A minute of silence to mourn the lost art of making games with passion.<p>Let there be games! And games there shall be, millions of generated games.<p>Can I go back to the 80's please?
This. I've been making a game in Godot with zero AI help. Because I enjoy it. I enjoy solving with weird coding problems you run into. I enjoy leaning as I fixed things. I do it out of love for the process, knowing competition right now from things like this means a flooded market. But I'm ok with that and must be because the other option is to quit.
Why does what other people do affect you?<p>If you want to handcraft something, do it. How popular it is among other people isn't relevant.
Bold of you to assume I'm not making this with passion, I've been yelling at LLMs for a year straight, that's basically the 80s experience with better coffee
>A minute of silence to mourn the lost art of making games with passion.<p>There are still... dozens of us left!
A prompt like "make it more fun" will never work. What's the line for an authentic enough game?
I saw the demo video, in all honesty, they felt really lifeless to me. The snowboard one was the one that most caught my attention but then the mechanics, and movements of the character, made it seem like it's really bad physics. Do you have a published game I could try rather than these demos? I'm curious
Fair point, these demos are essentially raw single-run output, not cherry-picked or polished. The goal was showing the pipeline works end-to-end, not producing a finished game.<p>I'm planning to do a proper full game with more iteration and publish it as a playable build, not just a video. That should give a much better sense of actual quality ceiling.
Great work but why not use C# instead of GDScript?<p>LLMs are really good at C# (and tscn files for some reason), so that solves the "LLMs suck at GDScript" problem. Also, C# can be cheaper in terms of token usage (even accounting for not having to load the additional APIs): one agent writes the interfaces, another one fills in the details.<p>Saying this because I had really enjoyed vibecoding a Godot game in C# - and it was REALLY painful to vibecode with GDScript.
Good point, I haven't tried C# yet and will after this comment.<p>The original reasoning: GDScript is the default path in Godot, nearly all docs and community examples use it, and the engine integration is tighter (signals, exports, scene tree). C# still has some gaps — no web export, no GDExtension bindings.<p>But you're right that from the LLM side, C# flips the core problem. Strong training data, static typing for better compiler feedback, interfaces for clean architecture. The context window savings from not loading a custom language spec could be significant.<p>Main thing I'd want to test is whether headless scene building — the core of the pipeline — works as smoothly in C#. Going to experiment with this.
Don't all of these advantages also apply to humans? :)<p>This always puzzled me about Godot. I like Python as much as the next guy (afaik GDScript is a quite similar language), but for anything with a lot of moving parts, wouldn't you prefer to use static typing? And even simple games have a lot of moving parts!
I don’t think the web output works with c# currently.<p>Be happy to find out I’m wrong.
I think it worked in the previous version.<p>The way unity solves this is with some kind of proprietary compiler. They translate the C# into C++, and then compile that into webassembly.<p>Whereas others (incl. Godot) need to ship the .NET runtime in the browser. (A VM in a VM.)<p>It makes me sad that Unity doesn't open source that. That would be amazing.
How does this stack up against something like Tesana [1], which is also Godot based? Would it be accurate to say that it's like "Tesana but local"?<p>[1] <a href="https://tesana.ai/" rel="nofollow">https://tesana.ai/</a>
Context: I've been using agents (both Claude Code and Codex) for my daily work and for personal projects, but always in domains where I had some knowledge and I'm currently happy with them.<p>I tried using Claude Code to build an RPG game with Godot and GDScript, using free to use assets: a total failure :/<p>The game was supposed to be many implementation steps long but I asked Claude to first produce a one area demo, so I could test the assets and choose the one I liked. First it produced some garbage using the assets randomly. Then it tried to copy from an existing demo but it had not idea where a door or a path were and at a certain point it even admitted it with something like: "I can't design an usable and nice area: I either make it functional and ugly or I copy and adapt the existing demo but I will have no clue about what is what"<p>I've never even attempted to develop games before so I'm sure I don't even know the basic concepts, but this use case definitely didn't work for me.<p>Maybe it could generate the code of the game if I provided the full design?
