Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aschearer's commentslogin

Neat! I am working on something similar and arriving at similar conclusions. eg sqlite local index. I am not ready to give up human authoring, though. How do tackle the quality gate problem and conformance? For programmatic checks like linting it’s reasonably clear but what about checks that require intelligence?


Enjoyable reflection. Resonates with me.

Making games is incredible but also very challenging. That’s part of its appeal. Highly recommended.


EHG | Remote | Full-time

EHG is hiring! We're looking for a talented Senior Back-End Engineer on Last Epoch. If you love ARPGs and want to work with a great team (and me!), check it out:

https://eleventhhourgames.bamboohr.com/careers/85


Great write up, very interesting. Shame y’all couldn’t get funding even after Day of the Devs! Hang in there, game looks cool.


Last year was rough for indie funding because of interest rates. Luckily, Absolute Nothing Economically Destabilizing Is Happening This Time (O___o).


I've been using Claude to help write a complex prototype for game dev. Overall it's been a big productivity boost. However as the project has grown Claude has gotten much worse. I'm nearing 15k lines and it's borderline more trouble than it's worth. Even when it was helpful, it needed a _lot_ of guidance from me. Almost more helpful as a "rubber ducky" and for the fact that it kept me from deadlocking on analysis. That said, discussing problems and solutions with Claude often does keep things moving and sometimes reveals unexpected solutions.

If Claude could write the code directly unsupervised, it would go wild and produce a ton of garbage. At least if the code it writes in the browser is any indication. It's not that it's all bad, but it's like a very eager junior dev -- potentially dangerous!

Imagining a codebase that is one or two orders of magnitude larger, I think Claude would be useless. Imagining a non-expert driving the process, I think Claude would generate a very rickety proof of concept then fall over. All that said, I wish I had this tool when developing my previous game. Especially for a green field project, it feels like having access to the internet versus pulling reference manuals -- a big force multiplier.


> Overall it's been a big productivity boost. However as the project has grown Claude has gotten much worse. I'm nearing 15k lines

I've read comments like this many times and I'm genuinely surprised at the coexistence of "productivity boost" and "15k lines".

Am I the only one that feels like 15k is a tiny project even in non-boilerplatey languages? That's not even past the prototyping stage of a small project.

Am I completely out of touch with a modern project's scale?


Why not just split the tasks, and have different projects only house a portion of the code?


Why dumb down your work worse because the machine can't understand it?


Seems like the code is designed poorly if it can't be worked on in small chunks


Seems like you're dismissing the cost of artificially splitting what should be a monolith.

It outweighs the supposed productivity boost of LLMs by at least one order of magnitude if not more.


Most people have a smaller context window than LLMs.


Evidently also planning military training for all men…


EHG | Remote | Full-time

EHG is hiring! We're looking for a talented game dev to help lead development on Last Epoch. If you love ARPGs and want to work with a great team (and me!), check it out:

https://eleventhhourgames.bamboohr.com/careers/74?source=aWQ...


I made a top-down 2D survival horror game with doors that could be opened, closed, locked, unlocked, and peeked through. Zombies could open them when unlocked. Sincerely hope to never make a game with doors that aren’t proximity activated in the future!


+1 to design documents. Would add another reason they're useful: reducing miscommunication & misunderstanding between stakeholders. In my opinion, a tech document's goal is to uncover missed specs, invalid assumptions, broad architectural errors, if we're actually prepared to build (i.e. can we speak credibly to what/how), and finally to reduce miscommunication between various teams/disciplines.

I'll add I think tech doc review is just as important as writing stuff down. In my experience it's often done poorly. Doc should be ready ahead of time, sent to relevant people, read ahead of time, and a list of open questions and comments seeded before the meeting. The meeting should have a notetaker. The meeting should be shorter rather than longer. Have fewer people rather than more. The meeting should not be about reading the document top-to-bottom, but about answering open questions and confirming everyone is on the same page.


Programmers always want to automate content creation. I get it as I’m a coder and it’s a fun problem space. Plus creating content is super time and skill intensive. It’s really hard to get right in my experience. Kind of like trying to automate writing a novel…

OK I read the article. I'm very skeptical of this approach. I doubt we can actually uncover fitness functions that reliably maps to "fun", and I believe it would require huge engineering effort to keep the game "simulable." Their examples aren't convincing. What would be convincing is a full, complex, and _fun_ game using these techniques.

Also the article seems like an ad for their AI solution.


> Programmers always want to automate content creation

We have a god complex that brain surgeons can only envy. How many universes have they built?


I suspect everyone on HN started out wanting to build COOL WORLDS as a kid!


I wouldn’t say it was an inspiration, no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_World_(SNES_video_game)


I still do :)


> I doubt we can actually uncover fitness functions that reliably maps to "fun"

You don't have to. Get empirical data and form a proxy evaluator. Usable enough for most evolutionary algorithms. I've done this sort of stuff for very subjective metrics and actually sold something with it.


> Kind of like trying to automate writing a novel…

So you are saying procedural level design could be solved with generative AI?


In theory. It'll be more convincing once generative AI proves itself useful for writing novels.


AI can already write short stories, just not very good ones. It'll be doing novels once the context windows are big enough.


Note also that base models (foundation models) are much better at writing fiction than models tuned for chat. See https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/706441900479152128/no...


Agreed, the technology looks promising but isn't ready yet.


It's orders of magnitude better than procedural methods written by humans.


At writing novels or creating games? I'm open to evidence of either...


At writing novels. So potentially also at procedural level design.


I'm admittedly skeptical. The AI generated novels I've seen have been bad. Really really bad. It's been a few months, however, so maybe the landscape has evolved faster than I expected.

Is there a source you can recommend for further reading?


Which novels? Did you compare them to novels created by handcrafted algorithms? I guarantee you, what you have read wasn't bad, it was fantastically good, compared to anything a software could have come up with without machine learning. So it seems likely that traditional procedural level generation could also be far outperformed by AI systems.


> procedural methods written by humans

I did not understand what you intended here, but I see what you mean. I totally agree that these are the algorithms to beat.

I'd argue that procedural methods should also include human writing processes, which to date have produced the best output.

I assume the technology will get there eventually.


I've been able to write coherent stories a dozen pages long. You need to have it generate plot points and other auxiliary information about characters and whatnot and it does a pretty good job. Obviously it's not going to one shot all that yet.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: