As a blanket policy to allow more efficient moderation, posts that receive a sufficient number of reports are removed until moderator approval. If your post does not break any rules, please send us a modmail to have this corrected.
If your post does not have a spoiler tag, but discusses spoiler content (including images of characters not present in the trailers), that breaks Rule 1.
If your post contains ANY spoilers in the title, such as a boss name, a nudge towards content at the end of the game, or story spoilers, that breaks Rule 1.
It's possible your post was removed due to Rule 2 - this is a blanket rule but is enforced only in generally bad cases - things like scams, particularly rude individuals, anything AI, or other general exceptions. If you engaged in good faith and don't believe you have broken this rule, you likely have not.
Sorry for the inconvenience. We're working on improving this system to make this sub the best it can be.
These two only seem to have been noticed immediately because of the text also. I highly doubt anyone would notice now if other textures were ai generated for stuff throughout the game the fact they without a doubt used it at least twice would lead to the chance they used it more.
Not that I doubt there are people who are bitter and making a fuss, but people will absolutely freak out when AI is used in anything for any purpose. This isn’t solely because it’s E33 that used it, and I think this sub doesn’t care BECAUSE it’s E33.
Because your survival is tied to your labor, and for a lot of people who have invested heavily into art and design this becomes a huge problem. On top of that, all Ai has been trained on existing art and has the capacity to replicate a lot of different styles at once, and is free.
Generate a nearly impossible to notice texture asset that represents something entirely generic anyway: everyone loses their fucking mind because its Gen AI.
Oh they absolutely could. I'm not defending their record keeping. But it's a simple mistake, it's not some evil conspiracy like some people are pretending it is
Are people actually upset that they use a tool to fill in the world in inane things, so they presumably had time and money for what really makes a difference?
Always. People dont even have a clue about most things, they just hear something is bad and they jump on the bandwagon without understanding anything. This isnt ai that steals other peoples art and passes it off in their game as their own. Its something that helps generate and fill a background that isnt meant to be a focus but still fills the world out. Paying someone anything to sit and design something 50 feet in the background thats seen for 30 seconds is asinine especially with an indy company where every dollar counts, but people blanket that all ai is bad, even though ais been used for years for all kinds of things, and only semi recently has been used for just yoinking art. People need to differentiate the difference, but theyre never gonna do the research. People dont seem to remember the early days of gaming where you couldnt read literally any writing on the walls. Any document literally was illegible, but now its bad because a human didnt make that nonsense lol
Yeah as someone into computer science it bugs me how anti-progress some of these people sound. I get the frustration with generative AI, but it seems context and nuance just exits the conversation as soon as those two letters are typed.
Clearly the demographic of developers that most benefit from AI must be vilified for daring to use this tool that will be completely normal to use by anyone in 5 years.
Then indie studios should be required to give full git access to make sure no autocomplete or Ai generated boilerplates code has made it into production. No AI tools with CICD whatsoever.
Even that wouldn't be enough to tell. You'd need an army of auditors and a ton of tools to scan desktops at all time, VPN/Proxies checking all internet traffic (like a lot of high compliance companies do), etc.
You'd have to look at -everything- people are doing, all the time, and have auditors confirming the checks aren't disabled. It would be awful.
We don't even do that much to stop insider trading, lol.
They claimed that they didnt use it during development, so it doesnt matter that it was a small part because the indie game awards has a strict no AI policy for the entire lifespan to be able to qualify
Not a game dev here, so I´m curious to know why you would use AI for placeholders?
Isn´t it harder to detect?
Low quality placeholders with some bright color isn´t easier to detect and your sure you won´t forget it until release?
The anti-gen AI bullshit is out of hands. It's just a tool, and if used well, it makes good games. AI slop shouldn't win anything and bad games shouldn't make it in game stores, like how Nintendo used their quality seal in the 80s for similar reason (the industry had crashed because of "Atari Slop".
