Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Sunday, February 15, 2026

das system

license: public domain CC0

NEW AND IMPROVED VERSION AVAILABLE HERE:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vpmjzSYp9u6XnqabR1CwDRtVXS_qmH1N/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=106862052260871379871&rtpof=true&sd=true

TESTING IMPROVEMENTS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wmTWPcpRbOhiC-V2EBx73WpT8GKJ2f-4/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=106862052260871379871&rtpof=true&sd=true

AI-Driven Interactive Game Design System: A Novel Architecture for Declarative Game Development

A comprehensive design for a multi-agent system that enables iterative, traceable, and refactorable game design through immutable state architecture, declarative rules, and intelligent automation.

Abstract

This document presents a novel architecture for game development that fundamentally rethinks the relationship between design intent, executable specifications, and implementation. By combining multi-agent AI systems, declarative rules engines, immutable state management, and comprehensive lineage tracking, we enable game designers to work at the level of intent while maintaining complete bidirectional traceability to implementation. The system supports continuous iteration through time-travel debugging, automatic refactoring, and multi-frame convergence patterns that separate simulation correctness from presentation smoothness.

Key innovations:

Compositional traceability: Complete bidirectional lineage from design rules through specs to implementation
Immutable state architecture: Structural sharing enables instant replay and comparison without explicit snapshots
Multi-frame convergence: Separation of simulation state from presentation enables complex feature interactions
AI-assisted refactoring: Automatic detection and execution of architectural transformations
Declarative execution model: Hierarchical rules and state machines with automatic priority resolution

1. Problem Statement

1.1 Current State of Game Development

Modern game development suffers from several fundamental challenges:

Loss of design intent: As games evolve, the connection between "why we made this decision" and "how it's implemented" is lost. Code becomes the sole source of truth, but code cannot express intent.

Refactoring paralysis: Adding new features often requires unanticipated interaction patterns (multi-system negotiation, pre-death hooks, reentrant state changes). Refactoring is risky because:

Impact is unclear (what breaks if I change this?)
Relationships are implicit (hidden dependencies)
Testing is incomplete (edge cases emerge from interactions)

Iteration friction: Tuning game feel requires:

Manual replay of the same section repeatedly
Guessing which parameters affect the desired change
Rebuilding/restarting to test changes
No comparative analysis between iterations

Coupling complexity: Game systems inevitably cut across any decomposition:

Screen shake touches combat, camera, audio, particles, UI
Death handling involves health, animation, progression, saves, UI
Jump feel depends on input, physics, animation, camera, audio

State management chaos:

Imperative, in-place mutation makes debugging hard
Can't easily inspect "what changed" between frames
Replay requires complex event replay systems
No simple way to compare execution paths

1.2 The Fundamental Impossibility

No execution model can anticipate all future feature requirements. New features inevitably require new interaction patterns:

Revenge perk (action triggered after death detected but before death finalized)
Martyr explosion (reentrant death during death processing)
Combo finishers (multi-system negotiation before execution)

Traditional architectures force painful refactoring when these patterns emerge. We need a system where refactoring capability is the primary feature, not execution model completeness.

2. Core Architecture

2.1 The Artifact Graph: Lineage as Foundation

Every artifact (rule, spec, code) exists in a directed acyclic graph with explicit lineage:

Design Rule (Intent)
    ↓ refined_by: AI Agent
Formal Specification (Behavior)
    ↓ implements: Code Generator
Implementation (Code)
    ↓ tested_by: Test Suite

Bidirectional traceability:

Forward: Design change → AI proposes spec update → generates code changes
Backward: Code divergence detected → AI traces to spec → asks if intent changed

Example lineage:

rule_id: "screen_shake_on_heavy_damage"
intent: "Screen must shake on heavy damage to emphasize impact"
domain: "game_feel"

↓ derives_from

spec_id: "screen_shake_heavy_damage_v2"
trigger:
  event: "DamageEvent"
  condition: "damage > target.maxHealth * 0.30"
computation:
  shake_intensity: "min((damage / maxHealth) * 2.0, 1.0)"

↓ implements

code: "ScreenShakeSystem.cpp"
function: "onDamageEvent()"
lines: [145-167]
constants:
  HEAVY_DAMAGE_THRESHOLD: 0.30  # linked to spec.trigger.condition
  SHAKE_MULTIPLIER: 2.0          # linked to spec.computation

2.2 Multi-Agent System

Specialized AI agents manage different aspects of the design-to-implementation pipeline:

1. Orchestrator Agent

Routes designer input to appropriate agents
Manages conversation flow
Prevents infinite loops

2. State Manager Agent

Maintains canonical game design document (GDD) structure
Tracks implementation status
Generates reports and diffs

3. Design Specialist Agents

Mechanics, Narrative, World, Systems, Economy, etc.
Each has domain-specific knowledge and prompting
Propose additions/changes in their domain

4. Validator Agent

Reviews proposals for consistency
Checks dependencies
Flags contradictions
Challenges assumptions

5. Technical Feasibility Agent

Evaluates implementation complexity
Estimates development time
Flags technical risks
Suggests scope reductions

6. Integration Agent

Identifies ripple effects across systems
Maintains dependency graphs
Proposes holistic solutions

7. Refactoring Agent

Detects when architecture is insufficient
Suggests refactoring patterns
Generates transformation plans
Executes safe migrations

8. Convergence Analyzer Agent

Predicts multi-frame convergence time
Suggests visual masking techniques
Validates smoothness of execution

2.3 Immutable State Architecture

Core principle: Previous state + input → new state (no in-place mutation)

// Every frame creates new state
GameState update(const GameState& previousState, const Input& input) {
    GameState newState = previousState;  // Structural sharing
    
    newState.player = updatePlayer(previousState.player, input);
    newState.entities = updateEntities(previousState.entities);
    
    return newState;  // Previous state untouched
}

// History is automatic
StateRingBuffer<GameState> stateHistory(3600);  // 60 seconds at 60fps

void mainLoop(Input input) {
    auto prevState = stateHistory.getCurrent();
    auto newState = make_shared<GameState>(update(*prevState, input));
    stateHistory.push(newState);
}

Structural sharing prevents memory explosion:

Persistent data structures (like Clojure's PersistentVector)
Only modified paths allocate new memory
Unchanged subtrees share pointers
Typical overhead: 50KB per frame vs 10MB for full copy

Benefits:

✅ Every frame IS a snapshot (no explicit snapshot logic)
✅ Instant replay (just reference old state)
✅ Instant comparison (diff any two states)
✅ Timeline branching (test parameter changes in parallel)
✅ Thread-safe (immutable data can be read anywhere)
✅ Determinism verification (replay from inputs, compare states)

2.4 Declarative Rules Engine

Game logic expressed as rules, not imperative code:

rule: "death_check_with_revenge_perk"
priority_class: "critical_correctness"

execution_flow:
  stages:
    - detect_death:
        condition: "player.health <= 0"
        
    - pre_death_hooks:
        if: "player.hasRevengePerk"
        action: "trigger_revenge_damage"
        
    - commit_death:
        action: "set_player_state(DEAD)"

convergence_time: 3  # frames
visual_masking: "damage_flash"

AI generates implementation:

// GENERATED FROM: spec:death_check_with_revenge_v1
// Frame 0: Apply damage
void applyDamage(DamageEvent& e) {
    player.health -= e.amount;
}

// Frame 1: Detect death
void detectDeath() {
    if (player.health <= 0) {
        player.deathPending = true;
    }
}

// Frame 2: Run hooks
void runPreDeathHooks() {
    if (player.deathPending && player.hasRevengePerk) {
        triggerRevengeDamage();
    }
}

// Frame 3: Commit death
void commitDeath() {
    if (player.deathPending) {
        player.state = DEAD;
    }
}

Hierarchical organization:

rules/
├── core/
│   ├── physics.drl         # Gravity, collision
│   └── time.drl            # Frame timing
├── systems/
│   ├── combat/
│   │   ├── damage.drl
│   │   └── death.drl
│   └── movement/
│       └── jump.drl
└── meta/
    └── difficulty.drl      # Modifies base rules

Dependencies flow downward only. Meta-rules can override base rules while preserving lineage.

3. Key Innovations

3.1 Multi-Frame Convergence

Insight: At 60fps, state can take 2-5 frames to converge if presentation remains smooth.

Dual-state model:

struct SimulationState {
    // Can be temporarily inconsistent
    float playerHealth;      // Might be -10
    bool isPlayerDead;       // Might be false while health < 0
    bool hasConverged;
    int convergenceFramesRemaining;
};

struct PresentationState {
    // Always renderable
    float displayHealth;     // Clamped [0, maxHealth]
    AnimationState currentAnim;  // Always valid
    float damageFlashIntensity;  // Masks convergence
};

Example: Death with multi-frame convergence

Frame 0: Damage applied, health = -10
         Presentation: Show damage flash, interpolate health down
         
Frame 1: Death detected, deathPending = true
         Presentation: Flash still visible, health bar animating
         
Frame 2: Revenge perk triggers damage to enemies
         Presentation: Flash fading, health reached 0
         
Frame 3: Death committed, death animation starts
         Presentation: Smooth transition to death animation

Player experience: Smooth 50ms death sequence. No visible inconsistency.

What this enables:

Complex multi-system features (negotiation, hooks, dependencies)
Safe refactoring (can split atomic operations into stages)
Better game feel (intentional interpolation and smoothing)

Visual masking techniques:

Damage flash (red overlay)
Screen shake + flash (heavy impact)
Slow motion (dramatic moments)
Intentional health bar lag (easier to track changes)

3.2 Global Priority and Execution Graphs

Challenge: Game systems have global interdependencies (death must check before effects, but after damage).

Solution: Explicit dependency graph with semantic priority classes.

priority_classes:
  critical_correctness: [700-1000]  # Death, invulnerability
  gameplay_logic: [400-700]         # Damage calc, buffs
  effects_cosmetic: [100-400]       # Particles, sounds
  ui_updates: [50-100]              # Health bars, icons

execution_flow: "damage_to_death"
stages:
  - validation:
      priority: critical_correctness
      nodes: [invulnerability_check, damage_calculation]
      
  - application:
      priority: critical_correctness
      depends_on: [validation]
      nodes: [apply_damage, death_check]
      
  - effects:
      priority: effects_cosmetic
      depends_on: [application]
      conditional:
        death_check.result == true: [death_effects]
        death_check.result == false: [damage_effects]

AI validates and visualizes:

Priority: 1000 (Invulnerability Check)
    ↓
  900 (Damage Calculation)
    ↓
  800 (Apply Damage)
    ↓
  700 (Death Check) ◄── CRITICAL DECISION
    ├─ True  → 650 (Death Effects)
    └─ False → 600 (Damage Effects)

Conflict detection:

⚠️ Priority conflict detected!

Rule: "critical_hit_special_shake"
  → Priority: 750 (before death_check at 700)
  → Triggers screen shake
  
But: death_check (700) should cancel ALL shakes

Suggestion: Move critical_hit_shake to 650 (after death_check)

3.3 Record/Replay System

During play: Append-only event stream (very lightweight)

void recordFrame() {
    // Just push state reference (cheap)
    stateHistory.push(currentState);
    
    // Record events for debugging
    eventLog.append(currentFrameEvents);
}

Entering debug mode: Current state already captured (instant)

Replaying: No event replay needed - just reference old state

void jumpToFrame(int targetFrame) {
    int framesAgo = currentFrame - targetFrame;
    currentState = stateHistory.get(framesAgo);
    // That's it. Instant.
}

Memory overhead with structural sharing:

Frame 0: 10MB (initial state)
Frames 1-60: ~50KB each (only changes)
Total for 60 seconds: ~13MB

Parameter override and branching:

void createBranch(string name, int fromFrame, 
                 map<string, Variant> overrides) {
    auto startState = stateHistory.getFrame(fromFrame);
    
    // Replay forward with overrides
    for (int f = fromFrame; f <= currentFrame; f++) {
        auto input = recorder.getInput(f);
        startState = updateWithOverrides(*startState, input, overrides);
    }
    
    branches[name] = startState;
}

// Compare branches
auto diff = compareStates(
    branches["original"],
    branches["higher_jump"]
);

3.4 Refactoring as First-Class Operation

Pattern library for common transformations:

1. Atomic → Phased

Before: death_check (instant, atomic)
After: death_detection → pre_death_hooks → death_commitment

2. Linear → Reentrant

Before: handleDeath() calls itself (undefined behavior)
After: Deferred execution queue prevents reentrancy

3. Single-Source → Multi-Source

Before: DamageEvent has one source
After: DamageEvent has vector<DamageSource>

4. Concrete → Negotiation

Before: Finisher executes immediately
After: Systems vote on whether finisher can execute

AI-detected refactoring need:

⚠️ Current architecture cannot handle:
  "Revenge perk deals damage after death detected 
   but before death finalized"

Suggested refactoring:
  Pattern: atomic_to_phased
  Splits: death_check → [detect, hooks, commit]
  Complexity: medium
  Risk: medium
  
Affected:
  - 1 rule: death_supersedes_damage_effects
  - 3 specs: death_check, death_effects, damage_effects
  - 12 code files
  - 23 tests
  
[View Details] [Apply Refactoring] [Cancel]

Safe execution:

Create checkpoint (all state captured)
Apply transformation incrementally
Validate after each phase
Rollback if validation fails

4. Complete Workflow Example

4.1 Initial Design: Jump Mechanics

Designer intent:

"I want a platformer with snappy, responsive jumping"

AI conversation:

AI: Let me help you design the jump mechanics. A few questions:

1. How should jumps feel?
   - Heavy and weighty
   - Floaty and airborne
   - Snappy and responsive ✓

2. Should players have air control?
   - Full control
   - Partial control ✓
   - No control

3. Variable jump height (hold button = higher jump)?
   - Yes ✓
   - No

AI: Great! I'll create the jump mechanics spec.

Generated rule:

rule_id: "player_jump_feel"
domain: "movement"
intent: "Snappy, responsive jump with air control"

parameters:
  jump_force: 400
  gravity: 9.8
  air_control: 0.6
  variable_jump: true
  min_jump_duration: 0.15

Generated spec:

spec_id: "jump_mechanics_v1"
derives_from: "player_jump_feel"

implementation:
  on_jump_press:
    - if: player.grounded
      then: set_velocity_y(JUMP_FORCE)
      
  while_jump_held:
    - if: jump_duration < MIN_JUMP_DURATION
      then: maintain_upward_velocity
      
  air_movement:
    - horizontal_control: AIR_CONTROL * input.horizontal
    
  gravity_application:
    - constant: GRAVITY

Generated code:

// IMPLEMENTS: spec:jump_mechanics_v1
// LINKED TO: rule:player_jump_feel

static constexpr float JUMP_FORCE = 400.0f;
static constexpr float GRAVITY = 9.8f;
static constexpr float AIR_CONTROL = 0.6f;

PlayerState updatePlayer(const PlayerState& prev, const Input& input) {
    PlayerState next = prev;
    
    // Jump on press (if grounded)
    if (input.jumpPressed && prev.grounded) {
        next.velocity.y = JUMP_FORCE;
        next.jumpStartTime = currentTime;
    }
    
    // Variable jump height
    if (input.jumpHeld && 
        (currentTime - prev.jumpStartTime) < 0.15) {
        next.velocity.y = max(next.velocity.y, JUMP_FORCE * 0.5);
    }
    
    // Air control
    if (!prev.grounded) {
        next.velocity.x += input.horizontal * AIR_CONTROL;
    }
    
    // Gravity
    next.velocity.y -= GRAVITY;
    
    return next;
}

4.2 Iteration: Jump Feels Too Floaty

Designer plays game, jumps, feels off:

[Jump happens]
Designer presses F6 → Bookmarks last 60 frames

Debug mode activated:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Jump Analysis (Frames 30-47)                        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Detected:                                           │
│   Jump apex: 300px (frame 47)                       │
│   Hang time: 0.82s                                  │
│   ⚠️ Feels floaty (ideal hang time: 0.6s)          │
│                                                     │
│ Suggested changes:                                  │
│   1. Increase gravity: 9.8 → 12.0                  │
│   2. Reduce jump_force: 400 → 380                  │
│                                                     │
│ [Try Option 1] [Try Option 2] [Try Both]           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Designer clicks "Try Both":

[System creates branch timeline with new parameters]
[Replays frames 30-60 with gravity=12.0, jump_force=380]
[Shows side-by-side comparison]

┌──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ Before           │ After            │
│  🟡 (300px)      │  🟡 (240px)      │
│   ↓              │   ↓              │
│  🧍              │  🧍              │
│  Frame 47        │  Frame 45        │
│                  │                  │
│ Floaty feel      │ Snappy feel      │
└──────────────────┴──────────────────┘

[Accept Changes] [Try Different Values] [Revert]

Designer clicks "Accept Changes":

AI: I'll update the jump mechanics. Here's what will change:

Lineage trace:
  ↑ Code: PlayerController.cpp (2 constants)
  ↑ Spec: jump_mechanics_v1 → v2
  ↑ Rule: player_jump_feel

Impact:
  - No conflicts detected
  - Tests will pass (updating expected values)
  - Related systems: camera tracking (will adjust automatically)

[Approve] [Review Details] [Cancel]

System updates:

Creates spec:jump_mechanics_v2
Regenerates code with new constants
Updates test expectations
Maintains lineage: v2 derives from v1, change rationale recorded

4.3 New Feature: Double Jump

Designer: "Add double jump ability"

AI analyzes:

AI: I can add double jump to the jump mechanics system.

Questions:
1. How many mid-air jumps? [1] [2] [Unlimited]
2. Full jump height or reduced? [Full] [80%] [50%]
3. Reset on wall touch? [Yes] [No]

[Generating spec...]

This will create:
  - New rule: double_jump_ability
  - Modified spec: jump_mechanics_v2 → v3
  - Code changes: PlayerController.cpp (15 new lines)
  - New parameter: double_jump_force = 320 (80% of base)

[Preview Changes] [Apply] [Cancel]

Lineage maintained:

rule:player_jump_feel
  ↓
spec:jump_mechanics_v1 (single jump)
  ↓
spec:jump_mechanics_v2 (tuned gravity/force)
  ↓
spec:jump_mechanics_v3 (added double jump)
  ↓
code:PlayerController.cpp (current)

4.4 Refactoring Example: Add Coyote Time

Designer: "Add coyote time - player can jump briefly after leaving ledge"

AI detects architecture limitation:

⚠️ Current jump system checks grounded state atomically.
   Coyote time requires tracking "time since left ground."

Suggested refactoring:
  Pattern: add_temporal_state
  
Changes:
  - Add: PlayerState.lastGroundedTime
  - Modify: Jump condition to check time threshold
  - Affects: 1 spec, 1 code file, 3 tests

This is a simple refactoring (low risk).

[Apply Automatically] [Review First] [Cancel]

Applied changes:

// Before
if (input.jumpPressed && player.grounded) {
    jump();
}

// After
const float COYOTE_TIME = 0.15f;
float timeSinceGrounded = currentTime - player.lastGroundedTime;

if (input.jumpPressed && 
    (player.grounded || timeSinceGrounded < COYOTE_TIME)) {
    jump();
}

Lineage updated:

spec:jump_mechanics_v3 → v4
  added: coyote_time parameter
  rationale: "Improve platform game feel"

5. Technical Considerations

5.1 Performance Characteristics

Immutable state overhead:

State update: ~0.5ms (50KB allocation + reference counting)
Ring buffer maintenance: <0.1ms
Total overhead: ~3% of 16ms frame budget (acceptable for development)

Production optimization:

Compile rules to optimized native code
Use copy-on-write for hot paths
Disable history in shipping builds (optional)

Structural sharing efficiency:

1000 entities, 10 change per frame: 99% memory sharing
Static world data: 100% sharing across all frames
Typical: 50KB per frame vs 10MB for full copy (99.5% savings)

5.2 Determinism Requirements

Critical for replay:

No rand() without seeded RNG
No system time queries in gameplay
No floating-point non-determinism
Input is only source of randomness

Verification:

void verifyDeterminism() {
    auto recorded = recorder.getState(100);
    auto replayed = replayFromInput(0, 100);
    
    if (*recorded != *replayed) {
        reportNonDeterminism(findDifferences(recorded, replayed));
    }
}

5.3 Scalability Considerations

State size limits:

Ring buffer: 3600 frames (60s) × 50KB = 180MB
Acceptable for development
Can reduce to 30s if needed

Large worlds:

Spatial partitioning keeps most data unchanged
Only active region copied per frame
Distant entities: 100% sharing

Many entities:

Persistent vector handles 100,000+ entities efficiently
O(log32 N) updates (nearly constant time)

5.4 Multi-threading

Immutable data is inherently thread-safe:

Rendering thread can read any historical state
Physics simulation can run ahead speculatively
AI can analyze past states on worker threads

Example: Async analysis

// Game thread
stateHistory.push(newState);

// Analysis thread (safe concurrent read)
auto state = stateHistory.get(60);  // 1 second ago
auto analysis = analyzeGameplay(state);
ui.showSuggestions(analysis);

6. Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Proof of Concept (4-6 weeks)

Immutable state architecture for simple game (Pong/Breakout)
Basic event recording and replay
Single AI agent for rule generation
Demonstrate lineage tracking

Success criteria:

Can jump to any frame instantly
Can modify parameter and see change immediately
Rule → spec → code lineage visible

Phase 2: Multi-Agent System (8-10 weeks)

Implement agent specialization
Add validator and refactoring agents
Build execution graph visualization
Implement priority conflict detection

Success criteria:

AI suggests parameter changes from feedback
AI detects architectural limitations
AI proposes and executes refactorings

Phase 3: Production Features (12-16 weeks)

Optimize structural sharing performance
Add visual debug markers
Implement timeline branching
Build comprehensive UI

Success criteria:

<5% performance overhead
Side-by-side timeline comparison
Professional iteration workflow

Phase 4: Complex Game (16-20 weeks)

Apply to full-featured game (platformer or action game)
Test with real design iteration
Refine AI agents based on usage
Optimize for production

Success criteria:

Complete game built using system
Demonstrates refactoring capability
Proves iteration efficiency gains

7. Novel Contributions

7.1 To Game Development

Bidirectional traceability: First system to maintain complete lineage from design intent to implementation
Refactoring-first architecture: Treating refactoring as primary capability, not maintenance task
Multi-frame convergence: Formal separation of simulation correctness from presentation smoothness
Immutable game state: First production game engine built on persistent data structures

7.2 To AI Systems

Multi-agent game design: Novel application of specialized AI agents to creative software development
Context-aware code generation: Code generation that maintains semantic lineage to high-level intent
Automated refactoring detection: AI that identifies architectural limitations and proposes patterns

7.3 To Software Engineering

Compositional traceability: Pattern applicable beyond games to any iterative creative software
Visual debugging through time-travel: Leveraging immutability for unprecedented debugging capabilities
Declarative execution with imperative performance: Rules compile to optimized code while preserving semantics

8. Conclusion

This design presents a comprehensive rethinking of game development tooling. By combining immutable state architecture, multi-agent AI systems, declarative rules, and comprehensive lineage tracking, we enable a workflow where:

Designers work at the level of intent ("Jump should feel snappy") AI bridges to implementation (generates specs and code) Iteration is instantaneous (replay with parameter changes) Refactoring is safe (complete impact analysis and lineage) Complexity is manageable (explicit dependencies and priorities)

The system doesn't eliminate the need for human creativity, judgment, or expertise. Instead, it amplifies these capabilities by:

Removing friction from iteration
Making implicit knowledge explicit
Enabling rapid experimentation
Maintaining design rationale

The future of game development isn't AI replacing game designers. It's AI as an intelligent assistant that helps designers iterate faster, understand their systems better, and safely evolve their games as requirements change.

