GDC 2026 - Art Leadership Roundtables (Day 2 & Day 3)

First of all, a huge thank you and full credits go to Yichi Dong and Rebekah Overbay for their help with the following notes.

Yichi Dong - LinkedIn - Portfolio

Rebekah Overbay - LinkedIn

And, of course, a second thank you to everyone who attended the roundtable this year.  Thank you for being part of the community, and thank you for your patience while waiting for these notes.

Day 2 – March 11

Question 1: What does effective leadership look like in art teams?

• Effective leadership in art teams is less about being the most technically skilled person and more about building trust and enabling specialists to do their best work.
• Leaders focus on alignment, ensuring everyone understands the vision and priorities instead of trying to control execution details.
• Leaders do not need to have all the answers; asking the right questions is often more valuable than providing solutions.
• Creating the right environment for healthy decision-making can be more impactful than giving direct answers, as it empowers teams to solve problems themselves.

Question 2: What is the real role of style guides in production?

• Style guides are positioned less as tools for restricting creativity and more as ways to reduce communication friction across teams.
• Their value lies in providing a shared visual and stylistic language that helps teams move faster with fewer misunderstandings.
• Teams must balance flexibility and consistency in style guides based on team structure and project needs; some contexts require strict standards while others benefit from looser guidance.

Question 3: How do you delegate from directors to leads/experts? How do you direct?

• The goal of the director–lead relationship is to create a collaborative partnership where each side understands what they need from the other.
• Directors are encouraged to ask clarifying questions, lean on the wisdom of leads and experts, and avoid relying solely on their own expertise, which can become a bottleneck.
• Directors should lead with questions rather than answers and make direction a conversation, not a set of top‑down orders.
• The director carries the high‑level vision, while leads and experts are given space to interpret that vision and do their best work.
• Because artists are generally visual communicators, direction is more effective through draw‑overs and examples than through long documents.
• Directors need to understand themselves as artists—what excites them and what they are trying to achieve—so they can set clear markers for a commercial product.
• In conflict, directors aim to show that alignment with direction is in the lead’s interest, while also being clear that persistent resistance can have consequences.
• Art direction is ultimately in service of the product and end goal; directors must prioritize their time, listen to input, but accept that some calls will remain theirs alone.
• Leads often understand feasibility best, so directors should ask what is achievable and use that to shape decisions.

Question 4: How do we deal with AI?

• Teams should start by staying informed; although there are many unknowns, the group emphasized that developers and artists are adaptable.
• The term “AI” covers many different technologies, and strong, sometimes polarized positions are already forming around them.
• Participants stressed that AI itself does not fire people; employment decisions still come from human leadership, which should be accountable for how AI is used.
• The audience ultimately cares about the story and identity of the product, even as AAA engagement patterns shift, and that context should guide how AI is adopted.
• Younger artists are hearing discouraging messages that AI makes art careers less viable, but the group affirmed that people will continue to play games and make art regardless of AI.
• AI is framed as a tool while humans remain the creatives; teams have agency in deciding how the tool is applied.
• Participants saw this moment as an opportunity to revisit why they make art and to reconnect with the joy of the creative process.
• If AI tools are built for artists, they should focus on reducing drudgery and streamlining workflows, not replacing human creativity.
• The group underscored a strong stance against replacing human artists with generative AI, emphasizing craft, human connection, and communication through games.
• Technology and tools are cyclical, but human art carries emotion, nostalgia, and personal taste that AI lacks; AI should be learned as a tool, not as a substitute for foundational skills.
• As leaders and teachers, attendees felt responsible for empowering artists to use AI thoughtfully, preserving the personal touch while leveraging efficiency gains.
• Generative AI was described as useful for rough drafting ideas and expanding reference pools, similar to long‑standing moodboard practices, but not as a replacement for intentional human design.

Day 3 – March 12

Question 5: How are teams adapting to AI right now?

• From a senior creative leadership perspective, teams remain conflicted about AI, with the primary challenge being mindset and adoption rather than specific tools.
• Progress with AI accelerates when teams feel psychologically safe to experiment and are allowed to explore without fear of punishment for failure.
• From a production and team‑management perspective, leaders are prioritizing small, practical AI use cases over sweeping, transformative changes.
• Adoption improves when AI is clearly framed as a support tool rather than a replacement for human workers.
• At an industry‑wide level, there is no unified approach yet; most studios are still in exploratory phases instead of having standardized AI pipelines.

Question 6: What actually helps “move the needle” with teams on AI exploration?

• Participants agreed that meaningful change comes through exposure and repeated iteration, not through top‑down mandates.
• Teams need time and space to test, fail, and form their own opinions about AI to build genuine buy‑in.
• Leadership should avoid forcing adoption; instead, they should highlight successful use cases and allow enthusiasm to spread organically across teams.
• A major lever for progress is actively reducing fear—particularly fear of replacement and fear of losing authorship over creative work.

Question 7: How do you handle executive leadership constantly changing direction?

• Experienced leaders framed frequent executive shifts as a normal part of the system rather than a bug to be eliminated.
• To cope, leaders aim to build resilience and adaptability into their teams so they can absorb directional changes without burning out.
• Instead of reacting emotionally to new directives, leaders can reframe changes as updated goals and keep the team focused on what is now most important.
• Maintaining clarity and stability for the team—despite instability above—is seen as a core leadership responsibility.

Question 8: What is the role of leadership in uncertain times (AI + shifting direction)?

• Leadership was described as the act of creating stability within unstable systems, especially when technology and business directions are rapidly changing.
• Leaders function as filters for noise and translators of vision, helping teams understand what really matters and what can be safely ignored.
• The goal is not for leaders to have all the answers, but to guide decision‑making, keep teams aligned, and sustain a sense of purpose amid uncertainty.