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.

top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 211 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 10 months ago (43 children)

    Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative AI-created assets in the game. When the first AI tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, instances of a placeholder texture were removed within 5 days to be replaced with the correct textures that had always been intended for release, but were missed during the Quality Assurance process

    Sauce: https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-creative-revolution-how-technology-is-making-art-accessible-to-everyone.html

    Not exactly a massive AI slop problem, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 10 months ago (40 children)

    One of the rules was no AI during development, they voluntarily claimed they didn't use it.

    They used it. Sure, in a minor way, but they used it and got caught.

    The rules are the rules. Some chess events ban caffeine, we might laugh and say drinking a cup of coffee is not a big deal - but they'd be disqualified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    But this is like banning someone from a chess event because they experimented with caffeine 3 years ago and accidentally left a single Nespresso pod in their bag. That they also immediately threw in the trash when they noticed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Or like they submitted a game to an award that said no AI in development, said they didn't use AI in development, when in reality they did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Because they thought they didn’t and found out 3 year old in-house AI test assets ended up in the release version. And promptly replaced them with the actual art done by their own actual artists, the ones who did the AI experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    That's fine, but they did use AI in development, so whether or not they removed the assets they should not be included in this award category.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    You do acknowledge that “using AI during development” is a massive thing to ban games for.

    How can they check for that in the future?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    it’s irrelevant whether you agree with the rule or not… the award is for games that didn’t use AI during development. the game should not have originally been in contention for the award

    i tend to agree this is the right way to use AI assets, but this isn’t the award for them… it doesn’t matter if it was accidental, if it was removed before release, or anything else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Yes it’s their rule. It’s a stupid rule.

    But how do they intend to police said rule in the future? Since it clearly isn’t just for released art assets but THE WHOLE PROCESS.

    If it’s just self reported what’s the point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    that’s all irrelevant though… the rule is the rule and they got caught

    people should be allowed to have awards for games which only use humans, and if a game is caught cheating they should be disqualified

    if they want to compete for some awards, these aren’t the awards for them: there are others

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Yes yes. They used AI, they lost the award. I’m over it. Next topic:

    How do they (indie awards) enforce this in the future? Please read, understand and explain:

    The rules say no AI can be used in ANY stage of the development for ANYTHING. How do they check it? Where do they draw the line? Is it just art assets? Voices? Code?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You know, any studio today that cares about winning the indie award as much as you seem to would probably just ask the award coordinators for clarification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    TBH this is the first time I heard about these awards 😅

    My flavour of neurospicy just doesn’t understand vague rules with massive issues with how to interpret them.

    So you’re perfectly fine with vague rules like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • That would make a lot of sense.

    Scientific fields obviously put a lot of effort into tackling this problem, but philosophically, it is not possible to be specific enough to do away with vagueness. At some point, you have to use language like "a reasonable person" and just leave judges to interpret the spirit of what's being restricted.

    So you’re perfectly fine with vague rules like that?

    Yes. I don't even feel it's that vague.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Is there a rule that chess players can't train with caffeine?

    Of course not. It's not at all the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    The indie game awards rule is equivalent to my example.

    No AI can be used anywhere in the production in any capacity ever.

    It’s not just “the released game can’t contain AI generated content”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    If we're following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't understand your argument at all. Your first comment seems to disagree with the ban, but this one explicitly agrees with it.

    Your example is weird because it doesn't exist. There is no restrictions on how chess players train, only how they compete. All you're doing is building a strawman, not an analogy.

    And to be clear, they didn't get banned for using AI. They got banned for lying about using AI. You can agree or disagree with the rule itself, but it's not debatable whether it was in place when they entered the contest or whether the studio lied about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -16 points 10 months ago* (17 children)

    The rules are the rules

    This has the same validity as an argument as "I was just following orders" or "I am just doing my job" or "I told you I would hit you in five seconds, so you did know" same reasoning behind teachers that throw students out for being 5 minutes late

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    This has the same validity as an argument as "I was just following orders"

    Ok, reality check: we are talking about video game awards. Calm down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    That doesn't change the claim. Following the rules for the sake of following the rules instead of understanding why they are there is a defining trait of this sheep behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    My guy, the whole "I'm just following orders" is about people harming others because they were ordered to do so, it's not about acting as a group in general ffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah that's the worst case scenario. But the behavior is bad in general

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You won today's most contrarian person award. The prize is food served by someone who hasn't washed their hands because they want you to have a strong immune system. To claim your reward please cross the nearest freeway on foot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    If you don't enforce rules then you don't have rules. You should have learned that dealing with all those teachers who threw you out for being late in school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    There's nothing to learn from teachers with fragile ego

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Sounds like an excuse for bad behavior to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Exactly what a teacher with fragile ego would say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Hopefully you'll learn one day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Learn to shut up and be obedient? Hopefully never

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Not to be so obtuse and confrontational, lest you miss an opportunity to learn from another person. I'm sure by now you live a mostly lonely life though, so what's the point?

