According to Mashable, the Indie Game Awards has stripped Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of both its Game of the Year and Debut Game awards for 2025. The organizer, Six One Indie, made the decision on December 18, the same day the winners were announced, after developer Sandfall Interactive confirmed using generative AI art. The awards’ FAQ states any use of generative AI makes a game “strictly ineligible.” As a result, Debut Game now goes to à la mode games‘ Sorry We’re Closed, and Game of the Year to Dogubomb‘s Blue Prince. Sandfall had previously disclosed “some AI” use in a July interview with El País, and players spotted AI-generated poster textures at the game’s April 24 launch, which were patched out within five days.
Rules are rules, but are they silly?
Here’s the thing: this is a pretty messy situation. The AI use wasn’t for major character models or environments. Sandfall says it was for placeholder textures that accidentally slipped into the final build due to an oversight, and they were replaced almost immediately after launch. So, the game that won was, technically, the “pure” human-crafted version for the vast majority of players. But the Indie Game Awards rules are absolute: no generative AI, period. When Sandfall submitted the game, a rep agreed to that. The discovery of the violation, even for old placeholder assets, forced the organizer’s hand.
And the reaction is totally split. Some, like Bluesky user @erin-hallow, praised the move as standing up for “authentic human creativity.” Others think it’s an overreaction. A Reddit user in the game’s subreddit called it “a bit silly” for a couple of mistaken assets. So who’s right? Basically, it depends on whether you see the rule as protecting a principle or evaluating the final product. The awards chose the principle.
A big award lost, but plenty in the trophy case
Now, don’t feel too bad for Sandfall Interactive. This is a major embarrassment, sure. But Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is hardly hurting for accolades. It absolutely dominated The Game Awards earlier this month, winning Game of the Year and eight other awards. It also snagged Ultimate Game of the Year at the Golden Joysticks. So this Indie Game Awards revocation is a stinging rebuke on a specific ethical point from the indie community, but it hasn’t exactly tanked the game’s reputation or success. It’s a fascinating clash between two different award-show philosophies.
The broader AI battle in game dev
This incident is just one skirmish in a huge industry war. The core question is brutal: Is generative AI a helpful tool for efficiency, or a job-killing engine for “low-quality, soulless AI slop”? Developers might use it for brainstorming or, as in this case, quick placeholders. But many artists and programmers are terrified it will be used to cut corners and eliminate roles. Awards like these are drawing a line in the sand, trying to champion human-led creation. But can that line hold? As tools get better and more embedded in software, policing “zero use” will become a nightmare. This won’t be the last time we see this debate play out in a very public, awkward way.
Look, the genie is out of the bottle. The real conversation we need to have isn’t just about banning AI, but about transparency. If Sandfall had been upfront from the start about the placeholder use, maybe this all could have been avoided. Or maybe they still would have been disqualified. But at least the debate would be cleaner. For now, the Indie Game Awards has made its stance painfully clear, and one of the year’s most celebrated games is paying the price for a few textures that were never supposed to be there in the first place.
