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.
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
From what I’ve heard, the placeholders came from some stock Unreal engine textures they used and forgot to replace.
…no they came from genAI?
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.
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
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.
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.
Maybe this will be a warning to other game companies not to use AI assets at all.
If anything it’s probably incentive to lie about AI usage. They got more publicity for being snubbed than winning.
I suppose this is a warning to any companies who were thinking about disclosing their uses of AI for placeholders
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.
When artists arent available a rendered placeholder would give a more appropriate proof of concept than blank textures with text on them.
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.
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.
To be clear, the game released with the AI “placeholders” in the game, and only replaced them later.
Kind of defeats the purpose of a placeholder…
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.
Still a good game. I’m sure all of you all in this thread are playing Chinese mobile slop that is 99% ai content.
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.
I liked Blue Prince but I don’t think it’s anywhere close to “Game of the Year” material.
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.
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.
I’m still not arguing against their disqualification, I’m saying people need to lay off the sauce - it’s not hard to imagine how this could have been accidental and not malicious.
We don’t need to torch an effigy every time a studio mentions AI in an interview.
No one is claiming that it’s malicious that I’m aware of.
“They lied” implies intent to deceive.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not because they used AI, it’s because they lied and fraudulently marketed (and continue to fraudulently market) the game as never having used AI.
The game was not developed with generative AI. AI was used in promo and textures for a very limited time and then was substituted. If this is the war engine you are running, I want way off of it, my beef with modern AI is way different.
How on earth is that not part of development? I don’t personally mind that they used it in that way, but it is not debatable that they lied and have been fraudulently marketing the game. Follow the rules of the fucking contests you enter.
while the flagrant violators get away with murder
Who do you think is “getting away” with what?
Ask RAM prices. Maybe you missed the whole entire AI industry based off of pirated content now getting even Disney to pay them.
What does that have to do with video games? How are they “getting away” with it? Maybe you missed the insane amount of backlash associated with all of those things you just listed?
Oh yeah, that backlash has totally stopped them from getting away with it, you are totally right.
I keep asking and you keep failing to explain what “getting away with it” means. Who is getting away with what?
Basically all of the AI companies get away with violating basically all IP laws and norms, and manipulating the PC hardware market to the detriment of consumers. I believe that’s what he meant by “getting away with murder”. As a point of comparison to this relatively minor kerfuffle.
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.
Given the Lemmy view on AI, I wonder how many folks are now uninstalling the game and demanding a refund because it’s suddenly transformed into “AI slop”? Or demanding it be delisted from Steam since they didn’t disclose their use of AI on Steam?
I’m not going to uninstall or demand a refund, but I fully support the Indie Game Awards decision on this and will not refer to CO:E33 as a winner of any of the Indie Game Awards. I will still call it IMO the best JRPG in many years, but I thought that before it started receiving awards.
I hope this event serves to scare game studios of all sizes from the mere appearance of using AI at ANY scale or part of the process. Hell, I hope it causes the whole damn bubble to burst, but it’s just not that important.
Why do you care so much about some stupid “awards show”? Fuck that.
Wait until they find out some indie games will use copyrighted placeholders…
Stupid fucking luddites.
Lmao go to your favorite website and ask your brain to come up with a better comment.
Not sure why you got so much hate, friend. You’re even technically correct. Emotional, but correct.
It’s not hate, I just think it’s sad when people diminish the work of others, simply because they used a particular tool. It would be like disqualifying an Olympic athlete for training using VR. Just because you don’t like the method they used doesn’t mean that person didn’t still put in the work to get the end result they did.
The point of hunan expression isn’t to have a “tool” do it for you
Oh, ok, so then people should stop using computers to design characters, and go back to pen and paper. Or wait, the pen and paper are a tool too, they should just imagine the character in their mind…
Did genAI help you write this response? Because that would explain not understanding the difference between using tools to be creative and using tools to plagiarize.
So you’re telling me that no artist in history has looked at the work of others and used that for inspiration? Really?
Yeah, that’s exactly what I am saying 🙄
I just think it’s sad when people diminish the work of others
My brother in Christ, that is one major reason people don’t like generative AI.
How does genAI diminish the work of others? It’s simply a tool, and if anything it enhances that work, allowing someone to rapidly prototype and develop their ideas.
… to rapidly prototype and develop their ideas.
Only if their creative process is to pull a slot machine handle over and over again.
I was in support of you, but I think in general it’s much better for the long version of your comment, it makes people less emotionally charged into judging :)
I know full well that the long version will be down voted as well. There is no nuance with those who have made up their mind about AI, and any use of it, for any reason, is despicable to them.
In some sense, you are doing the same by believing the whole group is against you, and therefore going less into a discussion and just swinging anger.
Made me think of this old song lol https://youtu.be/DwORzQxAXmU
