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 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.

I feel like this is virtue signaling more than actually addressing a real problem with Clair Obscur.

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 launched with what some suspected to be AI-generated textures that, as it clarified to El País, were then replaced with custom assets in a swift patch five days after release.

Fuck using Gen AI to replace human-made art, and fair enough for pulling the award, but I do think it's worth making it clear exactly how much of the art is/was AI. And the answer is, very little at launch and none currently.

Horrid article, unless the intention was to throw shit around and hope to cause a commotion. There are no AI assets in Clair Obscur, and it should have been made clear by the article. From the IGA's own statement:

[...] the use of gen AI art in production [...] does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination. While the assets in question were patched out and it is a wonderful game, it does go against the regulations we have in place.

AI isnt needed at all, we didnt need it in the past to create art. And with all the tools and knowledge available online, for free, theres even less reason we need it these days.

I've never pirated a game, but if developers are going to use pirated content to make a game, they cant be mad when we pirate their game.

This feels like unecessary absolutism and fear mongeting. I am by no means an AI lover, but people shouldn't let the worst implimentations of something cloud their judgement.

I feel the question should be "Does this project use AI responsibly?" not "Was AI used?"

Maybe what we should be advocating for is transparency with these decisions?

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

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.

I heartily approve.

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

The fact that they were there in the first place is a problem.

Why does a game that has been published by some other company calls itself "indie"???

The term itself is becoming more and more meaningless with the passing time.

As much as I hate to admit it, non-flagrant AI use will likely become generally accepted. The truth is that there's a lot of content in games these days that sometimes just isn't that important to dedicate man hours to it (Ex: Generic brick texture #431). The fact that this slipped through the cracks is proof enough.

However, overly slacking to the point the end point looks obviously AI generated with just bad art. It's pretty much akin to just delegating to some shady third party studio that works for pennies and spits out generic, low quality stuff.

Ethics and copyright, are of course, different questions entirely. (In my opinion most AI providers are committing blatant copyright infringement by using machines that crunch down copyrighted data and resell it back to you). But it seems like Silicon Valley's marketing and public relations team managed to figure out the copyright one at this point. <>/

Edit: 3 AM, and tired.