5 ms·

> The usual answer is "performance", but that's a non-answer. Try to play https://slither.io https://slither.io The performance is horrible even in simple gam

• andybak 6y ago
  Surely that's a poor implementation? The parent post's point still stands. Browsers are "good enough" a very broad range of games. There's ample evidence of this if you wanted to look.
  • slezyr 6y ago
    So, can you provide "good enough" games with "good implementations" that are somewhat popular?
    • athrowaway3z 6y ago
      agar.io
      • slezyr 6y ago
        It lags even more that slither
    • TheSisb2 6y ago
      Venge.io
      • slezyr 6y ago
        It looks even worse that Quake3 to me and it's gameplay is just dull.
        • andybak 6y ago
          Aren't you just moving the goalposts now?
          • felipellrocha 6y ago
            Yeah, they did. Goalpost went from "is it even feasible" to "did the devs implement a compelling game" as if it was impossible to create a compelling game over the web.
    • kroltan 6y ago
      https://krunker.io/ https://krunker.io/ Runs at a couple hundred FPS if left uncapped, and has very good netcode.
    • modeless 6y ago
      https://poki.com https://poki.com has 30 million monthly active users. That's more than e.g. DOTA 2, CS:GO, or any other single Steam game. Yes there is a lot of trash, but there is also some decent stuff on there.
  • isodev 6y ago
    It doesn't work in Safari or mobile browsers. It's quite far from the expectations of a versatile web platform. WebAssembly has a lot of potential, so one day... perhaps.
    • crocodiletears 6y ago
      Working pretty well for me on Chromium and Firefox mobile. iOS and everything on it using Webkit though, I'm sure there're some issues.
      • isodev 6y ago
        It's so frustrating to constantly switch between my favourite browser and whatever the developers had in mind.
        • andybak 6y ago
          If your favourite browser is Safari then there's a good reason developers might have targeted another browser - Safari is consistently slow in adopting the kind of features that enable more cutting edge web applications. That's not neccesarily a bad thing but you can't complain if you're trying to run cutting-edge apps on a conservative browser.
          • isodev 6y ago
            I am happy they are experimenting with something fresh and cool. My complaint is that it can't possibly be anywhere near ready without being more inclusive. This comment goes beyond browsers - it's such a bummer when I try to play a game I like or one that someone recommended and then "oops, we don't support your device/browser...".
            • andybak 6y ago
              But doesn't that mean Apple gets to choose the pace of advancement and be the gatekeeper of features? At least on Desktop - it's not that much of a burden to have a second browser installed for certain apps, is it? I use Firefox for daily browsing but I've got Chrome and Edge for those times I want to run something that Firefox doesn't support (which is fairly rare). I imagine it's much less rare with Safari.
• onion2k 6y ago
  That definitely lags when there's more than one or two 'snakes' on the screen. The performance sucks. I'd argue that shows that specific game is poorly coded more than it shows web browsers can't handle performant games. If you look at something like https://beta.unity3d.com/jonas/AngryBots/ https://beta.unity3d.com/jonas/AngryBots/ you'll see that browsers can, technically, cope with at least PS2 level graphics in a decent game running at a solid 60fps.