We Need Less Demanding, More Minimalist Games

Most people I know are still using laptops, computers, and consoles they bought around 2021 or 2022. Their hardware still works, but replacing it has become much more expensive.

AI is not another short crypto rush. It is going to stay, along with its demand for GPUs, memory, and storage. Hardware companies now have customers willing to pay much more than regular players, so I do not think prices will ever return to what we once considered normal.

At the same time, games continue to require more RAM, more VRAM, faster graphics cards, and larger amounts of storage.

I love graphics and rendering technology. I do not want games to stop looking better or using new technology. The problem is that fewer people may be able to afford the hardware needed to experience that progress.

Developers should prepare for this instead of assuming everyone will eventually upgrade.

Efficiency Is Progress

Games are becoming extremely large while SSDs remain expensive. Even hard drives no longer feel like the simple and cheap solution they once were.

This makes optimisation, compression, texture management, asset streaming, and scalable settings more important. Running the same game on weaker hardware without destroying the visuals should also count as technological progress.

I appreciated the approach taken with Battlefield 6. It did not treat an absurd installation size as unavoidable. It is still a modern and visually impressive game, but storage and optimisation were clearly considered.

Its use of Godot for Battlefield Portal tools is also interesting. The main game is not made with Godot, but seeing the engine used for modding tools in a large production shows that it can be useful beyond small indie games.

Technical Minimalism

Minimalism does not mean bad graphics or empty games. It means choosing what is actually needed.

Not every texture needs the highest possible resolution. Not every surface needs a realistic reflection. Not every game needs a massive open world. A feature should add something meaningful to the gameplay, atmosphere, readability, or visual identity.

The same idea applies to game design. More mechanics and more content do not automatically create a better game. Every new system brings more bugs, testing, balancing, and development work.

Minimalism means choosing what matters and giving it enough attention.

Strong art direction can often achieve more than raw complexity. This is especially important for solo developers and small teams that cannot compete with large studios through the amount of assets or content they produce.

Trying to Build My Own Framework

Before choosing Godot, I tried creating my own game framework.

I still like custom engines. I enjoy graphics programming, engine architecture, and having control over the technology.

I especially like Frontier’s engine and the tools they use for creating landscapes and paths. Their tools seem designed around the large environments and simulation games they make. This is one of the biggest advantages of a custom engine. The technology can be built around the actual needs of the game.

However, I quickly realised that building an engine and building a game are separate projects.

A framework needs rendering, asset loading, scene management, debugging, tools, serialization, and platform support. After building all of that, the actual game still needs to be made.

When I looked at experienced solo developers creating custom engines, I noticed that many were mainly building the engine itself. Others had spent years working on their technology or had larger teams behind them than I first thought.

There are exceptions, but doing both is extremely demanding.

I still want to learn graphics and engine development, but I also want to finish a game.

Why I Chose Godot

Godot gives me a balance between control and productivity.

It is lightweight, fast, and easy to iterate with. I can focus on gameplay systems, balance, level design, UI, and the overall direction of the game without building every basic tool myself.

It is also open source, so I can inspect and extend it when necessary.

Godot works well with the agentic coding tools I use. Its scripts and project files are readable, so I can inspect changes and understand what the agent has done. Agents help with repetitive work, debugging, testing, and faster iteration.

However, I never let AI control the direction of development. I keep the architecture, priorities, and design decisions in my own hands.

Koshy John explains this well in AI Should Elevate Your Thinking, Not Replace It. AI can support the work, but it should not own the thinking behind it.

Godot fits the kind of development I want to do. It gives me enough control to experiment with game technology without turning engine development into the whole project.

I still care about graphics and new rendering techniques. I just do not want to build around the assumption that every player will keep buying more expensive hardware.

I want to learn how to create better looking games without making them unnecessarily heavier. For now, Godot feels like the right place for me to explore that.