I only quickly skimmed but the thing makes no sense right from the beginning. Equating level design to software architecture?
The beginning confusion was an intentional trap by the author. The author’s real confusion comes only later.
In reality you can’t reduce AI to replace only “Level 1 coding” and do only “typing”. It will make assumptions about these “Level 2 and 3” decisions in its generated code. To reduce or control it you have to invest more into documentation/instructions and code review. You basically change the focus based on the assumption that “Level 1 coding” with all of that “hand-crafted” code was such a big waste of time and money. But it’s a made-up problem.
On top of that a lot of vibe-coded projects that appear here and there seem to not even intend to let the AI do only the typing. They don’t just let the AI translate “flow” and “architecture” into code. They make the AI translate their demands into code.
So he only used interpreter languages?
Very interesting bit about the Yokoi story, and totally wasted on the conclusion …
I stopped at “AI is a withered technology in Yokoi sense”. Well it is exactly the opposite: of sound engineering decision, of the characteristics of mature technology, of engineering on itself. So the article fall off completely.
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is…
This is a game designer not a codet. but whatever it’s an interesting read
I dunno it seems more like an unsupportable semantic argument than anything else. We know game design is important to success.