5 ms·

All the HTML5/WebGL stuff may be nice for casual gamers, but as a gamer I really don't want all that stuff. Same visual quality/performance as a native game is

All the HTML5/WebGL stuff may be nice for casual gamers, but as a gamer I really don't want all that stuff. Same visual quality/performance as a native game is probably not possible and every game in js will perform worse AND create more load (and waste energy). Why is everyone trying to move games and big applications to the web?

rrreese 13y ago
Like you I'm a gamer, and like you this doesn't appeal. However I can see exactly why people are doing this. There have been a big explosion of indie games recently and that can be put down to iOS and Steam. Both make it super easy to get games. Anything that reduces friction is going to be very appealing to game makers. And installing Steam is friction. If playing your game simply involves visiting a link - thats pretty easy. As HTML5 matures, as more people use modern browsers, and as Flash becomes less reliably installed on browsers, expect to see a lot of casual games moving to HTML5.
- luckysh0t 13y ago
  Steam makes it super easy to get games but installing it is friction? I am a gamer with an interest in the indie sector but don't have steam because my first experience with that extra platform abstraction - Origin - has put me off. Neither do I want a game as a web page. I want a gaming experience and that for me is still a standalone executable. I even dislike not having a physical copy of digital distributions.
  - nightski 13y ago
    In the end isn't it just about having fun? Whatever format is most efficient for the developer to deliver fun, let them run with it.
cadetzero 13y ago
Because if you're creating a 2d game, it can be rendered reasonably fast in your browser. Full 3d is a different problem. However, a game like Monaco, with super simple controls but really interesting game play, could absolutely be built in the browser. This gives an easier distribution medium, more control over who is using the game, and if you're already a webdev it fits in nicely with your pre-existing skill set. The bar is significantly lowered for a lot of weekend warrior game makers if you're going the 2d route.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mhd 13y ago
Couldn't you say the same even for native mobile gaming? Or even PCs vs. consoles... There are plenty of game types -- some "casual", some not -- that are perfectly satisfied by either lower hardware or arcane/wasteful software stacks. And you can benefit from the ease of development, distribution and cross-platform capabilities. Energy, sure, but with browser-based 2D games that's mostly CPU, so given the identical native game we're talking about what, a 30W difference? Might as well tell people not to play triple-A games with their SLI GPUs... This isn't really a new discussion, as you can bring the same argument for desktop apps, too. Look at something like extjs, compared to native GUIs. Wastes heckuva lot of resources to try to look like a real application and will never reach that (like early Java...). But it's darn convenient...
chipsy 13y ago
Lower development and support costs. (In theory.) If you can ship one build and it runs on every device you care about, that's a huge burden lifted. It's not there yet for all types of games or applications, for a number of reasons, but the performance aspect of it is gradually coming under control and most of the issue now rests on API functionality and browser compatibility.
archagon 13y ago
It's great for small, experimental indie games that want to reach as big of an audience as possible. Think Ludum Dare. For bigger games, though, I agree completely.
- ne0phyte 13y ago
  Especially the unreal engine Epic Citadel demo. Why do they waste time trying to move one of the most advanced and complex game engines to the web? A native UE3 game utilizes the full power of modern hardware. Even if they get JS to run at 50% of the native speed, it still is too slow for heavy games, but it will create the same CPU load, waste 50% energy and requires faster hardware. Why not compile everything to brainfuck? It reminds me of that post of the guy who booted linux on an 8 bit uC :D

rrreese 13y ago

Like you I'm a gamer, and like you this doesn't appeal. However I can see exactly why people are doing this. There have been a big explosion of indie games recently and that can be put down to iOS and Steam. Both make it super easy to get games. Anything that reduces friction is going to be very appealing to game makers. And installing Steam is friction. If playing your game simply involves visiting a link - thats pretty easy. As HTML5 matures, as more people use modern browsers, and as Flash becomes less reliably installed on browsers, expect to see a lot of casual games moving to HTML5.

luckysh0t 13y ago
Steam makes it super easy to get games but installing it is friction? I am a gamer with an interest in the indie sector but don't have steam because my first experience with that extra platform abstraction - Origin - has put me off. Neither do I want a game as a web page. I want a gaming experience and that for me is still a standalone executable. I even dislike not having a physical copy of digital distributions.
- nightski 13y ago
  In the end isn't it just about having fun? Whatever format is most efficient for the developer to deliver fun, let them run with it.

cadetzero 13y ago

Because if you're creating a 2d game, it can be rendered reasonably fast in your browser. Full 3d is a different problem. However, a game like Monaco, with super simple controls but really interesting game play, could absolutely be built in the browser. This gives an easier distribution medium, more control over who is using the game, and if you're already a webdev it fits in nicely with your pre-existing skill set. The bar is significantly lowered for a lot of weekend warrior game makers if you're going the 2d route.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mhd 13y ago

Couldn't you say the same even for native mobile gaming? Or even PCs vs. consoles... There are plenty of game types -- some "casual", some not -- that are perfectly satisfied by either lower hardware or arcane/wasteful software stacks. And you can benefit from the ease of development, distribution and cross-platform capabilities. Energy, sure, but with browser-based 2D games that's mostly CPU, so given the identical native game we're talking about what, a 30W difference? Might as well tell people not to play triple-A games with their SLI GPUs... This isn't really a new discussion, as you can bring the same argument for desktop apps, too. Look at something like extjs, compared to native GUIs. Wastes heckuva lot of resources to try to look like a real application and will never reach that (like early Java...). But it's darn convenient...

chipsy 13y ago

Lower development and support costs. (In theory.) If you can ship one build and it runs on every device you care about, that's a huge burden lifted. It's not there yet for all types of games or applications, for a number of reasons, but the performance aspect of it is gradually coming under control and most of the issue now rests on API functionality and browser compatibility.

archagon 13y ago

It's great for small, experimental indie games that want to reach as big of an audience as possible. Think Ludum Dare. For bigger games, though, I agree completely.

ne0phyte 13y ago
Especially the unreal engine Epic Citadel demo. Why do they waste time trying to move one of the most advanced and complex game engines to the web? A native UE3 game utilizes the full power of modern hardware. Even if they get JS to run at 50% of the native speed, it still is too slow for heavy games, but it will create the same CPU load, waste 50% energy and requires faster hardware. Why not compile everything to brainfuck? It reminds me of that post of the guy who booted linux on an 8 bit uC :D