1666: Amsterdam Developer Admits Using AI Assets and Apologizes—Here’s What Happened

If you’ve been keeping an eye on the Summer Game Fest announcements, you might have noticed a game called 1666: Amsterdam. It’s a new action-adventure title from Patrice Désilets, one of the people who helped create Assassin’s Creed. Naturally, a lot of folks got curious.

1666: Amsterdam Developer Admits Using AI Assets and Apologizes—Here’s What Happened

But just days after the big reveal, things took a slightly awkward turn. Players started noticing something odd in the free prologue demo. The fingers on some portraits looked a little wobbly. The textures had that familiar "generative AI" feel. Soon enough, questions turned into concerns, and the developer, Panache Digital Games, had to step up and say something.

So, what actually happened? And why does this keep popping up in game news lately? Let’s walk through it.

(toc) #title=(Table of Content)

1666: Amsterdam Developer Admits Using AI Assets and Apologizes

Earlier this week, Panache Digital Games posted a statement on X/Twitter. They didn’t try to hide the situation or make excuses. Instead, the studio admitted that 1666: Amsterdam developer admits using AI assets and apologizes directly to the players who had called them out.

Here’s what they said: A number of people raised questions about whether assets in their marketing and the game itself used generative AI. The team looked into it with their own artists—over a dozen of them, actually—and found that yes, some early versions of assets had made their way into the prologue.

Specifically, a few in-game portraits and some external marketing images were partly generated by AI. The studio took full responsibility, called it an oversight, and apologized for any upset caused. They also promised that the Early Access and full versions of the game would not include any AI-generated assets. Human-made replacements are already on the way in a future update.

It’s a pretty straightforward response. No corporate double-talk. Just: "We messed up, we’ll fix it." But it does raise a bigger question: how did these assets slip through in the first place, especially from a team of experienced human artists?

Read Also : 

McDonald's Testing New AI Ordering Technology at Some Drive-Thrus

Why Generative AI in Game Art Makes Players Uncomfortable

To understand the backlash, you have to look at the reviews on Steam. The 1666: Amsterdam Prologue currently sits at a "Mixed" rating. And almost all the negative comments point to one thing: generative AI.

One user wrote that the game uses AI in many places—pictures inside the game, assets, and even the promotional key art. That player said they were "de-wishlisting it and ignoring the company." Another person said it’s not that hard to hire an artist for concept art or in-game assets, and that the game feels like it cut corners.

Now, I’m not here to say that every use of AI in games is automatically bad. But for a story-driven, historical action game set in 1666 Amsterdam, players expect a certain level of handcrafted care. When you spot AI-generated portraits in a 30-minute prologue, it breaks the illusion. You stop thinking about the story of Noa Brooklyn, the Collector who hunts demonic entities. Instead, you start thinking about the development budget and whether the team respects your time and money.

That’s the real issue. It’s not just about the technology. It’s about trust. And when a 1666: Amsterdam developer admits using AI assets and apologizes, it’s a sign that they understand that trust has been dented.

What Actually Is “1666: Amsterdam”? A Quick Refresher

Before we go further, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about the game itself.

1666: Amsterdam is a third-person, story-driven action-adventure game. You play as Noa Brooklyn, a Collector who uses witchcraft to find demonic entities hiding among regular people in the city of Amsterdam. One of the cooler features is that the game has distinct day and night experiences. During the day, you might investigate and explore the city. At night, things get darker and more dangerous.

The prologue is free and takes about 30 minutes to finish. It’s meant to introduce you to the world, the characters, and the main themes. The full game is expected to hit early access on PC in 2026, with console versions coming later.

It sounds like a solid project on paper. Patrice Désilets has a strong track record. The setting—Amsterdam in 1666—is rich with history and atmosphere. So it’s a shame that the AI controversy has overshadowed the reveal. But that’s the reality of game development in 2025. Players are paying close attention to how studios use these new tools.

How the Studio Is Fixing the Problem

Panache didn’t just apologize and walk away. They laid out a clear plan.

First, they said they are actively reviewing the assets in question. Human-made versions will be released in an update that’s coming soon. Not "eventually." Not "maybe post-launch." Soon.

Second, they gave a firm promise: the Early Access and full game will not include any assets generated by AI. That means everything you see in the final product—from the character portraits to the environment textures—should be made by their team of over a dozen artists.

It’s worth noting that the statement doesn’t say whether these AI assets were always temporary placeholders or if they were only being replaced because of the backlash. But honestly? At this point, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the studio listened and is taking action.

For players who were on the fence, this might be enough to give 1666: Amsterdam another chance. For others, the damage might already be done. But credit where it’s due: Panache handled the response better than some bigger studios have in similar situations.

This Isn’t an Isolated Incident: Crazy Taxi and Tomb Raider

What’s interesting is that 1666: Amsterdam is not the only game facing this kind of backlash. Over the past couple of weeks, two other big names got caught in the same storm.

First, there’s Crazy Taxi: World Tour from Sega. The game was revealed at the Xbox Games Showcase on June 7, and almost immediately, people noticed the Steam page included an AI-generated content disclosure. Sega clarified that they used generative AI as a support tool to help developers focus more on creative tasks. They also said no AI was used in reference to the performers in the game. Still, the backlash was loud enough to make headlines.

Then there’s Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis from Crystal Dynamics and Flying Wild Hog. During Sony’s State of Play event, they showed a new trailer and confirmed a release date. But again, the Steam page mentioned AI-assisted tools during development. After players pushed back, Crystal Dynamics assured everyone that the final product would be "human-crafted." They said AI helped them iterate ideas faster, but every finished piece of content in the final game was made by people.

You can read more about the Crazy Taxi and Tomb Raider AI backlash here. It’s becoming a pattern. A game gets announced. Players spot AI art. The studio rushes to explain or apologize. And the conversation around creativity, jobs, and quality starts all over again.

Where Does This Leave 1666: Amsterdam?

So, after all this, what should you think about 1666: Amsterdam?

Right now, the prologue is free. If you’re curious, you can download it on Steam or the Epic Games Store and see for yourself. Some players have praised its atmosphere and compared it to Assassin’s Creed 2 in terms of vibes. Others have complained about technical performance and, of course, the AI portraits.

If the AI issue is a dealbreaker for you, that’s completely fair. You might want to wait until the promised human-made update drops before giving it a try. If you don’t mind the controversy and just want to see what Patrice Désilets has been working on, the prologue is right there and costs nothing.

Personally, I think the most important thing is that the studio acknowledged the mistake quickly and promised to replace the AI assets. That doesn’t erase the fact that they used them in the first place. But it does show a willingness to be accountable.

We’ll have to wait until the 2026 early access release to see if they keep that promise. For now, keep an eye on the patch notes. When that update drops, it’ll be a good sign that Panache is serious about earning back player trust.