Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis devs confirm AI use, but promise final game will be fully human-crafted

[Alfonso Maruccia]

AI NOT: Whether you like it or not, generative AI is quickly gaining traction among game developers. Even the upcoming remake of the original Tomb Raider is reportedly using generative AI in some form, although potential issues are expected to be resolved by the end of development.

During its latest State of Play showcase for upcoming PlayStation games, Sony shared a new trailer for Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis. The second remake of Tomb Raider will bring back Lara Croft's classic attire on modern platforms, alongside reimagined puzzles and visually upgraded locations.

After the game's formal reveal, the Tomb Raider Steam page was updated to include a new AI-related disclaimer. The refreshed page states that Legacy of Atlantis's development was assisted by AI tools, which were used to generate temporary assets and assist with early exploration. The AI-generated assets were later replaced or refined by human artists to align with the game's creative vision.

Crystal Dynamics later confirmed that the studio used generative AI tools.

"Our goal is to empower the creativity and flexibility of our developers to deliver the highest-quality experiences for players everywhere," the California-based studio said.

The growing popularity of generative AI among game developers is proving to be a contentious issue. Some prominent designers, such as Tim Sweeney, believe AI will be part of all future productions, arguing there is no need for disclosure in such cases. Meanwhile, Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3 director Konrad Tomaszkiewicz has said that generative AI can only be used to create soulless, tasteless games.

The ability of developers to fully remove generative AI assets from their projects is also becoming a point of controversy. A few months ago, Pearl Abyss was forced to apologize to players for leaving "temporary" AI-generated assets in the final version of Crimson Desert. Tomb Raider developers could face a similar situation if any generative AI content is inadvertently left behind, potentially drawing criticism from players.

Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis is the second remake of the original entry in the series, which debuted in 1996. Co-developed by Crystal Dynamics and Flying Wild Hog, the new game appears visually rich and aims to introduce the original Lara Croft persona to a new generation of players.

Crystal Dynamics previously revisited the same game in 2007 with Tomb Raider: Anniversary, before generative AI was a factor.

Permalink to story:

Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis devs confirm AI use, but promise final game will be fully human-crafted

 

[m4a4]

Any game that has art or programming these days already uses "AI".

And then making placeholders with AI is perfectly fine. As it means making an asset that will not be used in production (a "wasted" asset, so why not make it as quickly/cheaply as possible).

People need to get off the "any mention or hint of AI is BAD" bandwagon already.....

 

[The Talking Tech]

The final game will be fully human-crafted!?

Like what???? Someone redacting the credits?

Let's be honest, once the studio starts using A.I, there won't be any limits on how they will keep using it, no line that won't be crossed until they get to be called out for.

Sadly Game development and pretty much anything on software development is a career of the past.

 

[fireworksordie]

Crystal Dynamics? Aren't those are the guys that did Bubsy 3D

 

[guillejp]

Can't fight it. It will absolutely be used in just a couple years. As long as it is well directed by a human, it's fine.

 

[Endymio]

once the studio starts using A.I, there won't be any limits on how they will keep using it, no line that won't be crossed until they get to be called out for.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be cheating and using electricity and computers to make those games, denying good human laborers an honest day's work.

 

[godrilla]

The final game will be fully human-crafted!?

Like what???? Someone redacting the credits?

Let's be honest, once the studio starts using A.I, there won't be any limits on how they will keep using it, no line that won't be crossed until they get to be called out for.

Sadly Game development and pretty much anything on software development is a career of the past.

The human can press enter on the vibe coding command prompts. Full control in that regard.

 

[The Talking Tech]

The human can press enter on the vibe coding command prompts. Full control in that regard.

What's even sadder is that humans are not even needed for that anymore....and yet we get people denying A.I is taking over people's jobs.

How crazy is that....

 

[CrisisDog]

Does it look good or not? That is my only concern…

 

[toooooot]

Does it look good or not? That is my only concern…

When I look at the main character's face, I get that strange feeling I feel very often these days.
Kind of, I see a woman but maybe not a woman. Wide shoulders, strong arms.
And the face, the face lacking pure feminine softness and body curves.
I am convinced they do it on purpose because trends, because not having attractive
females is good (for some reason, this does not work with male characters) because trans women are women.
Once I began to notice this, I can't unsee. It ruins games for me completely.

