A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game • Hacker News Board

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#171

Post by unimpressive » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #130

unimpressive wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use noscript, and am continually annoyed by web pages that feel they need to run code on my computer to load. I get it when people complain about things needlessly using Javascript. With that in mind, what the hell were you expecting? Even in the 90's web based games used flash. What exactly was the 'secure' alternative? A game needs to run code, whether natively or in your browser.

Have you ever heard of games that don't run within web browsers? That's what I thought this particular game might be. In fact, there is a slew of standalone, non-browser-based Interactive Fiction game engines like Frotz[1], Zoom[2], and Inform7[3] out there that this particular game might have been written in. And I would have had no problem playing it then. [1] - http://frotz.sourceforge.net/ [2] - http://www.logica…

'Secure' interpreter? Fair enough. I'm afraid that would likely make it harder to get started though. Not to mention that JS probably has support for better graphics assets than a regular text game interpreter.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#172

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 6:51 PM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #166

pdknsk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you can easily switch back to default! Another tip for fighting: equip different weapons. I had only equipped the best weapon, as is customary in games, not knowing you can attack with all equipped weapons at once basically (each weapon has a separate timer). This makes a huge difference.

Switching back didn't seem to work for me. The game is super fast for me now.

Refreshing the page will clear any console shenanigans you've added (unless you changed state).

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#173

Post by gnosis » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #170

gnosis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I've yet to have a js-based security problem." You mean you have yet to become aware that your browser has been owned through some Javascript exploit. Somehow that isn't very comforting to me.

I'm sorry, what basis do you have for saying 'your browser has been owned,' as if it were inevitable and I were merely unaware of it? Just because I have JS enabled does not mean I'm indifferent to security. Besides my OS, I also monitor traffic through my router and modem. Please don't assume that your abundance of caution entitles you to dismiss others as ignorant or indifferent to security matters.

All I'm saying is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's possible that your security has been compromised and you are simply unaware of it. It's great that you monitor your network and take other security precautions. It would probably be even better if you also avoided running Javascript apps written by people you don't trust. Wouldn't you agree?

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#174

Post by ronaldx » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #160

Dylan16807 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standalone engines are subject to fewer attacks from untrusted code, so they're probably easier to exploit than a browser. So I can't really agree with you on a security perspective. And incognito mode / using a separate browser profile / portable browser installs are all options to completely preserve privacy that are either as convenient or more convenient than installing an interactive fiction engine.

"Standalone engines are subject to fewer attacks from untrusted code, so they're probably easier to exploit than a browser." Probably? This is purely speculative. I'd be interested to see any actual exploits of Interactive Fiction engines. So far, they are a much less attractive target to malware authors than web browsers are. That alone makes me prefer them over web browsers, no matter what their theoretical vulnera…

>So far, they are a much less attractive target to malware authors than web browsers are. That alone makes me prefer them over web browsers, no matter what their theoretical vulnerabilities may be.

I sympathise but find it quite contrary that you prefer to download standalone engines over something sandboxed in the browser. Although I believe there is some unknown percentage of users who won't turn on Javascript for this game, I can only imagine that a vanishingly small percentage of those might take a stance similar to yours.

The other obvious flip-side of your argument is: Javascript has a much bigger potential audience than IF engines these days. That alone makes Javascript preferable to develop for. The security and privacy issues do not make enough of a dent in Javascript's userbase to make this a serious consideration for developers.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#175

Post by ajuc » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:18 PM UTC

Fighting is funny - it's beneficial to keep all old weapons with you, then you can attack with 2 swords, shoot rifle and laser and use bayonet before the first sword timout finishes.

Very addictive game.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#176

Post by gnosis » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

unimpressive wrote: post #171

gnosis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever heard of games that don't run within web browsers? That's what I thought this particular game might be. In fact, there is a slew of standalone, non-browser-based Interactive Fiction game engines like Frotz[1], Zoom[2], and Inform7[3] out there that this particular game might have been written in. And I would have had no problem playing it then. [1] - http://frotz.sourceforge.net/ [2] - http://www.logica…

'Secure' interpreter? Fair enough. I'm afraid that would likely make it harder to get started though. Not to mention that JS probably has support for better graphics assets than a regular text game interpreter.

"JS probably has support for better graphics assets than a regular text game interpreter."

This game was billed as a "minimalist text-based game", for which any of the standard Interactive Fiction interpreters would have been more than adequate.

Incidentally, many of these IF interpreters are able to display graphics, and sometimes even sound -- though the usefulness or appropriateness of those features in the context of IF is debatable.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#177

Post by Afforess » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:51 PM UTC

msohcw wrote: post #143

omegant wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

If you're in chrome, open up dev tools, then hit resources, find the local storage on the left bar and click on the url. You'll see a gamestate key and the value. Copy the value, that's the entire game state. You can then create that same key on whatever other browser with that value.

Pretty sure there is no dev tools on the mobile version of Chrome.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#178

Post by Tichy » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

Is this point and click adventures for people whose first encounter with computer games was farmville?

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#179

Post by hk__2 » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:57 PM UTC

mambodog wrote: post #59

mjn wrote: post #9

The style of a minimalist interface that starts sprouting things, somewhat ASCII-game-ish yet also rather dynamic, reminds me a bit of Candy Box: http://candies.aniwey.net/ . It's an interesting UI and 'reveal' style for a game, and glad to see another one using it. Feels somewhat refreshing. edit: Ah ok, if you view-source it mentions Candy Box as an inspiration.

To anyone else trying Candy Box, a few hints to get started: - Wait until you have 60 candies (new options appear) - Click the cowboy hat 4 times - Buy the wooden sword

If you want to cheat, open the devtools, and type candies.nbrOwned = Infinity.

Re: A Dark Room - minimalist text-based game

#180

Post by gnosis » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 7:57 PM UTC

ronaldx wrote: post #174

gnosis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Standalone engines are subject to fewer attacks from untrusted code, so they're probably easier to exploit than a browser." Probably? This is purely speculative. I'd be interested to see any actual exploits of Interactive Fiction engines. So far, they are a much less attractive target to malware authors than web browsers are. That alone makes me prefer them over web browsers, no matter what their theoretical vulnera…

>So far, they are a much less attractive target to malware authors than web browsers are. That alone makes me prefer them over web browsers, no matter what their theoretical vulnerabilities may be. I sympathise but find it quite contrary that you prefer to download standalone engines over something sandboxed in the browser. Although I believe there is some unknown percentage of users who won't turn on Javascript for…

I never claimed that developers or the vast majority of users are going to suddenly abandon Javascript once they heard my oh-so-compelling argument against it.

In fact, I don't expect them to.

Most users are ignorant, technologically illiterate, blind to security issues, and lacking of any concern for their online privacy. Most developers aren't much better, and aim for the low-hanging fruit, without many scruples as far as respecting the privacy of their users goes.

No. Most of them aren't going to change. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly give in and start using Javascript myself. And though I be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, I'm going to stand up for what I know is right.