←back to thread

Making games in Go: 3 months without LLMs vs. 3 days with LLMs

(marianogappa.github.io)
358 points maloga | 2 comments | 24 Aug 25 15:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
starchild3001 ◴[24 Aug 25 17:30 UTC] No.45006027[source]▶
What I like about this post is that it highlights something a lot of devs gloss over: the coding part of game development was never really the bottleneck. A solo developer can crank out mechanics pretty quickly, with or without AI. The real grind is in all the invisible layers on top; balancing the loop, tuning difficulty, creating assets that don’t look uncanny, and building enough polish to hold someone’s attention for more than 5 minutes.

That’s why we’re not suddenly drowning in brilliant Steam releases post-LLMs. The tech has lowered one wall, but the taller walls remain. It’s like the rise of Unity in the 2010s: the engine democratized making games, but we didn’t see a proportional explosion of good game, just more attempts. LLMs are doing the same thing for code, and image models are starting to do it for art, but neither can tell you if your game is actually fun.

The interesting question to me is: what happens when AI can not only implement but also playtest -- running thousands of iterations of your loop, surfacing which mechanics keep simulated players engaged? That’s when we start moving beyond "AI as productivity hack" into "AI as collaborator in design." We’re not there yet, but this article feels like an early data point along that trajectory.

replies(23): >>45006060 #>>45006124 #>>45006239 #>>45006264 #>>45006330 #>>45006386 #>>45006582 #>>45006612 #>>45006690 #>>45006907 #>>45007151 #>>45007178 #>>45007468 #>>45007700 #>>45007758 #>>45007865 #>>45008591 #>>45008752 #>>45010557 #>>45011390 #>>45011766 #>>45012437 #>>45013825 #
1. danjl ◴[24 Aug 25 17:34 UTC] No.45006060[source]▶
As a much lower bar, I'd love it if more of the LLMs used for coding were actually multimodal, accepting images of games as part of the context. In general, LLMs are far better at generating web apps than they are at pure 2D or 3D games that use graphical APIs. There's far less training data, and there's no way to test anywhere close to what you can do with testing on a DOM. In an interactive game, with physics, animations and game logic, the AI just falls on its face because of the complexity.
replies(1): >>45006196 #
2. benbreen ◴[24 Aug 25 17:49 UTC] No.45006196[source]▶
I realize this isn't the same thing as your point about images as part of training data, but just flagging it in case anyone isn't aware: Claude Code lets you copy and paste images into terminal. I've been designing a "universal history simulator" game for use in my history classes lately, and it is really helpful to be able to make a mockup of a ui change I want and then paste it in, rather than trying to explain it verbally. Also good for debugging graphics issues.