The Roottrees Are Dead: How Ditching AI Fueled Indie Game Success

HOW THE ROOTTREES ARE DEAD DITCHED AI AND BECAME A HIT

In the dynamic and often contentious landscape where artificial intelligence intersects with creative endeavors, the story of “The Roottrees are Dead” stands as a compelling testament to the enduring value of human artistry. This critically acclaimed puzzle game embarked on an unusual developmental journey, initially leveraging generative AI for its visual elements. Yet, its eventual triumph on major platforms, particularly Steam, was not merely despite its AI origins but, ironically, because of a deliberate and ethical pivot away from them. This narrative not only illuminates the challenges and ethical considerations surrounding AI in art but also offers profound insights into the evolving demands of the creative industry and the indispensable skills required for success in an AI-dominated world.

THE GENESIS OF A PUZZLE PHENOMENON

The inception of “The Roottrees are Dead” traces back to Jeremy Johnston’s participation in a Global Game Jam in 2023. Under the severe time constraints of this event, Johnston, focused primarily on the intricate puzzle mechanics and narrative structure, sought a rapid solution for the game’s visual assets. In an era when generative AI was gaining traction but still largely an experimental frontier, he turned to a friend well-versed in Midjourney to quickly generate images based on his narrative prompts. This expedient approach allowed him to complete a functional version of the game within the jam’s tight deadline.

Following the game jam, Johnston invested an additional eleven months in expanding “The Roottrees are Dead,” enriching its story and deepening its puzzles. Despite this significant personal investment, he initially released the expanded browser version for free on itch.io. His decision not to monetize it stemmed directly from the game’s reliance on AI-generated artwork. He harbored no grand expectations for its reception, having experienced minimal public engagement with previous projects. Yet, “The Roottrees are Dead” defied these humble expectations, unexpectedly garnering significant attention. It organically spread across online forums and Reddit, drawing praise from segments of the games press. While offered without a price tag, a donation link was included, through which Johnston received an encouraging $2,000-$3,000 from over 10,000 players, signaling a nascent but undeniable demand for his unique puzzle creation.

THE ETHICAL DILEMMA AND THE CALL TO REINVENTION

Among the thousands who discovered and championed “The Roottrees are Dead” was Robin Ward, who, recovering from a broken arm, became captivated by its premise. Recognizing its untapped potential, Ward reached out to Johnston with a clear conviction: “This should be a bigger deal than it is.” However, both men quickly concurred on the fundamental impediment to its wider success: the pervasive use of AI-generated art.

The visual component was central to the game, tasking players with deciphering a complex family tree through dozens of character portraits. The initial AI-generated images, while serving their preliminary purpose, were far from flawless. They exhibited tell-tale signs of early generative AI, such as warped facial features, distorted perspectives, and, most notably, disfigured hands – characteristics that Ward famously described as “demonic” in some instances. Beyond these aesthetic imperfections, a more profound concern emerged: the ethical implications of selling a product heavily reliant on artwork created by algorithms, often trained on vast datasets without explicit artist consent or compensation. This ethical quandary was compounded by platform policies, particularly Steam’s stringent stance against games utilizing generative AI, which at the time effectively blocked “The Roottrees are Dead” from wider distribution.

The shared understanding between Ward and Johnston was unequivocal: selling art created in this manner felt “unethical.” Johnston, not an artist himself, had previously dismissed the idea of replacing the art due to perceived prohibitive costs of hiring models and photographers to replicate the original photographic style. However, Ward’s intervention offered a new path. They agreed that Ward would undertake the comprehensive reprogramming of the game, while simultaneously securing a human illustrator to replace every single AI-generated image. This pivotal decision marked the true beginning of the game’s transformation from a popular indie browser title to a potential commercial success.

A HUMAN TOUCH: THE ARTIST’S TRANSFORMATION

The quest for ethical and high-quality artwork led Ward to Henning Ludvigsen, a seasoned illustrator whose expertise would prove indispensable. Ludvigsen approached the existing AI-generated images not as final assets, but as rudimentary concept sketches. This allowed him to grasp the initial artistic intent while retaining full creative freedom to reimagine and elevate the visuals. His process was meticulous, involving extensive research into the historical era and stylistic nuances that each portrait was meant to evoke. Over nearly a year, Ludvigsen painstakingly crafted almost 40 original illustrations, replacing every problematic AI-generated image with human-made art.

