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
[–] 7 points 8 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 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?

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent