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.
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.