HTML5 Gaming

http://www.kesiev.com/akihabara/
http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-...

Here are examples of games running in your browser, without any plugins, using only standard HTML5 features and javascript. These are not slow and simple games as you would expect of something built using only web page controls, they have the potential to be complex things such that a few years ago you would have thought they could only be done on a specialised platform or framework. Given that these are standards, it shouldn't matter what platform you're on or if the plugin doesn't support your platform as long as there's a web browser that is up to date with HTML5.

Does anyone else think this has the potential for awesomeness? Not only in games but branching out into full websites.

On the flip side, although there has been some brilliant work done with flash to make some great websites there's also some crap made with flash, I would anticipate some people getting it wrong and making travesties with HTML5 too. Hopefully they don't butcher their websites so much that you can't salvage it with userscripts.

I've been coding games like these (that never leave my computer, I should add, because they're never finished), for a few years now. It's been exciting to see what's possible expanding as browser developers implement more standards.

Here are examples of games running in your browser, without any plugins, using only standard HTML5 features and javascript.

The killer for me is the javascript... that stuff drives me nuts. Anyone more familiar with HTML5 know if there will be plugins that support .NET?

I guess you're looking at silverlight if you want to do active content with .net through a browser

Scratched wrote:

I guess you're looking at silverlight if you want to do active content with .net through a browser

And may you burn in hell if you use Silverlight. Part of the point of HTML5 is to quit with the damn closed, proprietary plugins.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone does something like GWT (which allows people to write in Java and cross-compile it to JavaScript instead of having to do JavaScript directly) for C#. That would be cool.

I can't wait until I have to win at deathmatch or solve a portal room before I can get into a website.

And may you burn in hell if you use Silverlight. Part of the point of HTML5 is to quit with the damn closed, proprietary plugins.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone does something like GWT (which allows people to write in Java and cross-compile it to JavaScript instead of having to do JavaScript directly) for C#. That would be cool.

Agreed - Flash, Silverlight and their ilk need to go away. I'd be OK with Java... I will have to look into GWT.

Flash, Silverlight and their ilk need to go away.

IMAGE(http://sci.gallaudet.edu/Physics12/smiley_sad.png)

Minase wrote:
And may you burn in hell if you use Silverlight. Part of the point of HTML5 is to quit with the damn closed, proprietary plugins.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone does something like GWT (which allows people to write in Java and cross-compile it to JavaScript instead of having to do JavaScript directly) for C#. That would be cool.

Agreed - Flash, Silverlight and their ilk need to go away. I'd be OK with Java... I will have to look into GWT.

If you're going to go that route, F java too.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

If you're going to go that route, F java too.

But with GWT, Java isn't the final product. It gets cross-compiled into pure JavaScript. It's so app developers can write web apps in a language they're familiar with.

It'd be cool if there was something similar for C# so you Microsoft-heads could write web apps in the language you like and I can enjoy them without running your dog doody platform.

*Legion* wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

If you're going to go that route, F java too.

But with GWT, Java isn't the final product. It gets cross-compiled into pure JavaScript. It's so app developers can write web apps in a language they're familiar with.

It'd be cool if there was something similar for C# so you Microsoft-heads could write web apps in the language you like and I can enjoy them without running your dog doody platform. ;)

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

*Legion* wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

I believe you might be right. I would put effort into .NET development if it weren't limited to that one platform. I've thought about doing it with Mono anyway.

Mono is badass.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

I believe you might be right. I would put effort into .NET development if it weren't limited to that one platform. I've thought about doing it with Mono anyway. It'd be nice if .NET could calm the f*ck down and not concoct new APIs every two weeks, though.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Mono is badass.

Not kissing you.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

.Net itself is good (that is, C# and its libraries) but ASP.NET is utter sh*t.

As for the games in HTML5, it's pretty cool from a geeky standpoint but I can't shake the feeling that all this effort is kind of wasted. Someone remind me why having a fast 3d rendering engine that offloads to the GPU in a *browser* is a good idea? The browser environment is just unnecessary additional overhead.

Flash is terrible. HTML5 must kill it.

baggachipz wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

.Net itself is good (that is, C# and its libraries) but ASP.NET is utter sh*t.

As for the games in HTML5, it's pretty cool from a geeky standpoint but I can't shake the feeling that all this effort is kind of wasted. Someone remind me why having a fast 3d rendering engine that offloads to the GPU in a *browser* is a good idea? The browser environment is just unnecessary additional overhead.

I never did get the dislike for ASP.Net. Asp.Net is pretty friggin awesome.

As for HTML5, well, I agree with you on both points. I'd just like to see flash die. I don't care one way or another about silverlight, but $^&#*$ flash.

One potential drawback I could see with it is the day some game studio gets the bright idea to use it for all their DRM woes. ugh.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Mono is badass.

Not kissing you.

I'm slayed.

baggachipz wrote:

As for the games in HTML5, it's pretty cool from a geeky standpoint but I can't shake the feeling that all this effort is kind of wasted. Someone remind me why having a fast 3d rendering engine that offloads to the GPU in a *browser* is a good idea? The browser environment is just unnecessary additional overhead.

