358
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
358 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
77974 readers
2197 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you're telling me that no artist in history has looked at the work of others and used that for inspiration? Really?
Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying 🙄
It kind of is. They didn't use the final model in the game, just for prototyping. How is that different from pulling together different models as inspiration, or using a premade asset as a placeholder? How is it plagiarizing to use an algorithm that synthesizes different things together to get the ball rolling on the creative process? These are all different approaches to doing the same thing, but apparently using AI is a sin so bad that the entire game is now condemned for it?
I would say that this is conflating different issues. The original issue is whether or not the entry followed the stated rules, they did not. Then you brought up whether using any tool at all is cheating or plagiarizing, obviously it is not. Now we are on a 3rd issue which is whether using genAI for placeholders is actually creative, obviously it is not because it isn't part of the final creative product. And a 4th issue as to whether using AI is a "sin" or not, that is less obvious not because it depends on one's moral framework and their values. For instance, if one values authenticity then they would likely agree using AI as part of the process makes a less authentic product, while someone who values profit or time more than authenticity would not see an issue with its use.
I don't think it is conflating any issues. I am aware that the rules said no use of AI. The issue is that such a rule is silly, because it is based on the idea that somehow using AI is inherently bad. I didn't bring up the issue of whether AI is plagiarizing, you did, or someone else did, I haven't been keeping track, but it was a response to the claim that using AI is plagiarism, which it patently is not. All of these "separate" issues were simply things I was responding to by commenters.
Your claim that using AI will inherently result in a less authentic product is something I disagree with. Again, especially in the way it was used here. Would you assert that using existing art work as an inspiration for your art work results in an inherently less authentic product? How about using a pre-made asset as a placeholder to get the development process rolling? That is my point, it was not like they tried to pass of an AI generated piece of artwork as their own, they just used it as inspiration to start the process. I don't see why this is any different from any of the other methods I mentioned.
Like I said, when talking about morality you're talking about a subjective perception of value. All the other issues I mentioned, like them not following the rules, have objective criteria to say "yes they broke the rules". If your perception of authenticity includes gathering inspiration not from the originator but from a tool that samples art for you, then you would obviously conclude the end result is authentic. If however you define authenticity as something uniquely in the domain of the living, then they would not agree with you.
I never said they didn't break the rules, but that doesn't mean that the rules are idiotic.
I would again point to utilizing pre-existing assets as placeholders. Do you think that that is an ok thing to do, and if so, why is that ok, but using an AI generated placeholder is not?
The rules being "idiotic" is a different issue from whether using pre-existing assets as placeholders is okay. For instance, one could argue that genAI, even during the concept phase, is an unfair advantage like taking steroids for a sports competition. For the purpose of fairness they have a blanket ban on genAI, not simply because "AI bad".
You just highlighted perfectly how the rules are idiotic. Why are we treating game development like it's some kind of competitive sport? Why should we restrict the tools people use to develop their games? Should we only say that people can use a particular game engine, because certain other game engines have a lot of tools and automation that make the development process easier? It's a really a ridiculous way of thinking.
So you would say a godot competition is silly because it restricts developers from using other game engines? Now you're just being silly.
No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and nonsensical nature of such rules. GenAI is not allowed for giving an "unfair" advantage, but engines with a lot of tools and automations don't? It's just an arbitrary line.
If you don't like the competition then don't participate in said competition. Other people don't agree with you that it is an arbitrary rule and that's okay.
Yea, and those people are wrong and dumb. To completely disqualify a game for simply using placeholder AI art work is idiotic. You're welcome to disagree as well, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade.
In the same spirit, Americans are more interested in telling themselves they are right than recognizing what is good.
Ok