Show HN: Claude Code skills that build complete Godot games
Language choice: GDScript vs C#
- Debate over using GDScript (default, strong docs, tight engine integration) vs C# (better LLM familiarity, static typing, interfaces, possibly lower token cost).
- Some report excellent results using C# + Godot + Claude for serious projects; others say recent Claude versions handle GDScript well if given version info and docs.
- Noted C# limitations: missing web export and some bindings, though support has improved over time.
Quality of generated games & intended use
- Many find the one-shot demo games technically impressive but “lifeless,” lacking good physics, mechanics, and polish.
- Several argue that fully automatic “prompt in, game out” is not yet useful for shipping games; better to treat this as a prototyping or boilerplate generator.
- Others see value as a jumping-off point to explore ideas, reduce setup friction, and let humans focus on design and “fun.”
Agent workflow & technical approach
- Core problem identified: agents can’t “see” what they build, leading to broken layouts and unusable scenes.
- The project’s loop runs Godot headlessly, captures screenshots, and uses a vision model for visual QA (e.g., z-fighting, floating objects, bad paths).
- Godot API and engine quirks are exposed via lazily loaded “skills” to keep context small; a common-class subset is always in view.
- Some question the need to re-document GDScript/Godot vs relying on official docs.
Assets and animation pipeline
- Assets are a major focus: 2D art from image models, 3D from Tripo3D, sprite sheets with background removal; 3D models are static, 2D animation via sprite sheets.
- Future plans mentioned for video models to generate smoother animated sprites.
Cost, performance, and scale
- Estimated LLM cost per generated game: roughly $1–3 in tokens.
- Asset generation (images + 3D) adds a few dollars; full simple game around $5–8 total.
- Note that large text-based scenes in Godot can become slow; binary formats (.scn/.res) are faster but less agent-friendly.
Broader impact, slop, and craftsmanship
- Strong split between enthusiasm (“great for non-coders,” “unlocks prototypes”) and concern (“AI slop,” flooded stores, loss of craft).
- Some predict programming becoming more of a hobby; others find that AI frees them from “tech churn” to focus on fundamentals.
- Many emphasize that human taste, iteration, and curation will remain critical; tools won’t replace good design, but may amplify both good and bad output.