So after connecting your wallet, no matter the ominous per-tile player-created contracts, every keypress drains your wallet.
Oh, and of course in the author's example they can "fish" at a certain tile and every "fish" is an NFT - but of course it is!
A "permissionless collaborative surface" that is nothing but a barren wasteland of nothingness fuelled by a desperation to find a reason d'être.
What you've created there is a sandbox, maybe, but not a game. There's nothing to do there, no goals, no sights, and connecting wallets, deploying smart contracts, and literally paying for every step you take doesn't sound like fun either.
Sure, it's possible. But I would add that any on-chain game would be equally good, if not better by not being on the chain. I dare anyone to show me a game that is only good by existing on the blockchain.
I'll wait.
Creator here, thank you for sharing this here - it seems there’s a decent bit of misunderstandings in the comments (particularly around the security model/monetary cost) so I’ll clarify some things:
- Your main wallet is never exposed to the game tiles, only a burner proxy wallet created for in-game interactions. This limits any attack surface area significantly.
- Frontend plug-ins are decently sandboxed and cannot learn things like “what’s your private key?” or make transactions on your behalf unless you explicitly approve it.
- This runs on a testnet L2 (Optimism Kovan) so it’s free to play - this is just meant to be a proof of concept exploration. Anyway, transaction costs are on the order of 1/100th of a cent on such L2s, so it’s really not prohibitively expensive to play the game even if it was with real money!
I’m a bit disappointed that most of the comments here pose rather shallow understanding of what’s interesting about exgrasia/blockchain as a data layer for games - I’d think nothing would excite fellow programmers more than the ability to build their own systems and mod it into a “world” without any limits/permissions on it :(
You don't need a blockchain with global consensus to do that.
Eagerly looking forward to new and exciting vulnerabilities this will open players to!
"Let's see what we can stitch together with these exploratory technologies"
Hate that it has to be with blockchain technologies.
"Let's see if we can siphon off easy money from more suckers with another piece of crypto vaporware"
I have no clue how a "contract" would contribute to that idea at all, and would in fact pose more risk to vulnerabilities and hacks than would exist from a centralized architecture.
You could build islands and they'd be placed somewhere in the world for people to sail to, you could create quests set on your island etc. There was even an object inventor for creating equipment.
That is called No Man’s Sky.
The only exception is Vitalik; sometimes that guy is just too smart to ignore.
If the game's whole shtick is blockchain, is it really unreasonable to comment on the blockchain aspect of the game?
Which is framed as a net positive here, but is it? What happens when my little fishing tile is surrounded by $RACIAL_SLUR-ville? What happens when the landscape becomes a sea of swastikas?