Indie Game Awards Crack Down: Clair Obscur Stripped of Titles Over AI Art

Paul Riverbank, 12/21/2025Clair Obscur’s disqualification from top indie game honors reignites fierce debate over generative AI in art, probing difficult questions about creative authenticity, evolving tools, and where awards—and the industry—should draw the line.

Anyone following the chatter might remember the genuine surprise when Sandfall Interactive, the minds behind Clair Obscur, revealed they had leaned on AI-generated art during the earliest days of development—a detail left out of the spotlight until recently. Not for the finished game, they said; it was just to plug gaps in those tough, early stages, where concept art is needed to see what’s worth keeping. Yet disclosure came at the worst possible time. While the Game Awards organizers seemed content to stand by their votes, the Indie Game Awards saw a red line.

Their rules, written in the sort of straightforward tone not usually seen in buzzy press releases, spelled it out: no generative AI, even in placeholder art—or else you’re out. The hammer came down fast. On the very day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 ceremony, organizers stripped both the Game of the Year and Debut Game honors from Clair Obscur. In a somewhat terse FAQ, the Awards explained, “When it was submitted... no gen AI was used in the development...” and, just like that, Sorry We’re Closed and Blue Prince were ushered onto the stage as the new recipients.

If you’ve spent any time poking around Reddit threads, feverish Discord debates, or even skimming a quick gaming podcast lately, you already know the story didn’t end with an official statement. Supporters of the decision call it a win for human artistry, a shield for the craft itself. Others, just as quick on the keyboard, wonder aloud if the rules make sense in a world where digital tools evolve by the week and “process” has grown as important as the art we finally see. One joke ricocheted around social media: “Clair Obscur, winner of awards it isn’t eligible to win.” It sounds glib, but beneath the ribbing lies a raw worry about the future of creative work.

Among developers, there’s more than a little anxiety. If using AI at any point—merely to stand in for characters, perhaps not even visible to players by the time credits roll—can get you removed from the running, what even counts as a purely human endeavor now? Some studios have spoken out, asking for clarity or, at the very least, common sense exceptions. But clarity seems as far away as ever.

Clair Obscur’s fall from grace isn’t just a matter of one team missing out on trophies. It pulls into sharp focus the wider dilemma: How much space should we grant to generative AI in the stories we tell and the worlds we build? Or, perhaps more pointedly, when should it cross the line from tool to disqualifier?

This debate, electrified as it is, shows no sign of settling down quietly. The next time the shortlist is drawn up and another game faces scrutiny, expect this question to resurface. For now, fans and creators both are left grappling with a future that suddenly feels a bit more uncertain—and ultimately, that’s where the story leaves us: not with neat endings, but with questions that refuse to stay boxed in.

On any given day, the world of video games is more than capable of rousing a passionate crowd. Still, nothing gets people talking quite like a controversy — and there’s been no shortage of that since word broke about Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. Not too long ago, the indie RPG was hoisted onto shoulders at the Game Awards, crowned with a staggering nine honors including the coveted Game of the Year. For a moment, it seemed invincible. Then, quite suddenly, its triumph became the spark for a much bigger argument: where do we even begin to draw the line with generative AI’s creeping presence in creativity?Anyone following the chatter might remember the genuine surprise when Sandfall Interactive, the minds behind Clair Obscur, revealed they had leaned on AI-generated art during the earliest days of development—a detail left out of the spotlight until recently. Not for the finished game, they said; it was just to plug gaps in those tough, early stages, where concept art is needed to see what’s worth keeping. Yet disclosure came at the worst possible time. While the Game Awards organizers seemed content to stand by their votes, the Indie Game Awards saw a red line.Their rules, written in the sort of straightforward tone not usually seen in buzzy press releases, spelled it out: no generative AI, even in placeholder art—or else you’re out. The hammer came down fast. On the very day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 ceremony, organizers stripped both the Game of the Year and Debut Game honors from Clair Obscur. In a somewhat terse FAQ, the Awards explained, “When it was submitted... no gen AI was used in the development...” and, just like that, Sorry We’re Closed and Blue Prince were ushered onto the stage as the new recipients.If you’ve spent any time poking around Reddit threads, feverish Discord debates, or even skimming a quick gaming podcast lately, you already know the story didn’t end with an official statement. Supporters of the decision call it a win for human artistry, a shield for the craft itself. Others, just as quick on the keyboard, wonder aloud if the rules make sense in a world where digital tools evolve by the week and “process” has grown as important as the art we finally see. One joke ricocheted around social media: “Clair Obscur, winner of awards it isn’t eligible to win.” It sounds glib, but beneath the ribbing lies a raw worry about the future of creative work.Among developers, there’s more than a little anxiety. If using AI at any point—merely to stand in for characters, perhaps not even visible to players by the time credits roll—can get you removed from the running, what even counts as a purely human endeavor now? Some studios have spoken out, asking for clarity or, at the very least, common sense exceptions. But clarity seems as far away as ever.Clair Obscur’s fall from grace isn’t just a matter of one team missing out on trophies. It pulls into sharp focus the wider dilemma: How much space should we grant to generative AI in the stories we tell and the worlds we build? Or, perhaps more pointedly, when should it cross the line from tool to disqualifier?This debate, electrified as it is, shows no sign of settling down quietly. The next time the shortlist is drawn up and another game faces scrutiny, expect this question to resurface. For now, fans and creators both are left grappling with a future that suddenly feels a bit more uncertain—and ultimately, that’s where the story leaves us: not with neat endings, but with questions that refuse to stay boxed in.