Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

thegamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 421 posts

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#81

Post by pjmlp »

dartharva wrote: post #56
pwdisswordfishy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost all games currently being made would have programmers using copilot Which LLM told you that?

Please, LLM code assistants are ubiquitous enough nowadays with inline code suggestions in vscode on by default. It's an extremely safe claim.

That would imply the following to be true,

> Almost all games currently being made would have programmers using VSCode.

Which clearly isn't the case, unless they like to suffer in regards to the Unreal and Unity integrations.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#83

Post by littlecranky67 »

Why is usage of AI even a discussion point? Steam also now enforces publishers to disclose if they used AI during game creation. It is a tool, and as a consumer I judge the end product. I don't care what tools were used in the production, just as I don't care if you use Photoshop, Pixelmator, Maya, 3DSMax or whatnot. The end result is what counts. And if the end result is full of bullshit AI slop and is not fun to play, don't give them an award. I played Claire Obscure and it is an absolut stunning and beautiful game.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#85

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

mvdtnz wrote: post #77
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, even though I'm not in favour of gen ai. It was a terrible mistake letting placeholder assets get out in the final release, but it shouldn't actually count as shipping AI-generated content in your product.

It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product.

I believe in giving someone a reasonable amount of time to correct their mistakes. Yes, it was a terrible mistake to release the game in that state, but I think correcting it within days is sufficient.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#86

Post by fluxusars »

culturestate wrote: post #80
mvdtnz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product.

> It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product. When someone goes three miles per hour over the speed limit they are literally breaking the law, but that doesn’t mean they should get a serious fine for it. Sometimes shit happens.

You will literally get a fine for going three miles per hour over the speed limit in many countries.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#87

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

qbit42 wrote: post #74
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every game released recently would have AI help. For indie games in particular, that is very much not true. In fact, Steam has a 'made with AI' label, so it's not even true on that platform.

You think many are built without any assistance for coding? My impression was that people were mostly concerned about game assets like graphics and music

I think many are built without the use of gen ai to create assets. Obviously, the term "AI" is flexible enough that you could clarify every piece of software as involving AI if you wanted to, but I don't think that's productive.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#88

Post by surgical_fire »

wtcactus wrote: post #19

It’s interesting, because we have examples of other sects in the past that also opposed human progress through technology. History is repeating itself. For instance, see Luddites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

It's unclear if Gen AI promotes any sort of human progress.

By all means, I use it. In some instances it is useful. I think it is mostly a technology that causes damages to humanity though. I just don't really care about it.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#89

Post by ad_hockey »

wtcactus wrote: post #19

It’s interesting, because we have examples of other sects in the past that also opposed human progress through technology. History is repeating itself. For instance, see Luddites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

That does the Luddites a bit of a disservice:

> But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”[1]

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#90

Post by gyomu »

thiht wrote: post #59
skibidithink wrote: post #21

The AI witch hunt claims its first victim, apparently over some placeholder textures. https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-c... > Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative AI-created assets in the game. When the first AI tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, insta…

That’s incredibly harsh. A blanket ban on AI generated assets is dumb as hell. Generating placeholder assets is completely acceptable.

I don't find it that surprising. The creatives that are against generative AI aren't against it only because it produces slop. They are against it because it uses past human creative labor, without permission or compensation, to generate profit for the companies building the models which they do not redistribute to the authors of that creative labor. They are also against it due to environmental impact.

In that view, it doesn't matter whether you use it for placeholder or final assets. You paying your ChatGPT membership makes you complicit with the exploitation of that human creative output, and use of resources.

Post reply on HN