Who, what, when and why
The organisers of the Indie Game Awards have stripped Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its Game of the Year title after reporting by Eurogamer revealed that the game included undisclosed use of artificial intelligence in its creation. The decision, made public following the Eurogamer exposé, removes a high-profile accolade from the project and has reignited debate about transparency, authorship and enforcement in the indie scene.
Details of the disqualification
Eurogamer’s reporting flagged AI-generated assets in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, prompting the awards committee to investigate. The committee concluded the entries and judging process had been affected by the undisclosed use of generative tools and announced the disqualification shortly after the findings were confirmed. Organisers said the move was necessary to preserve the integrity of the competition.
The game had been announced as the event’s Game of the Year winner on the awards’ ceremony; the subsequent reversal — and public explanation — has drawn attention from developers, players and other awards bodies about how to handle emerging creative technologies.
Context: AI tooling and the indie pipeline
Generative AI tools for images, audio and code have become widely accessible and are increasingly used across game development workflows. Techniques such as synthetic texture generation, procedurally assisted level design and AI-assisted writing can accelerate small teams, but they also raise questions around provenance and disclosure.
In recent years, several festivals and awarding bodies have updated guidelines to address the rise of generative tools — some requiring explicit disclosure, others banning particular uses — but industry standards remain inconsistent. The Clair Obscur case highlights the practical difficulties of policing those rules when outputs can be blended with handcrafted work.
Technical and ethical challenges
Detecting AI-origin content can be technically difficult: generative assets are often post-processed by artists, and many detection tools produce probabilistic rather than definitive results. Ethically, the key dispute centres on whether the use of AI was disclosed and whether it materially altered the work being judged. For awards that prize individual authorship and handmade craft, undisclosed generative assistance can be seen as a breach of trust.
Industry reaction and expert analysis
Responses from the developer community have been mixed. Some indie creators argue that generative tools are legitimate parts of modern workflows and can enable smaller teams to compete creatively. Others warn that undisclosed AI use undermines transparency and could disadvantage teams that invest time in wholly human-produced assets.
Legal and policy experts contacted for context note the issue sits at the intersection of copyright, contract law and competition rules. Without clear, consistently applied standards, organisers risk arbitrary enforcement or uneven outcomes. Observers say the incident will accelerate calls for clearer disclosure requirements and standardized auditing procedures at events and storefronts.
What this means for awards and studios
For awards bodies, the Clair Obscur disqualification is a wake-up call to formalise policies and to develop reliable vetting processes. That could include mandatory declarations of tools used, stronger provenance requirements for submitted assets, and the use of independent auditors where disputes arise.
For studios and creators, the practical takeaway is to document toolchains and be transparent about AI assistance. Even where generative assets are acceptable under an award’s rules, disclosure reduces reputational risk and eases adjudication.
Broader implications and next steps
The episode is likely to ripple beyond a single award. Publishers, platform holders and festivals will be watching how organisers handle appeals and whether the disqualified title will be eligible for re-entry under clarified rules. Meanwhile, players and the wider community are likely to demand greater visibility into how games are made.
Longer term, the industry may move toward a mixed approach: permitting generative tools while requiring clear attribution and metadata that track the origin of assets. Such systems would preserve creative flexibility while protecting fairness in competitive contexts.
For now, the Clair Obscur incident underscores that the arrival of powerful AI in creative pipelines has outpaced some of the governance structures meant to oversee competitive recognition. The debate over what counts as “original” work in games is far from settled — and the consequences for creators who fail to disclose their process are now being shown in very public terms.
About the Author
