next »

[Schtee]

I'm not sure an extension to HTML5 counts as HTML5. I'm guessing a browser can be HTML5 compliant, and have no support for rendering 3D...

[Skofo]

I'm not sure an extension to HTML5 counts as HTML5. I'm guessing a browser can be HTML5 compliant, and have no support for rendering 3D...

A browser can't really be "HTML5 compliant" at the moment since HTML5 is all about new, experimental features that aren't consistent between browsers for now.

However, WebGL is a pretty established HTML5 feature. Development builds of Chrome, Firefox and Safari already include it and Opera plans to include it.

I am not sure what you mean by "extension to HTML5". Are you under the assumption that WebGL is a plugin? Because that is not the case; WebGL is built right into web browsers.

You can try it out yourself.

http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/Getting_a_WebGL_Implementation
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/Demo_Repository

[Schtee]

As I understand it WebGL is JavaScript hooks for using an HTML5 canvas as an OpenGL rendering context...is that right?

But yeah, if it's not part of the HTML5 standard, per se, surely there's no necesity for a browser manufacture to include support for it, and then we end up back in the same position as we are right now with Flash - it's not part of a globally accepted standard, so it -might- work depending on what you're using to view the page?

[unless I'm massively misunderstanding the implementation of WebGL, which is more than possible]

[muku]

To get an idea of what would be possible, let me point out that the video below was made with Java.





So with javascript and WebGL on a decent browser...

It should be pointed out that that was made with Processing, so it's entirely possible that it was rendered offline. In general, though, Java isn't really slow anymore; it has gotten some of the world's best JIT compilers. In these micro-benchmarks, Java is within a factor of 2x-3x of C++:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=javasteady&lang2=gpp
(Memory usage is a different story of course.)

By the way, Javascript is also getting a nice speed boost with V8 and Tracemonkey, the new JS engines by Google and Mozilla. Combined with WebGL, this is starting to sound really interesting. Probably it will take some years to mature and attain wide adoption though...

[Core Xii]

I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be. By the way, have you heard of a thing called Newgrounds, or Kongregate?

I have, and they prove my point. Any game implemented in Flash would be better if it were not. Admittably our computing environment is slightly lacking a proper equivalent of a web game, but that means we should develop one properly, not tack it on a web browser.

It's not that much harder to make a real desktop application that's in every way better than a web game. You can even have it stream all its resources as you run it, just like Flash. You can choose to open executables directly from the browser, etc.

A web browser is a tool not designed for gaming, and it sucks at that. Use the right tool for the job.

[st33d]

You're missing the fact that it's quick and fun to develop in Flash.

People should be allowed to make games in whatever they like. If they're not allowed to have fun doing it, then how are they going to make a fun game?

(And before you preach different languages to me, yes I worked in them all, Flash is currently the most fun.)

[muku]

I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be. By the way, have you heard of a thing called Newgrounds, or Kongregate?

I have, and they prove my point. Any game implemented in Flash would be better if it were not.

I think your zealotry clouds your judgment. Care to actually give some arguments? There are lots of small games for which the web is a perfectly fine delivery platform.

As for your approach of "opening executables directly from the browser", well, that's essentially what Flash, Unity and other plugins do, minus the hassle of making the user choose a download location etc, plus some basic security guarantees. They download not native binaries, but some bytecode representation, but I don't see how that's necessarily a disadvantage; in fact, the portability that this approach gives you beats native-compiled desktop applications hands down. Few other platforms make it so easy to deploy for Windows, Linux and Mac at once.

[Skofo]

As I understand it WebGL is JavaScript hooks for using an HTML5 canvas as an OpenGL rendering context...is that right?

Sounds about right.

But yeah, if it's not part of the HTML5 standard, per se, surely there's no necesity for a browser manufacture to include support for it, and then we end up back in the same position as we are right now with Flash - it's not part of a globally accepted standard, so it -might- work depending on what you're using to view the page?

Most of the HTML5 specification is being developed by W3C, while the WebGL specification is being developed by the Khronos Group. Regardless, I think WebGL is as much of a part of the HTML5 standard as anything.

That is unimportant. What matters above all is implementation. Internet Explorer is the only major web browser that has yet to show plans to implement WebGL or Canvas in general. If IE hopes to compete, it will follow in the footsteps of Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. If not, at least there is Chrome Frame.

Either way, I wouldn't recommend developing with WebGL right now. The specification is still under heavy development and things made with WebGL right now often break.

I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be. By the way, have you heard of a thing called Newgrounds, or Kongregate?

I have, and they prove my point. Any game implemented in Flash would be better if it were not. Admittably our computing environment is slightly lacking a proper equivalent of a web game, but that means we should develop one properly, not tack it on a web browser.

It's not that much harder to make a real desktop application that's in every way better than a web game. You can even have it stream all its resources as you run it, just like Flash. You can choose to open executables directly from the browser, etc.

A web browser is a tool not designed for gaming, and it sucks at that. Use the right tool for the job.

The web is very obviously an established gaming platform, as indicated by the hundreds of thousands of web games with billions of plays.

It is true that downloadable desktop games have their advantages, namely, stable full screen support and technical efficiency. However, you cannot deny that web games have one huge advantage, which is what secured their position in the world of gaming: convenience. Many people prefer to click and play a game right there as opposed to having to click, unzip/install, then play. This is may be a sad fact for some desktop game developers, but it is indeed true. The web is definitely a gaming platform--a popular one, at that--and it is bound to stay that way.

