AI can definitely do all aspects of game development now, but this advice seems to mostly apply to small indie titles or experiments.

For example, the Thing approach is reasonable for a small game, but it's a dead end for a performance budget or layered subsystems. In a reasonably sized 3D game, iterating and copying 30 subsystems of 1000's of Things is impossible to do in frame time, the only fix is a total rewrite of literally everyThing. That's why there's ECS, SOA, etc. which needs a different kind of harness.

Also, art completely dominates the production cycle of modern games, which (even if AI generated) needs its own category of harness not mentioned here. And AI can be very good at optimizing, but samply won't diagnose your overdraw, and GPU needs its own ablation and attribution.

For the time being there's no panacea and we still need "game developers", though the bar for prototypes (and certain genres) is lowered.

▲

kkukshtel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

"Thing" style systems are very common in AAA. I link to the interview with the Dreams (Media Molecule) team where they describe a system very much like this. ECS is also not mutually exclusive here.

	▲	nsagent 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Dreams did use a standard ECS [1] and despite being a first-party title it's not widely considered to be a AAA game (based on size of the team and budget compared to typical AAA games). There might be some AAA studio that eschews the approach, but it's very common for speed and efficiency, especially on consoles. That said, I'm glad you shared your thoughts and experience. It's helpful to see what people try. [1]: https://youtu.be/mFBmoCv5EcQ?t=1982