Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

Share your Codex Game Jam workflow, not just your final game Sticky

A topic by Kestrel created 75 days ago Views: 162 Replies: 5
Viewing posts 1 to 4
Host (1 edit)

What was your starting prompt?

How did you break the game into tasks?

Did you use Codex, Claude, Cursor, Grok, Blender, assets, hand-written code, or some weird combo?


What broke first?


What did the AI misunderstand?


What was the one prompt or workflow that actually made the game better?


How are you testing whether the game is fun, not just functional?

Submitted

I had the game idea in my mind, I wrote down the plotline and drew the pigeon sprite for my game and passed it to Codex to extend and implement with the code,

Host

whats your tech stack i find having a conditions and objectives before coding the game helps

Submitted

My starting prompt was basically: build a minimal GPU-first Zig/Vulkan 3D falling-sand prototype.

The stack is Zig 0.16, Vulkan compute/rendering, SDL3 for window/input, GLSL compute shaders compiled to SPIR-V, and Codex as the coding partner.

I broke it into tasks like this:

  1. Write the spec first.
  2. Define the GPU-first simulation rule.
  3. Get Vulkan and SDL3 running.
  4. Add voxel buffers and rendering.
  5. Add sand/water simulation.
  6. Add brush controls.
  7. Add transparency, bigger map, lava, steam, smoke, and cooling.

The main design rule was: the destination owns the write. Each voxel gathers what it should become instead of particles pushing into neighbors. That made the compute shader side much cleaner.

What broke first was Vulkan plumbing and sync. The game logic was easier than getting all the buffers, descriptors, shaders, barriers, and draw calls lined up correctly.

The AI misunderstood simulation conflicts at first. Ping-pong buffers alone do not prevent races. The real fix was making every destination cell decide who wins.

The workflow that helped most was: spec first, then implementation plan, then small Codex passes with tests after each feature.

For fun testing, I’m just poking the sandbox. Can I make a mess quickly? Does water behave interestingly? Does lava create steam and smoke in a satisfying way? Do I want to keep playing with it after the feature technically works? That’s the real test.

Host

impressive

Submitted

in codex lately i have been using. Discuss bla bla bla. Then we are in almost like planning mode but more custom like,,, let’s discuss this. Then after codex discusses it and we have a back and forth and i make sure it understands what i want, i say > Sounds good! Do it!