Ludvigsen’s stance on generative AI mirrors the broader sentiment within the creative community. “I’m not a big fan of generative AI,” he stated, lamenting the discernible reduction in work for his peers, particularly concept artists, as companies increasingly leverage AI to bypass traditional preliminary design stages. He observed that, in the context of finished products, generative AI still struggles to resonate with players, often leading to negative reactions. This sentiment is echoed by industry giants like Take-Two Interactive, which has noted that excessive reliance on AI can trigger “loss of players, revenues…and reputation harm,” often manifesting as “review bombs” and online backlash. The experience of Cyan Worlds, developer of “Myst,” facing significant criticism for incorporating “AI assisted content” like textures in its game “Firmament,” further underscores the market’s growing skepticism and resistance to AI-heavy creative works.

THE COMMERCIAL AND CRITICAL RECEPTION OF AN ETHICAL CHOICE

“The Roottrees are Dead” was eventually released on Steam in January 2025, reborn with its entirely human-illustrated art. The reception was overwhelmingly positive, validating the ethical and artistic decision made by its creators. As Robin Ward observed, “The vast majority of people are like, ‘I’m very happy you got rid of the AI.’” While a small faction expressed a nostalgic preference for the original photographic, albeit imperfect, quality of the AI-generated art, the consensus was clear: Ludvigsen’s work constituted an undeniable upgrade. His illustrations brought unparalleled consistency in character design, ensuring that individuals appearing in multiple “photographs” were visually cohesive. Furthermore, the eradication of anatomical distortions – no more twisted fingers or unsettling stares – significantly enhanced player immersion and the game’s overall professional polish.

The journey of “The Roottrees are Dead” is a unique case study in navigating the complexities of AI integration. Johnston acknowledges that the initial, free version of the game likely would not have seen the light of day without the rapid art generation afforded by AI. Yet, its transformation into a critical and commercial success was inextricably linked to the ethical decision to replace that AI art with human talent. The game’s transparent approach to its AI origins, coupled with its evolution to human-centric art, allowed it to “skirt these issues” that plague other AI-reliant titles. This narrative powerfully demonstrates that while AI can serve as a catalyst for early-stage development or rapid prototyping, human creativity, ethical considerations, and artistic refinement are paramount for achieving widespread acceptance, audience connection, and sustained success in the competitive gaming and creative industries.

AI’S DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD: IMPACT ON THE CREATIVE WORKFORCE

The trajectory of “The Roottrees are Dead” is not merely an isolated anecdote; it is a microcosm of the broader shifts and profound implications AI is having on the global workforce, particularly within creative sectors. The advent of sophisticated generative AI tools has ignited a contentious debate about job displacement, the emergence of new roles, and the essential skills required for professionals to thrive in an increasingly automated future.

JOBS AT RISK IN THE AGE OF AI

The most immediate concern, especially in creative fields, is the perceived threat of automation to existing roles. Generative AI tools are becoming adept at producing content that previously demanded significant human effort.

Concept Artists and Illustrators: As demonstrated by Ludvigsen’s observation, AI can generate initial concepts rapidly, potentially reducing the need for human artists in early-stage ideation. Entry-level and highly standardized illustration tasks are particularly vulnerable.
Copywriters and Content Creators: AI can draft basic articles, marketing copy, and social media content, impacting roles focused on high-volume, low-complexity text generation.
Data Entry and Repetitive Tasks: Beyond creative fields, jobs involving routine data processing, categorization, and administrative tasks are highly susceptible to automation by AI and robotic process automation (RPA).
Translators: While AI translation is still imperfect, it continues to improve, posing a challenge to human translators for less nuanced content.

However, it’s crucial to distinguish between augmentation and complete replacement. Often, AI tools do not eliminate jobs outright but rather transform them, shifting the focus of human effort towards higher-order tasks.

EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES AND NEW ROLES

Paradoxically, while AI may displace certain tasks, it simultaneously creates new roles and enhances existing ones, fostering an ecosystem of collaboration between humans and machines. The demand for professionals who can design, implement, and manage AI systems is rapidly accelerating.