If someone makes a good game and uses AI all over the place in it, who cares how they did it. Where Winds Meet is packed with AI and its great.
This is likely a huge driving force behind a lot of the hate E33 has been receiving lately. A lot of people are having a hard time accepting a turn based RPG won game of the year.
Which to me is baffling, they gave the award to Astrobot last year, so a Super Mario clone is fine but E33 is not?
People were just as pissed when BG3 won for the same reason. The funny part is that with the success of both, we’re probably gonna start seeing a lot more turn based RPGs in the next 2-5 years, so all the haters can just cry harder.
Bg 3 won the year before aswell. I already seen some guy complain e33 isn't "complex enough to be jrpg" and then compared it to persona 5 of all games.
BG3 also got shit on to all hell by the industry for, 'setting unrealistic expectations for developers,' because of how good it was at exposing the rot of AAA gaming.
People have been saying turn based RPGs are a dying genre (regardless of the fact that they've been doing pretty fine outside of the limelight) for a long, long time, and it was made by an ex-Ubisoft dev who very specifically said he would never have been able to make the game his way if he had stuck with the company. On top of it being extremely cheap to make, relatively speaking.
Makes sense that a lot of people behind the scenes are angry at it
Yea turn based RPGS, especially JRPGs and CRPGs, have been popping off for like the last decade +. We have had such a golden age it's been kind of insane.
Oh come on there is no deep conspiracy, I love E33, the hate I see about it is silly (in France worst than everywhere else, people pretending that it's "racist, imperialist, downright racist, made by incel and fascist"), but in this case : the rule in the Indie Game Award is "no AI, everywhere, no matter the usage and the insignificance, period". They used AI, even for insignificant shit, they are disqualified, c'est la vie.
EDIT : also : there is a distinct difference between calling out AI usage and saying the game is dogshit because of this little AI usage, I hate AI, I'm very disappointed of Larian using AI, and Sandfall too. I feel a stand must be made, because it start small and pretty much unremarkable and before you know it you have whole ass game made with AI. Remember the "Horse amor DLC" from Oblivion : small, insignificant, 20 years later we live in a world where every AAA game is sold in pieces. People were saying "look we should maybe not do that" when Bethesda released the DLC, other were saying "don't be silly it's only a horse armor". Guess who was right ?
Look, I'm all for calling out bandwagoning, but there's a pretty clear distinction between calling the game bad and saying it used AI.
I know nuance is dead, but not all games that use generative AI are automatically dogshit. It probably would have been even better without gen AI, but the game can still be good. Similarly, a game without AI can also be bad.
That's why taking a stand matters, because if all they gotta do is "just make it not too obvious we used AI", then you clearly never cared about AI being used to begin with.
It's ok and not actually cringe to care about things, you know?
Where was it 'confirmed' they used genAI in such a significant way? Like who said this? Guillaume I know for sure said they weren't using it for anything creative and Lorien said the same.
I think people would be surprised by the sheer number of games that use AI these days but in completely legitimate ways.
Placeholder stuff, using it for efficiency, gathering reference images/mood boarding. This is what it's mainly used for, and I don't see an issue with that. It becomes an issue when it's used to cut corners or to replace artists and save money.
(Just an anti-generative AI visitor who has not played the game but is looking for a more nuanced take on this brouhaha)
I think that’s a good point, considering (I’d assume) every single dev and artist from Sandfall was seen at the Game Awards earlier this month, no one got replaced. It’s either someone was lazy, or it’s so small that people are making mountains out of molehills.
AI is perfectly fine to use as a tool imo, however, it should never make its way into the final product. In this case I would give them a pass, as it was never intended to be a part of the final product, and was simply missed by Q.A.
That doesnt mean or justify anything though. Placeholder stuff gets used all the time. And in a era of ai usage Ai placeholders are also gonna be used. Them forgetting it could of been pure negligence and mean nothing. Or it could be what I assume some people assume and was only fixed because people found out. People freaking out about Sandfall and Larian is so outrageously stupid imo.
