Authors: Zhiyue Xu, Fandi Meng, Kaijie Xu, Clark Verbrugge, Simon Lucas, Jian Zhao
Organizations: Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Zhongguancun Academy · Zhongguancun Institute of Artificial Intelligence · School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada · Game AI Research Group, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Generative AI now enables games to produce dialogue, quests, characters, images, and worlds at runtime. Yet generation alone does not make a game AI-native, nor does it guarantee playability. This paper defines AI-native games by whether runtime generative AI is constitutive of the core loop: if the AI component were removed or trivially replaced, the central form of play would collapse or become fundamentally different. This counterfactual criterion separates AI-native games from AI-augmented games and adjacent boundary artifacts. Using this definition, we screen candidate artifacts and analyze 53 publicly available AI-native games and prototypes. We introduce a dual-axis G/N taxonomy: the G-axis captures player-facing game type, while the N-axis captures the dominant AI mechanic that makes generative AI indispensable to play. The corpus is concentrated around language-forward designs, especially narrative adventure, epistemic interaction, and generative narrative, while categories such as semantic adjudication, multi-agent simulation, generative construction, and relationship/companion play remain less represented. We argue that the central design problem is organizing semantic openness into stable gameplay. AI-native design depends on mechanical invariants: goals, rules, state, feedback, pacing, and player agency that make open-ended AI outputs interpretable and consequential. We conclude with a roadmap for controllable generation, AI-as-mechanic design, multimodal and multi-agent systems, inference economics, evaluation, safety, and regulation.
Game generation is an emerging application of coding agents, requiring models to transform natural-language specifications into playable interactive systems. Unlike traditional coding tasks, game generation takes place within a game engine, where scripts, scenes, assets, rendering, and runtime interactions must jointly produce coherent gameplay. We formalize end-to-end game generation as the problem of producing a complete game artifact that realizes a specification through observable player-game interaction in a target environment. We argue that evaluating this setting requires three desiderata: Engine Grounding, Artifact Completeness, and Interactive Verification. We propose an interaction-grounded evaluation framework that assesses executable gameplay through replayed demonstrations and rubric-guided multimodal judging. We instantiate this framework as GameCraft-Bench, a benchmark comprising 140 Godot tasks across 15 game families. Evaluations of frontier coding agents show that end-to-end game generation remains highly challenging: the strongest agent achieves only 41.46%, and most agents score below 40%. Further analysis reveals that while agents often implement recognizable mechanics, they struggle to deliver complete games with sufficient content, functional visual feedback, and coherent presentation. See https://tongxuluo.github.io/gamecraft-bench-website for demos, code, and data.
Generating a game is not the same as making one that can be played. Despite advances in code generation, existing approaches treat game generation as one-shot translation from prompt to artifact, leaving interaction-level failures undetected. We argue that evaluating and improving game generation requires a player, and study two roles for graphical user interface (GUI) agents in this process: (1) as an objective evaluator, for which we introduce PlaytestArena, a new evaluation environment that pairs 200 browser-based game generation tasks across eight genres with rubrics of expected in-play behaviors, adjudicated by a GUI agent that loads each build in a browser and plays it; and (2) as a subjective playtester, for which we propose Play2Code, where a game agent and a GUI agent operate in a sustained loop with shared memory, turning game generation into a dialogue between coding and playing. Our experiments show that even frontier models struggle to generate playable games directly, while Play2Code achieves a 66.8% rubric pass-rate, improving over single-pass and agentic-coding baselines by 37.1 and 14.6 points respectively. Further analysis shows that GUI playtester feedback is more traceable than a human report, yet idiosyncratic in ways reminiscent of human testers, establishing game playtesting as a critical testbed for interactive code generation. Our project website is available at https://continual-game-generation.vercel.app/.
We introduce GamEDAI, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that transforms instructor-provided questions into fully playable, pedagogically grounded educational games validated through formal mechanic contracts. Built on phase-based LangGraph sub-graphs, deterministic Quality Gates, and structured Pydantic schemas, GamEDAI supports two template families encompassing 15 interaction mechanics across spatial reasoning, procedural execution, and higher-order Bloom's Taxonomy objectives. Evaluated on 200 questions spanning five subject domains, the system achieves a 90% validation pass rate, 98.3% schema compliance, and 73% token reduction over ReAct agents (∼73,500 →∼19,900 tokens/game) at $0.46 per game. Within this model configuration, these results suggest that phase-bounded architectural structure correlates more strongly with alignment quality than prompting strategy alone. Our demonstration lets attendees generate Bloom's-aligned games from natural language in under 60 seconds, inspect Quality Gate outputs at each pipeline phase, and browse a curated library of 50 games spanning all 15 mechanic types.