Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diablo in JavaScript

mitallast.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#71

Post by mmahemoff »

minimaxir wrote: post #28
overgard wrote: post #23

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!"

The next logical step is Diablo in CSS3.

This is done in canvas, but a lot of games are done in CSS3 - using 3D transforms and CSS animation, it's very feasible.

Of course, it's much harder to do a game in pure CSS, like this crazy thing http://jsdo.it/GeckoTang/4rXg

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#73

Post by shadowmint »

mcantelon wrote: post #58
shadowmint wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

People sample audio all the time. This isn't a commercial project and sampling some sprites from a 13 year old game doesn't seem like it's going to impact Blizzard in any way. He should, of course, give the original creators credit in his README at some point (judging by the fact there is no README the project may be still undergoing development).

Sure, it's not a commercial interest thing, its just about ethics. :)

I'm not going to stand up and tell someone its mean and unethical put some harsh criticism out about a project which is in itself unethically stealing art assets and associating itself with a brand it has nothing to do with.

If you're happy to accept this project and what it's doing, you should equally be happy to accept it's going to get some flack for it. You can't have it both ways (doing this is ok even tho its unethical AND but its unethical to criticise it and that's bad).

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#74

Post by shurcooL »

shadowmint wrote: post #57
d0m wrote: post #20

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)

Related question. Can I use the Quake 3 sounds for debugging purposes in my open source project? Or are they copyrighted and I would be doing something bad by including them in my project's folder.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#75

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

georgemcbay wrote: post #66
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works pretty nice in the most used browser in the world (Chrome last release), that is a win in my book.

And the original worked pretty nicely in the most used operating system in the world (Windows), when it was released. But pointing this out just proves my original point that the openness of web standards isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

The code is pretty much open (even commented and well organized) and It can fairly easy be changed to SVG to support pretty much every modern browser. Open enough for me.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#76

Post by [deleted] »

overgard wrote: post #44
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead Space 3 wasn't created by 1 person in their spare time. But by all means, don't let that temper your cynicism.

I meant it as a commentary on celebrating javascript in general, not on this person's project. It's not cynicism I feel, it's dissatisfaction. I /want/ to use the web for powerful things, but the limitations of javascript make many of those things impractical. Hence my ambivalence towards "x in javascript"

[deleted]

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#77

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

fiatpandas wrote: post #31

Can't move in Firefox 18. What is so out of date with Firefox that this cannot work? I see more and more of these demos flat out not working in FF, but work fine in Chrome. What is the explanation?

No -webkit- specific code in sight and the console shows no error; the worst kind of bug.

Edit: I found it; It is using the event property offSetX instead of a cross-browser property; if the developer or someone else want so fix: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11334452/event-offsetx-in... [Line 151 in diablo.js]

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#78

Post by kalleboo »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #69
overgard wrote: post #23

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!"

Yeah, only now with javascript we can transmit HD videos in realtime via webcam with Chrome or Firefox, just like in 1997... no wait... the cherry picking of an example went wrong on that one. But maybe we can still devalue Javascript by saying HD videos is a separate thing and that speed connections is more important than Javascript in that example?

The desktop equivalent, CU-SeeMe, was working in 1994.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#79

Post by xaa »

[deleted] wrote: post #76
overgard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it as a commentary on celebrating javascript in general, not on this person's project. It's not cynicism I feel, it's dissatisfaction. I /want/ to use the web for powerful things, but the limitations of javascript make many of those things impractical. Hence my ambivalence towards "x in javascript"

[deleted]

Java applets, Native Client, and ActiveX all (imperfectly) address this problem.

We have long had trouble agreeing on a standard for web-based native code. But that doesn't mean that it's a senseless request. The exalted status of Javascript is merely a convenient local optimum.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#80

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

kalleboo wrote: post #78
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, only now with javascript we can transmit HD videos in realtime via webcam with Chrome or Firefox, just like in 1997... no wait... the cherry picking of an example went wrong on that one. But maybe we can still devalue Javascript by saying HD videos is a separate thing and that speed connections is more important than Javascript in that example?

The desktop equivalent, CU-SeeMe, was working in 1994.

Even older, perfect for devaluing JS! The similarity is truly shocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CUcollaboration.gif

http://www.teknoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/gmail-go...

Post reply on HN