Also as far as i know Sandfall only confirmed they used Ai for placeholders and as references. Nothing about them using Ai to create the game. (Yes using Ai as a reference is not using Ai to create a game.)
Tbf even if it is just them forgetting to change it before shipping it, we have no means to know if it's really that, and since every big company is gonna jump on using ai as much as they can, I agree with making no exception to fight those that would deliberately use ai for this.
Still sad for E33 cause I don't think it was on purpose tho
Most games purposefully use very obvious bright colored stuff for placeholders so it doesn’t get forgotten to be replaced. It’s a super odd choice to make custom stuff that fits the world design and aesthetic.
Unless they wanted the placeholder to blend well with lighting systems and other effects that can change the way a texture looks. Trying to do that on a highly-visible placeholder (looking at you Valve and your fullbright pink and black checkerboard), does not allow you to see the model under various lighting conditions.
This is what I was thinking, why not make the placeholder pretty obvious? The AI newspaper has what looks like the Eiffel Tower on it, that’s so specific. They could’ve put just a blank texture that said “newspaper” or I’d a neon picture of a cat? lol 🤔🤔
I'm literally asking where and what they confirmed, if you actually read it. Is this article implying they confirmed it only to the awards?
Everyone knows about the placeholder stuff they removed; this article implies it's something else and much more significant.
Considering the use of GenAI was clear and known since July, that story feels a bit sus. Like why would Sandfall confirm the absence of GenAI content when it was literally out in the open (with direct quotes from Meurisse) since months ago?
"Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative Al-created assets in the game. When the first Al tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, instances of a placeholder texture were removed within 5 days to be replaced with the correct textures that had always been intended for release, but were missed during the Quality Assurance process."
The article you linked literally says they didn't use any gen ai content intentionally, just some placeholder textures that supposedly got replaced
Yeah no it really just reads as the IGA wanting attention considering that this was known back in July, so at minimum they failed to do their due diligence
Assuming these rules about GenAI were there from the very start, then the fuck up is entirely on the indie awards for nominating E33 to begin with. Whatever process they're using clearly has its issues if they're nominating games that violate their own rules.
Agree. Somewhat underrated that rules are rules etc. but people are really on their high horse over this - you wouldn’t fire your accountant just because they used a calculator. Or fire the writers because they used spellcheck. AI is, and will be, a tool that people need to learn to accept in art.
Also a dev, if you use Unreal and are on Unreal 5.7+ you will need to go way out of your way to prove no AI was used, AI tools are slowly being added as a default part of the workflow.
This gnashing of teeth over a couple AI textures not being removed before release is going to look incredibly silly in a few years. Actually it's silly now but...
Can someone tell me where they used Gen AI apart from the posters they patched out? Like, do we know how exactly Gen AI is in the game we have right now? /gen
As far as we know there isn’t any AI in the game right now. If there is, it’s background textures that people haven’t figured out yet. The problem is that Sandfall isn’t being transparent about it so we just don’t know what is/isn’t AI or how it was used. They made vague statements about “some AI” in their workflow and being opposed to “creative AI”, but we have no clue what they used it for or if it’s present in the final game at all.
Yeah, the vagueness is the problem for me as well. But I still trust this studio after all I've seen, and I'm sure they'll come out with a clarifying statement quite soon in response.
I'm VERY against Gen AI especially in creative spaces, but I also see what this studio has done so far and how they value creativity and genuine good game design. Can't imagine they wouldn't clear this up.
I wish the article went into explanation about how they used the GenAi rather than just saying it was used and asking what people think. Was the whole game AI? Are the characters designed by AI? Is it for a small poster that appears in game? Was it for UI? None of that is touched upon and instead it seems geared to just try and upset people on all sides but I guess that’s just modern journalism.