AI Prompt Engineers: These specialists craft precise instructions to guide generative AI models, optimizing output for specific creative or technical goals.
AI Ethicists and Governance Specialists: As AI becomes more pervasive, there’s a critical need for experts who can establish ethical guidelines, ensure fairness, and mitigate algorithmic bias.
AI Trainers and Data Curators: Humans are essential for refining AI models, annotating data, and ensuring the quality and diversity of training datasets.
AI Integration Specialists: Professionals who can seamlessly integrate AI tools into existing workflows, ensuring efficiency and usability.
Human-AI Collaboration Designers: Roles focused on creating intuitive interfaces and collaborative processes where humans and AI work synergistically.

The narrative of “The Roottrees are Dead” exemplifies this: AI facilitated the game’s initial existence, but human expertise was required to elevate it to commercial success, creating a new role for Ludvigsen to re-illustrate the entire game.

ESSENTIAL SKILLS FOR THE AI ERA

To navigate this evolving professional landscape, individuals must cultivate a blend of cognitive, technical, and interpersonal skills that complement AI capabilities rather than compete directly with them.

Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: While AI can provide solutions, humans are needed to define complex problems, evaluate AI outputs critically, and apply nuanced judgment. The ability to ask the right questions remains paramount.
Creativity and Innovation: AI can generate variations, but true originality, artistic vision, and the capacity for groundbreaking innovation remain uniquely human attributes. “The Roottrees are Dead” demonstrated that players value this distinct human creativity.
Adaptability and Lifelong Learning: The pace of technological change demands continuous learning and the flexibility to adapt to new tools, platforms, and methodologies.
Ethical Reasoning and Empathy: Understanding the societal and ethical implications of AI, and applying human values like empathy and fairness in decision-making, are crucial.
Interpersonal and Collaboration Skills: As teams become more diverse, comprising humans and AI tools, effective communication, collaboration, and leadership are vital.
Prompt Engineering and AI Literacy: Professionals across all sectors will increasingly benefit from understanding how to effectively interact with and leverage AI tools, essentially “speaking their language.”
Human-Centric Design and Storytelling: In a world awash with algorithmically generated content, the ability to create experiences that deeply resonate with human emotions and tell compelling stories will be highly prized.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM “THE ROOTTREES ARE DEAD”

The experience of “The Roottrees are Dead” provides a powerful case study for the current state of AI in creative industries. It demonstrates that while AI can offer unprecedented speed and efficiency in generating initial concepts or placeholder assets, it often falls short in delivering the nuanced artistry, consistency, and ethical integrity that audiences, particularly in the gaming community, demand. The game’s ultimate success on Steam underscores a market preference for human-crafted content, especially when it comes to visual fidelity and originality.

Johnston and Ward’s journey with “The Roottrees are Dead” highlights that a hybrid approach—where AI acts as a starting point and human artists provide the critical refinement, ethical consideration, and professional polish—might be a viable pathway for creators. It illustrates that embracing human creativity and ethical practices, even if it means redoing significant portions of a project, can lead to greater commercial and critical success. This narrative challenges the notion that AI is an immediate replacement for human artists, instead positioning it as a tool that, when responsibly integrated, can augment creative processes, but not supplant the irreplaceable value of human ingenuity and artistic integrity.

CONCLUSION: HARNESSING AI RESPONSIBLY

“The Roottrees are Dead” is a pivotal example in the ongoing dialogue surrounding artificial intelligence and its place in creative fields. Its journey from an AI-reliant prototype to a human-illustrated hit underscores a fundamental truth: while AI offers powerful tools for efficiency and initial content generation, the discerning eye, ethical considerations, and unique creative touch of human artists remain indispensable for achieving genuine commercial and critical acclaim. The market, as demonstrated by this game’s reception, values authenticity, consistency, and the ethical provenance of creative works.

As AI continues to evolve, the narrative of “The Roottrees are Dead” serves as a guiding light. It reminds us that the future of work, particularly in creative endeavors, lies not in uncritical acceptance of AI, but in its responsible integration and strategic application. By focusing on enhancing human capabilities, fostering new collaborative roles, and prioritizing uniquely human skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment, we can ensure that AI becomes an invaluable partner, rather than an existential threat, to the next generation of innovators and artists. The story of a puzzle game that found its success by ditching AI is, in essence, a triumph of human ingenuity in the digital age.