Epic Demonstrates GenAI Introducing Errors in Fortnite Characters and Structures That Artists Must Correct
After facing backlash from players six months ago for allegedly incorporating generative AI into Fortnite, Epic Games has chosen to come clean, showcasing a video that highlights the generative AI tools its developers are utilizing in Unreal Engine to create everything from buildings to characters and skins.
The video kicks off with an artist sketching a character, starting with a rough outline and then refining it with color. So far, so good—it looks impressive. However, the artist then transitions to a tool called “GenMedia” and inputs a prompt: “Clean up the rendering on this Fortnite character. Don’t change the design, just the rendering.” They hit the button, and suddenly, the drawing appears much shinier, but it also gains some unwanted details, like a skeleton decoration on a belt pouch, an extra belt pouch, a new glove, and some odd collar adjustments. This forces the artist to spend time correcting the AI’s blunders, raising the question: why use AI in the first place?
This scenario repeats later in the video when the AI image generator and editor Nano Banana is applied to a building in progress, prompting for clean PBR render shots and adjusting the perspective. At first glance, the result seems acceptable, but upon closer inspection, discrepancies emerge, such as the shape of the central sign tower and strange alterations around the windows, again requiring manual fixes from the artist.
“All along the way, there are continual reviews before anything makes it into our games, and artists are careful to respect originality, track provenance of their work, and ensure the final product meets Epic’s high-quality standards.”
To me, this sounds tedious and adds unnecessary work. But I’m not an artist. If a professional claims that this process ultimately saves time—suggesting that correcting AI errors is quicker than doing everything manually—I’m willing to accept that. It’s unrealistic to deny that generative AI can “save time” in the sense that it helps streamline the path to what someone in charge deems a finished product.
However, I believe the implications are more significant. By using generative AI, they’re introducing a host of potential random “mistakes” into every piece of art, sometimes multiple times. They’re taking their original creations and running them through a system that can produce unoriginal results. How long will it be before an AI-generated error slips through and makes it into the game? This concern isn’t unfounded; the video comes six months after Fortnite was accused of using generative AI for in-game signage, which contained bizarre errors like a character with only nine toes and a clock displaying odd numbers. It also follows a year after players forced a generative AI Darth Vader to say things that were neither Disney-friendly nor suitable for a T for Teen game. Beyond the propensity for errors, there’s also the loss of the artistic process and the genuine creativity that comes from making art, as generative AI tools allow artists to “skip ahead in the timeline,” whatever that entails.
Or perhaps none of this matters. Maybe we’re okay with a sprinkle of generative AI if it “helps” developers. After all, we shouldn’t shy away from the conveniences of new technology, right? This could be beneficial for artists. But this comes just three months after Epic Games laid off 1,000 employees due to mismanagement of their finances. This suggests that Epic Games is looking to reduce the number of artists needed to produce new content more quickly, which likely means tighter deadlines and an increase in mistakes. I’m not naive enough to think that, after such significant layoffs, Epic Games will use generative AI to provide the remaining artists with more reasonable deadlines that allow them to fully explore their creative potential. The primary concern for Epic Games is profit. If leadership believes they have a tool that enables fewer people to produce adequate art more rapidly, they will undoubtedly use it.
I regret that we won’t see the versions of these creations that emerged without the questionable “assistance” of generative AI.
