this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
368 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

77904 readers
2686 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

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

[–] Buffy@libretechni.ca 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Off topic, but this is why I love Lemmy; Look at this comment section. Many people here have a logical stance, either for or against the genAI use. Both sides are making good points. Reading through the article alongside the comments, my opinion was really teetering. It's nice to be able to come in with an open mind and be challenged like this.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

But fr tho I agree. Sure, there are sole knobheads who clearly haven't read the article, but the disparity between what you see here and the r-place is wonderful

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From what I've heard, the placeholders came from some stock Unreal engine textures they used and forgot to replace.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

...no they came from genAI?

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe this will be a warning to other game companies not to use AI assets at all.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago

If anything it's probably incentive to lie about AI usage. They got more publicity for being snubbed than winning.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Over placeholders? Jesus.

I at least understand it if they were actual final assets. Is the worry that they weren't really placeholders?

Next up, if you used photoshop you're out because it has AI features that you might have used.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To be clear, the game released with the AI “placeholders” in the game, and only replaced them later.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Kind of defeats the purpose of a placeholder...

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The worry is they didn't want to be yet another award for E33 and this generates controversy, and therefore views.

How many people are talking about IGA who otherwise would not.

I am for starters. You too probably.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am inclined to agree except it wasn’t intentionally later disclosed. From my understanding, they gave an interview and mentioned it briefly. If they did end up disclosing it to the awards, it wasn’t until the day that they were announced as the winner. That’s kind of icky.

But I do agree with you that whoever spoke to the award committee probably didn’t even know about it.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

Still, there's a lot of room there for some grace. I don't think it's unreasonable to strip them of the award, but the level of outrage I'm seeing in this thread and elsewhere isn't proportionate to the offense.

People really need to chill with this.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose this is a warning to any companies who were thinking about disclosing their uses of AI for placeholders

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

If it's a placeholder, why does it even need to be generated? Make it a big square that just says "Gustave" on it until you figure out what he should look like. It's not like placeholder content is meant to be seen outside of development.

[–] creature@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

When artists arent available a rendered placeholder would give a more appropriate proof of concept than blank textures with text on them.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not a game dev, so I can't really answer your question. My comment was only pointing out that this might discourage other studios from disclosing their use of AI during development.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

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?

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

I liked Blue Prince but I don’t think it’s anywhere close to “Game of the Year” material.

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I don't know anything about this game.

I also know that game awards are a bunch of bullshit so I don't give a fuck.

Also, I noticed this game is on my wishlist. Huh.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›