The architecture presented here is buildable with current technology and offers genuine improvements to the game development process. The path forward is clear: start with simple proof of concept, validate the core ideas, and incrementally build toward production-ready tooling.

9. References and Further Reading

Immutable Data Structures:

Okasaki, Chris. "Purely Functional Data Structures" (1998)
Bagwell, Phil. "Ideal Hash Trees" (2001)
Hickey, Rich. "Persistent Data Structures and Managed References" (Clojure design)

Rules Engines:

Forgy, Charles. "Rete: A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object Pattern Match Problem" (1982)
JBoss Drools Documentation
Clara Rules (Clojure rules engine)

Game Architecture:

Nystrom, Bob. "Game Programming Patterns" (2014)
Gregory, Jason. "Game Engine Architecture" (2018)
Blow, Jonathan. "Immediate Mode GUI" paradigms

AI-Assisted Development:

OpenAI Codex and GitHub Copilot studies
Multi-agent systems for software development (emerging research)

Time-Travel Debugging:

Mozilla rr (record and replay)
Undo Live Recorder
Redux DevTools (web development)

Appendix A: Glossary

Artifact Graph: Directed acyclic graph connecting design rules, specifications, and implementation code with explicit lineage relationships.

Convergence: Process by which simulation state becomes consistent over multiple frames while presentation remains smooth.

Lineage: The traced relationship showing how implementation derives from specifications and rules, enabling bidirectional impact analysis.

Multi-frame Convergence: Architectural pattern allowing game state to take multiple frames to reach consistency while maintaining smooth visual presentation.

Persistent Data Structure: Immutable data structure that preserves previous versions when modified through structural sharing.

Priority Class: Semantic grouping of execution priorities (critical_correctness, gameplay_logic, effects_cosmetic, ui_updates).

Structural Sharing: Memory optimization technique where unchanged portions of data structures are shared between versions through reference counting.

State Snapshot: Complete capture of game state at a specific frame; in this architecture, automatic through immutability.

Document Version: 1.0
Date: February 2026
Status: Design Specification

good docs

license: public domain CC0

Designing prompts for an AI‑driven interactive game‑design engine is a fascinating challenge — and honestly, one of the most promising uses of LLMs right now. You’re essentially trying to build a system that:

Takes a high‑level game idea from a user
Expands it iteratively and interactively
Enforces structure, completeness, and consistency
Produces a robust, implementation‑ready game design document (GDD)
And can later be used as a structured model for downstream generation (e.g., content, code, assets)

To get there, you need a prompt architecture that is modular, hierarchical, and stateful. Let me walk you through a practical blueprint.

🧩 1. The Core Idea: A “Game Design Operating System” Prompt

Think of your prompt not as a single instruction, but as a system of roles and rules that the AI follows throughout the entire interaction.

Your engine needs:

A. A persistent “Design Framework”

A structured checklist of what a complete GDD must contain. For example:

High‑level concept
Genre + target audience
Core fantasy + player motivation
Game pillars
Gameplay loop
Systems design
Progression
Worldbuilding
Characters
Narrative structure
Art direction
Sound design
Technical constraints
Monetization
Accessibility
Production plan

This becomes the north star the AI always refers back to.

B. A “State Manager”

The AI must track:

What sections are complete
What sections need refinement
What assumptions have been made
What contradictions need resolution

This can be represented as a JSON‑like internal structure.

C. An “Iterative Expansion Protocol”

Each step should:

Ask the user clarifying questions
Expand the design
Update the structured model
Present the next recommended step

This keeps the process guided but flexible.

🏗️ 2. Prompt Architecture: The Three‑Layer System

Here’s a proven structure for building such an engine.

Layer 1 — System Prompt (The Brain)

This defines the AI’s identity, rules, and responsibilities.

Key components:

1. Role

“You are a senior game designer and systems architect. Your job is to help the user develop a complete, structured, implementation‑ready game design document.”

2. Responsibilities

Maintain a structured GDD model
Ask clarifying questions
Ensure completeness
Detect contradictions
Provide options, not assumptions
Keep everything consistent

3. Output Format Rules

Always update the structured model
Always show the diff or updated section
Always propose the next step

4. The GDD Schema

Embed the full schema the AI must follow.

Layer 2 — Interaction Prompt (The Conversation Engine)

This defines how each turn works.

Example:

“Each time the user provides input, follow this cycle:

Interpret the user’s message
Update the GDD model
Ask 1–3 clarifying questions
Suggest the next recommended design step
Output the updated GDD section in structured form”

This creates a predictable, iterative workflow.

Layer 3 — User Prompt (The High‑Level Idea)

This is where the user says:

“I want a cozy farming RPG on a floating island.”

Your engine then kicks into the iterative loop.

🧱 3. The Structured Game Model (Your Secret Weapon)

To make the final output “robustly turnable into a working game,” you need a machine‑readable schema.

Here’s a simplified example:

{
  "game_title": "",
  "high_concept": "",
  "genre": "",
  "pillars": [],
  "core_loop": "",
  "mechanics": {
    "movement": {},
    "combat": {},
    "crafting": {},
    "economy": {},
    "progression": {}
  },
  "world": {
    "setting": "",
    "regions": [],
    "factions": []
  },
  "characters": {
    "player": {},
    "npcs": []
  },
  "narrative": {
    "theme": "",
    "story_arc": "",
    "quests": []
  },
  "art_direction": {},
  "sound_design": {},
  "technical_spec": {},
  "monetization": {},
  "accessibility": {},
  "production_plan": {}
}

The AI updates this structure every turn.

Later, you can feed each section into specialized LLMs:

Mechanics → code generator
World → procedural content generator
Characters → dialogue generator
Art direction → image model

This is how you get a pipeline that produces a real game.

🔁 4. The Iterative Loop (How the AI Should Behave)

Here’s the loop you want the AI to follow:

Step 1 — User gives input

“I want a sci‑fi survival game on a derelict space station.”

Step 2 — AI expands + asks questions

Updates the high‑level concept
Suggests 2–3 possible directions
Asks clarifying questions
Updates the structured model

Step 3 — User answers

“More horror than action. Minimal combat.”

Step 4 — AI refines

Updates pillars
Updates core loop
Suggests next step (e.g., “Let’s define the player fantasy next.”)

This continues until the GDD is complete.

🧠 5. Prompt Template You Can Use

Here’s a starting point for your system prompt:

SYSTEM PROMPT TEMPLATE

You are the Game Design Engine (GDE).

Your purpose is to collaboratively build a complete, structured, implementation‑ready Game Design Document (GDD) based on the user’s high‑level idea.

Your responsibilities:

Maintain a structured GDD model (schema provided below).
Expand the design iteratively.
Ask clarifying questions when needed.
Ensure completeness and internal consistency.
Provide multiple options when appropriate.
Update the GDD model every turn.
Suggest the next recommended design step.

