Not sure what to fix first?
Most people don’t need another AI tool. They need to know which thing is actually costing them the most.
The AI Bottleneck Finder asks you a handful of questions, then tells you the one constraint capping your revenue right now plus two builds you could ship this week. Five minutes, free, no call required.
Take the free AI Bottleneck Finder →
You can build a game with AI in about 15 minutes now, and the model you pick changes that number by more than 3x.
I put that to a real test. My buddy Eric Michaud runs GPT for everything, so we each built a browser escape room from scratch, same rules, same platform, different models. I used Claude Fable 5. He used GPT-5.6 Sol. Both ran through the Higgsfield MCP, which builds and deploys playable games straight from a terminal.
I’m Charles J Dove, and I run Charlie Automates. This is the full scorecard, the rules we set, and the honest read on what the time gap actually tells you about picking models for build work.
What Were the Rules of the Test?
The rules were 5 constraints designed to make the comparison about the model rather than about who prompts better.
- Each of us builds a 2-room point-and-click escape game, single player, playable in a browser.
- Each of us picks one model and stays on it. Fable 5 for me, GPT-5.6 Sol for Eric.
- Each of us gets exactly one prompt-optimization framework before writing the prompt. I used SEED. He used Superpowers.
- One-shot the build prompt. No mid-build hand-holding.
- 3 post-production revisions each, then hand the games over.
Then the spice: we each play the other person’s game, and whoever escapes first takes a bonus on their score. Scoring ran across 4 categories out of 20 each, for 80 points total.
Both games ran through the Higgsfield MCP’s game platform, so the deploy path was identical for both of us. That matters. Any time difference is the model reasoning and writing, not one of us fighting a different build pipeline.
How Long Did Each Model Take to Build a Playable Game?
Fable 5 finished in about 15 minutes. Sol 5.6 finished the build at 49 minutes and hit a live URL at 54 minutes including packaging and deploy.
That is roughly 3.5x on wall clock for the same brief, on the same platform, at the same complexity. And the gap was not one long stall. Sol’s flow was slow throughout: I watched it return the actual URL and then keep running a stack of extra operations before handing anything back.
The practical effect showed up in the revisions, not the build. Because Fable finished at 15 minutes, I had time to actually use all 3 revisions. My third one added a hint box with 5 subtle hints that starts mocking the player after the fifth. Eric was still on his first revision at 33 minutes. Same allowance, and one of us could afford to spend it.
Speed is not a vanity metric on a build like this. Revisions are where a generated thing stops feeling generated, and you only get revisions if the first pass leaves you time.
The Scorecard
Fable 5 finished at 67.5 out of 80, Sol 5.6 at 56.5 out of 80, and the escape bonus pushed Fable to 87.5.
| Category | Fable 5 | Sol 5.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | 10 | 6 |
| Aesthetics | 8.5 | 8 |
| Functionality | 10 | 10 |
| Subtotal (of 80) | 67.5 | 56.5 |
| Escape bonus | +20 | 0 |
| Final | 87.5 | 56.5 |
Two things worth flagging in Sol’s favor, because a rigged comparison is worthless.
Functionality tied at 10 apiece. Both games worked. The puzzles were solvable, the audio cues fired, the doors opened on the right codes. Sol did not ship something broken; it shipped something slow.
And Eric’s aesthetic result was genuinely good. He asked for backrooms office space and got a hallway that nailed the brief. Aesthetics separated by half a point, which is noise. The 11-point gap in the subtotal came almost entirely from speed.
I escaped his room in 16 minutes 52 seconds. He needed help with mine, which is my own fault: the code required ranking 4 three-digit numbers lowest to highest, and there was a fifth decoy number in the room.
What Does the Higgsfield MCP Actually Do Here?
The Higgsfield MCP is a single connection that gives your model image generation, video generation, 3D, website builds and game builds without leaving the terminal.
That is the part that surprised Eric more than the model result, and it was his first time using it. He knew Higgsfield for video. He did not know the same MCP would scaffold and deploy a playable browser app, hosted, with a live URL at the end.
Under the hood the model calls Higgsfield for every image and video asset, and their infrastructure handles the build and deploy. Same path works for websites: pick your model, describe the site, and it uses Higgsfield’s framework and animation layer to produce it. One MCP, several output types, one bill.
