In late 2025, an intriguing topic landed in the games industry: the “Indie Game Awards (IGA)” stripped the breakout hit of the year, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, of all its awards eligibility. The stated reason was that the team had violated a pledge not to use generative AI during development.

This decision drew particular attention because of the game’s overwhelming achievements. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 had already been recognized as the year’s top game—winning seven awards at the Golden Joystick Awards and nine at The Game Awards (TGA), including Game of the Year.

While most award shows acknowledged the title as “Game of the Year,” IGA alone made the opposite call and rescinded its honors. On the surface, this looks like a straightforward “rules violation” story. But if you look underneath, the incident lays bare two sharply conflicting perspectives on AI technology and creative work.

To start, there is little disagreement—regardless of viewpoint—about the outcome of “stripping the award.” The studio initially pledged, “We will not use generative AI,” and then failed to keep that promise. That is plainly a procedural deception. Even if the team later removed AI-generated assets through a post-release patch, the fact of breaking the commitment does not change. A penalty (disqualification) is justified—this is the shared baseline.

The real dispute begins after that. Why did IGA ban AI use so strictly in the first place? This is where differences in underlying values about AI come into focus.

▲ MIMESIS, a co-op horror game incorporating AI technology

The first perspective is a pragmatic one that defines AI as an “efficient tool.” This reaction was common in Asian communities, including Korea and China.

From this point of view, using AI is not inherently a problem. The essence of a game is its “final level of quality” and “fun,” and AI is simply a useful means of achieving that end. If technology helps overcome limits of manpower and capital and results in a great product, then it is seen as a rational choice.

Put simply, it’s like the mindset of a customer who found a great restaurant. What matters most to the customer is how delicious the food on the table is (the fun). Whether the chef chopped ingredients by hand or used a state-of-the-art machine (using AI) is not important. If the food is excellent, using a machine can even become a “smart secret.”

So, for these observers, the tragedy of this incident is not “Why did you bring a machine into the kitchen?” but rather, “Why did you bother lying and saying you did it by hand?” In this framing, AI isn’t the culprit—the problem is hiding it.

▲ The AI-made work Space Opera Theater, which took first place in a digital art category at an art competition

The second perspective defines AI as an “unfair cheat.” This reaction was common in the West, including Reddit communities.

From this point of view, using generative AI is not merely employing a tool; it is a “cheating act” that skips work a human is supposed to do. Handing off the distinctly human domains of struggle and expression to a machine is considered a violation of the indie spirit of “craftsmanship.”

This resembles how an art-competition judge evaluates a painting. The value of a painting lies in the process and the human touch—the artist personally holding the brush, mixing colors, and wrestling with choices. Now imagine someone submits a piece to the competition without ever lifting a brush even once. The result might be more intricate and “perfect” than a hand-painted work, but you still cannot call it a “painting” and award it a prize.

This is also why IGA maintained a hard-line stance against generative AI. To them, making a game belongs to the realm of “creation.” Letting AI fill a “creative canvas” that humans should draw on themselves is unacceptable. In that sense, stripping the award becomes a necessary step to protect fair competition.

This incident ended as a clear case of a developer violating stated rules, but along the way it offered a glimpse into two ways the games industry is viewing the AI era. Is AI a tool? Or is it a cheat? A crisp, universally satisfying answer that closes this gap does not seem likely to appear anytime soon.

This article was translated from the original that appeared on INVEN.