Java was too slow to support our feature set so we rewrote it in HTML





  • Don't forget the HTML5 audio engine!!

    "The HTML audio engine has allowed us to bring audio back to the fore" -- Mod Connor

     




  • TRWTF is Britain.. "beeeeta"? What the shit?

    Hey Britain, why not take the cocks out of your mouth and learn to speak to goddamn language, you inbred dipshits? Did you just think "Hey, learning how to pronounce things is hard so we'll just make some shit up and nobody will fucking check our work! Wheeeeee, I love balls in my mouth!!"???



  • This is what I call the death of a name. HTML5 started out it's life as a designator for a WhatWG specification, and cut its teeth in the nice, little world of the browser developers. It was badly surprised when it entered the world of the web, and realized that browsers implemented different parts, and other scary things (like audio codecs).

    Now, at the end of its life, HTML5 has become a buzzword. The true sign of buzzwordiness is when a game company uses it to describe their entire system. In this case, the developers of whateverthatwas took advantage of new hardware to let them make an engine that only looked like shit. Then, they covered it up with the word "HTML5," ignoring all the work that was actually done to make it possible, both on the hardware and software ends.

    It's interesting that they felt that the graphics in the new engine were anything to talk about. My first real engine, one I wrote about 3 years ago now, supported a better lighting model (deferred pipeline + phong) and everything else they mentioned. It's really interesting that they thought that any of the graphical changes that they made were anything to emphasize - I think it's telling about how much time they had to spend on it to get it working properly. In my experience with WebGL, I found it to be a clunky (OpenGL isn't known for being a clean interface), slow (I think I had 15-30 frames/s less than in C#), and nearly unusable (OpenGL again) interface.

    BTW, I think that people had been complaining about downloading Java, and they were saying that the in-browser solution made it easier to use in comparison.

    '

    [It might help if you started with HTML1. Making a blank line between paragraphs requires two <br> tags. (Or a <p> tag, but fuck that.) -TheShadowMod]



  • Reading between the lines: "we hitched our horse to this Java bullshit, and now after our customers have been panicking over security flaws for years, and our potential customers don't fucking exist because nobody willingly installs Java, we're finally fixing the problem."



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Reading between the lines: "we hitched our horse to this Java bullshit, and now after our customers have been panicking over security flaws for years, and our potential customers don't fucking exist because nobody willingly installs Java, we're finally fixing the problem."
    With HTML 5?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    our potential customers don't fucking exist because nobody willingly installs Java

    Never underestimate the stupidity of the average user (especially when web games are involved).

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore, so web gamers aren't able to play their game (for the above reason).



  • @Ben L. said:

    One of the most immediate improvements you'll notice is the graphics.

    HTML5 is obviously less foggy, I think I'll get one.





  • @lushr said:

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore
    Switch?  Switch to what?  I know that I am extremely stupid, but you can't create a video game like that using nothing but HTML.



  • How many FPS are you getting? 3?



    How unoptimized is that game, anyway? Minecraft is actually computationally harder (the level you showed could all be done with textures and polys, no fancy shaders etc), and it's still faster. I don't want to know what their draw pipeline looks like, I guess.



  • @lushr said:

    How many FPS are you getting?

    1. This is on a Pentium 4 machine, not exactly a top-of-the-line deal.

    @lushr said:

    the level you showed

    You do know this is an MMORPG, right?

    @lushr said:

    could all be done with textures and polys, no fancy shaders etc

    which is also true of Minecraft. Your point?



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @lushr said:

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore
    Switch?  Switch to what?  I know that I am extremely stupid, but you can't create a video game like that using nothing but HTML.

    I should have said switch to not-Java, it is totally ambiguous what they switched to, exactly.



