So much drama over nothing, just things that have come out after the fact, as said before, doesn't make the game any better or worse, it's a great game, why does an award that apparently doesn't mean anything suddenly seem to mean something now 😂

Banning AI tools from these awards is the same as banning Photoshop from photography contests (ie. manipulating your photos) or going back further, taking a photo in a painting class.

Interestingly, when photographs became high enough fidelity that they took the place of realistic paintings, artists responded by coming up with new styles which were impossible to photo. It gave rise to impressionism and abstract, even bizarre art. I wonder if a similar thing will happen with AI? Everyone just uses them to generate slop, so new styles will rise that AI can't copy well.

IMO, Sandfall could have been more transparent on the use of AI, but this is a lot of drama over an awards show people couldn't care less about, and it seems like taking the award away later is just to stir up drama. Taking the award away now doesn't change the fact the game is still a successful game.

1 texture they forgot that was used but later patched out and they still got DQ'ed? Sounds more like they were looking for a reason to DQ them to start with.

Like Updike, they may think that their “stock in trade as an American author” includes an identification with the United States’ “national fortunes,” and that, as “privileged members of a privileged nation [they] believed that their pleasant position could be maintained without anything visibly ugly happening in the world.”

harpers.org/archive/2025/08/speaking-reassurance-to-power-pankaj-mishra-easy-chair/

Marcus LSo much drama over nothing, just things that have come out after the fact, as said before, doesn't make the game any better or worse, it's a great game, why does an award that apparently doesn't mean anything suddenly seem to mean something now 😂

If you see Gustave on the road...

Solaris17AI didnt make this game a masterpiece, committee is a bunch of tools, and to do it so late? Please. You wouldnt have handed out trophies if you needed time to think about how to handle it. Drama for the sake of drama 100% or at worst greased palms from the like of ubisoft/EA take your pick at any of the AAA that didnt win shit.

I don't have a dog in this fight but having rules and enforcing them is not a bad thing. This isn't about "but it only had a little bit of AI generated stuff in it", because where do you draw the line? Much better to have a hard line and sticking to that line.

AI is just a tool to produce content. It makes no sense to blame people for using a tool, what matters is the end result.

ymdhisBanning AI tools from these awards is the same as banning Photoshop from photography contests (ie. manipulating your photos) or going back further, taking a photo in a painting class.

Hard disagree.

N3utroAI is just a tool to produce content. It makes no sense to blame people for using a tool, what matters is the end result.

Hard disagree, again. Or rather, it is a tool with actual huge benefits but that's not what people are using it for (generalization). And how the end result is achieved is very important and I honestly don't understand the mind that can look at a work of art and an AI imitation of that art and proclaim the AI one better or as good. It's the same mind that says "My kid can draw that, therefore it's bad art" and "This level of detail is good, therefore it's good art", which leads us to "This AI generated painting has great detail, therefore it's great art". And that's the thing. It's not about content, it's about art, and this is true for all creative endeavours. Any game worth its salt has good artists working on it, and it's wild how companies and people look at the most human part of making anything and go "no that is the one thing we don't need humans for".

EasoSo Indie Games accepted nomination months ago and now, suddenly, found out that there was some already patched out (IIRC before the nomination) AI texture content? Really?
Sounds like someone wants some drama for relevancy.

Not really because the dev explicitly declared no AI was used.

I think its a great move because the drama for relevancy clearly is aimed at the use of AI in games, and AI use in general in creative productions, and having full transparency about that.

These events shape the creative business, they need to happen, also to protect said creative business from itself and 'competition' leaving an empty shell of it. Creativity is NOT the playground of hypercapitalism-driven toolsets. And therefore, the use of AI to 'make products more efficiently', because that is all it really does, we use it as a shortcut to generate content, is something that needs policing, and luckily, is being policed actively by the community.

Vayra86Not really because the dev explicitly declared no AI was used.

I think its a great move because the drama for relevancy clearly is aimed at the use of AI in games, and AI use in general in creative productions, and having full transparency about that.

These events shape the creative business, they need to happen, also to protect said creative business from itself and 'competition' leaving an empty shell of it. Creativity is NOT the playground of hypercapitalism-driven toolsets. And therefore, the use of AI to 'make products more efficiently', because that is all it really does, we use it as a shortcut to generate content, is something that needs policing, and luckily, is being policed actively by the community.

