The Indie Game Awards recently stripped Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its wins after confirming that generative AI was used during development. Cue outrage, applause, think pieces, and a lot of people suddenly becoming experts on game pipelines overnight.

Depending on who you ask, this was either a necessary stand for creative integrity or a spectacular case of missing the forest for a single AI-generated tree.

Why the awards organizers think they’re right

From a purely rules-based perspective, the organizers are on solid ground. The Indie Game Awards have a hard ban on generative AI. Not “limited use,” not “final assets only,” but no AI, period. The developers reportedly stated that no AI was used, and later clarified that some AI-generated background material had existed earlier in development, even if it was removed before release.

From that angle, the logic is simple and frankly boring. Rules were broken. Information was inaccurate. Consequences followed. Awards shows live and die on credibility, and letting one exception slide opens the door to a hundred more. If you draw a line, you actually have to enforce it, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Why a lot of people think this is silly

Now for the part that made gamers roll their eyes so hard they nearly unlocked a new achievement.

The game people played, reviewed, and voted for was not an AI-generated product. It was a polished, handcrafted experience that stood out because of its art direction, combat, and narrative. Disqualifying it after the fact over a development footnote feels less like protecting creativity and more like enforcing a technicality with a hammer.

Let’s be honest. Modern game development is already swimming in automation and machine-assisted tools. From upscaling to animation blending to code suggestions, the line between “acceptable tech” and “forbidden AI” is not nearly as clean as awards bodies like to pretend. Punishing a studio for using AI as a temporary placeholder, something that never even shipped, feels more symbolic than practical.

It also sends a weird message. Not “we value human creativity,” but “we care more about process purity than the final work people actually experienced.”

This controversy isn’t really about Clair Obscur. It’s about the industry still having no idea how to talk about AI without defaulting to extremes.

Either AI is framed as the death of art or as an inevitable tool that should never be questioned. The reality, as usual, sits awkwardly in the middle. Blanket bans are easy to enforce but increasingly hard to justify as development workflows evolve. At the same time, pretending AI use doesn’t raise ethical or creative concerns is equally dishonest.

So was it the right call

Procedurally? Yes. The organizers enforced their own rules.

Creatively? That’s far more debatable.

If the goal of indie awards is to celebrate standout games, then stripping recognition from a title players genuinely loved over a removed asset feels misaligned. If the goal is to make a statement about AI at all costs, then mission accomplished; just don’t be surprised when developers start questioning whether these stages are worth standing on.

In the end, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 did not suddenly become a worse game because of this decision. But the controversy did expose how fragile and undercooked the industry’s AI policies still are.

And until those rules grow up a little, this probably won’t be the last trophy to quietly disappear.