The Completionist Is Removed In The Sea Of Stars Update

Author

Prithhis Bose

Date

Dec, 17.2023

The developers of Sea of Stars said that Jirard Khalil's cameo was removed from the game due to negative feedback. The Completionist who is a well-known YouTuber, was one of the most ardent supporters of Sabotage Studio's well-liked role-playing game prior to its release.  He has also appeared in it. However that is no longer the case though, in light of Khalil's accusations of charity fraud.

Sea of Stars has proven to be one of the biggest independent game success stories of 2023. Many great games were released this year, but Sabotage's homage to 16-bit RPGs stood out because it brought the charm of games like Chrono Trigger into the modern era. With its incredible graphics and soundtrack, it's hardly surprising that Sea of Stars has garnered a lot of praise and awards, including Best Independent Game at The Game Awards 2023.

Lately Khalil has been under fire due to allegations of charity fraud made against The Completionist by Karl Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamers. The allegations stated that the YouTuber has been using his family's charity, the Open Hand Foundation. Also he is using the IndieLand charity stream to conceal donations and neglected to disclose them. The president of the studio Thierry Boulanger, mentioned in a Discord message which has gone viral on social media that Sabotage is removing Jirard the Constructionist, an NPC that is based on Khalil, from Sea of Stars as a result.

As stated in Boulanger's post, in order to "maintain a positive and optimistic space" around Sea of Stars, the studio decided to remove the NPC after "carefully monitoring events over the past few weeks,". However Boulanger clarified that in light of the previously mentioned incidents, the studio is not making any attempt to criticise Khalil.

The Completionist has come under fire for allegedly stealing more than $600,000 in donations from Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamers that were meant for dementia research. Khalil has apologised for not being more explicit about the timing of the disputed funds' donation and by refuting claims that the foundation engaged in fraud.