The author envisions a future (2025 and beyond) where creating video games without a traditional game engine becomes increasingly viable. This is driven by advancements in web technologies like WebGPU, which offer native performance, and readily available libraries handling complex tasks like physics and rendering. Combined with the growing accessibility of AI tools for asset creation and potentially even gameplay logic, the barrier to entry for game development lowers significantly. This empowers smaller teams and individual developers to bring their unique game ideas to life, focusing on creativity rather than wrestling with complex engine setup and low-level programming. This shift mirrors the transition seen in web development, moving from manual HTML/CSS/JS to higher-level frameworks and tools.
Noel Berry's blog post, "Making Video Games (Without an Engine) in 2025," envisions a future where game development, particularly for smaller, independent creators, shifts away from monolithic game engines toward a more modular and specialized toolset. Berry posits that the increasing complexity and "black box" nature of contemporary engines like Unity and Unreal Engine, while beneficial for large-scale projects, are becoming cumbersome and overkill for smaller endeavors. He foresees a renaissance of handcrafted development, utilizing a carefully curated collection of bespoke tools tailored to the specific needs of individual projects.
This prediction stems from several observations. First, Berry highlights the rising performance capabilities of lower-level APIs like Vulkan and WebGPU, which grant developers more direct control over hardware and potentially offer substantial performance gains compared to the abstraction layers present in conventional engines. These APIs, previously considered daunting due to their complexity, are becoming more accessible thanks to improving documentation and the emergence of helpful libraries and tools that streamline their usage.
Second, the blog post argues for the growing viability of assembling a custom "engine" by combining specialist libraries focused on particular aspects of game development, such as rendering, physics, audio, and input handling. This modular approach allows developers to choose precisely the tools they require, optimizing for performance, size, and control. The post specifically references examples like Bevy for Rust developers, offering a taste of this more granular approach.
Furthermore, Berry anticipates an increase in the adoption of open-source libraries and a shift towards a more collaborative ecosystem of tool development. This communal effort could potentially lead to a rich tapestry of interoperable tools, each specializing in a specific area and catering to a diverse range of development needs. He imagines a future where sharing and exchanging custom tools becomes a common practice within the game development community, fostering innovation and accelerating development.
The post also touches upon the advantages of data-oriented design and pre-compiled pipelines, particularly within the context of improving loading times and runtime performance. This approach, when combined with the bespoke tool philosophy, enables developers to finely tune the execution flow of their game, achieving high performance levels tailored to their specific needs.
Finally, Berry acknowledges that while this modular approach may not entirely replace established game engines for large AAA productions with their extensive resource requirements, it presents an exciting alternative for indie developers and smaller teams. This allows them to sidestep the inherent overhead of large engines, fostering a more direct, creative connection with the code and enabling the creation of more unique and specialized gaming experiences. The post ultimately paints a picture of a more democratized and adaptable game development landscape, where smaller creators are empowered by a vibrant ecosystem of specialized tools.
Summary of Comments ( 143 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44038209
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and appeal of the author's approach to game development. Several commenters questioned the long-term viability of building and maintaining custom engines, citing the significant time investment and potential for reinventing the wheel. Others expressed interest in the minimalist philosophy, particularly for smaller, experimental projects where creative control is paramount. Some pointed out the existing tools like raylib and Love2D that offer a middle ground between full-blown engines and building from scratch. The discussion also touched upon the importance of understanding underlying principles, regardless of the chosen tools. Finally, some users debated the definition of a "game engine" and whether the author's approach qualifies as engine-less.
The Hacker News post "Making Video Games (Without an Engine) in 2025" generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments. Many of the commenters engaged with the author's premise of building a game from scratch, using only libraries like SDL, and the implications of this approach for the future of game development.
Several commenters focused on the practicalities and trade-offs of engine-less game development. One commenter questioned the author's choice of SDL, suggesting that more modern alternatives like SFML might offer better performance and features for a similar level of control. Another pointed out the significant time investment required to build core engine functionalities, like physics and rendering, from the ground up. This commenter argued that while the learning experience is valuable, using an existing engine is drastically more efficient for most projects, especially for solo developers or small teams. Related to this, another user highlighted the potential benefits of smaller, more modular engines or libraries as a middle ground between full-fledged engines and building everything from scratch. They suggested this approach would offer more control than larger engines while still avoiding the considerable effort of completely reinventing the wheel.
The discussion also touched upon the evolving role of game engines and their potential future. One commenter predicted that engines might evolve into more specialized tools, catering to specific game genres or platforms. They envisioned a future where "micro-engines" or collections of libraries become more prevalent, empowering developers to customize their toolsets based on their individual needs. Another user suggested that the increasing complexity of modern game development might necessitate a shift towards more specialized roles within teams, with some developers focusing solely on engine-level development. They posited that this specialization might mirror the evolution of web development, where specialized frontend and backend developers have become commonplace.
A few commenters also shared their personal experiences and opinions on the matter. One commenter recounted their own experience building a game from scratch and echoed the sentiment that while challenging and time-consuming, it provided invaluable insights into the inner workings of game engines. Another commenter shared their preference for using existing engines but acknowledged the educational value and potential for innovation in taking a more DIY approach.
Overall, the comments reflect a nuanced perspective on the future of game development, acknowledging the benefits of both engine-based and engine-less approaches. The discussion highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the trade-offs between control, efficiency, and learning when choosing the right tools for a project. It also suggests a potential future where the game development landscape becomes more diverse, with a wider range of engines and tools catering to different needs and development styles.