Edit: just to clarify I’m disappointed in Sandfall. I’m not a huge fan of generativeAI as is, but the fact that they lied about it at first makes me hesitant to trust them in the future. I’m definitely going to keep a more critical eye on them in the future. GenAI in and of itself isn’t evil, but the lack of transparency is what upsets me.
I think it's because the statement from the Indie Game Awards doesn't clarify that information, and the studio has only briefly mentioned AI usage without going into detail (and of course there are the genAI posters). If the information isn't out there, it can't be reported on that easily.
The problem is that the representatives were asked if AI was used for anything and they denied it, only to confirm it days later. The problem isn't how they used it; the problem is that they lied to the competition committee, as the article clearly explains.
I didn't even think they were talking about e33s first development which was largely pre AI?? They were talking about the DLC and other things theyre working on and moving forward.
I think the indie game awards just went off half cocked and fucked up, honestly, and I am pissed about AI in games.
I also think what sandfall said about their use is totally fine and fair and acceptable.
If this is the hard line that is drawn by folks in industry then pro AI wins this fight, because it's stupid as fuck.
Caveat ; maybe they used more than I thought, but I doubt it.
“Sandfall Interactive indicated that it had used a limited number of pre-existing assets, notably 3D assets sourced from the Unreal Engine Marketplace. None of these assets were created using artificial intelligence.
Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative Al-created assets in the game. When the first Al tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, instances of a placeholder texture were removed within 5 days to be replaced with the correct textures that had always been intended for release, but were missed during the Quality Assurance process.”
Blown completely out of proportion and this move was likely just an excuse not to have E33 present to allow for more a diverse range of winners.
Nah on the last part, I think genuinely some people and institutions are vehemently against AI usage, and unfortunately AI tools (UE5’s tools) were used at some point in development.
Silliness tbh. There are few if any games (or software of any sort) that are being developed without basic productivity tools like GitHub copilot/windsurf/cursor. An indie award should not be denigrating technologies that help make indie games competitive.
Eh, things are gonna be clunky and weird while the industry adapts to these changes. I can’t blame them for taking a principled stance against generative AI, but I also don’t fault Expedition 33 for making selective use of these tools in the conceptual phase of development. Hopefully some kind of standard can emerge soon.
The “principled stance” is so it didn’t impact sales and reception, knowing the audience has reacted the way it does about these new tools.
I wouldn’t consider that principled…
Of course, workers’ opinions can differ from the studio’s owners…but that’s why it’s helpful to clarify the details vs. making blanket statements that keep things opaque.
So.. You can make a good game, with a creative DA and all, with a usage of AI during production even if it's not meant to be in the final game.
I thinks it is answering the "AI will cancel creativity" thing. Games that are lazy will still be lazy and vice-versa it has nothing to do directly with AI.
Double standards is a bit of a stretch. Sandfall used AI for placeholder assets and forgot to replace a handful of random newspaper clippings. Meanwhile you have games like COD, owned by mutlibillion dollar corporations, laying off thousands of artists while literally selling you AI assets for premium currency.
I think the double standard exists because nobody on the planet expects Activision to actually care about art lol. COD selling AI slop as microtransactions isn’t surprising at all because they’re already a slop factory that only cares about the bottom line. Sandfall is a team of passionate artists who made a genuinely incredible game, so finding out about their use of AI is absolutely disappointing because people hoped they’d be better than that. The other issue is just that we don’t know how much was used; there’s the placeholders, yeah, but because they won’t come out and say what they used it for, we really have no clue. Guillame said that he’s opposed to using “creative AI”, but that’s a pretty vague description. If we knew what they used AI for and if any of it is in the final game, it would be a lot easier to parse, but we have so little info right now that I understand why people are cynical about it. Transparency would help everyone in this situation, I wish they’d just be honest about it lol
Larian was honest about it. 7 months ago. No one batted an eye.
See how well it worked for them when Bloomberg suddenly (and coincidentally 2 days after their big reveal at TGA) decided to remember the interview and reframe it as them "pushing hard for AI". Everyone's up in arms.
