GAMEGO: Training Game-Dev Agents with Synthetic Trajectories Anchored in Real-World Assets
Organizations: Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Baidu Inc., Beijing, China
Abstract
Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in web front-end execution, with browser-based game generation emerging as a particularly prominent frontier. While previous efforts frequently rely on complex multi-turn workflows or focus on static game evaluation benchmarks, this work targets direct end-to-end real-world game synthesis driven by coding agents. However, generating complex games directly from sparse user queries often forces coding agents to make underspecified assumptions, yielding incomplete mechanics, disconnected gameplay flows, and limited visual aesthetics. To resolve this issue, this paper presents GameGo, a scalable framework that systematically transforms brief game seeds into comprehensive Product Requirements Documents grounded in industry game-development practices. To retain core gameplay constraints without restricting design exploration, GameGo uses task-specific dynamic compression to maximize information density while preserving instruction following. Based on this pipeline, GameGoData is constructed with 55,060 development trajectories across 2D, 2.5D, and 3D games, alongside GameGoBench, a benchmark comprising 124 diverse game queries. Training GameGoCoder on GameGoData yields a model that outperforms matched baselines and is comparable to frontier models across gamedev benchmarks. All code, datasets, and models will be made publicly available.
Figures & tables
| ArtifactsBench-G | CookieBench-G | GameGoBench | ||||||
| Model | Overall | Func. | Aesth. | Overall | Exec. | Req. | Quality | Overall |
| Frontier models | ||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 72.76 | 94.63 | 86.25 | 83.68 | 98.32 | 68.18 | 55.50 | 61.84 |
| GPT-5.6 | 63.92 | 86.38 | 85.13 | 75.36 | 100.00 | 59.57 | 45.99 | 52.78 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | 62.77 | 91.50 | 80.88 | 77.07 | 99.19 | 56.45 | 42.60 | 49.52 |
| GLM-5.3 | 68.63 | 91.50 | 85.13 | 79.99 | 99.18 | 68.85 | 50.77 | 59.81 |
| Pairwise comparison | Win | Tie | Loss | Preference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| full PRD vs. direct | 369 (49.6) | 209 (28.1) | 166 (22.3) | 0.690 |
| task-specific vs. full PRD | 487 (65.5) | 176 (23.7) | 81 (10.9) | 0.857 |
| task-specific vs. direct | 606 (81.5) | 44 (5.9) | 94 (12.6) | 0.866 |
| Comparison | W/T/L | Preference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| E2 ckpt vs. Base | 110 | 437/147/76 | 0.852 |
| E2 ckpt vs. MoE | 108 | 355/113/180 | 0.664 |
| E6 ckpt vs. MoE | 123 | 453/177/108 | 0.807 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Seed-selection, collection, or training stage | Records |
|---|---|
| Records processed by clustering and quota-based selection | 70,000 |
| Seeds retained after quota-based selection | 67,564 |
| Task-specific queries submitted | 67,564 |
| Initial trajectories recorded | 67,487 |
| Primary execution completed successfully | 65,082 |
| Final GameGoData after integrity and formatting checks | 55,060 |
| Evaluated model | Sonnet 4.6 | DS-Flash | Qwen | Mean | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 61.84 | 61.88 | 61.66 | 61.79 | 0.0139 |
| GPT-5.6 | 52.78 | 51.46 | 54.04 | 52.76 | 1.6584 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | 49.52 | 50.70 | 49.44 | 49.89 | 0.4992 |
| GLM-5.3 | 59.81 | 60.18 | 60.79 | 60.26 | 0.2447 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | 58.35 | 58.29 | 57.99 | 58.21 | 0.0374 |
| Kimi-K3 | 53.82 | 53.73 | 53.48 | 53.67 | 0.0294 |
| Measurement | Result |
|---|---|
| Full PRD / body / query length in tokens | 9,136 / 4,314.5 / 235 |
| Retained length, full PRD | 2.26% |
| Compression, full PRD / body | / |
| Complete clauses | 112 / 927 = 12.1% |
| Partial clauses | 577 / 927 = 62.2% |
| Absent clauses | 238 / 927 = 25.7% |
Agentic Code Generation
Agentic code generation uses AI agents to plan, write, test, and revise executable programs with tools and feedback.
See all 124 papers