Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 swept both The Game Awards 2025 and the Indie Game Awards just days ago, walking away with Game of the Year honors at both ceremonies. Now the indie darling has been stripped of both awards it won at the Indie Game Awards after organizers discovered the studio used generative AI during development, directly violating the submission rules the developer agreed to.
The disqualification came swiftly on Saturday, December 20, after producer Francois Meurisse confirmed in an El Pais interview that Sandfall Interactive did use generative AI assets during production. While those AI-generated textures were patched out within days of launch, the Indie Game Awards made clear that any use of generative AI at any stage of development disqualifies a game from consideration.
The AI Assets That Changed Everything
Players first spotted the problematic assets months ago shortly after the game launched in April 2025. Eagle-eyed Reddit users identified what appeared to be AI-generated newspaper textures scattered throughout the game world. The telltale signs were all there: nonsensical text that looked convincing from a distance, distorted letterforms up close, and that characteristic AI muddiness in the details.
Twitter user Nyanomancer documented the findings and posted screenshots highlighting the suspicious textures. Within days, Sandfall Interactive released a patch that quietly replaced those assets with what they called proper custom artwork. The studio framed it as removing placeholder content, suggesting these were temporary assets that accidentally made it into the final build.
At the time, the incident caused minor controversy but didn’t derail the game’s critical momentum. Clair Obscur continued racking up glowing reviews and became one of the highest-rated games of 2025. The AI texture issue seemed like a small oversight in an otherwise polished production.
The Submission That Broke the Rules
When Sandfall Interactive submitted Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for Indie Game Awards consideration, representatives from the studio explicitly agreed that no generative AI was used in development. This assurance is standard protocol for the Indie Game Awards, which maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy on AI-generated content at any stage of production.
The problem is that statement was demonstrably false. The game shipped with AI-generated assets, meaning AI was used during development regardless of whether those assets remained in the final patched version. When Meurisse confirmed the AI usage in his interview on the same day as the awards ceremony, it created an immediate problem for the organizers.
The Official Response
Six One Indie, the organization behind the Indie Game Awards, released a statement explaining their decision. They acknowledged that while the AI-generated assets were patched out and Clair Obscur is undeniably a wonderful game, the use of generative AI during production violates the regulations the studio agreed to when submitting.
The statement continued: “In light of Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of gen AI art in production on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination. While the assets in question were patched out and it is a wonderful game, it does go against the regulations we have in place.”
As a result, the Indie Game Awards nomination committee officially retracted both the Debut Game and Game of the Year awards from Clair Obscur. The honors will instead go to the runners-up in those categories. Blue Prince now receives the Game of the Year award, while Sorry We’re Closed takes home Debut Game honors.
Why the Indie Game Awards Has This Policy
The Indie Game Awards’ hard stance against generative AI isn’t arbitrary. The organization explicitly prohibits AI-generated content to protect artists and maintain the integrity of indie game development. Generative AI tools are trained on massive datasets scraped from the internet, often including copyrighted artwork used without permission or compensation.
For indie developers specifically, the concern runs deeper. Small studios often compete against larger companies with bigger budgets. Allowing AI-generated content creates an uneven playing field where developers can cut corners on art production, undermining artists who spend years developing their craft.
The policy also addresses environmental concerns. Data centers that power AI image generation consume enormous amounts of energy and water for cooling. Many in the gaming community view this as an unacceptable environmental cost for what amounts to placeholder art that human artists could create.
By taking a zero-tolerance approach, the Indie Game Awards sends a clear message about what values they want to promote in indie game development. Creativity, craftsmanship, and ethical production practices matter more than cutting costs or development time.
The Developer’s Explanation
Following the disqualification, Sandfall Interactive attempted to clarify what happened. According to their statement, the studio used a small selection of pre-existing assets from the Unreal Engine Marketplace during development. They claim these were 3D models rather than AI-generated textures, creating confusion about what exactly was used.
However, this explanation contradicts the visual evidence. The newspaper textures that players identified and that were subsequently patched out show clear signs of AI generation. The text contains the characteristic nonsense of AI-produced content, the layouts have that telltale AI inconsistency, and the overall quality matches other confirmed AI-generated game assets.
Some community members have suggested a more charitable interpretation. Clair Obscur had a lengthy development cycle that began before Sandfall secured major funding. Using AI placeholders might have been a pragmatic choice to create a presentable demo for publishers, with the intention of replacing everything with proper artist-created assets before launch.
The problem is some of those placeholders slipped through quality control and shipped with the game. Whether this was an honest mistake or a deliberate choice to save time and money, the result is the same: the game violated the submission requirements of the Indie Game Awards.
The Broader Gaming AI Controversy
This incident arrives amid escalating tensions around AI usage in game development. Just days before the Clair Obscur controversy, Larian Studios CEO Swen Vincke sparked outrage by revealing that the Baldur’s Gate 3 developer has begun experimenting with AI tools during pre-production, though he insisted final games wouldn’t contain AI-generated content.