Full setup on the Higgsfield MCP resource page.
What This Test Actually Proves
This test proves one narrow thing well: on a one-shot creative build with a fixed revision budget, the faster model wins on quality too, because speed converts into revisions.
It does not prove Fable 5 is a better model than Sol 5.6 at everything. One brief, one platform, one attempt each is not a benchmark. Eric’s own takeaway was the right one: find the model you like for each kind of task, and value having them reachable from one place.
The broader read matters more than the trophy. Two people took an idea to a deployed, playable product in under an hour, on a Friday, for fun. If you are the kind of person who has ideas and no way to test them, that gap between idea and reality is the thing that just collapsed. Whether you already have a business or you are looking for an offer, the cost of testing one is now an afternoon.
One honest note on Claude Code, since people ask: it is harder than the alternatives for about a week, then easier than all of them forever. The setup period is the whole difficulty. Push through it and the ceiling is nowhere near where the other tools stop.
Key Takeaways
- Fable 5 shipped a playable escape room in 15 minutes. Sol 5.6 took 49 to build and 54 to deploy, roughly 3.5x.
- Speed buys revisions. Both of us got 3. Only one of us had time to spend all 3, and that is where the polish came from.
- Functionality tied at 10 to 10. Sol shipped something that worked. It shipped it slowly.
- Aesthetics separated by half a point, 8.5 to 8, which is inside the noise floor of two people rating each other’s work.
- Final score 87.5 to 56.5, including the 20-point bonus for escaping first with a 16 minute 52 second run.
- One MCP covered image, video, 3D, websites and games. The platform consolidation mattered more to Eric than the model result.
- One prompt, one framework, three revisions is a fair-fight structure you can reuse for any model comparison you want to run yourself.
If you want the architecture that makes this repeatable rather than a one-off stunt, read the 3-step system to build an agentic OS.
Where to Go From Here
Find the one bottleneck killing your revenue.
30-minute free call with Charles. We diagnose your highest-leverage AI bottleneck, install Charlie OS on your machine in one hour, and map the path forward on the same call.
Want to run this yourself? Both pieces are free in the Charlie Automates Founder’s Toolkit on charlieautomates.com:
If you want to see more head-to-heads like this, drop what you want us to build in the comments on the video. Join CC Strategic AI on Skool if you want the working setups instead of the highlight reel. Entry is free and Premium gets weekly calls.
At my agency CC Strategic we build production systems on this same stack, and new builds drop every week on my YouTube channel @charlieautomates.
FAQ
Can AI actually build a playable game? Yes. Both models in this test produced a working 2-room point-and-click escape game, deployed to a live URL, from a single prompt plus 3 revisions. Puzzles were solvable, audio cues fired, and each of us finished the other person’s game. Fable 5 took 15 minutes and GPT-5.6 Sol took 54 including deploy.
What is the Higgsfield MCP? The Higgsfield MCP is a Model Context Protocol server that connects your AI model to Higgsfield’s generation and hosting infrastructure. From one connection you get image generation, video generation, 3D, website builds and browser game builds, with the deploy handled for you. Setup is on the Higgsfield MCP resource page.
Which model is better for building apps, Claude or GPT? On this test, Claude Fable 5 finished 3.5x faster on identical rules and identical infrastructure, and that speed converted into more usable revisions. Functionality tied at 10 to 10, so this is a throughput result, not a capability result. Test your own workload before you switch anything.
How long does it take to build a browser game with AI? 15 to 55 minutes for a 2-room point-and-click escape game with art, audio cues, puzzle logic and a deployed URL, depending on which model you use. That is one prompt and up to three revisions, not a full development cycle.
Do you need to know how to code to build a game this way? No. Both games came from a written brief describing rooms, art style, puzzle structure and audio cues. What you need is the ability to specify what you want precisely. Vague briefs like “make it hard” get pushed back by the engine and have to be replaced with something concrete.
What is SEED? SEED is a typed project incubator that turns a rough idea into a structured, buildable prompt before you hand it to a model. I used it as my one allowed framework in this test. It is free on the SEED resource page.
Is Claude Code harder to learn than the alternatives? It is harder for roughly the first week, and easier than everything else after that. The setup period is the real barrier. Once your context layer, skills and MCPs are wired, the ceiling is far above where lighter tools stop.