alt Hacker News> I certainly wouldn't call it ugly or low quality.
I would. Maybe our standards for quality are different, but I'm willing to bet that if you showed this to a bunch of people who actually play games regularly as a hobby and have some standards for them, they would most likely agree that, even ignoring the obvious "AI look", a simple 2D game that can't even pull off natural-looking walking animations could never be considered anything but low quality.
> obviously you're going to get much more slop, but you're also going to get many more gems
This is demonstrably not the case. Just look at Steam's most recent Next Fest - it featured over 8000 games, twice as many as the last one, the vast majority of which being low effort AI generated games. Yet the number of gems that rose to the top was not higher than before. If anything, it was lower, as most players simply gave up looking after having to scroll through hundreds of AI games. Such games can never be "gems", no matter how much you try prompting them to be.
Did you have fun playing the game? Because I'd argue that if you showed this game to bunch of 'real gamers' as you're effectively concocting here, their metric would be the answer to that question, rather than seeing if they could find a technical flaw. Because in the end all that matters for a game is fun, and this game certainly scored well on that metric for me, and I suspect the vast majority of people.