← Back to context

Comment by krapp

12 hours ago

The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.)

Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more polish.

That said, HN is traditionally for sharing code with the community. Maybe for AI submissions people should share their prompts? I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it.

13 comments

krapp

Reply
cynicalkane  11 hours ago

Yeah, this feels like a vibe-coded game that people who played it for 1 minute are upvoting, but it just really lacks the feel of how even a mildly solid and entertaining game feels. I got bored very quickly.

I flagged it because of HN's AI content policy. I know it technically doesn't apply to submissions, but I think game submissions (or any others) should show more humanity, instead of being like "look at this momentarily pleasing thing Gemini coded for me".

MRPockets  12 hours ago

> Also it feels like it really needs a gun.

It took me less than 10 seconds into gameplay to pick up bullets for the (already existing) gun. Your comment reads as if you didn't try to play the game for more than a few seconds.

It's a fun little game; no need to be so smugly dismissive.

  • krapp  12 hours ago

    >Your comment reads as if you didn't try to play the game for more than a few seconds.

    I made it a few minutes, I admit it was boring. That isn't my fault. In a better designed games these things would be more obvious.

    edit: OK I tried it again, got the gun, it autofires which still isn't fun. If I actually got to control it and had less ammo it would be more challenging. If that's a possible mechanic I couldn't see how to activate it. Still boring.

tclancy  11 hours ago

I think it might be interesting to know age ranges for posters, because this made me smile as it reminded me of hours spent trying to perfect Barnstorming by Activision on my Atari, right down to the scan lines and flight dynamics. Not sure it’s supposed to be an actual flight simulator, so your point (if there was one) just seems like being a prick for no particular reason. Did skin come off your nose while playing?

  • krapp  11 hours ago

    I'm giving my honest impressions from playing the game and suggesting ways that I think it could be improved. If I ever posted anything here I'd expect the same treatment.

noir_lord  12 hours ago

> I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it.

Brusque but not inaccurate, Welcome to our future I guess.

amazingamazing  12 hours ago

> I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it.

Huh? Why do you believe this? ever take a literature class?

Regarding scanlines, there is a setting to turn them off.

  • krapp  12 hours ago

    Literature is written by human beings, and if the author was in the class I expect they would be able to discuss their process and methodologies.

    But the entire point of using an AI to generate code is not to pay attention to any of that. The author of AI generated code did not write said code and cannot therefore provide any insight into the process or methodology beyond "here is the prompt and model I used." Nothing that would be of value to the few of us left on this site who actually care about such things. Nothing, in other words, to gratify intellectual curiosity.

    Also regarding scanlines, fake scanlines shouldn't obscure UI elements or make them difficult to read. Actual scanlines on actual CRTs didn't do that.

    • socalgal2  10 hours ago

      I agree with you the game is mediorce and feels like a single prompt AI generated game (whether or not it actually is)

      But, reguarding AI code ... a movie director directs others (actors, camera people, editors, set builders, ...) to make a movie. They don't do those things themselves. Yet we still ask the director about the movie they directed. I see AI as similar. I direct it. To me there is still value in knowing why a director made certain decisions and their process for getting the result they wanted.

      Because getting slop is easy and slightly novel ATM, people post it and it's crap, but I believe some people will use AI as the tool it is and put in enough effort *directing it* to get good results and be worth respect.