• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About clays

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nintendo has Nintendo Web Framework for Wii U, so I assume that counts.
  2. Ah, it's alright I am not at all thinking of it as "talking down". It's always good reminder to bring up the basics related to it. I was just saying that I was aware of them and I appreciate the relations to the question I posted. This is a lot of information, thanks. Come to think of it, after reading the disadvantages you gave, I guess it could also be even more troubling for younger users who barely even have their own email which kinda shift the demographic a bit, probably 12+ or 15+? 🤔 I'm not sure, big web game publishers know this best, haha. As for the advantage it's pretty much what I thought about, I guess I was too focused on user who are used to email even though I do realize the hassle of creating new email just to login to a website or play probably some mini games. Surely in reality I agree with you in that case, especially when it comes to payment info (in-app purchases maybe, virtual items).
  3. Interesting response ShrewdPixel (and didn't realize there's that LoginRadius already haha, I was just spilling ideas from my head after reading the article). Yeah I'm aware of the basics as I am a web developer myself. With a bit of a maintenance in exchange of better security and popularity as what they confidently can offer, I can fully agree that the 3rd party sign-in is definitely a good choice especially for startups. In regards of 3rd party login though, it's just I had an experience as a gamer logging into a game using Facebook login, as it is the only medium to login to the game. The game is an online mobile game made by a new company, which was made after a successful stand-alone mobile game he made alone. It then gets into issues quickly where some players complaining that they lose data and all, some also gain no access to the game anymore for unknown reasons as I saw their complaints on the Facebook page. How big, I'm not sure. Not long after that the company made their own authentication method (despite there's no information if that is the case on why they started to make their own), a simple password-based one. But soon after that the complaints get lesser and the company asked the users to backup their data through that login. I can only assume that the Facebook login troubles them, but then again it's only my assumption. This is not the only game that has issues I faced, I have another but the game company did not seem to take action. Not sure the reason why, whether it's just a small amount or maybe because they already implemented the normal password-based auth in the first place unlike the first game I explained before (uses Facebook login only first). Okay let's say I narrow it down to password-less and password-based in competition as primary authentication method, do you think the password-less (by email) can replace password-based one? or are they both just the same in terms of security (with their own vulnerabilities) or any other thing you believe could count?
  4. I came across an article about Web Authentication API and its shenanigan, and I kinda came up with a login or registration without using a password but rather only an email, dropping password mechanism entirely. People forget their email, not to mention their password. Even after they remember their password, password itself is not always a safe form of authentication to deal with. But if I stick with just email or phone to verify their credential, do you think it's as safe (or better) than password? The flow is simple: Registration -> Fill email -> User gets email verification -> give link to the logged in homepage/last page. Same goes to login: Login -> Insert just email -> user gets email verification from the site -> give link to the logged in homepage/last page. Always sign-in feature is always available, and is only bound to the machine that is verified after the email verification is a success. Then instead of using password, the user is free to add extra authentication layer such as recovery email, phone, backup codes, and/or USB device through web authentication API. Basically I just want user to only fill a single form which is only email or phone number to create a new account rather than inserting a minimum an email/phone and password. In my opinion, password era was when people barely has an email as a login method or the app is completely local/offline, and the website (or applications) has to handle the authentication all by itself. It was always "username" and "password", not "email" and "password", and email was just an account recovery extra authentication layer. Email itself is already that "username" and "password" that websites don't even need to have users to do that anymore IF we bound the site to user's email, requiring them to get online to check their email or phone. The downside is, I still need to have the user to fill that single form, and even probably provide a guide on how to create an email which also guide them through a complete step of verification. Also, you may ask, why not use "Login with Google" or "Login with Facebook", etc.? Well, some don't prefer to do that at all, as it sounds like we are the third party who let all our data to be shared to them, or us grabbing Facebook/Google data, which can be a hot issue. It also means inefficient 1 or 2 more windows to open, which is verifying what data is shared (which I'd rather put a Privacy Policy link right below/beside the registration/login form to tell which data we are using/tracking), and some troubles dealing with their authentication API themselves. so I don't think relying on third party quick login buttons is better in terms of the feeling of privacy, UX, and dev's trouble dealing with close zero-control of ever-updating third-party buttons in this case, though the advantage is user don't even or barely need to remember anything nor fill any form. What do you think?