  • @Ben L. said:

    This is on a Pentium 4 machine, not exactly a top-of-the-line deal.
    That makes more sense, but it's still atrocious. What sort of graphics hardware are you using?
    @Ben L. said:
    @lushr said:
    the level you showed

    You do know this is an MMORPG, right?
    MMORPG worlds are implemented as portaled levels, or else you'd have to download a ridiculous amount of data.
    @Ben L. said:
    @lushr said:
    could all be done with textures and polys, no fancy shaders etc

    which is also true of Minecraft. Your point?

    Minecraft is a CPU hog. It has to regenerate it's chunks, and with sufficiently high draw distance, there can be a substantial number of chunks. In turn, this means that it's difficult to maintain cache data on the GPU, straining bus bandwidth. In contrast, most of Runescape seems like it could be transferred once and kept on the GPU after that, which tends to provide dramatic FPS improvements. I meant that Runescape has little dynamically generated content, outside character animations, and that there's little in the way of shaders that can be used to justify bad FPS.



  • @lushr said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @lushr said:

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore
    Switch?  Switch to what?  I know that I am extremely stupid, but you can't create a video game like that using nothing but HTML.

    I should have said switch to not-Java, it is totally ambiguous what they switched to, exactly.

    Mozilla did it ages ago.


    Hey look, it's Zork!



  • @lushr said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @lushr said:
    the level you showed

    You do know this is an MMORPG, right?
    MMORPG worlds are implemented as portaled levels, or else you'd have to download a ridiculous amount of data.

    The video starts in Zanaris and ends in Piscatoris. Tell me, what subsection of the RuneScape world is this "level" you speak of?



  • @Ben L. said:

    Mozilla did it ages ago.
    @Browser Quest page Source said:

    Mozilla presents an HTML5 mini-MMORPG
    <script src="js/lib/modernizr.js"
    <script src="js/detect.js"
    <script type="text/javascript">
    var _gaq = _gaq || [];
    _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-35433268-23']);
    _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
    (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
    })();
    </script>
    <div class="alert">
    You need to enable JavaScript to play BrowserQuest.
    </div>
    <script type="text/javascript">
    var ctx = document.querySelector('canvas').getContext('2d'),
    parchment = document.getElementById("parchment");

    if(!Detect.supportsWebSocket()) {
    parchment.className = "error";
    }

    if(ctx.mozImageSmoothingEnabled === undefined) {
    document.querySelector('body').className += ' upscaled';
    }

    if(!Modernizr.localstorage) {
    var alert = document.createElement("div");
    alert.className = 'alert';
    alertMsg = document.createTextNode("You need to enable cookies/localStorage to play BrowserQuest");
    alert.appendChild(alertMsg);

    target = document.getElementById("intro");
    document.body.insertBefore(alert, target);
    } else if(localStorage && localStorage.data) {
    document.body.className += " returning";
    parchment.className = "loadcharacter";
    }
    </script>
    And so on, and so on . . . .
     That's not an HTML5 game. That's a Javascript game.
     

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @lushr said:

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore
    Switch?  Switch to what?  I know that I am extremely stupid, but you can't create a video game like that using nothing but HTML.

    Those bears are pretty good



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Reading between the lines: "we hitched our horse to this Java bullshit, and now after our customers have been panicking over security flaws for years, and our potential customers don't fucking exist because nobody willingly installs Java, we're finally fixing the problem."
    With HTML 5?

    Sure why not? It works on every (updated) computer, so there's no more hoops for new players to jump through, and it couldn't possibly run as slow as the Java version.



  • Those folks would literally have us believe that HTML5 allows them to make deeper shades of blue than Java does, and a whiter white. Even though I'm not a Java expert, I am now going on record, saying I doubt that Java is incapable of making blue or white.

    I would be surprised indeed to see this work with a decent frame rate on an iPad 1 or an Android tablet. The guy said it works on Chrome and "a host of other browsers, including Firefox". I take that to mean that it does not work on IE. Thanks for posting, this place is where videos like that are destined to be.



  • @toon said:

    Even though I'm not a Java expert, I am now going on record, saying I doubt that Java is incapable of making blue or white.

    As a Java expert, I am now going on record as not being entirely sure.

