Clair Obscur won multiple awards but used generative AI art as placeholders during production.
The Indie Game Awards revoked Clair Obscur’s Debut and Game of the Year after the AI disclosure.
IGAs reassigned the awards (Blue Prince, Sorry We’re Closed) and reignited debate on gen-AI use.
Apparently only one other person in these comments actually read the article. They failed to disclose that the game was released with AI assets. Whether this action was purposeful or not, their submission was disqualified according to the rules. That’s really all there is to it.
Barely anyone in this topic acknowledges the actual reason: They lied about not using genAI and were disqualified when the lie was revealed.
People pointed out that the game did use AI-generated assets as placeholders, but then replaced them with human-created assets later.
I don’t see why this is such a big deal?
They lied on the application and said no AI was used.
In light of Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of gen AI art in production on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination. While the assets in question were patched out and it is a wonderful game, it does go against the regulations we have in place.
There’s a quote in the text that explains it: “When it was submitted for consideration, a representative of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33.”
I’m utterly indifferent both on the merits of the game (it’s OK but I’m not spellbound) and genAI in development (as long as it doesn’t make it into the finished product) – just pointing out that those were the rules that Sandfall agreed to.
Agreed, the assets did make it to production, but were replaced in a patch 5 days later. That definitely seems like it was placeholders that just got missed. Which happens, especially for a new small studio releasing their first game.
GenAI being used for temporary placeholders is arguably a correct use case for it. Especially with a smaller development team. If you have a limited number of artists, having them spend time crafting unique placeholders that will be replaced is a poor use of their time and talents that would otherwise be spent working on final art that will actually be in the released game. That is a 100% valid use case scenario for it, as long as the assets are replaced for the launch. And missing a few and fixing that within a week is entirely understandable, not something they should be indicted for.
There is some concern about the exact wording I’ve seen in various articles. Some say that Sandfall told the awards that GenAI wasn’t used in the development, but the articles don’t use a specific quote on their side, and then later saying it was used for placeholder assets. They seem to imply that Sandfall lies about the use to qualify, then later came clean. I’m wondering if that is simply miscommunication, potentially language issues, about the final game not using GenAI. Just because people speak multiple languages, that doesn’t mean that they understand nuanced differences in meaning when not using their native language. I can see the difference between the final game release and overall development being misunderstood depending on the exact wording used.
Because many people believe any use of gen AI is unethical due to how it was created, in addition to how the people in charge are using it.
In other words, using it in any capacity is a bad look to a lot of creatives. And other rational people who can foresee the devastating impact it’s going to have on art of all types, government, and society at large.
Because it’s not a big deal, and IGA are technopuritans who can no longer be taken seriously.
Gamers need something to screech about.They always need to be bitching about something and then complain they don’t have time to play anymore when it’s really just their depression and shitty entitled attitude ruining their hobbies.
Especially since “later” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here given that it was literally within days.
at that point why even use AI at all instead of some other basic filler assets?
Why not? If the tools weren’t available, they’d have used stock art or something super basic and crappy looking, which would’ve been just as good as a placeholder. But the tools were available.
In 2025 it makes sense for companies to have policies against using generative AI tools even for stuff like this because of the systemic effects of normalized use. But in 2022, it wouldn’t have been a thing. Nobody would have thought twice about it. Just a neat new thing that does the job.
They didn’t know it was forbidden. /s
Quoting the quote from the article (so it’s more obvious and accessible here):
The Indie Game Awards have a hard stance on the use of gen AI throughout the nomination process and during the ceremony itself. When it was submitted for consideration, a representative of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. In light of Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of gen AI art in production on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination. While the assets in question were patched out and it is a wonderful game, it does go against the regulations we have in place. As a result, the IGAs nomination committee has agreed to officially retract both the Debut Game and Game of the Year awards.
I don’t understand why they need GenAI for placeholders; part of the fun of the creative process is coming up with fun, crude drawings that are clear placeholders.
I heard being a video game developer is easy and fun. Just dicking around all day, never dealing with deadlines, not having to pay a staff $200000 dollars a week with investors down your throat.
Plus they probably wouldn’t have forgotten to change them before production if they were quick and bad drawings
You would think that but there have been many examples of placeholder textures getting missed and ending up in shipped games.
I’m not a fan of gen AI either, but this feels like taking it a bit far. Getting pissed over them using gen AI for placeholder art, that was then replaced by human art in the release feels utterly ridiculous.
It’s probably more that they said that they did not use gen AI when they did, even if it was quickly patched out
It’s a gray zone in my opinion.
The final art will still be based on the AI (read: stolen) art. Where do you draw the line between a unique piece of art and copying existing art?
The final art will still be based on the AI (read: stolen) art.
You’re making assumptions both of the developers’ workflow, and of their AI models.
I dont understand the purity tests we are putting artists through
AI is just a tool. It can be used correctly to assist in making a gopd product, or a lazy artist can make slop (a lazy artist will produce crap regardless AI or not)
If its wrong to use AI to make filler material, then is speedtree wrong for allowing environmental artists to take a shortcut and not have to hand craft every tree in their game world?
like, minus all the plagarism and energy use issues. If wre are speaking strictly of artistic integrity or whatever, i dont see the problem in using AI to assist artists (as opposed to outright replacing them)
Seems silly to require ALL the unit tests pass, too, cut them some slack. /s
like, minus all the plagarism and energy use issues.
Pretty sure that’s the primary thing everyone takes issue with. If you removed that most people wouldn’t have as big of a problem with it. There is still a social issue at play in terms of the potential damage generative AI can do to the job market with no real safety nets or long term consideration for the consequences to society and the economy, but most people aren’t even getting that far.
A more valid reason would have been cause they aren’t an indie company.
They already got the publicity and award ceremony. Apparently they only provide tickets for members, everybody else had to buy their tickets up to 7k. Fuck those awards anyway…
