Imagine paying top dollar for a highly anticipated game, only to discover that parts of its artwork were generated by AI—and not in a good way. That’s exactly what happened with Anno 117: Pax Romana, Ubisoft’s latest city-building masterpiece set in ancient Rome. While the game itself is earning rave reviews for its ambitious scope and immersive gameplay, one glaring issue has fans up in arms: a poorly executed AI-generated image that somehow slipped past Ubisoft’s review process. But here’s where it gets controversial—Ubisoft admits to using AI tools for prototyping and exploration, but where do we draw the line between human creativity and machine-generated content? And this is the part most people miss: even if the final product is polished, the mere presence of AI in the creative process raises questions about authenticity and artistic integrity.
The offending image, which appears during a loading screen, depicts a lavish banquet in a Roman palace. At first glance, it seems bustling with life—dozens of people walking, chatting, and lounging. But take a closer look, and the flaws become glaringly obvious. Disfigured faces, mismatched body parts, and stray lines mar the scene, all telltale signs of AI-generated imagery gone wrong. Fans were quick to call it out, with one Redditor noting, ‘Very big difference between this and the high-quality background art of Anno 1800.’ Ubisoft has since promised to replace the image in an upcoming patch, but the damage is done.
What’s even more intriguing is that Anno 117: Pax Romana is the first Ubisoft game on Steam to include an AI disclaimer, stating, ‘AI tools were used to help create some in-game assets.’ But as fans have pointed out, the results aren’t always pretty. One example shared online shows Romans debating in the Senate—without heads. Ubisoft claims these are placeholders that slipped through the cracks, but it begs the question: how much of the game’s art is truly the work of human artists, and how much is AI ‘slop’? Ubisoft Mainz, the team behind the game, insists that every element reflects their ‘craft, artistry, and creative vision,’ but players aren’t entirely convinced.
The new, improved banquet image has been released, and while players agree it’s better, the shadow of AI usage lingers. For a $90 Gold Edition game, fans expect nothing less than perfection, and the use of AI as a crutch—even if unintentional—feels like a betrayal. As one Steam user put it, ‘I don’t mind AI as a creative tool, but it should never be the finished output. Hire real artists.’ Is AI a helpful assistant or a shortcut that undermines artistic quality? That’s the debate raging among gamers and creators alike.
Anno 117: Pax Romana is a testament to Ubisoft’s ambition, but this AI controversy serves as a cautionary tale. As technology advances, where do we draw the line? Should AI be used to augment human creativity, or is it overstepping its bounds? Let’s hear your thoughts—is AI in gaming a step forward or a step too far? Share your opinions in the comments below!
