372
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent