If Microsoft hadn't killed XNA (what MonoGame is based on) a decade ago, they could be packaging it with Copilot right now as the ideal code-first AI-assisted game engine. Easy to use, easy to test, no visual editor where AI will struggle like with Unity/Unreal/Godot.
I am automating Unity with headless method invocation of agent authored editor scripts. I don't think "struggle" is the word I'd use to describe how GPT5.4 is currently performing.
I can tell the agent things like "iterate over all scenes. Wrap lightmap baking in a 5 minute timeout. Identify all scenes that exceed baking time. Inspect the scene objects and identify static geometry with poorly configured light map scale relative to their world space extents."
For Lazarus (an IDE with visual components similar to Delphi) I switched to code-first components and did away with the form files. You can probably do this with all of these frameworks.
Haven’t used the engine specifically, but seems to be a cool project. I have used the Stride renderer which is embedded in VVVV, a live multimedia node-based language, which makes it interesting that you can extract and reuse such large components from the engine.
There isn't really a comparison to be made between MonoGame and Godot. MonoGame is for programmers. Godot is for people who want to make games but don't care for programming and would rather use a GUI for development. Godot locks you into the Godot way of doing things. MonoGame is a thin cross-platform abstraction over platform APIs for sprite rendering, audio playback, input, and font, leaving you to build your game engine yourself however you like.
I think the greatest flaw in MonoGame, however, is that their cross-platform abstraction notably excludes web. Given how relatively thin MonoGame is, I think you're better off building your own framework that supports compiling to WASM as well, if you have any experience as a developer already. It is what I did and took some effort but was pretty well doable and didn't take all that long, and the payoff of being able to share your games instantly in the browser for anyone to play with just a click of a link is so worth it.
The other notable flaw in MonoGame is that the content pipeline thing it has is horrendous. When I tried it, I ended up simply bypassing using that pipeline at all. They are currently in the process of reworking it completely, I believe, but I'm not sure when that's supposed to release.
Maybe the value in MonoGame is that it does support consoles, though; I have no idea what developing for console is like, and only target web/computer/phone OS platforms myself.
> Godot is for people who want to make games but don't care for programming and would rather use a GUI for development.
You can write a lot of code when using Godot and mix that with capabilities provided by their editor.
You never have to use editor features, but can use them to avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel.
Your comment is like saying that game engines are used by people who don't care for programming and would rather make a call to handle physics interactions.
It's always funny to me that this metaphor is used to indicate a bad thing, but re-inventing the wheel is actually very valuable. Note that our vehicles do not run on stone wheels. Thank goodness we kept re-inventing wheels that were more suitable for our specific use cases! This metaphor is, therefore, exactly apt for describing off-the-shelf game engines. All of the big open game engines are heavy and make a ton of decisions for you that will not be optimal for your specific game, because they make generalized decisions necessary to support all kinds of games. This does save you time, and you can absolutely make games that are good enough with them, but it's ridiculous to me to describe making your own engine as wasting time. It's spending time to gain a benefit, which is a trade-off that is worth it for some and not necessary for others.
Are you going writing your own programming language as well? Can we call it Tolkien? Because you're making a game like J.R.R. Tolkien wrote books, and there's a reason nobody writes books the way he wrote his.
Writing your own engine is great if you want to learn how to write a game engine. Knowing how to make a game engine can be helpful when making a game, but it's not necessary to make a game. Further, if you want to learn how to make a game, it might be more worth your time to simply use an engine that already does all the things you need. That way your time and energy can be focused on making the game, which is what your goal is.
Being condescending or dismissive of tools that do everything your tools you're going out of your way to construct will have to do is... weird logic. Because the same argument goes all the way down. Why wouldn't you make your own text editor? Why wouldn't you make your own compiler? Why wouldn't you make your own kernel? Why wouldn't you make your own architecture? "If you wish to make a pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
The answer is: because we're human beings with limited lifespans. We must stand on the shoulders of giants to see further.
One person wrote books like JRR Tolkien. His name was JRR Tolkien, and those books are widely celebrated by millions of people as classics.
I don’t have any issue with people using an engine like Godot or Unity or RPG Maker or Unreal or anything else, but I do think that there can be value in “owning the entire stack” of a project, even if that means “reinventing the wheel”.
When I do a project involving HTTP, I could reach for Rails or something, it’s a valid enough and I certainly have done that plenty of times, but I often will work with a lower level protocol. Depending on the language I will use a more simple HTTP server thing like Axum with Rust, and other times I will go full epoll/Selector with a raw socket.
I do this for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that I can build my own framework that works in a way that I think and I don’t pull in a bunch of extra crap I don’t need. I can optimize the “hot paths” of my particular project without worrying about a one-size-fits-all you get for generic frameworks, I don’t have to worry as much about leaky abstractions, and I am intimately familiar with a much larger percentage of the codebase.
