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.
I hate when people try to shift the goalposts
These guys didn’t disclose the usage of AI when initially sold as well as for the award, and there’s nothing more to it than that
There’s still not even a disclaimer on the steam store page or anything
From what I’ve heard, the placeholders came from some stock Unreal engine textures they used and forgot to replace.
…no they came from genAI?
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.
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.
Maybe this will be a warning to other game companies not to use AI assets at all.
If anything it’s probably incentive to lie about AI usage. They got more publicity for being snubbed than winning.
Still a good game. I’m sure all of you all in this thread are playing Chinese mobile slop that is 99% ai content.
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.
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.
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.
No one is claiming that it’s malicious that I’m aware of.
“They lied” implies intent to deceive.
Oh no, they used gen AI filler art which they immediately replaced with human one. They did it the one way they could do it right, let’s demonize them into submission while the flagrant violators get away with murder because why bother?
As someone who hates the AI bubble, this anti AI circlejerk is making me hate the circlejerk more than the bubble. Plan successful?
They lost the awards because they had positively affirmed there was no AI use in production, when the game had AI art in release for customers to see for five days.
They were punished for being dishonest, not for AI.
Edit: I’m sure their game sales already spiked from all the press of winning the awards. They still will benefit.
So they lost because the promo material that seldom makes it into the game included AI this time around, for a very short while? Do you think that makes the people so judgemental look better?
No the game itself included it. It was also used in the development of the game. The studio told the award show organization they didn’t do either of those things. When it was found out that they did, they had to forfeit their awards. The game isn’t any worse though, still worth playing.
Edit to add: I think the misunderstanding here is that I think the value of the video game awards are zero, so in my eyes clair obscur gained and then lost nothing.
They also included filler textures which they kept track off and replaced. Going so asinine on this making the whole game being used with generative AI makes the term worthless, if that’s what people are hoping to accomplish.
How does it make it useless? If people find use in the term and its usage, by definition its useful. It doesn’t need to make sense to 100% of people either.
This is a perfect game to bring about discussion in where the line is between an ethically created video game vs one that’s not ethically created. This isn’t just an AI thing either, people have boycotted studios over other types of poor treatment of their employees too.
People don’t want art that comes from coercion or abused artists.
Your definition is useless to my concerns about AI, and you don’t care about a discussion, you directly want to damn them - for using filler BS art that they made sure to remove and some promo? You want to throw them into the same lot as the same people vibe coding and generating a complete game out of AI, you do you. I just look at how they handle removing it and owning up to it after they use it. It’s funny how flawed people who only tolerate perfection are versus the people who are capable of valuing people grow from their mistakes.
I’m literally playing their game now. The only thing I think was bad really is not disclosing it upfront, but I dont know if that was a mistake or intentional.
Its still important that consumers are capable of making informed decisions.
It’s not because they used AI, it’s because they lied and fraudulently marketed (and continue to fraudulently market) the game as never having used AI.
The game was not developed with generative AI. AI was used in promo and textures for a very limited time and then was substituted. If this is the war engine you are running, I want way off of it, my beef with modern AI is way different.
How on earth is that not part of development? I don’t personally mind that they used it in that way, but it is not debatable that they lied and have been fraudulently marketing the game. Follow the rules of the fucking contests you enter.
while the flagrant violators get away with murder
Who do you think is “getting away” with what?
Ask RAM prices. Maybe you missed the whole entire AI industry based off of pirated content now getting even Disney to pay them.
What does that have to do with video games? How are they “getting away” with it? Maybe you missed the insane amount of backlash associated with all of those things you just listed?
Oh yeah, that backlash has totally stopped them from getting away with it, you are totally right.
I keep asking and you keep failing to explain what “getting away with it” means. Who is getting away with what?
Basically all of the AI companies get away with violating basically all IP laws and norms, and manipulating the PC hardware market to the detriment of consumers. I believe that’s what he meant by “getting away with murder”. As a point of comparison to this relatively minor kerfuffle.
I liked Blue Prince but I don’t think it’s anywhere close to “Game of the Year” material.
I don’t really care about game awards but it does seem like some retroactive application of opinion on genAI if they used it in 2022. There was a very different landscape and general opinion on genAI in 2022, (nonone really knew or cared.) I suspect the award show made the rule about genAI after 2022.
Either way, happy to see more press about good games, be it C33 or Blue Prince.
Wait until they find out some indie games will use copyrighted placeholders…
Congrats to the new winners for winning on a technicality.
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.
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.
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.
strange stance for ai use. creating placeholders for production use only seems like a dull and tedious job to me that should have been automatized yesterday.
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?
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?
It’s more that it wasn’t disclosed when asked which was disqualifying.
They lied on the application and said no AI was used.
I mean, there was no AI in the finished product.
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.
GenAI being bad or not is irrelevant for this issue.
If they had a rule that you had to wear purple polka dotted pants and they found out you didn’t, they are within their rights to strip the awards.
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.
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 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.
Or just don’t lie about something that is against the rules for the contest you’re entering? Seems easy enough.
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.
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
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.
It’s still game of the year in my heart.