    @toon said:

    I would be surprised indeed to see this work with a decent frame rate on an iPad 1 or an Android tablet.

    Who the fuck cares? Android is shit and so is iOS and so are MMORPGs.

    @toon said:

    The guy said it works on Chrome and "a host of other browsers, including Firefox". I take that to mean that it does not work on IE.

    Maybe, but it probably works in IE 10. Besides, who cares? I'd be much less furious at being asked to download Chrome than being asked to enable the fucking Java plugin on any browser.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @lushr said:

    I think that the big reason for their switch is that Java isn't enabled by default in many browsers anymore
    Switch?  Switch to what?  I know that I am extremely stupid, but you can't create a video game like that using nothing but HTML.

    It can be done with WebGL, although that IME isn't as widely supported as the Runescape guys make it seem. I've seen a browser game without Java where you can fly your 3D character on the back of a dragon, it was a game for the "How To Train Your Dragon" movie/series franchise. I was impressed. It looked pretty good and had a decent FR, considering it was running in Firefox on an old PC.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toon said:
    I would be surprised indeed to see this work with a decent frame rate on an iPad 1 or an Android tablet.

    Who the fuck cares? Android is shit and so is iOS and so are MMORPGs.

    @toon said:

    The guy said it works on Chrome and "a host of other browsers, including Firefox". I take that to mean that it does not work on IE.

    Maybe, but it probably works in IE 10. Besides, who cares?

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.



  • @toon said:

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

    Just to recap:

    • A majority of web users use IE8 or IE9
    • 25% of web users use IE8 or IE9
    • A majority is defined as any fraction greater than ½.


  • @toon said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @toon said:
    I would be surprised indeed to see this work with a decent frame rate on an iPad 1 or an Android tablet.

    Who the fuck cares? Android is shit and so is iOS and so are MMORPGs.

    @toon said:

    The guy said it works on Chrome and "a host of other browsers, including Firefox". I take that to mean that it does not work on IE.

    Maybe, but it probably works in IE 10. Besides, who cares?

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

    Yeah, but they're game developers; lying is like a bodily function to them. And not one of those relatively infrequent bodily functions, like a bowel movement, but more like breathing.



  • @toon said:

    It can be done with WebGL, although that IME isn't as widely supported as the Runescape guys make it seem. I've seen a browser game without Java where you can fly your 3D character on the back of a dragon, it was a game for the "How To Train Your Dragon" movie/series franchise. I was impressed. It looked pretty good and had a decent FR, considering it was running in Firefox on an old PC.

    Unreal 3 Engine can now run in a browser.

     

    http://www.unrealengine.com/html5

    I get a solid 60FPS in Chrome on Windows 8, I have GeForce 660GTX card.



  • @toon said:

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

    TBH this is not what I am seeing on the site I work for, 50% of all our users are using Chrome, followed closely by Firefox. IE8 is about 4% of our user base. XP-era machine have died off pretty quickly in the past 2 years.

     



  • @lucas said:

    @toon said:

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

    TBH this is not what I am seeing on the site I work for, 50% of all our users are using Chrome, followed closely by Firefox. IE8 is about 4% of our user base. XP-era machine have died off pretty quickly in the past 2 years.

    Surely you realize that is unusual, though, right? In the General Internet Population, about 50% are on IE of some variety.



  • The thing is I don't think it is actually is that unusual anymore. It really depends who your target audience is, most gamers aren't going to be using IE as their main browser.



  • @lucas said:

    The thing is I don't think it is actually is that unusual anymore. It really depends who your target audience is, most gamers aren't going to be using IE as their main browser.

    Sure, it depends on the audience. For example, I'm sure the Go homepage gets 99.99% of its hits with Chrome because the only people who use Go are fanbois with their noses shoved so far into Google's jock that they've lost the ability for rational thought.

    However, for the General Internet Population, e.g. the audience that includes everyone, it's very close to being 50% IE. At least, that's what I've seen doing a bunch of analytics on large samples of Internet traffic.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Tell me, what subsection of the RuneScape world is this "level" you speak of?

