4 ms·

I clearly failed at the point I was trying to make then. To be clear, and I should've been more emphatic about that in my original comment, this is a great demo

I clearly failed at the point I was trying to make then. To be clear, and I should've been more emphatic about that in my original comment, this is a great demonstration of skill and ingenuity. The creator should be applauded for creating it. What it's not is a game, much less a "Minecraft clone". There was a story the other day on Hacker News about not being able to impress developers[1]: that there's a tendency amongst developers believe whatever someone else did is easy and they could do it in a fraction of the time. Almost every time someone hacks something together that sorta resembles prior art, what I see is a rush to label it a clone of something else that's really successful, as if the work of the really successful product could be cobbled together by anyone who has a couple of hours/weeks/months of free time[2]. All I'm trying to say here is that while this is very cool and the creator should keep at it because this could be a great start to something new and interesting, there's a whole lot more work to do to make a game out of this and let's collectively temper the implications that all Minecraft is is a basic terrain generator. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5807770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5807770 [2]: Another recent example where months of work was reduced to "we did it in an hour": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5747418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5747418

aptwebapps 13y ago
I don't think your second link is a good example of what you are talking about. They spent a really long time building a framework which, they claim, let them build a replica of Snowfall in an hour.
- itafroma 13y ago
  The narrative wasn't that they spent a really long time building a framework so anyone could build Snowfall in an hour, it was that "the NY times spent hundreds of hours building Snowfall, we did it in an hour" implying that if you spend more than one hour working on creating something like Snowfall, you've wasted your time. Even if had been the more forgiving narrative, it still ignores the 6 months the New York times did doing interviews, compiling the photography, and writing the piece itself. The technical part was, comparatively speaking, the part that took the least amount of time on the NY Times's end. You can't replicate Snowfall in an hour, even with Scrollkit's help.

aptwebapps 13y ago

I don't think your second link is a good example of what you are talking about. They spent a really long time building a framework which, they claim, let them build a replica of Snowfall in an hour.

itafroma 13y ago
The narrative wasn't that they spent a really long time building a framework so anyone could build Snowfall in an hour, it was that "the NY times spent hundreds of hours building Snowfall, we did it in an hour" implying that if you spend more than one hour working on creating something like Snowfall, you've wasted your time. Even if had been the more forgiving narrative, it still ignores the 6 months the New York times did doing interviews, compiling the photography, and writing the piece itself. The technical part was, comparatively speaking, the part that took the least amount of time on the NY Times's end. You can't replicate Snowfall in an hour, even with Scrollkit's help.