Interaction Protocol:

For every user message:

Interpret the user’s input.
Update the GDD model.
Present the updated section.
Ask 1–3 clarifying questions.
Suggest the next step.

GDD Schema:

[Insert your full schema here]

🧭 6. Why This Works

This structure gives you:

Consistency
Completeness
Machine‑readability
Iterative refinement
A pipeline‑ready design model

It transforms the LLM from a “chatbot” into a design system.

Saturday, February 14, 2026

art

license: public domain CC0

Design Document: Multi-Scale Neural Network Visualization via CA, Voxels, and Fractal Compression

1. Overview

This document defines a high-performance, multi-scale visualization framework for representing the internal state of deep neural networks using:

Cellular automata (CA)
3D voxel grids
Subpixel and multi-resolution compression
Fractal-inspired scaling derived from network weights and dynamics

The framework converts high-dimensional tensors (activations, weights, gradients, attention maps) into structured, recursively compressed visual fields capable of scaling to billion-parameter models.

The system supports:

Static snapshots (single forward pass)
Time evolution (training iterations)
Layer transitions
CA-driven emergent visualizations
Recursive zoom / fractal exploration

The architecture is model-agnostic (CNNs, transformers, MLPs, diffusion models, etc.).

2. Objectives

2.1 Interpretability

Provide structured visibility into:

Activation sparsity patterns
Feature hierarchies
Attention clustering
Gradient flow and vanishing/exploding behavior
Residual path dominance
Spectral structure of weight matrices

Interpretability goal: expose structure, not raw magnitude.

2.2 Scalability

Target constraints:

Handle ≥10⁹ parameters
Maintain interactive performance (30–60 FPS for moderate models)
Support progressive refinement

Strategies:

Hierarchical spatial compression
Tensor factorization (PCA/SVD)
Block quantization
Octree voxelization
Multi-resolution caching

2.3 Artistic and Structural Insight

Neural networks inherently exhibit:

Recursive composition
Hierarchical feature reuse
Spectral decay
Self-similar clustering
Power-law distributions

The system intentionally leverages these properties to produce fractal-like representations grounded in real model statistics.

3. System Architecture

3.1 Data Sources

3.1.1 Activation Capture

Implementation (PyTorch example conceptually):

Register forward hooks on modules
Capture:
- Input tensor
- Output tensor
- Intermediate states (if needed)

Memory constraints:

For large models, stream activations layer-by-layer.
Use half precision (FP16/BF16).
Optionally detach and move to CPU asynchronously.

3.1.2 Gradients

Use backward hooks or register_full_backward_hook.

Store:

dL/dW
dL/dX
Gradient norms
Gradient sign maps

Optionally compute:

[
||\nabla W||_F, \quad ||\nabla X||_2
]

These become color or intensity drivers.

3.1.3 Weight Statistics

Precompute per layer:

Frobenius norm
Spectral norm (via power iteration)
Singular values (top-k)
Channel norms
Kernel norms
Sparsity ratio
Weight distribution histogram

Cache results for rendering.

3.1.4 Attention Matrices

For transformer layers:

Extract:

[
A \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times N \times N}
]

Where:

H = number of heads
N = sequence length

Store:

Mean across heads
Per-head matrices
Symmetrized attention
Eigenvalues of A

3.1.5 Jacobians (Optional)

Expensive but powerful.

Approximate Jacobian norm via:

[
||J||_F^2 = \sum_i ||\frac{\partial y}{\partial x_i}||^2
]

Efficient approximation:

Hutchinson trace estimator
Random projection methods

Used to visualize sensitivity fields.

3.2 Processing Pipeline

Stage 1 — Tensor Acquisition

Normalize tensors per layer:

Options:

Min-max scaling
Z-score normalization
Robust scaling (median + MAD)
Log scaling for heavy-tailed distributions

Recommended default:

[
x' = \tanh(\alpha x)
]

Prevents outlier domination.

Stage 2 — Dimensionality Compression

CNN Feature Maps

Input shape:
[
B \times C \times H \times W
]

Steps:

Aggregate batch:
- mean across B
Compute:
- mean activation per channel
- variance per channel
Reduce channels:
- PCA across C
- Top 3 components → RGB

Optional:

Spatial pooling pyramid:
- 1×
- 1/2×
- 1/4×
- 1/8×

Store as mipmap pyramid.

MLP Activations

Vector shape:
[
B \times D
]

Options:

Reshape D into 2D grid (nearest square)
PCA to 3 components
Use block averaging
Spectral embedding

Attention Compression

Compute recursive powers:

[
A^{(2^k)} = A^{(2^{k-1})} \cdot A^{(2^{k-1})}
]

Normalize at each step.

This produces long-range interaction amplification.

Also compute:

Laplacian:
[
L = D - A
]
Eigenvectors for cluster visualization.

Stage 3 — Fractal Scaling

3.3.1 Weight Norm Scaling

For each layer:

[
s_L = ||W_L||_F
]

For each channel:

[
s_c = ||W_{L,c}||
]

Use scaling factor:

[
\tilde{x} = x \cdot \frac{s_c}{\max(s_c)}
]

Maps structural importance to visual prominence.

3.3.2 Spectral Scaling

Compute top singular values:

[
\sigma_1 \ge \sigma_2 \ge \dots
]

Define recursive zoom depth:

[
depth \propto \log(\sigma_1 / \sigma_k)
]

High spectral dominance → deeper fractal recursion.

3.3.3 Residual Path Branching

For networks with skip connections:

Represent each residual branch as a child region in CA or voxel tree.

Branch width ∝ branch weight norm.

This creates visible branching trees.

3.3.4 Jacobian Field Visualization

Map:

Jacobian norm → brightness
Largest singular vector direction → color angle

Results often produce ridge-like structures in input space.

4. Compression Techniques

4.1 Subpixel Encoding

Each pixel subdivided into:

2×2 grid or 3×3 microcells

Encode:

Mean
Variance
Gradient magnitude
Sign ratio

Use bit-packing for GPU upload:

Example:

8 bits mean
8 bits variance
8 bits gradient
8 bits sign entropy

Packed into RGBA texture.

4.2 Octree Voxelization

Data structure:

Node:
    bounds
    mean_activation
    variance
    children[8]

Merge rule:

If:
[
|a_i - a_j| < \epsilon
]

And variance below threshold → collapse children.

Provides O(N log N) construction.

4.3 Density-Aware Merging

Define density:

[
\rho = |activation|
]

High ρ:

Subdivide

Low ρ:

Merge

Adaptive voxel resolution.

4.4 Multi-Resolution Blending

Algorithm:

Downsample tensor via average pooling
Upsample via bilinear
Blend:

[
x_{blend} = \lambda x + (1-\lambda)x_{up}
]

Repeat recursively.

Produces controlled fractal texture.

5. Cellular Automaton Layer

Each CA cell contains:

struct Cell:
    activation_mean
    activation_variance
    gradient_mean
    weight_scale
    spectral_scale

Neighborhood:

Moore (8-neighbor)
3D 26-neighbor (voxels)

Update rule example:

[
x_{t+1} = f(x_t, \text{neighbor mean}, \text{gradient}, \text{weight scale})
]

Possible update equation:

[
x' = x + \alpha \cdot \Delta_{neighbors}
]
[
x' = x' \cdot (1 + \beta \cdot weight_scale)
]

Optionally nonlinear activation (ReLU/tanh).

Can be:

Hand-crafted
Learned (Neural CA)

6. Voxel Rendering

6.1 Mapping Strategy

Dimension mapping examples:

X,Y → spatial
Z → channel index
Brightness → activation
Hue → gradient direction
Opacity → weight norm

6.2 GPU Rendering

Recommended:

OpenGL / Vulkan
WebGL for browser
CUDA volume ray marching

Techniques:

3D textures
Ray marching with early termination
Transfer functions for opacity
Instanced cube rendering for sparse voxels

Acceleration:

Frustum culling
Level-of-detail switching
Sparse voxel octrees

7. Color Encoding

7.1 Diverging Maps

Map:

[
x < 0 → blue
]
[
x > 0 → red
]

Gamma correct before display.

7.2 PCA → RGB

Compute PCA:

[
X \rightarrow U \Sigma V^T
]

Take first 3 columns of UΣ.

Normalize per component.

Map to RGB.

7.3 HSV Gradient Encoding

Hue:
[
\theta = \text{atan2}(g_y, g_x)
]

Saturation:
[
||\nabla||
]

Value:
[
|activation|
]

8. Rendering Modes

8.1 Static

Single layer spectral map
Attention fractal heatmap
Weight norm landscape
Voxel activation cloud

8.2 Animated

Training evolution over epochs
Gradient flow over time
CA emergent patterns
Recursive zoom via spectral scale

8.3 Interactive

User controls:

Layer selection
Head selection
Compression threshold
Spectral depth
Toggle raw vs scaled
Voxel slicing plane

Add inspection overlay:

Hover → show tensor statistics
Click → show singular values

9. Performance Considerations

9.1 Memory

Use FP16 where possible
Stream tensors instead of storing entire model
Compress PCA bases

9.2 Parallelism

GPU for voxel + CA
CPU for PCA/SVD (or cuSOLVER)
Async prefetch

9.3 Caching

Cache:

Downsample pyramids
PCA bases per layer
Weight norms
Spectral norms

Invalidate cache when model updates.

10. Stability & Safety

Always normalize before visualization.
Clamp extreme outliers.
Provide legends and numeric scales.
Separate aesthetic exaggeration from faithful mode.
Provide “scientific mode” toggle (no scaling distortions).

11. Future Extensions

Learned Neural CA visualizers
VR exploration of voxel space
Differentiable visualization loss
Integration with experiment tracking systems
Spectral topology analysis
Persistent homology overlays

12. Implementation Roadmap (High-Level)

Phase 1

Activation capture
PCA compression
2D heatmap renderer

Phase 2

Multi-resolution pyramid
Octree voxelization
GPU volume rendering

Phase 3

Spectral scaling
Attention recursion
CA evolution engine

Phase 4

Interactive UI
Training-time animation
VR or WebGL deployment

Friday, February 13, 2026

license: public domain CC0.

Game Mechanics Morphing with Controlled Natural Languages (CNLs)

Design Document

1. Overview

This document outlines the design of a Game Mechanics Morphing system using Controlled Natural Languages (CNLs) to describe the mechanics of different classic arcade games. The primary idea is to create a highly structured space where different games' mechanics are represented as points, allowing them to be smoothly morphed, blended, and interpolated. This allows for the evolution of game mechanics or the creation of hybrid games through gradual, controlled transitions between different game styles, all while maintaining coherence and preventing drift into unrelated or nonsensical mechanics.

2. Key Concepts

Controlled Natural Language (CNL)

A Controlled Natural Language (CNL) is a restricted, formalized subset of natural language (English) designed to express complex concepts unambiguously. It is machine-readable and human-readable and allows for structured descriptions of game mechanics without the complexity and variability of full natural language. CNLs are used to describe game entities, actions, behaviors, and rules.

In this design, multiple CNLs are created to represent different classic arcade game genres (e.g., Space Invaders, Asteroids, Missile Command). Each CNL captures the core mechanics of a specific game.

Game Mechanics Morphing

Morphing refers to the process of interpolating, blending, or transitioning between different game rules, structures, and mechanics. By treating each CNL as a point in a high-dimensional space, we can create smooth transitions between game mechanics. This allows the system to blend game styles or gradually shift the rules of one game into another, producing hybrid or entirely new gameplay experiences.

3. System Architecture

3.1 Components

The overall architecture for the game mechanics morphing system consists of the following components:

CNL Definitions
CNLs define the mechanics, behaviors, and rules of individual arcade games using a controlled vocabulary and grammar.
CNL Morphing Engine
The morphing engine is responsible for blending different CNLs by interpolating:
- Sentence-level blending: Modifying specific actions or behaviors.
- Vocabulary-level blending: Gradually swapping out terms and actions.
- Grammar-level blending: Shifting sentence structures or behaviors.
Game State Representation
Game states are represented in a structured format (e.g., JSON or a similar schema) that captures entities, actions, and behaviors.
Simulation Engine
The simulation engine interprets the game mechanics as defined by the CNL and executes the game in real-time. It receives inputs, updates the game state, and handles interactions between entities (e.g., collisions, movements).
Human Interface
A human interface allows developers or users to interact with the system, either to control the morphing process or explore hybrid games.

3.2 CNLs for Arcade Games

Each arcade game has its own distinct CNL that defines its mechanics. Below is a brief overview of the core elements in the CNLs for different games:

Space Invaders CNL

Entities: player ship, enemies, bullets
Behaviors: enemies move horizontally, descend when hitting boundary, player fires bullets
Collision rules: enemy destroyed when hit by bullet
Movement rules: horizontal enemy movement, boundary checks, descent

Asteroids CNL

Entities: ship, asteroid, bullet
Behaviors: ship rotates, thrusts, asteroid splits on hit
Movement rules: ship velocity, asteroid drift, wrap-around on boundaries
Collision rules: asteroid splits when hit, bullet disappears on impact

Missile Command CNL

Entities: cities, missiles, interceptors, explosions
Behaviors: missile follows trajectory, interceptor explodes, city destroyed when hit
Movement rules: missile and interceptor trajectories
Collision rules: missiles are destroyed within explosion radius, cities destroyed on impact

Frogger CNL

Entities: frog, lanes, cars, logs
Behaviors: frog moves between lanes, logs act as platforms
Collision rules: frog dies when colliding with car, frog hops across lanes

4. Morphing Process

The morphing engine allows us to transition from one CNL to another by interpolating between different rule sets, vocabularies, and sentence structures. The core morphing techniques are:

4.1 Structural Interpolation (Rule-Level Blending)

At the core of the morphing process is the blending of specific rules. For example:

Space Invaders rule: Each enemy moves horizontally by 1 cell each tick.
Galaxian rule: Each enemy moves in a diving arc toward the player.

Intermediate:
Each enemy moves horizontally but may begin a shallow arc toward the player.

This allows for a gradual blending of behaviors, preserving the game mechanics of both while introducing new dynamics.

4.2 Vocabulary Interpolation (Lexical Blending)

Blending different terminologies or vocabulary terms is a crucial aspect. As rules evolve, we can gradually replace one term with another to signify different game mechanics:

Start with "enemy formation" in Space Invaders.
Transition to "enemy squadron" and introduce terms like "leaders," "wingmen".
Eventually, "enemy formation" becomes "enemy squadron" in Galaxian, introducing behaviors like leaders diving.

4.3 Sentence Pattern Interpolation (Grammar-Level Blending)

The syntax and grammar of each CNL are also subject to blending. For instance:

Space Invaders template:
If any enemy reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by 1 row.
Galaxian template:
Enemies break formation and dive toward the player.

Intermediate:
If any enemy reaches a boundary, some enemies break formation and dive toward the player.

5. Example of Morphing Across Multiple Game Styles

Let's explore an example of morphing across three distinct game styles: Space Invaders, Galaxian, and Phoenix.

Step 1: Pure Space Invaders CNL

Enemies move horizontally by 1 cell each tick.
If any enemy reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by 1 row.
The player fires a bullet when commanded.
If a bullet occupies the same cell as an enemy, the enemy is destroyed.

Step 2: Introducing Galaxian Vocabulary

Enemies move horizontally by 1 cell each tick.
Some enemies are leaders.
If any leader reaches a boundary, all enemies descend by 1 row.
The player fires a bullet when commanded.
If a bullet occupies the same cell as an enemy, the enemy is destroyed.

Step 3: Blending Movement Rules (Space Invaders → Galaxian)

Enemies move horizontally, but leaders may begin a shallow dive toward the player.
If any leader reaches a boundary, all enemies descend by 1 row.
The player fires a bullet when commanded.
If a bullet occupies the same cell as an enemy, the enemy is destroyed.

Step 4: Shifting Toward Phoenix Behavior

Enemies move in formation, but leaders may dive toward the player.
If a leader dives, wingmen may follow.
Enemies shoot bullets when descending toward the player.

Step 5: Pure Phoenix CNL

Enemies move in formation.
Leaders dive toward the player, wingmen follow in arcs.
Enemies shoot bullets when descending toward the player.

6. Why This Works

Controlled Transition

The CNL-based approach ensures that during the morphing process, the LLM stays grounded. The strict constraints on vocabulary, grammar, and structure ensure that each transition adheres to the rules, preventing the system from drifting into nonsensical or unrelated game mechanics.

Smooth Interpolation

By interpolating at different levels (structural, vocabulary, grammar), we can control the smoothness and gradual nature of the transitions, ensuring the game mechanics evolve at a steady pace, keeping both playability and game coherence intact.

Extensibility

New game mechanics or hybrids can be easily integrated. For example, blending mechanics from a missile-defense game with platformer mechanics or creating a new game genre by combining lane-based movement with arcade shooter elements.

7. Next Steps and Ideas

7.1 Meta-CNL for Cross-Game Morphing

To further extend the morphing process, a meta-CNL could be created that provides a high-level language for switching between different game genres. This would allow for:

Defining broad families of games (e.g., grid-based, arcade-shooter, action-adventure) and transitioning between them.
Enabling game genre evolution, where new genres can be created by morphing core mechanics from different styles.

7.2 Integrating Hybrid Gameplay Creation

Allow the system to generate hybrid game genres based on the morphing process. Developers or players could select a starting point and then guide the system to create entirely

new gameplay experiences.

8. Conclusion

By using Controlled Natural Languages (CNLs) to define and morph the mechanics of arcade games, this system allows for the smooth and controlled evolution of game rules and styles. The CNLs ensure the system stays grounded, with clear, interpretable rules that can be gradually changed and blended. This opens up new possibilities for game creation, hybrid mechanics, and even evolving game genres — all within a coherent and structured framework.

dope smokin' morphin power rangerin'

license: public domain CC0.

Once you have multiple CNLs, each describing a different arcade game family, you can treat them as points in a conceptual space — and that means you can interpolate, morph, and blend them just like you would blend images or sounds. The result is a controlled, gradual transformation from one ruleset to another, with the LLM staying grounded because the vocabulary and grammar remain constrained.

Let’s break down how this works and why it’s so compelling.

🎮 The Big Idea: A “Game Morphing Space” Built From CNLs

Each CNL is a structured description of a game’s mechanics. If you represent those mechanics as:

entities
behaviors
movement rules
collision rules
scoring rules
world structure

…then each game becomes a vector in a high‑dimensional rule space.

Once you have that, you can:

interpolate between rule vectors
blend vocabularies
gradually rewrite sentences
shift constraints over time

This gives you a smooth morph from:

Space Invaders → Galaxian → Phoenix → Terra Cresta → …

And because each step stays inside a controlled grammar, the LLM doesn’t drift into nonsense.

🧩 How to Interpolate Between Two CNLs

There are three complementary approaches, and you can use them together.

1. Structural Interpolation (Rule-Level Blending)

Each CNL sentence maps to a structured rule. For example:

Space Invaders:

Each enemy moves horizontally by 1 cell each tick.

Galaxian:

Each enemy moves in a diving arc toward the player.

A structural interpolation might produce:

Intermediate:

Each enemy moves horizontally but may begin a downward arc toward the player.

This is a semantic blend of the two rules.

2. Vocabulary Interpolation (Lexical Blending)

Each CNL has a restricted vocabulary. You can gradually introduce new terms while phasing out old ones.

Example:

Start with “enemy formation”
Introduce “enemy squadron”
Replace “formation” with “squadron”
Introduce “diver”, “leader”, “wingman”
Remove “formation” entirely

This keeps the LLM grounded while shifting the conceptual frame.

3. Sentence Pattern Interpolation (Grammar-Level Blending)

Each CNL has its own grammar templates. You can gradually replace templates.

Example:

Space Invaders template:

If any enemy reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by <int> rows.

Galaxian template:

Enemies break formation and dive toward the player.

Intermediate template:

If an enemy reaches a boundary then some enemies break formation and dive.

This creates a smooth transition in behavior.

🧬 How the LLM Stays Grounded

Because each CNL:

has a fixed grammar
has a fixed vocabulary
maps to structured rules
is validated by a parser

…the LLM can’t drift into unrelated concepts. Even during interpolation, it must stay within the allowed forms.

You can even enforce:

“Only use vocabulary from CNL A or CNL B”
“Only use grammar templates from these sets”
“Only modify one rule per interpolation step”

This gives you a controlled morphing process.

🔄 A Concrete Example: Space Invaders → Galaxian

Step 0: Pure Space Invaders

Enemies move horizontally by 1 cell each tick.
If any enemy reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by 1 row.

Step 1: Introduce Galaxian vocabulary

Enemies move horizontally by 1 cell each tick.
Some enemies are leaders.
If any leader reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by 1 row.

Step 2: Blend movement rules

Enemies move horizontally but leaders may begin a shallow dive.
If any leader reaches a boundary then all enemies descend by 1 row.

Step 3: Shift toward Galaxian behavior

Enemies move in formation but leaders may dive toward the player.
If a leader dives then wingmen may follow.

Step 4: Pure Galaxian

Enemies move in formation.
Leaders dive toward the player and wingmen follow in arcs.

This is a clean, readable morph.

🧠 Extending This to All Six Games

You can build a graph of CNLs, not just a line:

Space Invaders → Galaxian → Phoenix → Terra Cresta
Asteroids → Defender
Frogger → Pac-Man (lane-based → maze-based)
Missile Command → (branching into artillery-style games)

Each edge in the graph defines a morph path.

You can even let the LLM:

explore the space
generate hybrids
invent new arcade genres

…while staying inside the CNL constraints.

🎨 Why This Is So Interesting

You’re essentially creating:

a morphable ruleset space
a controlled creative engine
a grammar for game evolution
a tool for generating new retro-style games
a framework for LLM-driven game mutation

It’s like procedural generation, but for game mechanics, not just levels.

And because the CNL is readable, humans can understand and edit the morphs.

This idea is incredibly intriguing! You're building a game mechanics morphing engine using Controlled Natural Languages (CNLs), which allows for blending the rules of different arcade games in a controlled and structured way. The approach leverages structured rules and grammar to prevent the LLM from veering into irrelevant territory, ensuring a smooth, coherent transition between game mechanics.

Here are some critical insights, suggestions, and potential improvements to refine the design:

1. Clarity on "Interpreting" and "Morphing" the Rules

You are right to focus on creating a smooth, controlled transition between game rules, but the actual mechanics of how the LLM interprets and morphs the rules could use some clarification.

Possible Problem: "Morphing" may sound abstract.

Solution: You might want to explicitly define the underlying steps for the LLM to follow while morphing between CNLs. For example:
- Does it morph each sentence at a time, or are larger rule groups (like behaviors, movement rules) morphed first?
- How do you avoid confusing or inconsistent rules during the transition? (For example, when a “leader” starts to dive in Galaxian, how does this affect the “boundary” behavior in Space Invaders?)

Suggested Fix:

Outline the precise algorithm for morphing rules step-by-step. For example, you might say:
- Step 1: Interpolate a rule’s subject or action first (e.g., change “enemy moves horizontally” to “enemy moves in formation”).
- Step 2: Blend complementary rules (e.g., introduce the concept of “leaders” but still retain the original boundary behavior until later).
- Step 3: Once structural transitions are stable, shift the behavior itself (e.g., replace horizontal movement with arc-like movement for some enemies).

2. Exploring CNL Transitions Between Different Game Types

Your example of Space Invaders → Galaxian works well, but when considering other games, transitions could become more complex due to differing game structures. The concept of Frogger → Pac-Man (lane-based → maze-based) is intriguing but tricky to manage because:

Frogger works with discrete lanes and obstacle patterns, while Pac-Man uses a continuous maze.
Missile Command → Artillery games implies different environmental dynamics (missiles vs projectiles, aiming mechanics).

Potential Issue: CNL-based transitions might break down when morphing between fundamentally different types of mechanics (e.g., from discrete grid-based games to continuous space games).

Suggested Fix:

Consider adding an additional meta-CNL layer that can handle the transition between different types of world structure (grid-based vs continuous space). This could help establish a bridge between fundamentally different gameplay experiences.

3. Defining the Granularity of Interpolation

The description of structural, vocabulary, and grammar-level blending is powerful, but you may need to more clearly define the granularity of these interpolations.

Granularity: When you blend between two rules or vocabularies, how much detail do you maintain at each step? Do you interpolate in big chunks (e.g., “move left” to “move in formation”) or small ones (e.g., adjusting positions of individual entities)?

Suggested Fix:

Add guidelines to specify the level of abstraction for each interpolation step:
- Granularity 1: Sentence-level changes, blending specific actions (e.g., moving left to moving diagonally).
- Granularity 2: Entity-level changes, shifting the behavior of an entire class of objects (e.g., enemies as leaders in Galaxian).
- Granularity 3: Rule-level changes, shifting the core game mechanics (e.g., from shooting enemies to dodging asteroids).

4. Fine-Tuning the Vocabulary and Grammar

You're introducing new terms like “leader,” “wingman,” and “squadron” in the example of Space Invaders → Galaxian, which helps introduce Galaxian concepts gradually. However, there’s a risk of vocabulary overlap that may confuse the LLM (e.g., "formation" could clash with "squadron").

Potential Issue: As you blend vocabularies, ensuring that no terms are ambiguous or redundant is key for maintaining control.

Suggested Fix:

Maintain a vocabulary map that tracks words as they transition. For instance:
- Map "formation" → "squadron".
- Ensure that each new word introduced is only applied once and with precise definitions to prevent confusion.

Alternatively, you could phase out older terms once the new term has been fully integrated.

5. Addressing Edge Cases and Uncertainty During Morphing

As the LLM morphs between game rules, edge cases may arise that weren't explicitly accounted for in the original rulesets. For instance, what if a rule behaves in an unexpected way, like an enemy trying to "dive" without sufficient boundary checks?

Suggested Fix:

Introduce a mechanism to flag and resolve edge cases during morphing. For example:
- If a new rule violates an old one, allow the LLM to “flag” this as a transitional error and prompt for corrective behavior (e.g., revert to the old rule for consistency, or ask for a more specific definition).
- Alternatively, introduce fallback rules when ambiguities arise in behavior.

6. Creativity and Control in the Hybrid Space

The concept of hybrid games—where the LLM creates novel game mechanics by blending existing ones—is incredibly exciting. However, the challenge is ensuring that these hybrids still make sense in terms of playability and coherence.

Potential Issue: The LLM might invent game rules that feel inconsistent with the original arcade style (e.g., blending Missile Command with Frogger could create strange mechanics that don’t work well together).

Suggested Fix:

Introduce playability checks: The system could be designed to evaluate the novelty and playability of hybrid games at each interpolation step. For example, after a morph step, the LLM might run a simulation to check if the gameplay feels balanced and enjoyable.
Game-style filters: Allow the LLM to blend between games within a family (e.g., between different space-shooters) rather than entirely different genres (like blending a puzzle game with an action game). This keeps the hybrid mechanics cohesive.

7. Adding Interactivity in the Morphing Process

One key strength of this system is its ability to evolve games gradually. However, introducing human interaction into the process could be valuable.

Suggested Fix:

Allow human developers or players to “steer” the morphing by selecting preferred transitions or suggesting new game mechanics, making the experience interactive and dynamic. This could be useful in generating completely new genres or hybrid gameplay styles.

Final Thoughts: Enhancing the Vision

Overall, you're building a framework that has the potential to enable game mechanics evolution in a controlled and creative way. The key improvements are:

Defining the level of granularity in the interpolation process.
Ensuring vocabulary consistency and preventing overlap.
Adding checks for edge cases and hybrid playability.
Offering interactivity for developers to guide the morphing process.

With these refinements, the concept could become a truly powerful tool for creating procedurally generated, hybrid arcade games while maintaining coherence and control.

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

spoiler

Sunday, February 15, 2026

das system

AI-Driven Interactive Game Design System: A Novel Architecture for Declarative Game Development

Abstract

1. Problem Statement

1.1 Current State of Game Development

1.2 The Fundamental Impossibility

2. Core Architecture

2.1 The Artifact Graph: Lineage as Foundation

2.2 Multi-Agent System

2.3 Immutable State Architecture

2.4 Declarative Rules Engine

3. Key Innovations

3.1 Multi-Frame Convergence

3.2 Global Priority and Execution Graphs

3.3 Record/Replay System

3.4 Refactoring as First-Class Operation

4. Complete Workflow Example

4.1 Initial Design: Jump Mechanics

4.2 Iteration: Jump Feels Too Floaty

4.3 New Feature: Double Jump

4.4 Refactoring Example: Add Coyote Time

5. Technical Considerations

5.1 Performance Characteristics

5.2 Determinism Requirements

5.3 Scalability Considerations

5.4 Multi-threading

6. Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Proof of Concept (4-6 weeks)

Phase 2: Multi-Agent System (8-10 weeks)

Phase 3: Production Features (12-16 weeks)

Phase 4: Complex Game (16-20 weeks)

7. Novel Contributions

7.1 To Game Development

7.2 To AI Systems

7.3 To Software Engineering

8. Conclusion

9. References and Further Reading

Appendix A: Glossary

good docs

🧩 1. The Core Idea: A “Game Design Operating System” Prompt

A. A persistent “Design Framework”

B. A “State Manager”

C. An “Iterative Expansion Protocol”

🏗️ 2. Prompt Architecture: The Three‑Layer System

Layer 1 — System Prompt (The Brain)

Key components:

1. Role

2. Responsibilities

3. Output Format Rules

4. The GDD Schema

Layer 2 — Interaction Prompt (The Conversation Engine)

Example:

Layer 3 — User Prompt (The High‑Level Idea)

🧱 3. The Structured Game Model (Your Secret Weapon)

🔁 4. The Iterative Loop (How the AI Should Behave)

Step 1 — User gives input

Step 2 — AI expands + asks questions

Step 3 — User answers

Step 4 — AI refines

🧠 5. Prompt Template You Can Use

SYSTEM PROMPT TEMPLATE

Your responsibilities:

Interaction Protocol:

GDD Schema:

🧭 6. Why This Works

Saturday, February 14, 2026

art

Design Document: Multi-Scale Neural Network Visualization via CA, Voxels, and Fractal Compression

1. Overview

2. Objectives

2.1 Interpretability

2.2 Scalability

2.3 Artistic and Structural Insight

3. System Architecture

3.1 Data Sources

3.1.1 Activation Capture

3.1.2 Gradients