  5. Tested the one on the web. I like how simple it is, and the fact that this is (probably) the first time that I see the stack is actually 3D boxes being sliced compare to other versions in the forum, haha. Also the fact that this game is hmm... around 10 mb? Not bad for game from Unity wasm. 🤔
  6. Nice game. I like the visual quality looks polished. I agree with others about the left/right screen input issue. What I can suggest is, instead the screen divided into two events to move left or right, make player to click the left or right side of the car. The left/right screen input may work on two lanes but I am not sure on multiple lanes like this. The other solution is put a left and right arrows there but usually only shows up on touch-enabled devices while desktop and other (joystick) uses their own movement input. Also just an optional feature feedback, maybe you wanna add taxi booster power up (or by button) to make the car faster in short amount of time. This gives quite a dynamic but also increases the risk of the player to crash. If you don't like it cause it's too unrealistic, I have another. Since this is a taxi game, why not put passengers on the left or right that the player can pick up on the way for extra points? The risk is, the player definitely does not always able to reach there. I think that's all so far. Good job! 😀
  7. Hi, I've been wondering if there's someone that can suggest me any gamer forum? I think something like tigsource, a forum for indie game players and developers. Just want to reach closer to the audience I can find. 😀
  8. Hi guys, I've been feeling insecure about how this game could be enhanced further. Sooo, I decided to not make a sequel of this game, but instead I want to further polish this game part-time (while doing the board game that I'm currently doing)! \o/ I've taken every feedback here to mind and here's my current to-do list for Dreckon v1.1! Create water splashes on boss Draw more bosses Create more hero ship choices (means ship selection option) Create character illustration to personalize each hero ship Create more weapon choices, which will upgrade or modify the difficulty of level 2 and possibly level 3 Explicitly show the damage multiplier Add two more levels (level 4 and 5), with crazier difficulty, but more on mechanics rather than more brazing bullets in level 3 (still as crazy or slightly more than level 3, of course. :p) Add richer ambient environment on level 2 and 3 (maybe islands, maybe not ) Create better effects on enemy and hero's ship destruction, such as falling debris and unique destruction animation Further enhance the menu interface to be more interactive and arcade-like Update game codes to further comply Cocos Creator 2.1+ as it will remove deprecated codes Create early notification for ad-blocker user Gamepad API support However, I cannot confirm when this update will live (TBA), but at least I've put my eyes on this one. 😉 If you think there's anything else I could add, please let me know. Thanks!
  9. Thanks @ShrewdPixel for the good words! For the mouse/touch control I created an inertia for so while it is as if it's instant, but still smooth (basically to avoid teleporting, haha). I really do want this to be fast-paced, and for my other games as well should have this fast-paced arcade feeling around it. I'm glad it works for this one! About the background, I think I should confess myself. By the time I make this game my drawing skill was horrendous, so I set the game on the ocean and decided to avoid drawing the ground. I managed to stay alive drawing the ships, but the background were off the line. Now that I started to study drawing more, I hope I can deliver a much richer visual quality for my next games, promise! *crossing fingers* XD As for the ad block, good idea! I think I can put the notice on the very first screen. Anyway, thanks for letting me know as well.
  10. Link added. Play it here. Have fun! Update 23/1/2019 - Shorten the level clear music - Removed fadeout on game over - Fixed bug where game over isn't going back to main menu on second time - Added in-game ads - Game link is now available I'll be working on another game now...
  11. Cool game! I can run it on my mobile device, old Nokia 6. I failed to brake at the last station, haha. It's a Unity WebGL game right?
  12. clays

    When to move on

    JavaScript is a foundation. Learning it is mandatory, and it will never end. If you already feel confident at any time, or say have learned to make your own game from vanilla JavaScript, that's a good start to move onto a framework as it helps a lot to modify / hack things when the framework doesn't work as you intended. Don't fear about it. Frameworks or libraries are just tools, and you need things fast and easy to create a game when you need it. Most of the time game engines help you to focus on the core stuff, such as game play codes and the visuals. I personally get tired quickly dealing with bugs of my own game engine that I barely have time polishing the game play and the visuals. Game engines are helping me in terms of time. If your games are very small, then it wouldn't matter. But as your scope of work gets bigger, the number of time to deal beyond the game itself exponentially grows especially with the technology keeps changing fast.
  13. Hi! I'm not sure how you tested the game cause I haven't put any link yet, but thanks. 😁
  14. Honestly as a game developer I support Y8's action. I hope more publishers who really do buy game licenses from the developers would do the same. I don't see a problem here (again, as a developer).
  15. Seems like they are trying to pull the players into their website. Tricky one. Does this happened just recently?