The majority of all code written is highly mediocre. Acting like most people made good and enjoyable games when it was handcoded is just not right.

The same people who were going to make something good will still make something good, the code imo has very little to do with it.

Passion is necessary but insufficient by itself to make good things

>Acting like most people made good and enjoyable games when it was handcoded is just not right.

Every good and enjoyable game made was handcoded, with art, music, dialogue and design created with intent. I have yet to see a game created with an LLM that's even worth playing, despite countless LLM enthusiasts declaring the death of art , design and programming.

A tool that takes a simple prompt and generates a game from it isn't capable of any of that, and the necessary passion is nonexistent. It's an interesting technical demo but it's useless for gamedev unless your only goal is churning out programmatic slop, which is exactly what it will be used for.

Nothing you've written here disproves my point. If you drop the barrier to entry, which this does, of course you see more crap. It won't change the fact someone with taste and skill will make a good game with this tech. People with those qualities will make a good game with whatever tools are available. They're just tools.

If it makes the game in its entirety then it isn't a tool and those qualities don't factor in to the end product.

I think game designers who work with a developer would be surprised to learn their skill in game design doesn't factor into the end product even though they don't code the game.