Silver Palace Said No to Generative AI. Its Suspected AI Ads Still Got Roasted.

Silver Palace has a rather inconvenient answer sitting in an interview: no generative AI in development. Two firm noes, in fact. That makes the Reddit backlash over its suspected AI ads an especially awkward piece of marketing drama, even though the interview and the disputed clips don’t establish a broken promise.

Critics think the ads look artificial and cheap. Defenders say players are blaming the wrong people, overreacting to a tool or getting upset over material that won’t change whether the game is worth playing. The advertising has become its own investigation. Very on brand for a detective RPG, considerably less useful for selling one.

The clips got the AI-slop treatment

In the October 12 advertising thread, critics point to blurry movement, clothing that seems to shift unnaturally and eyes that look unlike the in-game models. Their accusation is generative AI. Their immediate verdict is that the promotion makes an anticipated game look worse.

That second complaint gives the argument more bite than a routine fight over software. Fans drawn in by polished character art aren’t asking Silver Palace to invent a new selling point. They want its ads to use the ones it already has. A clip that makes viewers question the quality can lose them before gameplay even enters the conversation.

Defenders offer several answers. Some don’t mind apparent AI use. Some dispute the diagnosis. Others point toward outsourced advertising and argue that developers shouldn’t automatically take the blame for every promotional clip. Critics respond that hiring someone else wouldn’t excuse waving through a bad ad.

The outsourcing explanation is still a theory here. No confirmed production account identifies the contractor or the tools. That doesn’t stop either camp from arguing as if the invoice has already been entered into evidence.

Two noes, one uncomfortable comparison

In Fragster’s August 31 interview, Yomi asks publishing representative Lucis whether generative AI is used in the development process. Lucis says no. Asked whether that means not at all, Lucis says no again. There isn’t much room to misread the answer.

There is, however, a difference between game development and advertising production. The statement doesn’t identify who made the disputed clips. An accusation about an ad doesn’t prove that the game’s characters, environments or splash art were generated with AI.

That distinction won’t magically make critics like the marketing. It does keep a complaint about promotional quality from turning into an unsupported claim that the studio secretly generated the whole game. Those are very different accusations, however tempting the more explosive headline might be.

The splash-art suspicions were already waiting

Before the ad fight, a July discussion had questioned Silver Palace’s splash art. Critics flagged hair, gold detailing and other features they associated with generation artifacts. Defenders examined the same image and pointed to visible brushwork, consistent details and stylistic choices. Suspicion met a rebuttal, not a production confession.

Putting those arguments beside the advertising backlash creates a louder story. It doesn’t create proof. The artwork dispute and the ad dispute concern different material, and visual oddities alone don’t reveal the entire process that produced either one.

For players excited about Silver Palace, the immediate frustration is simpler: why should advertising make them defend the quality of a game whose visuals attracted them in the first place? Critics want better promotion. Defenders want the internet to stop treating every awkward clip as a solved case.

The marketing is supposed to get people discussing Silver Palace. Mission accomplished, technically. Getting them to argue over whether the ad is AI slop was probably not the conversation either side hoped to be having.