You know, what you are saying about the web right now is not all that different from what people used to say about computers in general.

[gimymblert]

I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be. By the way, have you heard of a thing called Newgrounds, or Kongregate?

I have, and they prove my point. Any game implemented in Flash would be better if it were not. Admittably our computing environment is slightly lacking a proper equivalent of a web game, but that means we should develop one properly, not tack it on a web browser.

It's not that much harder to make a real desktop application that's in every way better than a web game. You can even have it stream all its resources as you run it, just like Flash. You can choose to open executables directly from the browser, etc.

A web browser is a tool not designed for gaming, and it sucks at that. Use the right tool for the job.

Following that i can infer we should only develop for console, as PC are not designed for gaming. It's a tool 

[roboprez]

I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be. By the way, have you heard of a thing called Newgrounds, or Kongregate?

I have, and they prove my point. Any game implemented in Flash would be better if it were not. Admittably our computing environment is slightly lacking a proper equivalent of a web game, but that means we should develop one properly, not tack it on a web browser.

It's not that much harder to make a real desktop application that's in every way better than a web game. You can even have it stream all its resources as you run it, just like Flash. You can choose to open executables directly from the browser, etc.

A web browser is a tool not designed for gaming, and it sucks at that. Use the right tool for the job.

Two words, Fantastic Contraption. This would have never been so successful if it wasn't a browser game. Also yes it may be not that harder to make a desktop executable, but several multi platform executables is hard and tedious.

Also with Glaiel-Gamer's point, how to you protect your work from de-compilers? Do you pay for software to encrypt the .swf or something?

[Glaiel-Gamer]

Also with Glaiel-Gamer's point, how to you protect your work from de-compilers? Do you pay for software to encrypt the .swf or something?

use AS3 over AS2

some decompilers can still get something that can be recompiled, but it's hardly readable so defeats the point of "stealing source"

[PGGB]

Also with Glaiel-Gamer's point, how to you protect your work from de-compilers? Do you pay for software to encrypt the .swf or something?

use AS3 over AS2

some decompilers can still get something that can be recompiled, but it's hardly readable so defeats the point of "stealing source"

You can obfuscate Javascript.

[st33d]

swf encrypters generally change all the function names to make it hard to read and then they do things like alter the goto statements in the bytecode.

It says on the Kindisoft site that when you screw with those goto statements it makes the code unreadable for a decompiler.

People will definitely nick stuff if it's popular though. I game I did recently wasn't encrypting well, so it was put up without encryption. I saw it on another site and they had removed all credit that we had made it, like it was their idea.

People out there are dicks when it comes to Flash games.

[nikki]

A web browser is a tool not designed for gaming, and it sucks at that. Use the right tool for the job.

a web browser isn't even a tool , its just a conveniant way of displaying http.And gaming should be done on as many platforms as possible, or atleast having fun should.

With html5 we get a new free way of making hardware accelerated applications, that probably work more-or less in every browser, thats pretty cool.

[oahda]

I can't even get past "Press A to start".

[Mipe]

Meh, if browsers are used to build complex web applications with, may as well make games with it. After all in the future everything may get dumbed down to one universal browser that can run everything and the need for OS would be eliminated altogether.

[increpare]

I can't even get past "Press A to start".

z is A and x is B

[Core Xii]

Well, firstly, Flash is not an open standard. That's a huge thing right there. Secondly, you can't right-click. And then there's the whole performance issue (which doesn't matter for your average simple, crap Flash game I'm sure - But even VVVVV (or however many V's there are) lagged terribly on Firefox).

Now of course this discussion is actually about HTML5, not Flash... Which does address the first point. But you still can't right-click (at least I don't think so?) and a browser is still inferior in performance to a native binary.

Following that i can infer we should only develop for console, as PC are not designed for gaming. It's a tool 

Anyone can design their PC the way they like. I'm quite sure most people have gaming in mind when they do, as is evident from the graphics cards we boost. I doubt people buy them for medical imaging.

After all in the future everything may get dumbed down to one universal browser that can run everything and the need for OS would be eliminated altogether.

That would be the OS then, not eliminate it. And this is probably exactly what Google's Chrome OS is trying to do, and so far I am not impressed.

I'm quite convinced we'll develop a fully cross-platform application format before a universal browser. It'll probably be self-compiling, polymorphic or something.

[BorisTheBrave]

Flash is a pretty open standard. The file format is documented, and there is an open source compiler. Not 100% open, as there are restrictions on how you use the spec, and some undocumented features in the Flash Player, but all in all, pretty good.

And so some platforms have smaller performance than others? Clearly, there are other concerns to worry about. The appeal of browser based games is mainly that is is incredibly accessible to end users, and works cross platform. Native binaries suck for that. Nor is there an intrinsic slowness, the gap will continue to narrow.

[salade]

The appeal of browser based games is mainly that is is incredibly accessible to end users, and works cross platform. Native binaries suck for that. Nor is there an intrinsic slowness, the gap will continue to narrow.

Will they become faster than native binaries? It just isn't possible. It's like saying that Olympic sprinters will get faster and faster, till they break the light speed barrier.

In the future, it's probably going to be indistinguishable. Native code being distributed throughout, as if the whole internet were one computer. It's only a few brilliant computer scientists and engineers away.

It's my personal opinion that the flash platform has no place in this future, but who knows? Flash is still at least 5 years away from being obsolete, that's plenty of time for things to change.

P.S. cool game engine