    Being bristly over the internet has pretty much zero risk compared to real life though so might as well dig into the hostility, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Just to be clear I am not the one that started the hostility. You did it with your passive-agressive "you should have learned from the teachers".

    And no I am not lonely and have good friends, they just don't fall into the authoritative narrative.

    Considering teachers are right just because they are teachers is the kind of injustice I will continue fighting even if you consider it worthless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Right. The far bigger problem is how trash of an engine Unreal5 is, and all the forced processing making things look and run like shit. But that's not just a Clair Obsur problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Can I say I agree, very disappointed when I loaded up the game that I had to change so much to make it essentially playable on a high refresh rate 2k monitor. After disabling all the filters and turning off upscaling, I have it working fine but wow its like they made something beautiful and have no idea how to allow people to see it.

    After all the comparisons to Larian, I thought I'd see a more competently assembled package with Clair Obscur, but at least everything else is great besides the game engine and graphics settings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 144 points 10 months ago (34 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    They lied on the application and said no AI was used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I mean, there was no AI in the finished product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Read the article:

    "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."

    It is wasn't about what was released, the rules of the awards had restrictions on using AI in development and the developers lied about not using it when they submitted themselves for the award. Gen AI is bad, but lying about using it is much worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 69 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago

    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.

    https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 85 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Why don't they just use a grey box as placeholder? Or a photo of John Oliver?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Could it make testing less conclusive? Part of testing is to see whether people actually enjoy the game. And I'd conjecture immersion-breaking placeholder assets could lead to worse testing reviews.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    I would strongly agree with you. I know so many people that will completely discount a game if the graphics isn't bleeding edge "photorealistic"-adjacent.

    I know a bunch of friends that love base building, automation, logistics, trains, programming and so on. But they completely discounted even trying a game like Factorio because "the graphics are ugly"... Instead opting for Satisfactory or similar. Satisfactory is an awesome game too, but it lacks a lot of technical depth compared to Factorio.

    There's a lot of other games where the atmosphere or art direction are also hugely important, and a grey or black/purple checkered texture just doesn't convey the same feeling as if something looks like a rusty iron pipe.

    I can see many situations where either AI generated placeholder textures or just textures from an asset library could help a lot with prototyping, and play testing.

    From my experience of selling and apartment almost a decade ago, it's clear that many people lack imagination. We heard that several people didn't want to buy the apartment because they didn't like the furniture... which wasn't even part of the sale, or didn't like the colour of the walls... Which they could of course just paint over... So I can definitely see that many playtesters would have trouble envisioning the game, if all the textures are solid grey, and the models are square.

    I'm however also very much dislike the current state of things where developers will AI generate huge portions of the game and assets releasing it as the final product. It's a shame that the craft of artists is getting dumped and replaced by AI gen...

    In my book, the developers can use AI as much as they want, but they should clearly declare where AI gen has been used. Then the consumer can make an informed decision of whether to support it or not. I would personally avoid games that ship AI assets, but wouldn't at all have a problem with the developer using AI assets during development and prototyping.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    it’s kinda irrelevant to the make it to production part though: the rule is no gen ai used during development… there’s no ifs, buts, or maybes here: there definitively was, and nobody is denying that

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Especially since "later" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here given that it was literally within days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    at that point why even use AI at all instead of some other basic filler assets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Because there is no way to ethically use the AI we have today. I'm not saying that machine learning itself is unethical; I really enjoy machine learning, been plodding around with it for almost a decade at this point. The problem is that when you use the AI systems on the market, you're directly supporting corporations that mean you harm.

    The argument that it was just used for placeholder assets doesn't really hold, because it was used at all. You could just as easily have thrown something together in paint and used that as a placeholder. When designing levels you put them together with basic building blocks, you don't need half-arsed AI generated textures for this. Using AI generated textures and whatnot increases the risk of it ending up in-game.

    How can you justify charging for this?

    The corporations pushing this tech are looking to strip you of rights, they are bribing government officials, they are ruining the local environment of wherever they put up their datacentres, they're increasing the risk of blackouts right in a season where more people need electricity to stay warm and healthy. They steal, they infringe on copyrights, they invade your privacy.

    Like, they're actually just plain evil. Using their stuff means you're supporting evil one way or another. It doesn't make you evil, but it makes you complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    It means AI was used to replace work hours from humans. That's kind of the whole point of anti AI.