    You see them load out of the fog every few seconds, actually (for instance, 0:56 when you get closer to the city you see one of the chunks containing the city snap in). MMROPGs stream the levels to the client as the client nears the level's location, and try to make this as unnoticeable as possible.



  • @lushr said:

    @Ben L. said:
    Tell me, what subsection of the RuneScape world is this "level" you speak of?

    You see them load out of the fog every few seconds, actually (for instance, 0:56 when you get closer to the city you see one of the chunks containing the city snap in). MMROPGs stream the levels to the client as the client nears the level's location, and try to make this as unnoticeable as possible.

    Oh goodie, I see a semantic argument brewing! That's the most enjoyable kind of argument, because clearly bickering over the precise definition of a word is Very Important Shit. And they always end with everybody learning something--giving new insights and empathy regarding how others view the world--and with one faction being persuaded the other's sound reasoning.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, for the General Internet Population, e.g. the audience that includes everyone, it's very close to being 50% IE. At least, that's what I've seen doing a bunch of analytics on large samples of Internet traffic.
     

    Yes it is 50% of the everyone. But I suspect the sites that are that general already have very good cross browser support and have 10s of millions of users.

    For something as specialized as a MMORPG, I think it is reasonable that they expect you to have a non-IE browser.

     



  • @lucas said:

    For something as specialized as a MMORPG, I think it is reasonable that they expect you to have a non-IE browser.

    I agree.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    bickering over the exact precise definition of a word
    FTFY



  • @toon said:

    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

     

    It does run on a whole host of browsers. They never said it runs on all browser with large user bases. Besides, if IE is to stupid to correctly implement standards, it's their problem. It's not like installing another browser for playing would be that hard.

    What bugs me is the implication that you couldn't have better graphics with Java. Somehow, I doubt that.

     

     



  • @derari said:

    Besides, if IE is to stupid to correctly implement standards, it's their problem.
     

    Actually the problem is on the other foot these days. The IE team will not implement a spec until it 100% complete and won't change, whereas chrome and firefox will implement the working draft and just "fix it as it evolves".

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is Britain.. "beeeeta"? What the shit?

    Hey Britain, why not take the cocks out of your mouth and learn to speak to goddamn language, you inbred dipshits? Did you just think "Hey, learning how to pronounce things is hard so we'll just make some shit up and nobody will fucking check our work! Wheeeeee, I love balls in my mouth!!"???

    The real WTF is you not knowing your Brits from your Irish from your Belgians from your Martians.
    Mod Connor (what a twattish name) is Irish. Ireland is not in Britain (look it up - there has been the odd war / dust-up over the years).

    So which bit of Canadia are you from, Morbius?



  • @toon said:

    I would be surprised indeed to see this work with a decent frame rate on an iPad 1 or an Android tablet.

    I think we can safely, as a society, bucket those devices into the "too wimpy to play an MMO" category.

    @toon said:

    The guy said it works on Chrome and "a host of other browsers, including Firefox". I take that to mean that it does not work on IE.

    Unless they're idiots, it'll run in IE10 no problem.



  • @derari said:

    Besides, if IE is to stupid to correctly implement standards, it's their problem.

    IT does implement standards, but only finished ones. The problem is the W3C never fucking finishes anything, they just sit at version 0.9 for 7 years for no fucking reason.

    @derari said:

    What bugs me is the implication that you couldn't have better graphics with Java. Somehow, I doubt that.

    Doesn't matter, Java is shitty for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with graphics performance. In the year 2013, I'm more surprised if ANY developer is sticking with their Java shit instead of moving towards another platform. (Except Notch, but he's a hack.)



  •  It's a shame that Minecraft is such fun.



  • @dhromed said:

    It's a shame that Minecraft is such fun.

    Terraria is a better game, made in less time, in a better language/environment.