The Larian controversy prompted its own backlash, with fans worried about accidentally shipping AI assets just like what happened with Clair Obscur. Publishing director Michael Douse tried to reassure players by saying the studio has good quality assurance and leadership to catch those mistakes, but the comparison to Clair Obscur undermined that confidence.
The community remains deeply divided. Some developers argue that AI tools can speed up concept art phases or help with mundane tasks, freeing artists to focus on creative work. Others view any AI usage as fundamentally unethical given how these tools are trained on copyrighted work without artist consent.
What’s increasingly clear is that the gaming public wants transparency. Players don’t necessarily oppose all AI usage uniformly, but they want developers to be honest about what tools they’re using and how. The Clair Obscur situation feels particularly egregious because the studio explicitly denied AI usage when submitting to an awards show, then got caught.
What Happens to the Awards
Blue Prince inheriting the Game of the Year award is particularly fitting given the game also won the Innovation category at the same ceremony. Developed by Dogubomb and published by Raw Fury, Blue Prince earned critical acclaim for its unique puzzle-platforming mechanics and striking visual design.
Sorry We’re Closed, developed by a la mode Games and published by Akupara Games, takes over the Debut Game award. The horror adventure game impressed critics with its atmospheric storytelling and distinctive art direction, making it a worthy recipient of the honor.
Both studios now have unexpected recognition to celebrate, though the circumstances remain bittersweet. Neither game did anything wrong, but winning by disqualification lacks the same satisfaction as earning the award outright.
For Sandfall Interactive, the sting is compounded by the fact that Clair Obscur retained its Game of the Year win at The Game Awards. That ceremony apparently doesn’t have the same strict policies around AI usage, allowing the game to keep its most prestigious honor while losing the indie-focused recognition.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 disqualified from the Indie Game Awards?
Sandfall Interactive confirmed using generative AI during development, specifically AI-generated newspaper textures that shipped with the game at launch. This violated the Indie Game Awards’ zero-tolerance policy on AI-generated content, which the studio agreed to when submitting the game.
Did Clair Obscur lose its Game of the Year award from The Game Awards too?
No, Clair Obscur retained all nine awards it won at The Game Awards 2025, including Game of the Year. The disqualification only applies to the Indie Game Awards, which has stricter policies regarding AI usage.
What AI assets were used in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33?
Players identified AI-generated newspaper textures scattered throughout the game world. These featured nonsensical text and distorted letterforms characteristic of AI-generated images. Sandfall patched them out within days of the game’s April 2025 launch.
Who gets the awards now that Clair Obscur was disqualified?
Blue Prince receives the Game of the Year award, while Sorry We’re Closed inherits the Debut Game honor. Both were runners-up in their respective categories at the Indie Game Awards 2025.
Why does the Indie Game Awards ban AI-generated content?
The organization prohibits generative AI to protect artists, maintain development ethics, and address environmental concerns. AI tools are trained on copyrighted work without permission, create unfair competitive advantages, and consume enormous energy resources.
Did Sandfall Interactive know they were breaking the rules?
Yes. When submitting Clair Obscur for consideration, Sandfall representatives explicitly agreed that no generative AI was used in development. The AI-generated textures that shipped with the game prove this statement was false, whether intentionally or due to oversight.
Can games use AI for anything under Indie Game Awards rules?
The Indie Game Awards has a strict zero-tolerance policy on generative AI at any stage of development. This includes placeholder assets, concept art, textures, or any other content created by AI tools, even if later replaced by human-created work.
Is Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 still worth playing?
The game remains one of the highest-rated releases of 2025 with exceptional reviews for its combat, story, and visual design. The AI assets were patched out months ago. Whether you choose to support it given the controversy is a personal decision.
A Precedent for Future Awards
The Indie Game Awards’ swift action sets an important precedent for how gaming ceremonies will handle AI controversies going forward. As more developers experiment with AI tools during production, the likelihood of similar incidents increases. Award shows need clear policies and the willingness to enforce them, even when it means disqualifying popular winners.
What makes this situation particularly complex is that Clair Obscur genuinely is an excellent game. The AI-generated newspaper textures were minor elements that most players never noticed. The bulk of the game represents thousands of hours of genuine creative work by talented artists, programmers, writers, and designers who had nothing to do with the AI decision.
But rules exist for reasons, and exceptions undermine their purpose. If the Indie Game Awards made an exception for Clair Obscur because the game is otherwise impressive, it would signal that AI usage is acceptable as long as you don’t get caught or you’re popular enough. That’s not the message the organization wants to send.
For Sandfall Interactive, this serves as an expensive lesson about transparency and quality control. The studio created something remarkable that earned genuine critical acclaim and commercial success. A few placeholder textures and a lack of candor about their usage cost them recognition they arguably deserved. Whether that punishment fits the crime depends on your perspective on AI in game development, but the Indie Game Awards made their position crystal clear.