It sounds like you don't like programming. I am in the process of writing my own language/IDE/compiler on the side of making games, and have already written a dialect of C# with a compiler that transpiles it to legal C# for use in the meantime. I would, in fact, love to write my own OS if not for the fact that proprietary hardware vendors make it virtually impossible for anybody to create a new OS that runs on consumer hardware in the year 2026. If you gave me a trillion dollars with which to build a CPU factory, I'd jump at the chance to learn that too.
People who don't like programming, who wish to abstract it all away and "stand on the shoulders of giants"[1] without understanding anything about the giants, seem to view low-level code as a bogeyman. It doesn't take a lifetime to understand. To the contrary, I would argue that low-level code is easier to work with than working only with high-level code, because you can reason about it. The more you rely on abstractions you don't understand, the more impossible it becomes to effectively reason about anything, because your reasoning is glossing over the details that make things work. But reasoning about primitives, and the things built out of those primitives that you understand, is not actually nearly as hard as the people who just want to plop Javascript libraries together and stop thinking about it would believe.
In particular, when it comes to games, especially 2D games (which are what Godot and MonoGame are typically used for), it's really not that hard. Windows has an API for doing X, Y and Z with graphics. Linux has an API for doing X, Y, and Z for graphics. You write a wrapper that your game code calls that passes through calls to each of those APIs with an #if statement filtering for which OS you're running on. Rinse and repeat the other set of platforms, with a bit of extra finangling for API limitations on web and phone OSes. Rinse and repeat for audio, input, and font handling. It took less than a month of work for me to get a polished cross-platform system working on five platforms. Not because I'm a genius, but because it's seriously just not hard. There are a thousand tutorials and books you could pick from that will give you a rundown of exactly how to do it.
Then, for example, writing your own rudimentary 2D GUI map editor can literally be done in a day. Presumably you know how to code a main menu. Add an option to the main menu that changes the gamestate to State.MapEditor when selected. Set a keybind on this state where your arrow keys increment or decrement X/Y coordinates, a keybind to place tiles/objects, a keybind to cycle which object ID is selected, and a keybind that calls a function which serializes your map state to text and saves it to a file. A little bit more work for a moving camera viewport, but it's not that hard. Want more features, polish it more. When you fully understand the primitives your system is built with, adding new features can be done quickly and easily, because it's so easy to reason about compared to reasoning about code you've never read built with primitives you don't understand.
3D does up the difficulty level, but it's by no means unachievable, either. The content creator Tsoding is currently doing a semi-weekly challenge to build his own 3D game engine from scratch on video, and he's making great progress despite not spending that much time on it, a side project that gets a few hours a week.
The end result of all this is a codebase that is more performant, lightweight, easy to read, and very easy to extend. I think developing your own engine can actually save time in the long run (if you're willing to forego the instant gratification), because it's so easy to fix bugs and add new features when you have a complete mental map of your codebase and the primitives used to construct it. For example, I have a friend who used Godot to develop a game, and they've been plagued for months with a low percentage chance of fatal crashes on a boss that they are completely unable to identify and fix, and it's because they don't have a mental map of the engine code. It's simply not even possible for them to reason about what in the engine could be going wrong because they don't even know what the engine is actually doing.
[1] Another metaphor that is grossly mis-invoked, in my view. Do you think Isaac Newton did not understand the work of those that came before him? The great thing about giants is that by doing the hard work of exploring new concepts, they make it easier for everyone who comes after them to learn them. I think it's a bit intellectually lazy to put off the work of giants as something that should not, or even can not, be learned.
[2] "like J.R.R. Tolkien wrote books, and there's a reason nobody writes books the way he wrote his." It's a real shame more people don't, considering there has never been a fantasy work rivalling his in the nearly century since.
>Note that our vehicles do not run on stone wheels. Thank goodness we kept re-inventing wheels that were more suitable for our specific use cases!
Improving a wheel design does not require reinventing it. The people who designed the car wheel were able to look at previous designs of wheels instead of needing to invent the wheel themselves.
So too with game engine design, where you have dozens of designs and hundreds of tutorials to learn from in the building of your own. It is seriously funny that no matter how you try to contort the metaphor, it continues to fit perfectly in a way that indicates it is not actually a bad thing.
What are the capabilities needed for Stardew Valley? Drawing 2d sprites. Playing audio? That's a pretty low bar to reach. MonoGame doesn't even support animated sprites. You have to build support for them yourself. That sounds like a pretty low bar.
It is kind of nice for indie games, unfortunately it is kind of stuck in what XNA 4.0 had as API surface.
