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

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#61

Post by laurent123456 »

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).

It won't impact Blizzard but it's going to make it to the front page of HN. If the same demo was made with custom sprites, we would probably never have heard of it since it indeed doesn't do much.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#62

Post by scarecrowbob »

cliffbean wrote: post #43
scarecrowbob wrote: post #29

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.

I totally agree that doing something ins browser today would be worse than the 1997 era native app equivalent....

... but to agree with a sibling comment: wow-- you can just download the code in, like 10 min? And I can read/modify it it because it doesn't even have to be compiled to run?

These were both two very big limitations on my user experience in 1997...

I'm not saying that we should move back to having everything run on a mainframe, but I suppose that in response to the "so what" I was responding to I offer "wow, man: there is something way different going on in a port of a technology than there is in the original."

/postmodernity

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#63

Post by georgemcbay »

cryowaffle wrote: post #60
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!"

Well that IS pretty neat that a browser can do what a 1997 desktop can do. Browsers are much more portable than a 1997 desktop.

In theory they are but most "Look what we can do with JavaScript now!" posts are quickly followed by "only works correctly in Chrome Canary" or "only works correctly in latest Firefox nightly".

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#64

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

georgemcbay wrote: post #63
cryowaffle wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that IS pretty neat that a browser can do what a 1997 desktop can do. Browsers are much more portable than a 1997 desktop.

In theory they are but most "Look what we can do with JavaScript now!" posts are quickly followed by "only works correctly in Chrome Canary" or "only works correctly in latest Firefox nightly".

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

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#65

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

laurent123456 wrote: post #61
mcantelon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It won't impact Blizzard but it's going to make it to the front page of HN. If the same demo was made with custom sprites, we would probably never have heard of it since it indeed doesn't do much.

He is sucking someone's else popularity! What an evil and selfish mind he has!

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#66

Post by georgemcbay »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #64
georgemcbay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory they are but most "Look what we can do with JavaScript now!" posts are quickly followed by "only works correctly in Chrome Canary" or "only works correctly in latest Firefox nightly".

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.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#67

Post by schiang »

This is so awesome. I loved Diablo growing up and it's amazing to see that it could be recreated using js. I'm interested to see what other games people will make using js.

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#68

Post by dwallin33 »

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!"

Or that javascript has caught up with what you could do in flash about 10 years ago. ;)

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#69

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

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?

Re: Diablo in JavaScript

#70

Post by joeblau »

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.

That made me giggle. I'm sure someone is working on it.
Post reply on HN