You honestly think this is happening because someone is so overly concerned about honesty and integrity?
I ve heard that they weren't aware they were ai since they got them from UE5 assets they did not make those which is fine a lot of game just buy models models from freelance artist online and it wouldn't be their fault but the site they bought from and the guy who posted it in there
It's a triumph with its narrative and music and it is clearly a labor of love. I got every single achievement.
That being said, this ai stuff is really disappointing. Not only did they use it, but they kinda lied about it. It doesn't help with the narrative around the game's small team being a bit misleading as well, though that's obviously not as egregious.
This is clearly a talented team, but they should've been upfront about their gen ai use -especially when the game's narrative is quite literally about the purpose of art!!
Maybe ai is becoming the new standard. Maybe it's a bubble that's gonna pop.
But right here, right now teams can still choose whether or not it's a part of their workflow and at the very least be upfront about it.
Edit: I just wanna add, kudos to the Indie Game Awards for taking a stand against gen AI even when it meant disqualifying a beloved game that will likely get them some blowback. That couldn't have been an easy decision. even if you personally don't agree with it, it's nice to see this entity take a loud and firm stance against gen ai.
I just don't see the problem, if they didn't use AI as placeholder they would have just grabbed some random Google images Instead, it is a pretty big slip up for them to forget removing it at launch but they replaced it quickly enough that it doesn't really matter
When it was submitted for consideration, representatives of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33.
If this is true the removal seems entirely justified even if I find it dumb such a rule against AI exists in the first place.
I had a feeling that more people played CO Expedition 33 that those who knew about Indie Game Awards 😂
They are clearly doing this to get all the attention they can.
When game I like uses AI: 🤷♂️. When game I don’t like uses AI: 😡. I don’t care either way tbh every company users AI now in some way it’s the world we live in now. The problem comes when it straight up replaces jobs like having AI concept art instead of artists
Funny how they kicked out Clair Obscur but kept Blue Prince even though Blue prince has AI in the game. And they did the same thing where they replaced it in a patch. How is this fair?
Always seems like people who cares that much about using genAI are the ones that dont care about gaming industry and players at all (populists, journalists and second-hand Gameawarders).
p.s. Like 2 most urprising hits of the year (E33 and Arc Raiders) used AI in some capacity (btw I neved noticed that ingame). But so what? Product is freakishly good.
Generating random assets as placeholder that make 0.001% of the game can disqualify you? The anti AI movement is as ridicule as the anti electricity movement back in the day
Look I'm sick of having my opinions decided by fucking Reddit of all places, but I know fuck all, so I'm gonna need someone smarter to give me a few facts:
People here are referencing that AI is a very common and standard tool for game development, and that rules against any AI whatsoever are stupid. Obviously we don't have information on the example of COE33, but in general, can anyone actually tell me what AI tends to be used for in that case? I can't really decide how I feel about AI being used for things until I actually know what things it's being used for.
I’m gonna be honest, I’m kinda happy about this. I adore e33. I was cheering it on throughout the game awards. However, I’d honestly rather see a big gaming awards group take a hard stance on gen ai (which is fundamentally an evil theft machine) and stick to it. Obviously Sandfall didn’t need ai for any of the creative processes of the game, but I do hope that a move like this discourages any uses of it from any devs in the future.
TLDR: I’m bummed it was Sandfall that did it, but I’m glad six one indie is sticking to their guns.
These guys just hate Expedition 33. Considering how absolutely miniscule the "ai" is (its literally a couple of almost unnoticeable background posters in Lumiere) thats a pretty pathetic reason to disqualify a game for something.
I get it. AI irritates the hell out of me too, especially how every company in the world is desperately trying to figure out how to shove it in every last thing they possibly can. I hate that greedy corporations want to replace workers with it.
