I see so many posts on programming reddits now asking for "brutal feedback" (which I see so often I suspect it must also be a 2nd-tier Claudism that only comes up in this context) with a commit history an hour and a half old, and my "brutal feedback" I want to give is have you actually tried using your code?

I, too, have an AI, and I, too, have manifested a lot of stuff off of a single prompt. That first pass is generally pretty worthless. Amazing in its own way for what comes out from how little input, how quickly the amazing becomes banal, but still, pretty worthless in practice. I don't think there's anything wrong with "vibe coding" but you should definitely expect any product of it that is going to be worth a darn is going to require much more than 30 minutes of QA to be actually useful, even something as simple as a little caching library or something. And this won't change from AIs getting better in the future; it is a fundamental information theory problem about just how far the prompt can be expanded even in theory into a working program.

This is not targeted at the OP, I'm just commiserating with you.

Took the words out of my mouth. The trajectory indicator isn't predictive either, making it pointless. A single playtest would have made this obvious and maybe even a single prompt would have solved it.

I think it was on the Astra launch site, they had a car racing game authored by codex. I played it once and was quite impressed. I played it a second time and realised that I could just hold down the accelerator, not bother steering at all, and beat all the AI opponents every time. The game was pretty but pointless.

Player 2 probably also hates that he can't switch weapons unlike Player 1.