That's exactly the failure mode this project exists to solve. The core issue is Claude Code has no way to see what it's producing — code compiles fine but assets are floating, paths lead nowhere, layouts are garbage. It even told you as much.<p>Godogen closes that loop: after writing code, it captures screenshots from the running engine and a vision model evaluates them. That's the difference between "compiles but broken" and "actually playable."<p>And yes — providing design docs helps a lot. The pipeline generates those automatically (visual reference, architecture, task plan), but you can provide your own and customize the skills to match your vision.
Gamedev here.<p>I looked at the video, awful results, better start with a template.
This is incredible piece of work. I was looking into .claude folder and skim reading it. One thing stood out to me how large it is.<p>If I'm not mistake how Claude Code or AI agent work, they need everything in 'context' and few tricks to reduce the context size. Sure, but given the number of files you have, how much of the context is consumed by all those claude files vs actual user input?
This actually produces more impressive results than I expected. My understanding was that models are quite poor at spatial reasoning/understanding, so I'm surprised it can generate such good assets. Do you use different models for the 3d generation?
There is not much need for this. I already use claude code with godot to build serious projects, and you only need to point the bot at godot + sourcecode folder, and use C#, then it works like a charm.<p>Nice set of prompts and skills tho, im grabbing them for personal use.
What is the development loop like with this? There’s a lot of folks successfully building games with agents already on the AI gamedev Discord server. So I’m wondering if there were some shorter paths to your goal. You might want to exchange notes with folks there.
Interesting. But if you claim "prompt in Godot game out", how do you deal with assets? I think assets pipeline is one of the most challenging parts in game dev. Is there anything similar but for Bevy?
Assets are a big chunk of the pipeline — generates 2D art with Gemini, converts to 3D via Tripo3D, handles sprite sheets and background removal. Animation is the main remaining gap.<p>Haven't looked into Bevy but will check it out, thanks.
I think this is a cool tech demo. But the commonality I see in all of these "let the agent run free" harnesses is that the output is never something I would want to use/watch/play.<p>I think minimizing the amount of human effort in the loop is the wrong optimization, and it's the reason we end up with "slop".<p>It's the dream of a lot of people to have a magic box that makes you things you can sell, or enjoy for personal leisure. But LLMs are not the magic box. And there may not ever be a magic box. The sooner we can accept that the magic box isn't in the room with us, then the sooner we can start getting real utility out of LLMs.<p>TLDR: Human taste is more important than building things for the sake of building them.
Nice work, must have been a pain to get Godot's formats working with Claude. As another commenter suggested the demo videos don't do any justice to this project - yeah it's the magic that you can generate playable (wouldn't say complete myself) games with a single prompt, but the quality of those is exactly why people are so put off by AI slop. If this was a better harness that acted more like a tool I think it would be seen as more useful.<p>Btw: Have you looked at Tripo3D models' topology? Is it still so bad that if you want to make small edits you have to retopologize the whole thing first?<p>FWIW as a disclaimer I'm making my own game not using AI since I value learning the skills myself, but I am interested to see how fast AI tools adopt to gamedev. For now they've been more of a false shortcut in anything else than prototyping and semantic search ("I need to achieve this visual effect, what algorithms should I look up").
Everything about this feels like AI slop, including the post which is very clearly AI written. I'm sorry but if you aren't even willing to put any effort into writing a post showcasing what you have worked on what is the point of anybody taking a serious look? And the tools are clearly AI generated as well, I can even tell where you used Gemini in some places because you left in it's distinctive comments. Not to mention the showcase games are meme-tier.<p>I feel like this could be a real positive thing if you had spent some effort writing about how and why this is useful, and targeted this more for learning + artist assistance versus just generating a complete game. Gamers universally do not want more AI slop, but tools that artists and programmers could use to automate busywork or learn the engine would have been much better.
“Real games” the most incomplete bullshit you ever saw passed off as a game.<p>The starting points of Three.js examples are more of a game than anything here.<p>Stop saying AI is building games when it can’t even build a standard web page to match a mockup.
That was actually my starting point — generating Three.js output that looked okay-ish but broke the moment you touched anything. Godot gives you a real engine with physics, scene trees, which is why the output is more robust even if it's far from polished.
[dead]
[flagged]
Upvoting this! And thanks!