- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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
Not exactly a massive AI slop problem, right?
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.
BLUE PRINCE! WOO!
So are they getting a different award for using AI and ending up with something that isn’t slop?
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.
Yup, people prefer to enrage themselfes, the facts don’t matter anymore.
Yeah despite it being one of my favorite games (not just of this year), full disclosure is important. Losing that award doesn’t make the game any worse or take away my enjoyment of 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?
It’s more that it wasn’t disclosed when asked which was disqualifying.
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.
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.
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.
They lied on the application and said no AI was used.
I mean, there was no AI in the finished product.
It sounds like you don’t agree with the rules as written.
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.
Why don’t they just use a grey box as placeholder? Or a photo of John Oliver?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I see many fans of the game defending the use of AI.
Firstly, the game has already received enough awards, so it doesn’t matter, and secondly, you would all protest against another game studio if it used AI…
In short: Fuck AI and fuck everyone who advocates/tolerates its use!
I 100% disagree with you and people saying it has too many awards. If it deserves an award, it deserves an award.
But holy shit ai is hot condensed bad. I don’t care if your argument is “but it’s only the fine details of the textures”, maybe pay somebody to do that for you, because there’s more than enough fine details in nature and human creativity. Also, ai is essentially entirely based on stolen work, and I don’t give a rat fuck bullshit ounce if 0.00000000000000000000001% of ai is completely ethically designed, trained, powered, sourced, ran, operated, invested, and gives proceeds to the starving children’s fund… that shit doesn’t exist, and if it actually does by some mental gymnastics loophole, it is, by far, an exception to the rule.
Fuck ai and fuck all you people with weakass moral compasses encouraging this irresponsible destructive bane upon society right now and making bad excuses and even lying about it. It doesn’t have to be at all like this.
Gaming seems like a prime AI use case. Especially AI agents for varying stories.
In where winds meet they use AI for NPC dialogue. Every non-quest NPC had unique dialogue. Probably the best use for AI imho
For now while models cannot run locally it can even generate much dialogue in advance.
Indeed.With the "choices (do not) matter games we have now I would not notice a difference.
Real choices require far too much effort for devs. I see no other option than AI
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 says they didn’t use it in the development of the game, which the representative most likely took as coding. This disqualification is just dumb as shit.
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.
Rivers don’t flow up the mountain, let’s not kid ourselves that there is “innocent” AI usage in this context.
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.
Because games are about the feels. And having crudely drawn dicks doesn’t exactly make QA work easy.
Also there’s lighting, reflections etc that need that shit to be close to real.
For the same reason movies use stand-ins to adjust lights and not a can of beans, which would be more fun
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.
If you’re working within such constraints you’re not an indie developer and thus not eligible for indie game awards anyway.
Regardless of that, prompting for AI textures is more work than just popping on a placeholder asset anyway. You’re not saving time, particularly not if you don’t have a good way to manage what is and isn’t placeholder thus have to hunt down all the AI generated placeholders before you hit production.
It’s a waste of time.
Yes you are. Just small scale. Unless you’re working solo and not taking a pay cut development costs are huge. It’s amazing how you people will also just inject your own opinion on usefulness. I guess you’re just a better artist than everyone on the team. You should start your own studio, you seem to have every skill you need and have mastered the efficient dev process.
Yes, I do speak from the stance of a professional developer. In what fantasy world are you residing in where a small-scale indie studio has the ability to burn nearly $10 million a year on staff alone?
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 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)
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.
Yeah I think if you removed like…
- The theft and plagiarism
- The privacy infringements
- The government bribes
- The massive energy costs that are leaving people at a risk for blackouts
- The environmental destruction in the areas the datacentres operate
- The complete disregard for the health of the people living around the datacentres
- The constant lying in an attempt to pump up stocks and grab as much money as possible before nuking the economy
- The creepy-ass plans to institute an authoritarian techno-dystopia
- Whatever else I’ve missed on the list
I’d be a lot more positive about it.
The thing is, this is all more or less intrinsically baked together into a fetid seeping mess. Just how you can’t remove the milk from coffee once you’ve put it in, you can’t remove this from the AI we have today. You’ll have to discard the cup and do it over.
Seems silly to require ALL the unit tests pass, too, cut them some slack. /s
A more valid reason would have been cause they aren’t an indie company.
Yes they are
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…
