I loved the game.

I understand the use that was made did not in the least affect the final product.

I don't think they should have a disclaimer on Steam.

I think they screwed up big time if the indie game awards rules could have been interpreted as requiring no use of AI at any stage in production.

Also, I dont really understand the point of saying it afterwards and I fear that may in itself mean that they are promoting the use of AI in game dev.

What I think is very good is that people are (over?)reacting like this: I would like to have devs perceiving the use of AI as fucking poison.

People are saying "it's fine because it was used in the early stages of the game for placeholder art" but that's kind of missing the point

The problem is that they used AI and didn't disclose it, as well as releasing the game with AI textures still in it. Yes, these textures were quickly replaced, but it's still very concerning they weren't upfront on how they were using it in the game making process

Edit: there isn't even a disclosure on their steam page

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

Sauce: https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-creative-revolution-how-technology-is-making-art-accessible-to-everyone.html

Not exactly a massive AI slop problem, right?

Can we put our collective pitchforks away for this case at least?

Because so many people are blowing up without reading the article I felt it was worth posting this. Based on the wording it sounds like they were not disqualified for having AI in the game, they were disqualified for not disclosing AI had been used in development.

“The Indie Game Awards have a hard stance on the use of gen AI throughout the nomination process and during the ceremony itself,” the statement reads. “When it was submitted for consideration, representatives 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 on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination.”

Additionally, here is another article where they are clarifying HOW it was used.

https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-creative-revolution-how-technology-is-making-art-accessible-to-everyone.html

Following the publication of this article, Sandfall Interactive wishes to provide the following clarifications. The studio states that it was in contact with El País on April 25 - three months prior to this publication. During these exchanges, Sandfall Interactive indicated that it had used a limited number of pre-existing assets, notably 3D assets sourced from the Unreal Engine Marketplace. None of these assets were created using artificial intelligence. Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative Al-created assets in the game. When the first Al 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.

TL;DR: They experimented with Generative AI when it first came out, used some of the results as temporary assets that were always intended to be temporary. They still got in to the final product because QA missed them, which was promptly fixed in a patch. Indie Game Awards disqualified them for failing to disclose this in the first place.

Key takeaways:

• AI didn't steal anyone's job in this instance. It was simply used as a tool to help make an artists job easier.
• It was never meant to be a part of the final product, and currently isn't.
• ~~They used generative AI around when it when it first came out, probably before most people started realizing it was being trained off stolen artwork as well as a lot of the other problems with AI.~~ u/Crazazy brings up a good point and this part is somewhat questionable

Make of that what you will. I personally think this is being blown out of proportion. They made a mistake and have openly corrected themselves. Good for them.

Seems excessive.

There’s AI slop games, the new breed of lazy asset flips. There’s replacing employees with slop machines.

And then there’s “a few of our textures were computer generated.” In a game that is clearly passionately crafted art.

I get it’s about principle, but still.

They were disqualified for failing to disclose the AI usage, not just for using AI at all.

This is fucking stupid. There's no AI assets in the final game, and it was used for placeholders during development.

I dislike AI for a lot of reasons, but this is massively overblown. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. This is right up there with artists airbrushing, photoshop, and so on. People are going to use the tools available if it leads to quicker development cycles to get a product out.

I kinda feel like Clair Obscur is sort of stretching the definition of indie game.

I guess _technically _ it is.

I’m not saying every game needs to be made in someone’s garage and take 12 years to make, but it sounds like this game was completely funded by Kepler and parts of the game were outsourced to other companies. Sandfall is made up of experienced developers from places like Ubisoft. Kinda feels like Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise made their own movie with funding from a lesser known subdivision of Warner Bros, outsourced SFX to 300 animators, and called it indie because they filmed it with 10 people.

I do think Clair Obscur is a fantastic game and deserves to be Game of the Year (aside from the AI use). Sandfall and Kepler did a great job with a reported budget of $10M(!) and I especially appreciate what Kepler is doing to support the gaming industry.

I guess I see the point of the award to inspire people to believe they shouldn’t give up on their dreams by recognizing small teams making games outside of the traditional industry. I just don’t feel like Sandfall qualifies.

In the end, it’s not my award and they can give it to whoever they want!

Good.

They replaced the art later, but shouldn't the bar be high like this? Otherwise, the caution won't be there. It also could be abused, like games only getting adjusted post-launch if a certain measure of success hits. Plus the final product is not the only part of matters in the was-AI-used discussion, it is also about the process. If AI is the product of stolen human artwork being fed into a machine, and then that machine is used during creation, then AI has been used in the process that led to the final product no less than the concept art that may not be seen in game but was important in steering the ship.

Maybe someone can share their thoughts though. I'm still formulating mine and this is where I am at the moment.