Keep your eyes open for Sonic R too. Sadly a lot of the online Sonic community has been toxic to the dev for being transparent about using Claude for the majority of the disassembly. Even though he's a very talented developer with lots of credit to his name, and only took a few weeks compared to a year+ if fully manual.

I don't think it's impossible, but it would take a lot of time and a lot of money; likely more time than good enough models have been commercially available.

I have been working on an incremental decompilation-based reimplementation (basically how OpenRCT2 was done) of Worms Armageddon for the past 2 months with a lot of help from LLM tools; primarily Claude Code and Ghidra MCP. I've worked on it almost every day, reaching Claude Code Max 5x's 5 hour session limit multiple times every day. Suffice to say as a software rendered, sprite-based 90s PC game, Worms Armageddon is several orders of magnitude simpler than MGS2. Despite that, I think it will be 2-3 more months of work before I can compile a fully independent version of the game.

This is despite the game being an almost ideal candidate for automated RE, as it uses deterministic game logic with built-in checksum checks in replays and multiplayer. I've downloaded all the speedruns I could find for the game (as replay files) and I've retrofitted the replay system into a massively parallel test framework, which simulates over 600 games in about 30 seconds. So Claude can port all game logic independently without much need for manual testing; the replay tests can almost guarantee perfect correctness.

MGS2 doesn't have anything like that, so every ported function requires extensive manual testing. Even with LLM tools, an accurate decomp could take years (unless you're willing spend thousands of $currency per month on it).

Decompilation to C (and even C++!) has been done automatically for 2-3 decades at least. I am not sure what has changed in recent years other than people playing fast and loose with copyright (and GitHub allowing it, likely because their LLMs also stand to benefit). Introducing LLMs here is only going to introduce errors, delays and likely push you away from a reliable result.

The challenge here is readability. Reading the TP source leak you link I think it's even behind the current state of the art, as it's barely above assembly. This is where I suspect even the smallest of LLMs may help, since you don't care that much if it introduces errors.

My take was more along the lines of: it wouldn't be convincing enough, if anything it would be too clean and perfect.

Does the TP decomp use AI to achieve their speed?

What is the state of the art of compilers here? What size of project are we speaking here?

What is the experience faulty decompilation, and the existence of bugs in the binary?

Could one decompile a binary to a more modern language than C?

Who cares? Who said anything about recreating the exact code? You will get usable, compilable, and surprisingly readable source code, in your language of choice, that yields the functional equivalent of the binary.

Barring obvious edge cases that could show up but don't usually, like intentional race conditions. Timing is the one area where things get iffy.