 

[Endymio]

What's even sadder is that humans are not even needed for that anymore....and yet we get people denying A.I is taking over people's jobs.

How crazy is that....

What's crazy is people refusing to learn from history. Machines powered by electricity and fossil fuels eliminated the vast majority of 18th/19th century jobs -- but simultaneously created thousands of new professions that never existed before.

 

[daffy duck]

A good game is a good game, no matter how we arrived at that end point. If the new TR is good and runs well on non 5090/X3D systems, then that's all that matters to me.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

What's crazy is people refusing to learn from history. Machines powered by electricity and fossil fuels eliminated the vast majority of 18th/19th century jobs -- but simultaneously created thousands of new professions that never existed before.

What's really crazy is the revisionist history. Yes, new jobs were created, however those that were in the fields that got replaced with machines went without work, often for years, and would spend the majority of their lives in poverty trying to recover.

Any game that has art or programming these days already uses "AI".

And then making placeholders with AI is perfectly fine. As it means making an asset that will not be used in production (a "wasted" asset, so why not make it as quickly/cheaply as possible).

People need to get off the "any mention or hint of AI is BAD" bandwagon already.....

This is factually untrue, there are studios and developers that refuse to use AI.

 

[Endymio]

Yes, new jobs were created, however those that were in the fields that got replaced with machines went without work, often for years, and would spend the majority of their lives in poverty trying to recover.

Sorry, no. Do you believe that, when a new field is created it also magically creates hundreds of thousands of workers to automatically fill its positions? Jobs that never before existed by definition require workers to be trained to be fill them ... and the most abundant source of that labor is those who were displaced from earlier jobs.

It's easy to disprove your theory in an entirely different manner. There was no social safety net in the 18th Century: those who didn't work, starved and died. Yet starvation -- commonplace in the 17th Century -- largely disappeared by the mid-18th Century, thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

... there are studios and developers that refuse to use AI.

And in no more than 7 years time, all those studios will either be bankrupt or rescind these policies.

 

[Inthenstus]

If using AI in a game is bad, you’re in for a long journey. AI is the future whether you like it or not.

 

[m4a4]

This is factually untrue, there are studios and developers that refuse to use AI.

They might say they're not using AI to virtue signal, but using those now common photoshop smart features or using IDE autocomplete counts as AI.

So, either they're lying, ignorant, or they're being complete *****s by wasting their time and money manually doing everything (and I very much doubt it's the last one).

 

[GeoffreyA]

When I look at the main character's face, I get that strange feeling I feel very often these days.
Kind of, I see a woman but maybe not a woman. Wide shoulders, strong arms.
And the face, the face lacking pure feminine softness and body curves.
I am convinced they do it on purpose because trends, because not having attractive
females is good (for some reason, this does not work with male characters) because trans women are women.
Once I began to notice this, I can't unsee. It ruins games for me completely.

Lara Croft is supposed to look tough: all that climbing makes strong muscles. The problem here seems to be an incongruence between attempted sexualisation, toughness, and ill-polished design. In contrast, the 2010-era design looked compelling because the sexualisation was curtailed and Croft looked like an ordinary but tough woman, the toughness being understated and subject to the feminine. It was just right, and gave the impression of maturity and intelligence; Atlantis's design speaks of unintelligence and IG-like plastic.

 

[yRaz]

What's even sadder is that humans are not even needed for that anymore....and yet we get people denying A.I is taking over people's jobs.

How crazy is that....

I use lots of AI, just not professionally. It's typical that you get 4 results per request and you pick the best one. I like to draw and creative block is a real issue. While I mostly use AI for coding on arduinos and raspberryPis, it's also good for generating images that I can incorporate into my drawings. That leads us to a grey area, because if I draw something that was partially created by AI, does that make my drawings AI created or is what I'm doing something more akin to a coloring book?