And it used to be there was still some dependency on old XNA plugins for assets pipeline on Visual Studio.
No idea where this stands now.
However it was yet another example of community standing up for the anti-.NET sentiment at Windows/XBox teams, when the persons involved left XBox team, XNA was quickly replaced by DirectX TK.
I used Monogame back when it was a proprietary framework called XNA developed at Microsoft.
You used to be able to use XNA to build Indie games for the Xbox 360, hard to believe, but this is going on 15 years ago at this point.
I built two indie games and made a couple of hundred bucks back when I was in High School. It's actually what got me into programming in the first place.
I'm happy to see that XNA became Monogame, it's one of the best frameworks I've ever used for gamedev.
Same here (minus the making any money). XNA is how I started learning graphics programming and started my interest in things like physics engines. Shawn Hargreaves had great blog posts on gamedev back then, too.
I am automating Unity with headless method invocation of agent authored editor scripts. I don't think "struggle" is the word I'd use to describe how GPT5.4 is currently performing.
I can tell the agent things like "iterate over all scenes. Wrap lightmap baking in a 5 minute timeout. Identify all scenes that exceed baking time. Inspect the scene objects and identify static geometry with poorly configured light map scale relative to their world space extents."
Yesterday I looked into Monogame, FNA and Raylib. Just always surprises me how reading something somewhere makes people do similar things.
Never mind, found this in the docs: https://fna-xna.github.io/docs/appendix/Appendix-A%3A-Native...
I've been happy with monogame when I used it in the past. I'm pretty sure Celeste was made with FNA
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Celeste https://celeste.ink/wiki/Version_history
Monogame on PC used to be somewhat buggy in my hobbyist experience.
It’s really good, also it was very cool as a junior developer to see the code for the methods I used.
I wonder how it compares, if at all, with Godot nowadays.
They exist at different abstraction layers, so not really directly comparable.
I think the greatest flaw in MonoGame, however, is that their cross-platform abstraction notably excludes web. Given how relatively thin MonoGame is, I think you're better off building your own framework that supports compiling to WASM as well, if you have any experience as a developer already. It is what I did and took some effort but was pretty well doable and didn't take all that long, and the payoff of being able to share your games instantly in the browser for anyone to play with just a click of a link is so worth it.
The other notable flaw in MonoGame is that the content pipeline thing it has is horrendous. When I tried it, I ended up simply bypassing using that pipeline at all. They are currently in the process of reworking it completely, I believe, but I'm not sure when that's supposed to release.
Maybe the value in MonoGame is that it does support consoles, though; I have no idea what developing for console is like, and only target web/computer/phone OS platforms myself.
You can write a lot of code when using Godot and mix that with capabilities provided by their editor.
You never have to use editor features, but can use them to avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel.
Your comment is like saying that game engines are used by people who don't care for programming and would rather make a call to handle physics interactions.
It's always funny to me that this metaphor is used to indicate a bad thing, but re-inventing the wheel is actually very valuable. Note that our vehicles do not run on stone wheels. Thank goodness we kept re-inventing wheels that were more suitable for our specific use cases! This metaphor is, therefore, exactly apt for describing off-the-shelf game engines. All of the big open game engines are heavy and make a ton of decisions for you that will not be optimal for your specific game, because they make generalized decisions necessary to support all kinds of games. This does save you time, and you can absolutely make games that are good enough with them, but it's ridiculous to me to describe making your own engine as wasting time. It's spending time to gain a benefit, which is a trade-off that is worth it for some and not necessary for others.
Writing your own engine is great if you want to learn how to write a game engine. Knowing how to make a game engine can be helpful when making a game, but it's not necessary to make a game. Further, if you want to learn how to make a game, it might be more worth your time to simply use an engine that already does all the things you need. That way your time and energy can be focused on making the game, which is what your goal is.
Being condescending or dismissive of tools that do everything your tools you're going out of your way to construct will have to do is... weird logic. Because the same argument goes all the way down. Why wouldn't you make your own text editor? Why wouldn't you make your own compiler? Why wouldn't you make your own kernel? Why wouldn't you make your own architecture? "If you wish to make a pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
The answer is: because we're human beings with limited lifespans. We must stand on the shoulders of giants to see further.
I don’t have any issue with people using an engine like Godot or Unity or RPG Maker or Unreal or anything else, but I do think that there can be value in “owning the entire stack” of a project, even if that means “reinventing the wheel”.
When I do a project involving HTTP, I could reach for Rails or something, it’s a valid enough and I certainly have done that plenty of times, but I often will work with a lower level protocol. Depending on the language I will use a more simple HTTP server thing like Axum with Rust, and other times I will go full epoll/Selector with a raw socket.