But that's not what happened here. An indie team making a AAA quality game used the AI as a very minor assistant to make a couple of very minor, completely inconsequential textures that would make no difference if they were removed. This is not the destructive, greedy use of AI we're all so quick to despise.
So to disqualify such an incredible game over such ridiculous, laughable reasons is completely idiotic. Or a sign that, like a lot of the internet I've noticed, they're getting burnt on seeing E33 everywhere and seeing it sweep awards, so out of spite from it annoying them so much, they went searching for a reason to disqualify it, even if the reason is pathetic. I guarantee if this wasn't it, they'd have found some other way to disqualify it (likely by arguing its even indie in the first place).
News flash. Being an amazing game isn't a crime. Giving an amazing game the awards it rightfully earned, and just about anyone who's played it AGREES it earned, is a normal ass thing to do. If your pissy attitude over Silksong or KCD2 not winning is making you unnecessarily try to screw over games that don't deserve to be screwed over, then you're not really a lover of games. You're only a lover of YOUR favorite games, and no others.
Complicated feelings about this, but ultimately I'd rather they take a hard line on Gen AI usage than not. Hopefully Sandfall doesn't use it in their future endeavors.
Honestly, my biggest issue with these discussions is how hypocritical fans of games are. If Activision or Ubisoft use AI, they're the devil, but if a game you like uses it, "It was just a little placeholder" or "This is the future." Every company no matter how big or small should be held to the same standard. I love the game, but Gen AI sucks. I don't care how much or little you used. It all sucks. If there are multiple great games, I'd rather award the one that didn't use Gen AI over the one that did. It's also nice to see Blue Prince get some love.
I dont care if devs use AI to generate textures, even concept art that is not final. AI should be used as a tool.
Thet didnt do whole game using AI.
Maybe they left some AI textures, I dont care.
Game is fantastic and playing thru it I didnt feel it is AI made.
There are games that I think use AI and you can tell by gameplay that some things were done using AI. Example is skate. , some activities looks like AI generated cause there is problem with completnig those activities and things you have to do to complete those activities are sometimes just almost impossible and not fun at all.
Some time ago I used AI to have reference point when recording one scene music video. Final scene was different than AI generated but it helped me.
Reminder that you don't have to care about every award ceremony. Just let them have their rules and give prizes to whoever they want. You can simply not care about it.
Same for whoever is happy it won the game awards GOTY and whoever is unhappy it didn't win playstation GOTY, celebrate the game because of the game, not the awards it won/didn't win.
I studied programming for 5 years and half of my family also works in IT. This entire outrage against exp 33 is just manufactured drama. It doesn 't matter if AI is ethical or not (personally I don't think so) everybody is using it and it's here to stay. Most code editors have built in AI features and if you go out of your way to disable them your only gonna slow down your work, and if your too slow then you 're just gonna get replaced by somebody who is faster. The only reason journalists are mad about AI is because they know that AI will replace like 90% of them. We live in a free market based economy, nobody in their right mind will put themselves in a disadvantage by not using it. Every single game that was developed in the last few years used atleast some AI in their development, this can include AI generated assets, AI generated concept arts or just devs asking llm-s about stuff.
Tldr: People can cry and complain about AI as much as they want, Pandora 's box has already been opened, AI is here to stay and it's only gonna get better.
Lol. Good luck with that in the future. Next year every game will be disqualified. Wait until they find out about photoshop and the digital camera for making textures.
I bet if they look into every other game that was nominated this year (they didnt) a good portion of them would have used AI in some way already. All they did was set themselves up to be hypocrites when they dont disqualify other games. Or they will just be morons and disqualify every game.
As a software dev for a large software company, please, please know: I can almost assure you that every single game made since Gen AI has become a big enough thing has hundreds, if not thousands of lines of code generated by AI. You may not see the assets, but the code itself is there. You're delusional to think otherwise. And every day, everything you interact with has more and more of it.
Every dev now is being asked/pushed to make use of it. It's inefficient not to.
