Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

weighoff.net

11–20 of 150 posts

Re: Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

#13
I did about 20 questions and didn't miss one. Because most plants, animals, etc are made of water, you really just have to compare volume. I found that visualizing the order of magnitude of the volume was a pretty good strategy for estimating weight. (Water has a density of about 1000 kg/m3)

Re: Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

#16
post #4

simple idea executed well, that's what makes the best games, maybe this will be the next wordle? :)

Really fun game! There's no social incentive to share with others, or hook to return to play again, though. I learned a lot about how much thing weigh though.

Thank you! Yeah, I have been meaning to add that. I just copy and paste! I want to keep a track of your best winning streak and have achievements.

Re: Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

#18

I did about 20 questions and didn't miss one. Because most plants, animals, etc are made of water, you really just have to compare volume. I found that visualizing the order of magnitude of the volume was a pretty good strategy for estimating weight. (Water has a density of about 1000 kg/m3)

Edit: sorry, misread. Wow. My best is about 5 and I've played it. Solidly for the last 3 days!

Re: Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

#19
I did about 15 questions waiting for the game to "end", not realizing it would go on forever.

IMO if the game is infinite, count how many questions I get correct in a row, and have the game end when I get one wrong. Keep track of my high score and display it somewhere on the page, so I have a baseline target to beat. That way the game is replayable and now has a metric for how well someone plays it.

I got all questions right except for the ones involving the moon... for some reason I got all those wrong. Moon is big!

Re: Show HN: I Made a Stupid Game

#20
post #7

Advice: make the answer much more visible. First text, visually separated (bigger font, bold, line ...), green/red. Separate the explanation part into its own block of text.

Don’t do green red for colorblind.

As long as there's also a non-color differentiator (like a checkmark / X) I think it's fine. Just like traffic lights having different positions. The word itself is possibly enough, although on the other hand words take longer to process than shapes/colors so best to offer a shape if also offering a color.
Post reply on HN