I learned Godot by letting LLMs guide me, not code for me

Published Nov 5, 2026, 2:00 PM EST Simon is a Computer Science BSc graduate who has been writing about technology since 2014, and using Windows machines since 3.1. After working for an indie game studio and acting as the family's go-to technician for all computer issues, he found his passion for writing and decided to use his skill set to write about all things tech. Since beginning his writing career, he has written for many different publications such as WorldStart, Listverse, and MakeTechEasier. However, after finding his home at MakeUseOf in February 2019, he would eventually move on to its sister site, XDA, to bring the latest and greatest in Windows, Linux, and DIY electronics. So, I was in a bit of a weird state. I really wanted to learn how to make games in Godot, but I didn't want to just read documentation and watch YouTube videos. I'm someone who very much prefers to get stuck in, make mistakes, and then figure out why those mistakes happened. The problem was, I didn't have anyone I knew who knew how to make games in Godot, let alone wanted to spend the time helping me every time I broke something. My next idea went to LLMs; after all, they're 24/7 assistants with unlimited patience, and they would withstand my constant questions at 3 am. But I didn't want to vibe code this project; half the fun was learning how all the pieces come together and building a personal knowledge base. That's when I had an idea: what if I didn't use AI to vibe-code my project, but instead used it like a teacher who would guide me to the solution? I got started using Google Gemini as a beginner's guide It was a good pair of training wheels Credit: Google Now I know what you're thinking: why didn't I use Claude? After all, that's the LLM to code with these days, and we've seen people do some really amazing things with it, like decompile video games and break into smart TVs. I picked Google Gemini for two reasons. First, I find Google Gemini best for breaking down complex things into easy-to-understand language. Sure, you don't see people using Gemini for really complicated coding, but I didn't need that. I was still in the "make sure you put the shapes in the correct hole" phase of game development. Second, I was still a little sad that my Google AI Plus sub was losing Pro, so I wanted to put it to use before it went. I made a project and gave Gemini the following brief: I'm making an RPG using Godot. I'll sometimes post some code and ask for bug fixes, analysis, or game design ideas. I'm learning how to code and would like to keep learning, so be sure to guide me with advice instead of giving me entire chunks to copy-paste. I may get stuck and ask for code, though, at which point feel free to give it to me. Then, I booted up Godot and got to work. I told Gemini what I wanted to achieve, and it would tell me how to make it. Because of my previous instructions, Gemini never explicitly stated how to code what I wanted. It would teach me how to set up variables, where to put them, and how to access them later in the code, but it didn't give me a chunk of text to copy-paste. It was up to me to put together the pieces and make the game engine myself. The best part about using Gemini at this stage was the assistance when something went wrong. If I hit an error or something didn't work properly, I could hand it over to Gemini, and it would explain what happened, why it happened, and how I could fix it. I learned a lot about Godot coding by running head-first into errors, then asking how to repair it. After I had made significant progress, I then explained what my program did in plain English back to Gemini. It then checked my descriptions and guided me whenever I had misinterpreted what a block of code was doing. Once the groundwork was set, it was time to bring in Claude I needed an expert opinion Now that I had a solid foundation, some working code, and a grip on the basics of Godot programming, I wanted to step up my game. Gemini had gotten a working program up and running, but there were some parts that felt a little redundant or unneeded. I'm not sure if this was due to Gemini treating me as a beginner and opting not to teach me advanced techniques, or due to Gemini's coding prowess, but I knew something was wrong, so it was time for Claude. I opened up Claude on a free plan and asked it the following: "I've only been learning Godot for about 1-2 weeks now, and I have this base for an RPG system. I'm sure there are a million and one little things I got wrong, but can you pick out the top three most critical things I should fix, please? Keep it simple so I can follow along." By reducing the laundry list to three items, it stopped Claude from giving me an overwhelming tidal wave of fixes. Sure enough, it picked the top three problems my code had: my combat code wasn't properly cleaning itself up, I was repeating code in each spell that could be reduced to a function call, and my magic strings for setting battle states could be replaced with enums. We then fixed each issue one by one, with me asking questions about why we're doing things and how best to proceed. Whenever something involved just moving code around and neatening it up, I felt okay with letting Claude do all the heavy lifting and then asking it questions once it's done to ensure I understood what it did. Once the three issues were fixed, I asked for the next three most critical issues, and the next three after those were done. Eventually, we got to a point where the biggest problem was that my player's data was arranged in a way that would make it tricky to save game data at a future date, at which point I decided to put a pin in it and continue adding features. Using LLMs like this gave me all the creative freedom combined with a powerful coder It was like having a senior developer look over my work What I loved most about this plan is that it allowed me to learn how Godot works, make the game the way I wanted it to, and understand its inner engines and why they did what I designed them to do. All Gemini and Claude did was advise me on how to build those engines, with the occasional injection of code whenever I got stuck or when a change was particularly tedious. The end result was this weird hybrid that wasn't human-written code, but it wasn't vibe-coded either. The best way I can describe it is if a programming student handed in some code to a teacher, asking if it could be improved. The teacher would then give feedback on what wasn't working well, how to fix it, and snippets of sample code to drive the point home. The student didn't write all the code on their own initiative, but they didn't have the teacher write it all, either. It was a perfect mix of learning how to code while also having something to check my work. And having both Gemini and Claude check it meant that I could get two perspectives on it.