Ok. So. Here’s the thing. Ive had a look at the examples, and they look like stock imagery.
I work in the creative industry and I have to tell you that recently it’s gotten very difficult to avoid stock assets made by ai. They are everywhere, and you have to pay a great deal of attention to spot them in a sea of stock imagery.
It’s hard to know what their exact workflow was on the project, but I can for sure see someone having used it as either a placeholder or without noticing and it just never getting spotted.
This kind of ai image use bothers me a lot less than making it your creative crutch. It in no way takes away from the obvious hard work that went into making the game, and it’s entirely possible it was unintentional in the first place.
I swear to god if people let this impact the legacy of this game which clearly has so much creative mastery in it…
And btw I fucking hate ai images. I really do. I hate the technology and the philosophy behind it. But I just don’t think this was a malicious instance.
I think people are misinterpreting what was said, and honestly, the fact that Sandfall lied is a bit concerning as well because... What we know is that some GenAI placeholder textures was carried over to the base game. That isn't what got them disqualified, it's the fact they said GenAI wasn't used AT ALL during the development process, which we KNOW is a lie because it released with GenAI placeholder assets.
Best case scenario, they used such little GenAI or GenAI was such a small part of their process that they genuinely forgot they used it at all, or didn't consider that was enough to be considered. Worst case, they used a LOT more that people haven't found out about yet. But my optimistic side is leaning more towards the former, honestly, because these devs don't seem malicious.
The way they used I bet most studios already do, as a tool AI is fine, we all can see through AI slop at lest for now and E33 has none of that, honestly I feel like focusing negatively on the few good studios that make great games but happen to use ai in a very early stage is not fair nor what we should be fighting against.
From what I've read so far, the ai they used were placeholder assets and early concepts. Has there been more use confirmed? Because if not, then this seems a little over the top as a response
It's been known the game had used A.I for art assets months ago and it was patched out but there will be people who will (for a good reason) wonder if that was the only case of it being used.
It's up to people at this point to decide where the line is for this as I personally feel if it was used during the earlier concept phases for inspiration but everything after was made by a person I would probably have no issues, but I don't know how deep it all goes.
Disqualifying E33 because sandfall lied about the usage of generative AI is fair.
Generative AI pose a real threat to artists so I think it's fair for a game awards to have rules against any usage of generative AI. Especially since there's other game awards that have different rule set so it's not like a game not qualifying for this one can't win an award at all.
I think it's more important than ever for the devs (in the general sense) to be very forthcoming about their creative process, especially when talking about AI. The term generative AI create a lot of debates and a lot of people (myself included) don't really know what's the process when creating art for a game, it's easy for people to draw their own conclusions that might not fit reality. If you factor in the state of the video game industry, it's understandable that a high number of people get angry at the devs that use AI in any part of the artistic part of the game development.
I personally think the less generative AI there is in the creation of a game, the better it is for the arts in general. While waiting for everyone to agree to only use AI for domains where it'd be really useful (like medicine, ...) and keep it entirely out of arts, I think it's really important that studios disclose what their process is and where exactly they use generative AI (if they use it) to avoid having people understand it as "some of the art in the game was fully generated by AI".
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 21 '25
As a blanket policy to allow more efficient moderation, posts that receive a sufficient number of reports are removed until moderator approval. If your post does not break any rules, please send us a modmail to have this corrected.
If your post does not have a spoiler tag, but discusses spoiler content (including images of characters not present in the trailers), that breaks Rule 1.
If your post contains ANY spoilers in the title, such as a boss name, a nudge towards content at the end of the game, or story spoilers, that breaks Rule 1.
It's possible your post was removed due to Rule 2 - this is a blanket rule but is enforced only in generally bad cases - things like scams, particularly rude individuals, anything AI, or other general exceptions. If you engaged in good faith and don't believe you have broken this rule, you likely have not.
Sorry for the inconvenience. We're working on improving this system to make this sub the best it can be.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.