    Also, to go a bit extreme on an extrapolation of this: ai makes game and all assets. Humans then replace everything with non AI things that look pretty much the same and then say it isn't an AI game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It was placeholder art. They didn't reduce the artist hire because they weren't going to have the artist make orange boxes and MSpaint character icons.

    The reductio ad absurdum is equally silly the other way. "Does the seeded algorithmic generation of a cloud texture disqualify anything that uses it as AI???" This is a debate stage level talking point, and is unconvincing in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It was placeholder art that needed to be there. It shaved off work hours. If it didn't, then why would they have used it in the first place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    why would they have used it in the first place?

    Because 30 seconds with an image generator looks nicer than 30 seconds in MS paint, the deeper point being the deciding factor is that it took 30 seconds of time.

    It shaved off work hours.

    I think this only makes sense in some abstract of a net aggregate of artistic labor hours. The reality though is that this work was never done by the artists, never given significant time allocation, and would never lead to hiring more artists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I loooove how divided people are on this and hopefully people come to realize it isn't black and white. Replacing work hours from humans is precisely why we have tools, why we have technology in general. I don't buy that angle as a valid criticism of AI at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    I mean, ai is definitely costing people their jobs, trashing the environment, increasing electricity costs, causing stupid high silicone costs, and will be used to create misinformation and push narratives like nothing else before it. But there's also pretty much zero chance of stopping any of it. The ultra wealthy control the world. It's a tool to make them money and gain control of information and agendas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    because people's anti-AI furor is totally irrational and becoming a purity test that any/all ai ever is morally irredeemable.

    despite the fact that many such techniques tools have been used for decades in game dev... they just weren't branded as 'ai'.

    but you are sober, not an anti-ai crusader.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Or just don't lie about something that is against the rules for the contest you're entering? Seems easy enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    I'm not sure it was a lie, it's the kind of thing that's so minor it's easy for someone on the marketing team to just not know about.

    It's like if a snack company put out a message saying they used no animal products and then later found out that a derivative of beeswax was used to lubricate some of the mechanisms in their packing machine.

    If you want to be absolutely inflexible and refuse to allow any exceptions to the rules, no matter the circumstances, that's fine. But you've gotta recognize the irony in that line of reasoning being more machine-like than human.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 10 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Off topic, but this is why I love Lemmy; Look at this comment section. Many people here have a logical stance, either for or against the genAI use. Both sides are making good points. Reading through the article alongside the comments, my opinion was really teetering. It's nice to be able to come in with an open mind and be challenged like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    BLUE PRINCE! WOO!

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So Clair Obscur, the game that absolutely won game of the year, lost due to a technicality.

    The generative AI use everyone is pearl clutching about would be textures. As in things that have been procedurally generated (you don't actually care what they look like, they are just there to smooth out wrinkles) for years.

    As someone who hates AI, this is just fucking stupid. Like, you are a virtue signaling luddite if you believe that this usage of AI tarnishes the rest of the fucking game.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Not even that. It was placeholder textures, only the "newspaper clippings" of which was forgotten to be removed from the final game and was fixed in an update shortly after launch.

    None of it was ever intended to be used in the final product and was just there as lorum ipsum equivalent shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 10 months ago

    Barely anyone in this topic acknowledges the actual reason: They lied about not using genAI and were disqualified when the lie was revealed.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    People keep saying the problem 'wasnt that they used AI placeholder assets, it's that they lied on the disclosure', but boy does that still seem like a reach

    When you have dozens of people working on a huge creative project, it would take an almost omniscient creative director to know where every asset in every scene came from with certainty. It isn't hard to imagine a designer somewhere on the team sneaking an AI asset into a pre-release build and forgetting about it. The fact that it was later disclosed suggests that whoever was applying for the award wasn't aware of that asset being used and then replaced at the time of submission.

    I dont mind having some awards dedicated to genAI-free works, but people really need to stop getting their pitchforks out at every mention, otherwise they risk turning into a lynch mob. This doesnt sound like an intentional omission to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I don't know where you got the idea that they just didn't know. They were DQ'd because they DID KNOW there was AI used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm still not arguing against their disqualification, I'm saying people need to lay off the sauce - it's not hard to imagine how this could have been accidental and not malicious.

    We don't need to torch an effigy every time a studio mentions AI in an interview.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I am inclined to agree except it wasn’t intentionally later disclosed. From my understanding, they gave an interview and mentioned it briefly. If they did end up disclosing it to the awards, it wasn’t until the day that they were announced as the winner. That’s kind of icky.

    But I do agree with you that whoever spoke to the award committee probably didn’t even know about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    Still, there's a lot of room there for some grace. I don't think it's unreasonable to strip them of the award, but the level of outrage I'm seeing in this thread and elsewhere isn't proportionate to the offense.

    People really need to chill with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    17 comments in c/gaming@beehaw.org view that post