Context: I've been using agents (both Claude Code and Codex) for my daily work and for personal projects, but always in domains where I had some knowledge and I'm currently happy with them.

I tried using Claude Code to build an RPG game with Godot and GDScript, using free to use assets: a total failure :/

The game was supposed to be many implementation steps long but I asked Claude to first produce a one area demo, so I could test the assets and choose the one I liked. First it produced some garbage using the assets randomly. Then it tried to copy from an existing demo but it had not idea where a door or a path were and at a certain point it even admitted it with something like: "I can't design an usable and nice area: I either make it functional and ugly or I copy and adapt the existing demo but I will have no clue about what is what"

I've never even attempted to develop games before so I'm sure I don't even know the basic concepts, but this use case definitely didn't work for me.

Maybe it could generate the code of the game if I provided the full design?

That's exactly the failure mode this project exists to solve. The core issue is Claude Code has no way to see what it's producing — code compiles fine but assets are floating, paths lead nowhere, layouts are garbage. It even told you as much.

Godogen closes that loop: after writing code, it captures screenshots from the running engine and a vision model evaluates them. That's the difference between "compiles but broken" and "actually playable."

And yes — providing design docs helps a lot. The pipeline generates those automatically (visual reference, architecture, task plan), but you can provide your own and customize the skills to match your vision.