Is Shrine’s Legacy worth playing?
Based on the majority positive reviews from players who actually bought and played the game, it appears to be a solid action-adventure RPG in the classic Zelda style. The AI controversy is separate from the actual game quality, which most reviewers praise for its exploration, puzzles, and combat.
A Warning Sign for the Industry
The Shrine’s Legacy situation is a canary in the coal mine. As AI becomes more prevalent in game development and more sophisticated in its output, distinguishing between human and AI-created content will only get harder. That creates opportunities for bad-faith actors to weaponize accusations against anyone they want to harm. Without better systems for verification and accountability, indie developers will continue suffering collateral damage in the broader AI debate.
The gaming community needs to find a balance. Vigilance against actual AI slop flooding platforms is important. Players deserve transparency about what they’re buying. But that vigilance can’t come at the cost of destroying legitimate indie developers based on speculation and vibes. Accusations require evidence, not just feelings. One person’s crusade shouldn’t be able to tank years of someone else’s work.
For Positive Concept Games, the fight continues. They’re responding to critics, sharing their development process, and trying to rebuild the narrative around their game. Whether they succeed depends on whether the gaming community is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and actually play Shrine’s Legacy before judging it. In an era where AI anxiety runs high and trust runs low, that might be the hardest sell of all.