The lead said that in an article from December 5th, but long before they got the award, in July, a producer said in an interview that some people in the team were experimenting with AI tools, and the outputs were used for placeholders that were never meant to be shipped in the final version of the game...But QA fucked up.




Nevermind the loss of the Indie Games Awards, now you have people calling for a full cancellation of the game, every award included, and especially best art direction. A few "experts" are now outthere saying that the whole vibe of the game feels like gen AI.

Another thing, you don't have to submit a game in order to be nominated for the Indie Games.


And mind you, that was 2022 gen AI, which was really mediocre. 2026+ gen AI is going to be much harder to spot, and the paranoia/witch hunt will probably intensify. I suspect that people will be more radical and just dislike any mention of gen AI being used because spotting it will be harder. "You either use it just a bit, and all trust is lost, or you don't use it at all."

dyonoctisThe lead said that in an article from December 5th, but long before they got the award, in July, a producer said in an interview that some people in the team were experimenting with AI tools, and the outputs were used for placeholders that were never meant to be shipped in the final version of the game...But QA fucked up.




Nevermind the loss of the Indie Games Awards, now you have people calling for a full cancellation of the game, every award included, and especially best art direction. A few "experts" are now outthere saying that the whole vibe of the game feels like gen AI.

Another thing, you don't have to submit a game in order to be nominated for the Indie Games.


And mind you, that was 2022 gen AI, which was really mediocre. 2026+ gen AI is going to be much harder to spot, and the paranoia/witch hunt will probably intensify. I suspect that people will be more radical and just dislike any mention of gen AI being used because spotting it will be harder. "You either use it just a bit, and all trust is lost, or you don't use it at all."

Well, having seen the actual bits of gen AI placeholders in question (billboard/newspaper stuff) I think the take away is what I've described up there in my comment. And yes, the media storm is overblown, as it always is, and sure, the socials go ballistic with this today because this keeps all the sheeple busy.

But beyond today, this event will be marked as one of the many that will punch generated AI content into submission. I don't think its going to affect CO33 much, it has already soared and this ain't gonna change, certainly not because some turds on the internet want to go the extra mile - I think we are collectively identifying that ever more quickly, those people are just here to see the world burn, no matter the subject. They ain't here to protect creative IP.

I don't know what Sandfall said or didn't say, but this looks like a sour attempt to throw mud on the titan. Certainly, Sandfall should have been transparent, even erring on the side of the safety, if AI had in fact been used. And there are fair arguments about whether they are "indie" or not.

As many have pointed out, a lesser form of "AI" has been in use for decades. Similarly, every artist forms their style by training under the masters, emulating their work, and eventually forming their own style. Whether you're a Shakespeare, Rembrandt, or Chopin, you have learnt from the masters. Then, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not how something is made. Today's "AI" is not yet at the human level, but it is close in some respects and getting closer. Unless our brains work by magic, a system should be able to emulate, or even surpass, its abilities at some point. Already, "human creativity" has been shown to be a thing easily emulated. Note that I am not in favour of these greedy corporations shoving AI onto us or its taking human jobs. (I am almost a casualty of the latter.)

Vayra86Not really because the dev explicitly declared no AI was used.

They explicitly declared no AI was used in the final product.

Vayra86These events shape the creative business, they need to happen, also to protect said creative business from itself

Except the exact opposite is happening here. Banning AI from game development is as insensible as the publishing industry banning all books that weren't hand-created by scribes working with quill pens in stone monasteries. Luckily, the rest of the world has their heads screwed on more correctly, and these AI bans will quickly go the way of the dodo.

Marcus LYou don't have a leg to stand on, there's nothing "legalistic" about it.

Yes there is. By the draconian interpretation they're using, every single game developed this year "used AI". Every last one of them. The very graphic cards they're developing and testing upon are designed and built with AI assistance, as are the software tools they're coded with. So much for inane "zero tolerance" policies.

I could care less actually Blue Prince the one that has the award now has the the same controvercy surrounding it. Besides it's an award. I could care less about an award. I care about one thing and that is if I find it a good game.

