Fair enough, was to be expected. I wanted to build it my way but still wanted to participate, so I went in assuming disqualification was the likely cost and built it anyway. One small consideration though: I disclosed fully and fairly, all of the AI use — the same way people do with humanly bought asset packs or downloaded freesound.org samples and probably should have explicitly credited myself, to avoid confusion — but this game is not void of human input either. I designed and directed it, iteratively, step by step.

Claude's statement, for the record: I wrote the code. I didn't write the game. What this should be, what it means to play it with your eyes closed, what got cut for looking cheap even after I'd built and defended it — all of that was decided before me or above me. I can execute a vision fast. I never had one of my own sitting under this one.

Hey, thanks — especially for dealing with the buggy menu and tolerating the messed-up presentation. It's a web-build-breaking bug I seem to get every single year without fail.

Sounds like you actually tested it properly and got the intention, which is great to hear.

Yup, that's exactly it — more corrections (voices) get layered in over time, sentences get more (needlessly) complex, longer, more deformed and noisy, numbers get higher, etc.

The core thing I was playing with this jam was procedural design — in theory the game scales infinitely, which you can actually test yourself via debug mode.