351
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
351 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
77899 readers
2791 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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.
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
They lied on the application and said no AI was used.
I mean, there was no AI in the finished product.
Read the article:
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.
It sounds like you don't agree with the rules as written.
As they should
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.
It's more that it wasn't disclosed when asked which was disqualifying.
https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq
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 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?
collapsed inline media
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.
Hmmm, I'm having a hard time choosing between the Seerup and Puxoca Coun. Does either come with a free side of Sseeiiqers by any chance?
I asked the guy at the register for SCIZES SUCIT and got banned from the store. 😤
They used it in 2022 tough and didn't replace the assets by accident.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because it's not a big deal, and IGA are technopuritans who can no longer be taken seriously.
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.
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.