I don't know about punished per se, but perhaps have another category.............best AI assisted game??

Came here for extreme rationalizations, wasn't disappointed.

Of course, if it was about a less popular game, people would be sagely nodding in agreement with this decision.

EndymioThey explicitly declared no AI was used in the final product.


Except the exact opposite is happening here. Banning AI from game development is as insensible as the publishing industry banning all books that weren't hand-created by scribes working with quill pens in stone monasteries. Luckily, the rest of the world has their heads screwed on more correctly, and these AI bans will quickly go the way of the dodo.


Yes there is. By the draconian interpretation they're using, every single game developed this year "used AI". Every last one of them. The very graphic cards they're developing and testing upon are designed and built with AI assistance, as are the software tools they're coded with. So much for inane "zero tolerance" policies.

There is no AI banning happening. The statement that's being made here, is that any use of AI must be transparent, and like you have correctly pointed out in your post, that transparency is lacking.

Is it perfect no. Is it required, yes. Even for the sake of AI's very own survival ;) Nobody wants to be lied to. Furthermore, the cool thing about creativity is that it is not 'generative' but rather 'genuine' which is something AI can do just about zero of. I'm not too worried, to be honest, but transparency is important.

Vayra86Not really because the dev explicitly declared no AI was used.

I am pretty sure they said that it was used during development, but the final product shipped with stuff made by meatbags only, with the exception of that magazine art case which was patched before nomination. Plus honestly after TGA this really looks "we did it because we could" more than actually being fair. Yeah, sure, let it be "strict rules", to each his own preferences I guess.

And the big thing is that all of this was known BEFORE nominations were accepted - yet Indie games woke up just now. Really?

I guess now the big shitstorm is also happening because Sven from Larian "dared" to say that they will use AI tools for Divinity 3.

EasoI guess now the big shitstorm is also happening because Sven from Larian "dared" to say that they will use AI tools for Divinity 3.

The same guy who said they would have to optimize the game more than they originally wanted to because of RAM prices.
Game devs seem to not give a shit about using AI to create slop as cheaply as possible until they're caught doing it.

Ok, let's ask the following questions:

Should the rules for awards be changed?
Should AI assisted development be considered?
And if so, where would the line be drawn as far as AI contributions are concerned?

lexluthermiesterI'm with the Awards committee. Any game that RELEASES with AI content that helped contribute to the success of the title, regardless if it's later patched out, does not and should never qualify for any award where human skill is the primary consideration factor.


No, it's called being honest and playing by the rules. Ethics and whatnot. For me it's not about the game or how good it is in this kind of situation. It's about the merits.

So, by that rule, ANY game that used Photoshop gradient tool to EVER create a texture should be disqualified too? Because the gradient tool is equally automated and equally generative as "Ai".

People also seem to think everything Ai is just a chatbot like ChatGPT. It can't possibly be a highly specialized tool. I use highly specialized image upscaler that uses "Ai" to perform image resolution upscaling. It literally does just that and nothing else. But it does that far better than ANY other tool I've ever used, even one that used to be best of the best for this task before it. This Ai tool can't find me answers to eternal life and it can't generate me cat images on demand via prompt. It just does image upscaling insanely well using a large language model.

To put that into perspective, game studios quite certainly use highly specialized "Ai" tools that probably do just 1 thing or one type of task really well. And they sure as hell don't use ChatGPT. If they do, that would be stupid to be dependent on some 3rd party like this. At least I know i wouldn't use it if I was a game designer. Lets be realistic here, imagine how much time a texture designer takes time to design a certain type of wood texture. Or cobblestone texture. It's like a whatever generic asset, specify wood type, grain and specific details and let it generate for you. A materials LLM that only does that and lkiterally nothing else. You can still fine touch it later, but you just saved 1 hour of work that you can spend on character facial textures or clothing that is far more specific and requires more attention. I'm absolutely not against that kind of specialized use of "Ai".

It's whole lot different when you just use Ai chat bot to literally generate complete assets and just plop them into a game with zero care. I think that needs to be acknowledged and separate from general Ai hate.

