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.
The rules being “idiotic” is a different issue from whether using pre-existing assets as placeholders is okay. For instance, one could argue that genAI, even during the concept phase, is an unfair advantage like taking steroids for a sports competition. For the purpose of fairness they have a blanket ban on genAI, not simply because “AI bad”.
You just highlighted perfectly how the rules are idiotic. Why are we treating game development like it’s some kind of competitive sport? Why should we restrict the tools people use to develop their games? Should we only say that people can use a particular game engine, because certain other game engines have a lot of tools and automation that make the development process easier? It’s a really a ridiculous way of thinking.
So you would say a godot competition is silly because it restricts developers from using other game engines? Now you’re just being silly.
No, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy and nonsensical nature of such rules. GenAI is not allowed for giving an “unfair” advantage, but engines with a lot of tools and automations don’t? It’s just an arbitrary line.
If you don’t like the competition then don’t participate in said competition. Other people don’t agree with you that it is an arbitrary rule and that’s okay.
Yea, and those people are wrong and dumb. To completely disqualify a game for simply using placeholder AI art work is idiotic. You’re welcome to disagree as well, but I’m gonna call a spade a spade.