 

[The Talking Tech]

I use lots of AI, just not professionally. It's typical that you get 4 results per request and you pick the best one. I like to draw and creative block is a real issue. While I mostly use AI for coding on arduinos and raspberryPis, it's also good for generating images that I can incorporate into my drawings. That leads us to a grey area, because if I draw something that was partially created by AI, does that make my drawings AI created or is what I'm doing something more akin to a coloring book?

It's definitely a gray area, since part of me wants to say that you used A.I to enhance your drawings, but since A.I is so smart I would say A.I took away the creativity you could have had if you had persevered more into it.

 

[yRaz]

It's definitely a gray area, since part of me wants to say that you used A.I to enhance your drawings, but since A.I is so smart I would say A.I took away the creativity you could have had if you had persevered more into it.

So I like to draw for drawings sake as I find it as a relaxing activity and I'm not interested in trying to flaunt my skill. I show very few people my drawings. However, I do like asking AI things like "show me vines hanging from a tree in a swamp". And I could probably Google that and find images, but how many images on the web are AI created? I could probably look up photos of the Amazon, but if all I'm trying to do is draw because I find it relaxing then I'm not really interested in putting in tons of work researching what vines look like. Maybe if I was trying to sell my work, but I'm not doing it for other people.

I been thinking about this for almost 2 years and in the age of AI, it is a question that needs answering. Anyway there thing I like to ask is that does the creative process start at the idea, or the tip of a pencil on a page. If it starts with the idea, then it is mine. If it starts on a paper then it is not.

Unfortunately, I take the approach that it's closer to a coloring book than art

 

[The Talking Tech]

So I like to draw for drawings sake as I find it as a relaxing activity and I'm not interested in trying to flaunt my skill. I show very few people my drawings. However, I do like asking AI things like "show me vines hanging from a tree in a swamp". And I could probably Google that and find images, but how many images on the web are AI created? I could probably look up photos of the Amazon, but if all I'm trying to do is draw because I find it relaxing then I'm not really interested in putting in tons of work researching what vines look like. Maybe if I was trying to sell my work, but I'm not doing it for other people.

I been thinking about this for almost 2 years and in the age of AI, it is a question that needs answering. Anyway there thing I like to ask is that does the creative process start at the idea, or the tip of a pencil on a page. If it starts with the idea, then it is mine. If it starts on a paper then it is not.

Unfortunately, I take the approach that it's closer to a coloring book than art

It sounds like you are using A.I perhaps as inspiration, and that's no different than looking into books or going outside into the woods. But as I said A.I is always going to be a gray area since anyone can argue how much A.I influence or use of it is too much that renders it as an A.I product.

 

[DontMakeThemEasy]

I mean the visuals and the aesthethics of Lara are already s..t . AI or not, the more it's driven by these people who makes this style of women and aroundings like's too perfect or too standard for these days, the more it will put off players who actually experienced games from ealy 2000s that had the understanding of what actually is good and what is not.

 

[Endymio]

Lara Croft is supposed to look tough: all that climbing makes strong muscles. The problem here seems to be an incongruence between attempted sexualisation [and] toughness

You obviously never saw the original Angelina Jolie film.

 

[GeoffreyA]

You obviously never saw the original Angelina Jolie film.

Angelina Jolie: who's that?

 

[MaestroIT]

The widespread use of AI across industries has become undeniable, with major companies like Microsoft, Anthropic, and many others openly admitting that 40–80% of their workflows now involve AI in some capacity. AI is already replacing or assisting roles in customer support, call centers, support chatbots, and even self-driving taxis, often operating at scale with minimal human involvement. Despite the clear impact on jobs and workflows, public reaction has not always been evident, suggesting a growing acceptance of AI-driven automation when it improves efficiency or reduces costs.

The reaction to AI in game development, however, stands out as unusually hostile by comparison. While AI-made assets may be easy to spot, AI use in development and debugging is invisible: nobody can really know how many developers already use it unless they declare it. This creates a contradiction: people tolerate or even benefit from AI replacing jobs in other industries, yet react far more emotionally when it appears in creative fields like gaming, often directing aggression at game devs themselves. The tension stems from fears about authenticity, artistic integrity, and job displacement in a medium audiences feel personally connected to—but the uneven response reveals a broader inconsistency in how AI adoption is judged across different sectors.