[hansmayer]

> he explicitly pushed into "lets have V0 game play loop finished,

> he even helped me build the lore. These have been one of the most fun times using a computer in a long time.

Such a warm, touching story about a friendship between a grown up man and his neural network. But at least I had a good, roaring laugh reading this nonsense, thank you for that!

[ogig]

How snarky. You are conflating friendship with admiration for the effectiveness of newfound tool. If it's the "he" that triggers you, feel free to replace with "it". It's just a second-language artifact.

[hansmayer]

I dunno man. He sounded like he found a new friend in 'him' to me. And it was genuinely hilarious. It took me a while to stop laughing.

[noodletheworld]

> the effectiveness of newfound tool

…and yet, most people continue to say that non standard tooling ecosystems, where the agent cannot run and validate the code it writes, remain difficult and unproductive.

“I just pointed CC at godot and it made a game! This is sooo good”

…is a fairytale.

What tooling are you using to make it run and compile the code? How is it iterating on the project without breaking existing functionality?

None of these are insurmountable, but they require some careful setup.

Posts like this dont make me laugh; they just make me roll my eyes.

Either the OP has not done what they claim.

Or they have spent a lot more time and effort on it than they claim.

> I gave him game design ideas, he comes with working code. I gave him papers about procedural algos, and he comes with the implementation, brainstorm items, create graphic assets (he created a set of procedural 2d generators as external tools), he even helped me build the lore.

Such a sweet story about a boy and his AI.

Unfortunately, I also dont believe in fairytales.

Instead of waving your hands wildly about AI, post some videos and code of the results.

This is hackernews, not hypenews.

[kowbell]

OP never said Claude made a whole game from scratch though, nor are they saying Claude is doing everything without any human contributing to the project, nor are they saying they haven't spent a lot of time and effort on it. Just that it's made it fun and more accessible and it's gotten them excited about something they abandoned.

Here's a bullet point list of the things Claude's done according to OP:

* it picked up the general path immediately

* he explicitly pushed into "lets have V0 game play loop finished, then we can compound and have fun = not giving up".

* [I gave him game design ideas,] he comes with working code.

* [I gave him papers about procedural algos,] and he comes with the implementation

* brainstorm[ed] items

* create[d] graphic assets

* he created a set of procedural 2d generators as external tools

* he even helped me build the lore.

Every one of these are plausible in isolation.

[ogig]

But I had already answered, before your comment, with screenshots broadly showing the current state and the result of the generators.

You imply I'm merely "pointing CC at godot and it made a game"; I never said it was simple, required no previous knowledge, that it was instant or that the game was done. I do have a careful setup involving CI and isolation.

Godot provides a headless mode. CC runs python scripts to run tests and check for debugger warnings. For anything more complex it can wire debug info anywhere. Godot is fully code based so you can make the analogy with any other framework you used AI assistants with.

No sure about what you can't believe about my statements. CC implementing algo from a paper? That it can brainstorm item or lore ideas? I don't seem to be claiming anything out of the common usage of LLMs

[hansmayer]

> with screenshots broadly showing

Why is it always so un-specific with you AI-boosting bunch, whenever you get pressed for concrete results? Suddenly it's not so magical any more, but merely screenshots showing "broadly" the progress, or it's the Nth version of a note-taking app, or something you merely did for a demo presentation. But nothing ever of use with you folks.

[ZihangZ]

+1 to the CI/isolation point. That is the part that makes these setups work for me too: make the failure cheap to reproduce, make stderr visible, make the agent rerun the same command after the patch. A lot of bad agent behavior is really just "it never got a clean signal".

The part that still bites me is across sessions. A tight loop fixes this run, but next week the agent can walk into the same rake again: same wrong import path, same misuse of an internal API, same CI-only dependency issue. After patching the same class of failure a few times, I started writing those down outside the chat context so the next run sees the failure pattern before it guesses.

[noodletheworld]

you said:

> it picked up the general path immediately

I said:

> Or they have spent a lot more time and effort on it than they claim.

You said:

> You imply I'm merely "pointing CC at godot and it made a game"; I never said it was simple

Well. I dont care enough to argue with you, but Im not the one being contrary here.

Readers can google “claude with godot” for a guide on setting it up and decide if that counts as picking it up immediately or not, and if what you said is honest, or hype.

What I said is not that I dont believe youre using claude; but that I roll my eyes at the unbounded enthusiasm for using AI agents with the magical pretence that its easy and productive straight away.

Its not.

Your post gave the impression that it is.

That makes me roll my eyes.

> But I had already answered, before your comment, with screenshots

> Of course these are basic placeholders for a few hours of work

Lord, spare me. You spent a few hours vibing and came to the conclusion that everything is golden?

…and yet you have a:

> I do have a careful setup involving CI and isolation.

So what, you spent more time on your setup than actually coding before posting?

/shakes-head

Whatever man.

Have fun. I stand by what I posted before.