We want to create things ourselves and deliver that as a great experience
In the ongoing negotiation between human craft and machine assistance, Sega's Kenji Kanno stepped forward to draw a careful line. The disclosure of generative AI use in Crazy Taxi: World Tour had unsettled fans who feared the soul of a beloved franchise might be quietly outsourced to an algorithm. Kanno's clarification — that AI served only as a fleeting prompt during early ideation, with artists traveling the world before and refining everything after — is less a defense than a reminder that tools do not make art; people do.
- The moment Sega's Steam page mentioned generative AI, a wave of fan anxiety broke across the internet, threatening to overshadow the genuine excitement the game's announcement had generated.
- Sega's initial corporate statement acknowledged AI use but was deliberately vague, leaving the most pressing questions — how much, doing what, replacing whom — conspicuously unanswered.
- Series creator Kenji Kanno intervened with specifics: development teams physically visited five countries for reference before AI was ever introduced, and even then it functioned only as a brainstorming nudge, not a content generator.
- Every asset that AI touched was subsequently reviewed, reworked, and replaced by human artists, with Kanno affirming that nothing AI-generated will ship to players as finished content.
- The clarification reframes the controversy from a question of replacement to one of process, positioning the 2027 release as a human-made work that used a tool — not a tool that made a human-seeming work.
When Sega revealed Crazy Taxi: World Tour at the Xbox Summer Showcase, longtime fans felt a rush of nostalgia quickly complicated by concern. The game's Steam page disclosed generative AI use during development, and the internet responded with the predictable mixture of worry and demand for transparency.
Sega's first response was technically accurate but frustratingly vague — AI had been used as a support tool, no performers were involved — without explaining what that actually meant in practice. The real specificity came from Kenji Kanno, the series creator and lead producer, who sat down to fill in the gaps.
Kanno described a process that began with human effort: artists and designers traveled to five countries to gather reference materials, sketch locations, and absorb real-world inspiration. Only after that groundwork was laid did AI enter the pipeline, functioning as what he called "a hint or part of the ideation" during early brainstorming. Every output was then reviewed and refined by the development team's artists, with no AI-generated content shipping to players unchanged.
"We want to create things ourselves and deliver that as a great experience for our customers," Kanno said plainly. He acknowledged the Steam page's vagueness had caused unnecessary confusion and wanted to be unambiguous: this was a tool in service of human creativity, not a substitute for it.
The distinction sits at the center of how the games industry is wrestling with generative AI — the difference between a brush and a painter. Crazy Taxi: World Tour is set for a 2027 release on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, Nintendo Switch 2, and PC. Whether Kanno's clarification fully satisfies skeptical fans will ultimately depend on what they find when the game is in their hands.
When Sega announced a new Crazy Taxi game at the Xbox Summer Showcase, longtime fans of the arcade classic felt a genuine spark of excitement. But that enthusiasm collided almost immediately with concern. The Steam page for Crazy Taxi: World Tour disclosed that generative AI had been used during development, and the internet did what the internet does—it worried, questioned, and demanded answers.
The initial statement from Sega was careful but opaque. The company said it used generative AI as "a support tool for developers" to help teams "focus more on creative tasks," and that "no AI was used in reference to the performers in the game." It was technically informative but left the real questions unanswered. What exactly had the AI done? How much of the game was touched by it? Was this a tool or a replacement?
Kenji Kanno, the series creator and lead producer on Crazy Taxi: World Tour, sat down to provide the specificity the vague corporate language had lacked. He framed the AI use as something far more modest than the controversy suggested. The team's process began with human work—artists and designers physically traveled to five different countries (which he declined to name) to gather reference materials and inspiration. They sketched, photographed, and studied real locations. Only then, as one small component of an already-human-driven creative pipeline, did generative AI enter the picture. It functioned as what Kanno called "a hint or part of the ideation," a way to explore possibilities during the early brainstorming phase. Every asset that AI touched was then reviewed, refined, and ultimately rewritten by the development team's artists and designers.
Kanno was direct about the team's philosophy. "We want to create things ourselves and deliver that as a great experience for our customers," he said. The final product, he assured, would be entirely original—no shortcuts, no AI-generated content shipped as-is to players. The Steam page's vagueness, he acknowledged, had created unnecessary confusion, and he wanted to be clear that this was a tool in service of human creativity, not a replacement for it.
The distinction matters because it sits at the heart of how the game industry is grappling with generative AI. There's a difference between using AI to accelerate or inspire human work and using it to generate finished assets that require minimal human touch. Kanno's description places Crazy Taxi: World Tour firmly in the former camp. Whether that distinction satisfies skeptics remains to be seen, but the clarification at least moves the conversation from abstraction to specifics.
Crazy Taxi: World Tour is scheduled to launch in 2027 across PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, Nintendo Switch 2, and PC. From what was shown during the hands-off demonstration, the game appears to honor the spirit of the original Dreamcast-era arcade experience while bringing it into the modern era. The AI controversy, for now, seems to have found its answer—though whether fans accept that answer will become clear once the game is in their hands.
Citas Notables
AI is just one part of that, and is used as a hint or part of the ideation. Everything in the final product is going to be original.— Kenji Kanno, series creator and lead producer
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When you heard Sega used generative AI in Crazy Taxi, what was your first instinct?
Concern, honestly. The word "generative" carries weight now. You think of entire games or assets being spit out by a machine. But Kanno's explanation reframed it—it's more like showing the AI a reference photo and asking it to suggest variations, then the human artists take those suggestions and actually build something real.
So it's ideation, not generation?
Exactly. The artists went to real locations, gathered references, sketched designs. The AI was there to help them think through possibilities during brainstorming. Not to replace the work—to inform it.
Does that distinction actually matter to players?
It should, because it's the difference between a tool and a shortcut. But I think what matters more is the final product. If the game feels handcrafted and alive, nobody will care what happened in the ideation phase. If it feels hollow or generic, they'll blame the AI regardless.
Why do you think Sega was so vague at first?
Corporate caution, probably. They knew AI was controversial, so they disclosed it to be transparent. But they didn't want to oversell the story or undersell it. The middle ground turned out to be confusing.
What would you want to know before playing it?
Whether the backgrounds feel like they were designed with intention and care, or whether they feel like they were assembled from suggestions. That's the real test.