51–60 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The worst part is that, as far as I can tell, this isn't actually Diablo. So we can't even claim a foothold on 1997.
I like the Github description: 'Isometric minimal-code style game at html5 canvas and javascript'. I guess Diablo is being used as a shorthand for that.
Not a commentary on this project per se, but I can't help but think when I see "X in javascript" voted up that the implicit frame is: "isn't it impressive what you can do in javascript now?" But if you flip that statement on its head, the equivalent is "The web has finally caught up with what we could do on a 1997 desktop!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't blame him for being a bit frustrated though. I doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't support firefox. Was only able to move around and kill things when I switched to chrome. OT: Gamers tend not to have a lot in between hatred and love to begin with, and if you're at all familiar with the current Diablo community, well, Diablo 3 hasn't brought out the most civil side of the fans.
HN != Battle.net forums, thankfully..!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To keep on rolling and flip the statement again, it seems closer to "look, I can build Tetris on my wristwatch": in order to make your statement, you have to ignore the state of a web browser running on a 1997 vintage desktop.
The implicit frame of the implicit frame might be "so let's move everything into the browser". Look at it from the perspective of someone who just wants to use a computer for something a computer could do in 1997. Doing it in a browser today would still sometimes be a downgrade from doing it in a (well written) native application in 1997. I am eager to seeing how much of a difference asm.js can make.
Not a commentary on this project per se, but I can't help but think when I see "X in javascript" voted up that the implicit frame is: "isn't it impressive what you can do in javascript now?" But if you flip that statement on its head, the equivalent is "The web has finally caught up with what we could do on a 1997 desktop!"
There's something neat about "X in Y" for some technical novelty (like emulators) but I don't get the excitement in general.
The fact that browsers are still able to run my shitty code is kind of impressive.
But just sayin', it's nice to see this, but even in the "on the web" realm, it's not that big of a leap. It's more of an indication of how much network and processor speeds have advanced in the last 11 years than how much capability of web browser has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not hate. It's pointing out that it's not Diablo in JavaScript.
It's possible to point that out without being a total jerk.
The problem is that it uses stolen assets from another game.
That is 100% not ok, even for a tech demo.
(...there are plenty of free game assets out there, creative commons license; drawing attention to yourself by stealing someone elses art is douche behaviour)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible to point that out without being a total jerk.
The problem with this demo isn't that it's pretty alpha (and to be fair, it is, you can move, and attack, that's about it). The problem is that it uses stolen assets from another game. That is 100% not ok, even for a tech demo. (...there are plenty of free game assets out there, creative commons license; drawing attention to yourself by stealing someone elses art is douche behaviour)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The implicit frame of the implicit frame might be "so let's move everything into the browser". Look at it from the perspective of someone who just wants to use a computer for something a computer could do in 1997. Doing it in a browser today would still sometimes be a downgrade from doing it in a (well written) native application in 1997. I am eager to seeing how much of a difference asm.js can make.
The me in 1997 would be pretty happy to know that the game would be playable by virtually every computer user in the world by clicking a link.
Not a commentary on this project per se, but I can't help but think when I see "X in javascript" voted up that the implicit frame is: "isn't it impressive what you can do in javascript now?" But if you flip that statement on its head, the equivalent is "The web has finally caught up with what we could do on a 1997 desktop!"