According to Polygon, the Indie Game Awards has officially rescinded the Game of the Year award from the RPG Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 after confirming developer Sandfall Interactive used generative AI during production. Game director Guillaume Broche, in a private Q&A with influencers in early 2025, stated the French studio briefly experimented with AI in 2022 to cover up missed textures but removed it, asserting “everything in the game is human-made.” However, the awards body cited a breach of rules, stating a Sandfall representative initially submitted the game under the agreement that no gen AI was used. The decision followed player discoveries of potential AI-generated textures in the released game, which Sandfall has since patched. This incident has ignited a fierce debate about AI ethics and honesty in indie development.
The line in the sand
Here’s the thing about Sandfall’s stance: it’s incredibly firm, but also a bit messy. Broche didn’t just say they don’t use AI now. He drew a hard line: “But everything will be made by humans, by us.” That’s a powerful statement in an industry where executives are pushing AI tools on developers whether they like it or not, as noted in a broader industry look-back. The studio’s story is that they tried it early on, hated how it felt, and purged it. But in a world where “trying it” can mean leaving a few procedural texture fills in a build, that’s enough to get you in hot water. Their transparency in earlier 2025 interviews about using AI for placeholder art actually backfired, creating a paper trail that contradicted their initial award submission.
The awards dilemma
So, who’s right? The Indie Game Awards, in their FAQ, framed this as a simple case of dishonesty during submission. And look, rules are rules. But their absolute zero-tolerance policy feels increasingly naive. Larian Studios (of Baldur’s Gate 3 fame) used AI for presentation slides and concept drafting. Is that “better”? Is using AI to upscale a texture morally different from using it to draft a story beat? The awards body admits they’re a “small crew” trying to navigate this new world. By making an example of a high-profile winner, they’ve certainly set a precedent. But is it a sustainable one? Probably not.
The murky future of AI tools
This whole controversy exposes the fundamental problem: nobody can agree on what “using AI” even means. Is it a tool like Photoshop’s content-aware fill, or is it a creative replacement? For Sandfall, it was a failed experiment they thought they’d fully reverted. For the awards show and many players, any use crosses an ethical line. And for other studios, it’s just another button in a software suite. The interview with Broche shows a developer genuinely committed to human craft, yet tripped up by a tool they briefly tested. As AI gets baked into more standard software—game engines, art packages, coding assistants—this binary “yes/no” question will become impossible to answer. The industry is heading for a lot more gray areas, and a lot more messy controversies just like this one.
