Diablo in JavaScript • Hacker News Board

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#111

Post by okamiueru » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 11:14 AM UTC

Just another misleading HN titles to a technically uninteresting project. I believe this is a fair assessment.

Even if the goal was to showcase what can be done in JavaScript now, it's a rudimentary isometric visualization of animated sprites with very simple game logic (not even basic path finding).

Just to make it clear, regarding the creator and the project:

* Is there something bad with him creating something? No, not at all. Cudos to him for making something! Especially for making it open source. Let's anyone peek at how he has done what he has. Sweet.

* Is there something bad with with how he is doing it? Yes, he is using copyrighted graphics he doesn't own the rights to use.

Regarding this as HN:

* Is this technically interesting? No, not even remotely. Throwing graphics on a canvas and point-and-click basic game logic is not interesting. Point out to me a basic mechanic or implementation that isn't trivial (overlay of minimap is the most interesting thing that comes to mind).

* Is this aesthetically interesting? It would be, if it was original art. Seeing as it is just "borrowed" sprites, the optimal goal would be a screenshot of Diablo 2.

* Is the title accurate? No, not even remotely (there is much more to Diablo than sprites).

* Is the project anywhere finished and presentable? Maybe this just personal preference, but I don't like seeing other people's pre-alpha demos.

tl;dr: Stop wasting people's time with technically uninteresting posts with misleading titles alluding to the contrary, to projects using assets they shouldn't.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#112

Post by Ziomislaw » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 4:18 PM UTC

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.

I do believe that Windoze stopped being most used operating system in the world (hint: android)

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#113

Post by jQueryIsAwesome » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 5:03 PM UTC

MrScruff wrote: post #105

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess I can't talk about the DOM; many functions are just an API for it; and canvas is just an API for drawing accelerated by the CPU; so... Javascript is nothing and nothing can be blamed on it?

I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either. I would class many of the other things you mention as incremental improvements of the rendering engine as a universa…

Broken argument; flash is way too slow compared to the current version of Canvas; recently I made a full conversion of flash to canvas (was painful but) the performance is outstanding and the ability to interact natively and play nice with the DOM is invaluable.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#114

Post by MrScruff » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 2:32 PM UTC

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #113

MrScruff wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either. I would class many of the other things you mention as incremental improvements of the rendering engine as a universa…

Broken argument; flash is way too slow compared to the current version of Canvas; recently I made a full conversion of flash to canvas (was painful but) the performance is outstanding and the ability to interact natively and play nice with the DOM is invaluable.

The latest comparative performance of 2D drawing in one runtime vs another doesn't have anything to do with my argument.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#115

Post by jQueryIsAwesome » Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 1:10 AM UTC

MrScruff wrote: post #114

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broken argument; flash is way too slow compared to the current version of Canvas; recently I made a full conversion of flash to canvas (was painful but) the performance is outstanding and the ability to interact natively and play nice with the DOM is invaluable.

The latest comparative performance of 2D drawing in one runtime vs another doesn't have anything to do with my argument.

> I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either.

You mean P2P connections? Oh we have that now in Firefox and Chrome. You mean video chats? Oh we have that. You mean thousands of libraries to create and develop videogames for the web? Oh we have that. You mean easily extensible browsers via plugins/extension? Oh we have that. I need you to be very specific about what we are lacking.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#116

Post by MrScruff » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 2:46 PM UTC

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #115

MrScruff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest comparative performance of 2D drawing in one runtime vs another doesn't have anything to do with my argument.

> I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either. You mean P2P connections? Oh we have that now in Firefox and Chrome. You mean video chats? Oh we have that. You me…

What the html platform is lacking? My last project was built around QT, OpenGL, CUDA and made extensive use of various C based linear algebra libraries and was ~20kloc of C++. I'm sure it could be reimplemented as a web app but it would be a strange decision to do so.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that just because the web allows you to do things that were possible on the desktop 10+ years ago doesn't make it interesting to me. And the fact that you can always add specific functionality to the runtime like video conferencing doesn't really address that.

I don't have to wait for browser vendors, I just start coding.