It's a tool, and the tool can be misused or used correctly. Being a script/markup that's interpreted at runtime rather than being precompiled means that it can be altered by the client, so hopefully if it becomes the norm that a company wants to make an eyesearing intro to their website it can be avoided, just as you can read website content now without CSS or scripts if you feel the need.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pfft. You may hate windows, but .Net rocks!

I believe you might be right. I would put effort into .NET development if it weren't limited to that one platform. I've thought about doing it with Mono anyway.

Mono is badass.

Wow. Cross-platform C#.

Clearly I've been out of the loop lately, but that sounds cool.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I never did get the dislike for ASP.Net. Asp.Net is pretty friggin awesome.

If you feel like killing time, I just posted a rant here.

Scratched wrote:
baggachipz wrote:

As for the games in HTML5, it's pretty cool from a geeky standpoint but I can't shake the feeling that all this effort is kind of wasted. Someone remind me why having a fast 3d rendering engine that offloads to the GPU in a *browser* is a good idea? The browser environment is just unnecessary additional overhead.

It's a tool, and the tool can be misused or used correctly. Being a script/markup that's interpreted at runtime rather than being precompiled means that it can be altered by the client, so hopefully if it becomes the norm that a company wants to make an eyesearing intro to their website it can be avoided, just as you can read website content now without CSS or scripts if you feel the need.

It's also completely cross-platform. I don't see how game-level performance from a browser using HTML5 is anything but a good thing from a developers perspective. You only have to write it once, instead of writing it several times for each embedded platform or OS.

PyromanFO wrote:

It's also completely cross-platform. I don't see how game-level performance from a browser using HTML5 is anything but a good thing from a developers perspective. You only have to write it once, instead of writing it several times for each embedded platform or OS.

Assuming all browsers implement the standard correctly.

:evilstare at Microsoft:

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
PyromanFO wrote:

It's also completely cross-platform. I don't see how game-level performance from a browser using HTML5 is anything but a good thing from a developers perspective. You only have to write it once, instead of writing it several times for each embedded platform or OS.

Assuming all browsers implement the standard correctly.

:evilstare at Microsoft:

I just tried the first link in the IE9 preview. No dice, but chromeexperiments.com doesn't work either.

PyromanFO wrote:

It's also completely cross-platform. I don't see how game-level performance from a browser using HTML5 is anything but a good thing from a developers perspective. You only have to write it once, instead of writing it several times for each embedded platform or OS.

Setting aside the fact that standards compliance is frequently ignored, I still feel that a web browser isn't necessarily the place to be putting 3D gaming. I mean, there are other cross-platform delivery mechanisms for games that have more direct access to APIs (OpenGL, anyone?) and don't require the overhead of a web browser. I think we can all agree that Javascript isn't exactly an optimized scripting language for high-performance code.

baggachipz wrote:

(OpenGL, anyone?)

OpenGL is exactly what is being used here. WebGL is a JavaScript binding to OpenGL ES 2.0. It's not a plug-in or hack.

*Legion* wrote:

WebGL is a JavaScript binding to OpenGL ES 2.0.

True dat.

baggachipz wrote:

I think we can all agree that Javascript isn't exactly an optimized scripting language for high-performance code.

baggachipz wrote:

I think we can all agree that Javascript isn't exactly an optimized scripting language for high-performance code.

I don't think there's another language out there having more work put into its performance. The browsers are in a grueling one-up race to write faster, more efficient JavaScript interpreters/JIT compilers.

Reading Douglas Crockford and watching his lectures give me a lot more appreciation of what JavaScript as a language is capable of. A lot of improvements are implemented in ECMAScript 5 - it's a much-needed language clean-up.

JavaScript's ubiquity make it extremely compelling. And that's why so much work is being put into improving performance and the language standard. And of course, I doubt GWT will be the only toolkit we see for writing code in one language and cross-compiling it to JavaScript/WebGL/etc.

The web browser probably isn't the ideal place for 3d, but people are doing it anyway except right now they're using plugins and local clients displaying via a plugin (quakelive). What I think could be interesting is similar to how you get slimline mobile versions of web sites optimised for such browsers, you can customise your game as shown in the first link they have a control pad embedded in the player, but the game code is the same. I don't think it's a stretch to have something similar where detail levels are scaled to the capabilities of the device and instead of the 200k texture/sprite pack you'll use the 100k set to fit in the device memory.

I tried to play one of those HTML5 games on Firefox and I couldn't get the game to start.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I tried to play one of those HTML5 games on Firefox and I couldn't get the game to start.

If you weren't running a prerelease build of Firefox 3.7, then the problem was that you were using a browser that doesn't know what HTML5 is. (Actually, Firefox 3.5 does understand a few HTML 5 tags, but the point remains)

I'm not even sure if Firefox 3.7 implements enough of HTML 5 to play the Quake II game or not. But the 3.7 builds is the first appearance of WebGL support in the Firefox code base.