Indie Awards Disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Over Undisclosed AI Use — and the Industry Is Divided
- Braheim Gibbs
- 4 minutes ago
- 3 min read
The indie games scene prides itself on creativity, transparency, and a sense of shared struggle. That’s why the recent disqualification of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from a major indie game awards event has sent shockwaves through developers, players, and critics alike.
At the center of the controversy is one question the industry still hasn’t fully answered: what role does generative AI get to play in game creation—and how honest do creators need to be about it?
What Happened?
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, a visually striking turn-based RPG that had been building serious momentum in indie circles, was disqualified after judges determined the development team failed to disclose the use of generative AI tools during production.
The issue was not simply that AI was used. According to award organizers, the problem was non-disclosure, which violated competition rules requiring transparency about tools and workflows.
In other words: AI wasn’t the crime. Keeping it quiet was.
Why This Matters in the Indie Space
Indie awards exist to spotlight:
Small teams
Limited budgets
Human-scale creativity
Craft born from constraint
Generative AI muddies those waters.
Many developers and judges worry that undisclosed AI use undermines fair comparison, especially when awards are meant to celebrate manual artistry, design labor, and original asset creation.
From that perspective, the disqualification wasn’t punitive—it was procedural.
But that’s only half the story.
The Pushback: “Everyone Uses Tools”
Critics of the decision argue the ruling is:
Vague
Outdated
Potentially hypocritical
Their reasoning:
AI tools are already embedded in modern workflows (from upscaling to texture generation).
Engines, middleware, and asset stores already blur the line between “handmade” and “assisted.”
Singling out AI without clear definitions sets a dangerous precedent.
One uncomfortable question keeps popping up:
If AI-assisted lighting, animation smoothing, or concept iteration is disqualifying… where does it stop?
The Real Problem: No Shared Rulebook
This controversy exposed a deeper issue: the industry has no consistent standards for AI disclosure.
Right now:
Some awards require full disclosure.
Some say nothing at all.
Others are scrambling to update rules after the fact.
Developers are left guessing:
What counts as AI use?
Is reference generation allowed?
What about AI-enhanced audio cleanup?
Does intent matter, or just the tool?
Until these questions are answered clearly, cases like Clair Obscur won’t be the last.
Ethics vs. Evolution
There’s a philosophical split emerging in gaming:
Camp One: AI threatens creative labor and should be tightly regulated—especially in indie spaces meant to uplift human craftsmanship.
Camp Two: AI is simply the next tool and penalizing its use risks freezing innovation and excluding developers who rely on efficiency to survive.
Both sides have a point. And neither side is winning the argument yet.
What This Means for Indie Developers in the future
Whether you support the disqualification or not, one lesson is crystal clear:
Transparency is no longer optional.
Going forward, indie developers submitting to awards, festivals, or showcases should expect:
Explicit AI disclosure requirements
Clearer submission forms
Public scrutiny of production pipelines
And if those rules aren’t clear? Expect more controversies—and more damaged goodwill.
Final Thoughts
The disqualification of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 isn’t just about one game or one award. It’s a warning shot across the entire creative industry.
AI isn’t going away. Neither is the demand for authenticity.
Until gaming reconciles those two truths, the debate won’t be about who wins trophies—it’ll be about who gets to define what “indie” really means in the age of algorithms.
What do you think? Should undisclosed AI use be an automatic disqualification, or is the industry overcorrecting out of fear?
