Clair Obscur's Gen AI Problem Could Revolutionise Gaming, Power to the Devs

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 lost one of its awards earlier this month due to it using AI during development. And it has big implications for the future of the game industry.

This month we’ve seen several big names in the gaming space be slated for AI use, from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Larian Studios’ Divinity and Battlefield 6.

Gamers are divided as I feel most would argue that AI shouldn’t be anywhere near video games. But developers are arguing back; Larian Studios for example has said it uses AI in general planning but the actual development of its games is all done by human hands.

It’s become an interesting argument for sure, but let’s ignore game development for a minute and talk about awards. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 had its Indie Game of the Year award taken away following the news that AI was used as a placeholder during development. While some are pleased with this decision others argue that it’s a bit harsh considering no AI generated content can be found in the game itself.

I think this has big implications for the future of Game Awards, and how AI products are perceived during awards season could have further implications on the way games are developed.

While the Indie Game Awards have remained firm on its decision to take away Clair Obscur’s award the actual Game Awards have made no such comment. But should they?

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33- Kepler Interactive

Should games be banned from award nominations if AI was used during any part of its development?

Should we have separate categories that take AI use into account? The whole controversy has opened a huge can of worms.

Personally I’m of the opinion that AI shouldn’t be used at any stage in development. Whether it be construction of the game itself, prior planning, marketing, whatever, it just shouldn’t be allowed. I know others have differing opinions but I can only speak for myself.

As far as awards go, I think it’d be immoral for a game that’s been helped along by AI to compete with a game that hasn’t. For example Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 vs Blue Prince, which is the game that now holds the title of Indie Game of the Year 2025.

If a developer wants its game to win an award, and all the prestige and legacy that comes with it, it should be prepared to do the actual work rather than take shortcuts with AI tools.

That might sound harsh and a little bit condescending but this argument that AI should be accepted in game development as long as it’s not generating in-game content is a fool’s gambit in my opinion.

The more it’s used the more acceptable it becomes, and then the argument turns to 'well we let AI do the planning, why not let it generate an asset or two to save time?'.

At the time of writing AI is an exception and not the rule, and there are still thousands of developers out there who still take pride in their work and would rather throw in the towel entirely than let a computer do their work for them.

That said if gamers feel the same way they need to be vocal, and when a game or microtransaction is outed for using AI the best response would be to vote with their wallets.