In shocking news, Ian Fleming has risen from the grave to condemn—wait, no, that’s not right. Let’s take it from the top. In shocking news, the developer behind the 1990s platformer series James Pond, who is very much alive, has condemned the apparent use of AI in the upcoming Nintendo Switch 2 anthology series James Pond Legacy: The Pond is Not Enough.

The console classic that parodied Bond

For those who came of age in the 16-bit era, James Pond is a name that conjures a very specific kind of nostalgia. The games were a playful, aquatic twist on the James Bond spy genre, starring a fishy secret agent with a license to not-so-thrill. The original James Pond: Underwater Agent launched in 1990, followed by Codename Robocod in 1991 and Operation Starfish in 1993, along with the spin-off The Aquatic Games. These titles were among the best-loved platformers of their time, especially on consoles like the Amiga, Mega Drive and SNES. They took top-down action and side-scrolling platforming into underwater worlds filled with puns and playful references, and they built a loyal fanbase that still remembers the games fondly today.

So when System 3 Software, the veteran gaming company that holds the rights to the franchise, announced a collection called James Pond Legacy: The Pond is Not Enough for the Nintendo Switch 2, there was plenty of interest. The anthology promised to bring all three main games plus the spin-off together in one package, remastered for a new generation. A 90-second trailer was released on YouTube to showcase the collection, and it immediately drew attention for its new 3D character renders. But the attention was not the positive kind the publisher might have hoped for.

Allegations of generative AI

Viewers quickly noticed that both the trailer and the character artwork looked suspiciously like the output of generative AI. The term “AI slop” began appearing in comments. The look of the new 3D models, the texture of the environments and the slight weirdness of the animations were enough to raise alarms. The backlash was severe enough that System 3 disabled comments on the YouTube video entirely. After a short time, the company posted a pinned comment saying: “to be absolutely clear, no generative AI was used in the James Pond Legacy trailer or character artwork.” The comment also linked to a blog post that attempted to explain the process behind the new character artwork. But that statement did little to quell the suspicion.

Many fans and industry observers were unconvinced. The blog post, as it turned out, showed still images and described a workflow, but did not provide the kind of production files or in-progress screenshots that would prove a fully human-led pipeline. The absence of tangible evidence did not help the publisher’s case. In a creative industry already on high alert for unrecognized AI use, the trailer became a flashpoint for frustration.

Chris Sorrell speaks out

Among those refusing to accept System 3’s clarification is Chris Sorrell, the creator of James Pond. Sorrell was the original designer and programmer behind the series, and he has no involvement in this legacy collection. In an interview with a retro gaming publication, Sorrell did not hold back. He said he was “in no way consulted or involved with this ‘legacy’ collection.” He then dismantled the company’s explanation of its art process. “If you want me to believe for a second that the final cow image isn’t AI, how about showing me a wireframe mesh inside a 3D package?” he asked. And he closed with a line that quickly made waves online: “I wish them the worst—I hope they choke on an AI-generated fishbone.”

The quote is blunt, but it comes from a place of deep personal frustration. Sorrell’s anger reflects a broader phenomenon in the games industry: creators who made beloved characters in the 1980s and 1990s frequently have little or no control over what happens to those properties decades later. Their contracts were signed long before anyone imagined artificial intelligence would be used to create commercial art. The people who own the rights are often companies that had no hand in making the games, and the original developers are left watching from the outside as their creations are reshaped, repackaged, and sometimes, in Sorrell’s view, degraded.

The long history of James Pond rights

Part of what makes this so frustrating is the convoluted history of the intellectual property. Rights to the James Pond games have shifted between companies numerous times over the past two decades. The franchise has been bought, sold, and licensed in a game of corporate pass-the-parcel that is all too common in the video game world. By 2026, the rights are no longer in the hands of the people who originally made the games, and the original creators have no say over how the brand is used. For a creator like Sorrell, seeing a collection titled “legacy” be created without his participation feels like a bitter irony. The people who have profited from the franchise for years, he argues, have shown zero respect for those who actually built it.

In his interview, Sorrell expanded on this sentiment. He said that “how soulless businessmen have been exploiting a brand for decades, have zero respect for anyone who made the original games, and prefer to use garbage AI over paying developers for any new material.” It is a charge that extends beyond this single release. His criticism lands at a moment when the games industry is experiencing a wave of AI-related controversy. The fear is not just that generative AI will replace human jobs, but that it will do so by harvesting the work of original artists and developers without consent, credit, or compensation.

An industry-wide pattern

This is not an isolated incident. In the same week, another high-profile trailer faced similar allegations. The strategy game Humankind 2, from Amplitude Studios, released a trailer that many viewers felt had signs of generative AI, leading to an online debate about whether the company was being dishonest about its creative process. That controversy, alongside the James Pond situation, reveals a fundamental problem in the age of AI-generated media: in the absence of a flat-out mea culpa, it is almost impossible to know with certainty whether an image or video was made by a machine or a human. Suspicion hung over the James Pond trailer, and no amount of corporate denial could fully erase that suspicion.

The difficulty is that generative AI is becoming increasingly good at mimicking both real media and human workflows. There are often no obvious tells, and the line between “AI-assisted” and “AI-generated” is blurry. A studio can honestly say that no generative AI was used and still have production processes that involve algorithmic tools. Conversely, a studio can use AI heavily and then claim that everything was done by humans. The public is left with gut instincts, forever chasing proof that may never arrive. In that vacuum, anger takes root.

What makes the James Pond case especially poignant is that the game itself is a celebration of something that used to be little more than a silly aquatic spoof of a secret agent. It is meant to be fun. The trailer was supposed to be a joyful trip down memory lane, the re-release was supposed to be a cause for nostalgia and celebration. Instead, it has turned into another reminder of the legal and ethical mess that surrounds legacy media in the modern era. The original creators are left disenfranchised, the fans are left doubting every pixel, and the only people who seem to win are the rightsholders who didn't make the games in the first place.

Sorrell’s parting shot may sound harsh, but it captures a feeling shared by many in the retro gaming community: a profound sense of betrayal at seeing something you love and helped create get reduced to a cash grab. His wish that the publishers “choke on an AI-generated fishbone” is likely to be a rallying cry for those who feel that the games industry has too often forgotten the people who laid its foundations. The debate over the collection will not end with a single comment or blog post. The only thing that might resolve it is the full production records—and those seem unlikely to ever be released.

Until then, the James Pond legacy remains caught in a strange purgatory. The games themselves are beloved enough to be reissued, but the people who love them are now forced to view the new artwork and trailer with suspicion. The collection may still sell well, and it may still offer players a chance to revisit the classic titles. But the triumph of the announcement has been permanently tarnished, and the fans who were most excited are now the ones asking the hardest questions. For Chris Sorrell, the whole affair is a sobering confirmation that even thirty years later, creating something memorable doesn't guarantee any control over its future.

Source:Gizmodo News