Slay the Spire 2 Used Paint Instead of AI Art. The Data Says Developers Are Finally Getting the Message.

Slay the Spire 2 launched into Early Access on March 5th, and one of the first things players noticed wasn't the new characters or the card changes. It was the art. Specifically, the placeholder art on the game's Timeline feature - a narrative mode that fills in the history of the Spire - which looks like it was made in MS Paint during a lunch break.

Mega Crit didn't touch AI tools. They just drew something rough, shipped it, and clearly labeled it as a work in progress. And the reaction from players was overwhelmingly positive. Not because the art is good (it isn't, by conventional standards), but because it's honest. It's the kind of decision that seems obvious in retrospect and almost no one actually makes.

Why This Matters More Than It Looks

The alternative to rough placeholder art isn't just AI art - you could hire a freelancer, use stock imagery, or delay the feature. But in practice, when studios need something quick and cheap and non-committal, generative AI has become the default reach. The results are usually fine enough to pass without comment. And that's exactly the problem.

Ubisoft got caught using AI-generated images in Anno 117's loading screens. 11 Bit Studios used an AI-generated texture in The Alters and acknowledged it only after players called it out. In both cases, the studios said the same thing: it was a placeholder, it was always going to be replaced, this was a minor oversight. Maybe that's true. It doesn't matter. The moment you use AI art and don't tell anyone, you've made a choice that assumes players won't notice or won't care. Some of them will care a lot.

Larian, coming off the massive success of Baldur's Gate 3, announced they'd use generative AI to produce concept art for a Divinity project. The backlash came fast enough that they reversed the decision within weeks. The goodwill they'd built over years took a real hit. You can argue whether that's fair or proportionate. The point is it happened, and it was predictable that it would happen.

Mega Crit looked at this landscape and made the opposite call. Their placeholder art is so obviously hand-drawn that there's no ambiguity. Nobody is going to accuse them of sneaking AI content past their audience. And because the unfinished quality is upfront rather than hidden, it reads as charming instead of lazy. Context changes everything.

The Numbers Back This Up

This isn't just anecdotal. New data from the Game Developer Collective - a survey project run in partnership with research firm Omdia - shows that developer use of generative AI tools dropped from 36% to 29% over the past year. That's a meaningful decline after a period of rapid adoption. In the second half of 2024, only 24% of surveyed developers reported using genAI. That number spiked to 36% in early 2025, and has since fallen back to 29% as of early 2026.

What's happening alongside the declining adoption is more revealing than the number itself. Almost half of surveyed developers - 47% - say they're worried generative AI will negatively impact the quality of games. Only 11% think it will have a positive impact. On the cost side, the share of developers who believe AI will reduce development costs dropped from 27% to 21%, while the number who think it will increase costs jumped 8% year-over-year.

The bullish case for AI in game development was always that it would make teams faster and cheaper. The actual data from people doing the work suggests they don't believe that anymore, if they ever did. The tools are harder to use well than the marketing implied, the quality ceiling is lower than expected, and the reputational risk is real and unpredictable.

What Indie Studios Are Actually Risking

For large studios, AI art controversies are a PR problem. For indie developers, they can be existential. Indie games survive on community goodwill. A negative reputation on Steam forums, a Reddit thread that goes viral for the wrong reasons, a YouTuber who decides to make your AI texture the centerpiece of a video - any of these can kill a launch or permanently poison a game's perception.

The asymmetry is brutal. The upside of using AI art quietly is marginal - you saved some money or time on assets that most players would have ignored anyway. The downside is that you handed your critics a simple, legible story: this studio doesn't respect the craft, they cut corners, don't trust them. That story travels fast and is almost impossible to un-tell.

There's a version of this conversation where we talk about whether the backlash is proportionate, or whether players are being too precious about AI tools, or whether the distinction between AI-assisted and AI-generated art even makes sense. Those are legitimate questions. But they're also beside the point if you're an indie studio trying to ship a game and keep your audience's trust. You're not arguing a philosophy seminar. You're managing a real relationship with real people who will decide whether to buy and recommend your game.

The Right Lesson From Mega Crit

The takeaway from Slay the Spire 2 isn't that AI art is always wrong. It's that transparency is always right. Mega Crit didn't make a statement against AI. They just showed their work, including the unfinished parts, in a way that made their process visible. Rough hand-drawn art signals something about how the studio thinks about its relationship with players. It says: we trust you to understand that games take time to make, and we're not going to pretend otherwise.

That's the thing the declining survey numbers are probably reflecting. Not a principled rejection of technology, but a practical recognition that the cost-benefit math on quietly using AI tools has shifted. The tools haven't gotten worse. The community's awareness of them has gotten sharper, and the expectation of disclosure has gotten stronger. Studios that don't adjust to that reality are taking a risk they probably don't need to take.

A small anecdote from the STIGMA side of things: building a game as a solo project means every asset decision is visible to anyone watching. When you're making something with a small team or no team, there's no department to blame and no PR buffer. The instinct to be transparent about what's handmade and what isn't comes naturally when you're the one holding every single piece of it. Mega Crit's Paint sketches feel like that same instinct at a larger scale - and it's working for them.

What to Watch

Slay the Spire 2 is in Early Access now. Mega Crit has said the Timeline art is placeholder and will be updated through development. Whether the finished art lives up to the rest of the game remains to be seen. The more interesting question is whether other studios notice the response and adjust their own approach to placeholder content. The paint sketches got more positive coverage than almost anything else about the launch. That's a signal worth taking seriously.

FAQ

What happened with Slay the Spire 2 and AI art?

Slay the Spire 2 launched in Early Access on March 5th with deliberately rough, hand-drawn placeholder art for its Timeline feature instead of using AI-generated images. Developer Mega Crit received positive player reactions for the transparent approach. The placeholder art is clearly labeled as unfinished and will be updated during Early Access development.

Are game developers using less AI art?

According to a 2026 Game Developer Collective survey, developer use of generative AI tools dropped from 36% to 29% over the past year. Almost half of surveyed developers (47%) say they're worried AI will negatively impact game quality, and the share of developers who believe AI reduces costs has also declined. The trend suggests growing skepticism about generative AI tools within the development community.

Why did studios like Ubisoft and 11 Bit get in trouble for AI art?

Ubisoft used AI-generated images in Anno 117's loading screens without disclosure. 11 Bit Studios used an AI-generated texture in The Alters and acknowledged it only after players identified it. In both cases, the issue wasn't the technical use of AI tools but the lack of transparency - players felt deceived when they discovered AI content that hadn't been disclosed upfront.

What is the Slay the Spire 2 Timeline feature?

The Timeline is a narrative feature in Slay the Spire 2 that tells the story of how the Spire came to exist and became populated with monsters. As players progress through the game, defeating bosses and leveling up characters, they unlock scenes on the Timeline. Each scene includes text and artwork - much of which is currently rough placeholder art that will be updated during Early Access.

Is Slay the Spire 2 out now?

Yes. Slay the Spire 2 entered Steam Early Access on March 5th, 2026. The game includes multiple character classes and hundreds of cards, though Mega Crit has been clear that content will be added and balanced throughout development. The Early Access version is an intentionally incomplete version of the final game.