System 3 CEO Says Antstream Misled Him Over Use Of GenAI In James Pond Legacy 1
Image: System 3

Update []: System 3 boss Mark Cale has gone into more detail about the use of Generative AI in James Pond Legacy, adding to the comments made in an earlier interview with GameSpot.

Speaking in an update post for Last Ninja Collection, Cale says:

"I want to address the concerns about the artwork associated with James Pond Legacy and explain why we made the statements we did. The distinction I need to make is this: we were told that algorithms were involved in the production process, but we did not understand the explanations given to us as a clear disclosure that generative AI was being used to create artwork."

He again cites a statement System 3 was given by Antstream on 12th December 2025 which stressed that "the final assets are fully human-authored, with algorithms used only for intermediate visualisation."

This is the same statement he recounted in the aforementioned GameSpot interview. Cale adds that this was not just his understanding, but also that of System 3 senior studio head John Twiddy, "who has 43 years of programming experience, including his work on The Last Ninja games."

Cale adds that "those assurances were repeated during discussions at Gamescom, including discussions involving Antstream’s management, and again during my journey home. I was assured that the artwork was human-created and that generative AI had not been used."

The System 3 boss tackles the 'Bovine Bomber' graphic, which AntStream supplied to System 3 as proof of human artists being involved:

"The version supplied by Antstream described the third stage as '3D Algorithm'. We changed that caption to '3D Render'.

That change reflected the process as we understood it from Antstream’s written explanation and our discussions, particularly its references to artists re-rendering the work and producing fully human-authored final assets. It was not intended to conceal the use of generative AI. We did not understand that this was what had been disclosed to us.

However, if that stage involved using generative AI to produce an image with a three-dimensional appearance, that should have been explained plainly. An AI-generated image that looks like a render is not the same description as an image rendered from a model.

I do not believe the language we received made that distinction sufficiently clear."

Cale explains that he has requested a full workflow from AntStream to prove the assets are human-made, but these materials have not been forthcoming.

However, Cale has stated that he wants to be "fair to the people involved" and that he does not believe Antstream’s CEO Steve Cottam "deliberately set out to mislead me. My impression is that he, too, was relying on information supplied by his team. I want to give him and the company the opportunity to explain the position properly and help us resolve it."

He adds, however, that this "does not mean I consider the explanations or materials received so far sufficient. It means I do not want to turn unanswered questions into accusations about someone’s intentions. We are meeting with Antstream next week to try to find a solution. Any contractual issues will be considered through the appropriate channels."

Finally, Cale acknowledges the damage this whole saga has inflicted on System 3's reputation. "This controversy has damaged confidence in System 3, and I take that seriously. The explanations originated with Antstream, but the public statements were issued in our name. We have a responsibility to make sure the information we give you is accurate. Whatever direction the wider industry takes, I have heard that message."

Original Story []: The James Pond Legacy saga rumbles on. Not long ago, we revealed that the company behind the game's GenAI-infused trailer (and its core development) was Antstream, and now System 3 boss Mark Cale has told GameSpot that the studio misled him.

Cale explains that System 3's initial assertion that no GenAI assets were present in the game was based on assurances from Antstream. "That was the statement that we were given at the time by Antstream,” says Cale. "We weren’t involved in the process. They supplied all of the artwork and they supplied, in the process, the [work-in-progress] illustration. All of that was given to us."

Cale has also shown GameSpot a statement provided to System 3 by Antstream back in December of 2025, which again appears to suggest that all of the art in the game is human-made:

"The art pipeline on some non-in-game assets includes algorithm-assisted depth and form translation: Original 2D concepts are input into a model to estimate volume and lighting, producing pseudo-3D drafts,” reads the statement from Antstream. “Artists then manually repaint, re-render, and finalise all illustrations using this pipeline. The final assets are fully human-authored, with algorithms used only for intermediate visualisation."

Cale says he asked for this statement in order to ensure the game was compliant with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. “Antstream now argues that, because we requested the statement for these purposes, we must have known the extent of their use of AI," adds Cale. "However, their statement expressly describes the final assets as ‘fully human-authored,’ with algorithms used ‘only for intermediate visualisation.'"

He says that, had Antstream made it clear that it had used GenAI in the creation of the game's new artwork, he would have taken different action prior to announcing the game and releasing the trailer:

“That doesn’t say ‘generative AI'. And if they’ve used any generative AI at all, it should have been clear in that statement. That was the statement we were told to put on to Nintendo, to Steam, PS5, Xbox–any format we want to go based on that. The actual gameplay itself is, of course, all emulated anyway. And for me, I don’t know the definition of how you’re going to try to say something that’s prompt-based [is] ‘generative AI’ versus algorithms. And so we honestly looked at that and took that honestly to [mean] there was no AI.”

Depressingly, Cale doesn't think it would have been possible to create the new assets for the James Pond Legacy using traditional methods. “All of the artwork that has been created within the Pond-verse has been based on art that’s either on the box cover or characters that are in the game,” he tells GameSpot.

“And at the end of the day, if people think we’re going to redraw, re-render to that quality, and have 20 or 30 people working two years on it, forget it: It’s not going to happen. We wouldn’t put the Pond-verse in there. The simple fact is, it would not match an investment versus a return. I’m only speaking for myself–I can’t speak for Antstream–but if it was for me, I wouldn’t do it, because I couldn’t justify having 20 artists for a year create all of that in that way.”

I'm not at all convinced it would have taken 20 artists two years to create the ragtag selection of character artwork Antstream has slopped out via GenAI, and without knowing what Cale paid System 3 for this contract, it's impossible to say if they undersold or oversold the amount of work involved. However, I'm certain there are many, many video game artists out there right now who would have been happy to work on the project – and well within Cale's (presumably modest) budget, too.

However, it's clear to see the very real danger GenAI represents in this situation; Antstream has 'cheaped out' by taking System 3's money and producing assets which are clearly low-cost AI-made efforts, but Cale, the client, doesn't seem willing to pay the price for real human artists to produce such work. As the quality of GenAI image creation improves, it's easy to see why lower-budget projects are more likely to embrace it.

It doesn't look like Cale will be touching GenAI for a while, however; he tells GameSpot that the whole sorry episode has scarred him for life. “AI’s become such a swear word, and you should quote me on that!” he says. “So, you know, we’re doing this other game [Putty World]. It’s all been hand-done and everything, and I can’t even say, ‘Opponent AI’s been tweaked to do this.’ No, it’s ‘opponent behaviour.’ It’s just madness! I just don’t want to use the word ‘AI’ in anything, as far as I’m concerned, anymore.”

GameSpot says it reached out to Antstream for a statement, but hasn't heard back. We've also contacted the company and will update this post as and when we hear anything.

[source gamespot.com]