The most heated debate in the indie game world this year wasn’t about whether pixel art or 3D design reigns supreme it was about the role of process. The Indie Game Awards made headlines when they retracted their Game of the Year award from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 after allegations that generative AI was used in its creation. This led to Blue Prince being crowned Game of the Year instead.
On paper, creating a rule like “No generative AI” seems straightforward. However, when it comes to game development, things aren’t always so black and white. The line between creativity and technology is often blurry, with many common practices in game design veering into the realm of automation and AI-assisted tools. From placeholder concept art to procedural generation, AI-driven editing, and content moderation systems, developers often lean on technology to streamline or enhance their work. So, when an awards body tries to enforce a strict rule, it faces tough questions: What exactly constitutes “AI usage”? Is a temporary AI-generated asset the same as using AI to replace human artists entirely? And, crucially, does intent matter?
Those who support a firm stance against generative AI argue that it’s necessary to protect human creators and prevent games that rely on AI from taking credit for what they view as a diluted, inauthentic process. If AI becomes a crutch for game development, they fear it will undermine the value of human effort and craftsmanship in the gaming industry. However, critics of this zero-tolerance policy believe it’s too rigid and could backfire. They argue that such an approach might punish transparency, penalizing indie developers who are upfront about their use of AI in the process even when the final product doesn’t rely on it. In an industry where resources are often limited, the push for complete AI exclusion can be seen as a hindrance rather than a safeguard.
The core of the debate is that many indie studios are resource-constrained. Unlike big-budget studios, small teams often have limited access to the extensive manpower, technology, and funds needed to create complex games. For many indie developers, generative AI isn’t about replacing human talent; it’s about working smarter within the constraints they face. AI tools can help expedite time-consuming tasks like concept design, level creation, or audio editing, freeing up developers to focus on the aspects that require their unique creativity and input. So, how do we create rules that both protect the labor of human creators and recognize the reality of working in a fast paced, resource-tight industry?
As the debate continues, it becomes clear that what started as a discussion over one game has evolved into a much broader conversation about the future of indie game development and the place of AI within it. If 2024 was the year when AI truly arrived in the world of gaming, then 2025 is shaping up to be the year when the conversation about AI governance gets messy. The true challenge will be establishing rules that protect the rights of creators, encourage openness and transparency, and still allow room for innovation.
The heart of this issue lies in defining what ethics look like in the gaming industry moving forward. How can we differentiate between a tool that enhances the creative process and one that undermines it? How do we ensure that AI tools remain aids rather than replacements, and how do we account for the reality that some studios may rely on these tools just to compete in an ever-evolving industry? These are the questions that need to be answered before the tools become so seamlessly integrated into the process that no one even notices when AI is involved.
In the end, the Indie Game Awards debacle is less about one game or one studio and more about an industry-wide reckoning. As AI continues to evolve, the gaming world needs to come to an agreement on what constitutes ethical creation, and more importantly, what should be rewarded. As indie developers push the boundaries of what’s possible with limited resources, it’s vital that the rules evolve with them balancing innovation with fairness and creativity with technology. The next few years will likely be a time of trial and error as the industry navigates this complex new frontier.
