←back to thread

358 points maloga | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
starchild3001 ◴[] 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 #
zahlman ◴[] No.45006612[source]
> 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?

How is AI supposed to simulate a player, and why should it be able to determine what real people would find engaging?

replies(6): >>45006727 #>>45006729 #>>45006732 #>>45007524 #>>45009348 #>>45011331 #
AlienRobot ◴[] No.45006729[source]
Game developers will try anything before they actually write automated tests for their games.
replies(4): >>45006869 #>>45007969 #>>45008182 #>>45008219 #
nine_k ◴[] No.45006869[source]
When you tweak game mechanics several times every day, keeping the tests useful is a large task. Basics can be tested. Map integrity can be tested. Most "normal UX" is hard to test, and even main functional tests tend to drift. (Source: a short involvement in actual gamedev recently.)
replies(2): >>45006914 #>>45007912 #
1. snovv_crash ◴[] No.45007912[source]
I've heard the same excuses from ML engineers before introducing tests there, embedded engineers, robotics engineers, systems engineers, everyone has a reason.

The real reason? It's because writing tests is a different skill and they don't actually know how to do it.

replies(1): >>45007986 #
2. peterashford ◴[] No.45007986[source]
Oh that's crap. I've been a software engineer for over 30 years. I love tests - I preach testing at my current place of work. I've also worked in games for about a decade. Testing in games is... not useless, but very much less useful than it is in general software engineering.
replies(1): >>45085478 #
3. snovv_crash ◴[] No.45085478[source]
I have no experience in the gamedev industry. But based on the number of bugs I see in games, plus the size and quantity of post-release patches, maybe your perspective here is because you're not trying to hit a level of reliability at launch that would justify having more tests?
replies(1): >>45089410 #
4. peterashford ◴[] No.45089410{3}[source]
I think that's indicative of not having enough QA. QA IS effective in the context of games for discovering bugs.