Given the praise of Expedition 33, the assets they made with Ai were probably on level of significance of that wood texture or cobblestone texture. No one really cares, you just expect it to be there. Whole thing only became mega drama when Expedition 33 devs simply admitted they use generative tools in their workflow and everyone instantly lost their shit. They could just as well deny it and no one would ever know, proving responsible use of Ai tools to make incredible games is not problematic. Using Ai to cheap out and be lazy as fuck like EA was in Battlefield 6 with that double barrel double ejection port rifle sticker, that proves that greedy companies like EA literally don't give a shit and will use Ai to have the least expenses to make maximum profits. Clear distinction and people need to understand that.

RejZoRSo, by that rule, ANY game that used Photoshop gradient tool to EVER create a texture should be disqualified too? Because the gradient tool is equally automated and equally generative as "Ai".

I am not being roped into that particular rabbit hole as we could endlessly go back and forth.

lexluthermiesterI am not being roped into that particular rabbit hole as we could endlessly go back and forth.

I mean, is it really a rabbit hole when a tool generates something for a user that would otherwise have to spend several minutes to manually achieve same result? I'm actually not describing generative Ai, I'm describing the gradient tool in Photoshop that has existed for decades. Now apply the same logic to "Ai". How is it any different?

RejZoRI mean, is it really a rabbit hole

Yes. I'm not going there.

RejZoRI'm describing the gradient tool in Photoshop that has existed for decades.

I know, but there is potential for some very passionate and heated debate there. If we were discussing a subject that has tangible effects on all of us users, I would not hesitate to jump into it. This doesn't really effect us though, so...

RejZoRSo, by that rule, ANY game that used Photoshop gradient tool to EVER create a texture should be disqualified too? Because the gradient tool is equally automated and equally generative as "Ai".

People also seem to think everything Ai is just a chatbot like ChatGPT. It can't possibly be a highly specialized tool. I use highly specialized image upscaler that uses "Ai" to perform image resolution upscaling. It literally does just that and nothing else. But it does that far better than ANY other tool I've ever used, even one that used to be best of the best for this task before it. This Ai tool can't find me answers to eternal life and it can't generate me cat images on demand via prompt. It just does image upscaling insanely well using a large language model.

To put that into perspective, game studios quite certainly use highly specialized "Ai" tools that probably do just 1 thing or one type of task really well. And they sure as hell don't use ChatGPT. If they do, that would be stupid to be dependent on some 3rd party like this. At least I know i wouldn't use it if I was a game designer. Lets be realistic here, imagine how much time a texture designer takes time to design a certain type of wood texture. Or cobblestone texture. It's like a whatever generic asset, specify wood type, grain and specific details and let it generate for you. A materials LLM that only does that and lkiterally nothing else. You can still fine touch it later, but you just saved 1 hour of work that you can spend on character facial textures or clothing that is far more specific and requires more attention. I'm absolutely not against that kind of specialized use of "Ai".

It's whole lot different when you just use Ai chat bot to literally generate complete assets and just plop them into a game with zero care. I think that needs to be acknowledged and separate from general Ai hate.

Given the praise of Expedition 33, the assets they made with Ai were probably on level of significance of that wood texture or cobblestone texture. No one really cares, you just expect it to be there. Whole thing only became mega drama when Expedition 33 devs simply admitted they use generative tools in their workflow and everyone instantly lost their shit. They could just as well deny it and no one would ever know, proving responsible use of Ai tools to make incredible games is not problematic. Using Ai to cheap out and be lazy as fuck like EA was in Battlefield 6 with that double barrel double ejection port rifle sticker, that proves that greedy companies like EA literally don't give a shit and will use Ai to have the least expenses to make maximum profits. Clear distinction and people need to understand that.

Yes. The logic cuts both ways, affecting many tools of the past.

If we had to boil it down, today's AI runs an algorithm we do not understand, built out of its architecture and the training data. One may ask, why are we so against this sort of algorithm but not others? The obvious answer is that it tends to be inferior; but I would hazard a guess that even when it reaches excellence, the aversion would remain. Is it because it comes from "something else"?

Here's a thought experiment. A worldwide mutation struck all dogs and cats. Suddenly, they could draw as well as Botticelli, Da Vinci, or the celebrated Impressionists. Game development hired them, their work matching or surpassing human. Would we be up in arms against "dog- and cat-generated slop"? Hard to say but I've got a feeling we will.