Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(1 edit) (+3)

LLMs are now essential tools in development — they’ve effectively replaced traditional search.

I built my game from the ground up. I chose the tech stack myself, created all the UI components from scratch, and optimized everything for performance. My UI runs faster than most modern React apps — because I’ve been building software for over 20 years and witnessed the evolution of web technologies firsthand.

This is not a game cobbled together from boilerplate or template code. I made it myself. Yes, I used LLMs — every day, and a lot. Just like I use Google. Just like I read books. Just like I talk to real people to learn and improve.

The current “AI-generated code” category is misleading. It needs to be updated. Don’t devalue human effort just because modern tools are part of the process. My game is 99% human-made.

If that tag is required, maybe also add tags like “No Google”, “No Stack Overflow”, or “No Learning” — because that’s the level of gatekeeping it implies.

I wrote this reply myself, but used an LLM to help refine the text. These are still my thoughts — I just made them more readable. I also wrote the game’s documentation this way.

Does that really make my game “AI-generated”?

(+5)

I assure you that many, many games are developed without any use of LLMs at all. That means they're not "essential." 

The current tag is "AI-Generated Content." It sounds like you have some and therefore couldn't tag your content with "No AI." However, the new tag is only required for assets - not for ttrpgs or video games.

The way Itch implements AI disclosure is not quite satisfactorial. I think the textual disclosure as seen on Steam to be better. Also, the way these "tags" are shown, or rather not shown makes it feel like a hack. Also, some devs select those tags manually, adding to confusion of players and other devs. Not many people read this thread and understand how this really works. Maybe 5000 users read this thread. Probably less.

Itch currently has a yes or no and that might be ok for assets, but not for games. Customers look for different qualities in games and assets. Being AI free can be a vital quality for assets, so yes/no makes sense.

But players will have other standards for games. If they care for AI, it will be most likey be for the "content". To my understanding of language, content is what is shown, and not the method how it is shown. So, code is not content. It might be in some cases, but not generally. Using state of the art coding technologies and being lumped togher with ai slop creators is not really good for morale of developers. Not answering the AI disclosure might be prudent, but it is not elegant.

You don’t even realize why what you’ve done is wrong, and that’s sad. You’ve fed your entire creative process into a machine. There is a huge and fundamental difference between the two processes you described.

Google, stack overflow, and books… Reading something made by humans, learning from it, internalizing it, and making decisions based on your experiences. That’s an actual creative experience.

You said you “used LLMs every day and a lot.” That’s no longer your process. You simply outsourced your thinking to a machine. You asked your magic box god to help tell you what to think and what to do. A machine that was created by harvesting the blood and sweat of thousands of people who did actual work. And insatiable monster that has devoured everything into itself and regurgitates to you based on a sophisticated prediction algorithm what it thinks you need. But the process, the ethics, the morality, the environment, none of that matters because hey, it’s convenient right?

“These are still my thoughts?” No. They aren’t. And you don’t even realize it.

(+2)

I wonder how you perceive photography. If you compare the creative process to create a picture between taking a photo and painting a canvas, there are some striking similarities. The photographer "just presses a button". Yet photography is an established art.

Sure, there is slop made with AI, because it is easy. Just as there is slop made with photograhy apparatus. Or slop made with cookie cutter templates on a premade game engine. Creating yet another pixel art rpg with a story seen so often there are tropes about it. There are even engines that advertise as needing no coding knowledge.

your entire creative process

You act like using AI helpers is like asking the machine: hey google, make a video game and put my name under it. Just like a photographer just pushes the button and "created" a picture. "No" creativity. If it is enough for the photographer to decide what's in the picture, why is it not enough for the AI operator to decide what's in the image? That's why I am asking how you perceive photography. What's the difference for you. Unless of course you have a similar opinion about the creativity of taking photos.

And what do you think about people using a magic box to have their game do things? Speaking of game engines. Someone using that engine relies on the blood and sweat of the people that programmed the actual routines to move pixels around. It's standing on the shoulders of giants.

What do you think about a movie director or an orchestra conductor? Are they "creative"? It's the actors that act, the musicians that play. The instrument builders built the instruments and the notes composed by a componist. The movie script was written by someone else, and the cutter puts it all together. Is the creativity of conductor and director outsourced?

Anyway, I suggest you read the post you replied to again, what was actually done with the llms. Googling an example from stackoverflow and adapting it to your needs is not really much different from asking chatgpt to generate a code snippet. Only, the chatgpt snippet might have bugs in it that are not obvious. In both cases, the coder did not spend days learning how that code fragment would be done from sratch. It is standing on the shoulders of giants, relying on previously done work. Googling it, is a huge improvement from digging through examples in written books. Summarizing it with the help of a llm is a further advancement, but with the risk of it being very wrong.

And refining text with llm is a glorified spell checker. I hope you do not use those when you write emails or texts. The knowledge in that spell checking relies on previous works of other people. You would be outsourcing your language skills.

Visual art is a bit different, as you do not need an image that is functional, as you would need a functional code snippet. That's probably why ai images look so bland. They fulfill the functionality requested. For code this is enough. So much enough, that one uses libraries full of functions and even whole game engines that do not even need coding knowledge anymore.

You can be against the usage of AI for all sorts of reasons. And we all should be, for things like the slop created with it. But things like spell checking and coding assistance, in terms of creativity, are state of the art methods, of what programmers are doing for as long as there has been programming. Reuse, rehash, copy, paste, do calls to things other people wrote.

"You act like using AI helpers is like asking the machine: hey google, make a video game and put my name under it." 

That is exactly what vibe coding is for