I do this for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that I can build my own framework that works in a way that I think and I don’t pull in a bunch of extra crap I don’t need. I can optimize the “hot paths” of my particular project without worrying about a one-size-fits-all you get for generic frameworks, I don’t have to worry as much about leaky abstractions, and I am intimately familiar with a much larger percentage of the codebase.
There is value in both approaches.
People who don't like programming, who wish to abstract it all away and "stand on the shoulders of giants"[1] without understanding anything about the giants, seem to view low-level code as a bogeyman. It doesn't take a lifetime to understand. To the contrary, I would argue that low-level code is easier to work with than working only with high-level code, because you can reason about it. The more you rely on abstractions you don't understand, the more impossible it becomes to effectively reason about anything, because your reasoning is glossing over the details that make things work. But reasoning about primitives, and the things built out of those primitives that you understand, is not actually nearly as hard as the people who just want to plop Javascript libraries together and stop thinking about it would believe.
In particular, when it comes to games, especially 2D games (which are what Godot and MonoGame are typically used for), it's really not that hard. Windows has an API for doing X, Y and Z with graphics. Linux has an API for doing X, Y, and Z for graphics. You write a wrapper that your game code calls that passes through calls to each of those APIs with an #if statement filtering for which OS you're running on. Rinse and repeat the other set of platforms, with a bit of extra finangling for API limitations on web and phone OSes. Rinse and repeat for audio, input, and font handling. It took less than a month of work for me to get a polished cross-platform system working on five platforms. Not because I'm a genius, but because it's seriously just not hard. There are a thousand tutorials and books you could pick from that will give you a rundown of exactly how to do it.
Then, for example, writing your own rudimentary 2D GUI map editor can literally be done in a day. Presumably you know how to code a main menu. Add an option to the main menu that changes the gamestate to State.MapEditor when selected. Set a keybind on this state where your arrow keys increment or decrement X/Y coordinates, a keybind to place tiles/objects, a keybind to cycle which object ID is selected, and a keybind that calls a function which serializes your map state to text and saves it to a file. A little bit more work for a moving camera viewport, but it's not that hard. Want more features, polish it more. When you fully understand the primitives your system is built with, adding new features can be done quickly and easily, because it's so easy to reason about compared to reasoning about code you've never read built with primitives you don't understand.
3D does up the difficulty level, but it's by no means unachievable, either. The content creator Tsoding is currently doing a semi-weekly challenge to build his own 3D game engine from scratch on video, and he's making great progress despite not spending that much time on it, a side project that gets a few hours a week.
The end result of all this is a codebase that is more performant, lightweight, easy to read, and very easy to extend. I think developing your own engine can actually save time in the long run (if you're willing to forego the instant gratification), because it's so easy to fix bugs and add new features when you have a complete mental map of your codebase and the primitives used to construct it. For example, I have a friend who used Godot to develop a game, and they've been plagued for months with a low percentage chance of fatal crashes on a boss that they are completely unable to identify and fix, and it's because they don't have a mental map of the engine code. It's simply not even possible for them to reason about what in the engine could be going wrong because they don't even know what the engine is actually doing.
[1] Another metaphor that is grossly mis-invoked, in my view. Do you think Isaac Newton did not understand the work of those that came before him? The great thing about giants is that by doing the hard work of exploring new concepts, they make it easier for everyone who comes after them to learn them. I think it's a bit intellectually lazy to put off the work of giants as something that should not, or even can not, be learned.
[2] "like J.R.R. Tolkien wrote books, and there's a reason nobody writes books the way he wrote his." It's a real shame more people don't, considering there has never been a fantasy work rivalling his in the nearly century since.
Improving a wheel design does not require reinventing it. The people who designed the car wheel were able to look at previous designs of wheels instead of needing to invent the wheel themselves.
It doesn't. Godot is a 3D game engine and editor. Monogame is more like SDL or Raylib: just a library to make writing games from scratch easier.
And it used to be there was still some dependency on old XNA plugins for assets pipeline on Visual Studio.
No idea where this stands now.
However it was yet another example of community standing up for the anti-.NET sentiment at Windows/XBox teams, when the persons involved left XBox team, XNA was quickly replaced by DirectX TK.
"The billion dollar decision that launched XNA"
https://youtu.be/wJY8RhPHmUQ?is=jwDBVae8AhBH-ANB
https://walbourn.github.io/directxtk/
You used to be able to use XNA to build Indie games for the Xbox 360, hard to believe, but this is going on 15 years ago at this point.
I built two indie games and made a couple of hundred bucks back when I was in High School. It's actually what got me into programming in the first place.
I'm happy to see that XNA became Monogame, it's one of the best frameworks I've ever used for gamedev.