    Minecraft has also spent the last 2 solid years doing nothing but ripping-off ideas from Terraria.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Minecraft has also spent the last 2 solid years doing nothing but ripping-off ideas from Terraria.
    I've came to the conclusion that the only innovators around Minecraft now are the modders, and they're losing steam to a certain extent.



    Minecraft is the slowest, least optimized game possible, as far as I know. It's amazing the kind of performance that modders have been able to milk out of it with relatively little effort (circa 40 FPS).



    I don't think that problem is with the language so much as the devs. Notch was a bad coder (believe me, I've seen his code decompiled), but he was at least interested in doing new things. The current dev is in maintenance mode, basically adding little features that have been done in mods for years.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:
    It's a shame that Minecraft is such fun.
    Terraria is a better game, made in less time, in a better language/environment.

    Minecraft has also spent the last 2 solid years doing nothing but ripping-off ideas from Terraria.

    I do admit I generally had more fun while I was playing Terraria than I did with Minecraft, but that was probably because Terraria feels like there's a point to doing stuff. There's bosses and particular features of the world that are there as "goals", such as unlocking Hard Mode or getting to the Floating Islands and such. It just felt...short. I got to a point with Terraria where I was thinking to myself "Well, I've gotten pretty far into Hard Mode, but everything from here on out is just more of the same."

     Though I was still damned determined for a while to build my automated switching minecart train/transport hub in my Minecraft multiplayer world.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is Britain.. "beeeeta"? What the shit?

    Hey Britain, why not take the cocks out of your mouth and learn to speak to goddamn language, you inbred dipshits? Did you just think "Hey, learning how to pronounce things is hard so we'll just make some shit up and nobody will fucking check our work! Wheeeeee, I love balls in my mouth!!"???

    You do understand that you're the guys who pronounce English incorrectly though, right?



    I mean, there isn't even any argument to be had about it.


    And if we're talking about Anglicised greek words, clearly this remains true.



    Start calling your language American, and we'll happily humour you.



  • @eViLegion said:

    Start calling your language American, and we'll happily humour you.
    Or you can start calling your language "old English", and we'll humor you.

    (The difference is that "humor" doesn't make most people think of bodily fluids.)



  • @e4tmyl33t said:

    I do admit I generally had more fun while I was playing Terraria than I did with Minecraft, but that was probably because Terraria feels like there's a point to doing stuff. There's bosses and particular features of the world that are there as "goals", such as unlocking Hard Mode or getting to the Floating Islands and such. It just felt...short. I got to a point with Terraria where I was thinking to myself "Well, I've gotten pretty far into Hard Mode, but everything from here on out is just more of the same."

    Just because it has goals doesn't mean you can't just stop and build cool shit. And anyway, it takes 10+ hours to get through the content which is pretty good for a game that costs $5.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @e4tmyl33t said:
    I do admit I generally had more fun while I was playing Terraria than I did with Minecraft, but that was probably because Terraria feels like there's a point to doing stuff. There's bosses and particular features of the world that are there as "goals", such as unlocking Hard Mode or getting to the Floating Islands and such. It just felt...short. I got to a point with Terraria where I was thinking to myself "Well, I've gotten pretty far into Hard Mode, but everything from here on out is just more of the same."
    Just because it has goals doesn't mean you can't just stop and build cool shit. And anyway, it takes 10+ hours to get through the content which is pretty good for a game that costs $5.

    Yeah, I did have a bit of fun trying to build some stuff for a while, and I was pretty happy with how much content I got for the price. One of the few games within the last couple years where I felt satisfied with the amount of content in the game versus the price, in fact.



  • @da Doctah said:

    @eViLegion said:

    Start calling your language American, and we'll happily humour you.
    Or you can start calling your language "old English", and we'll humor you.

    (The difference is that "humor" doesn't make most people think of bodily fluids.)

    But that doesn't make an ounce of sense (I figure you guys don't know what a gram is, right?).



    Maybe you could call yours Englishish.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @toon said:
    The problem I have with this, is that those guys make it seem like HTML5 is really awesome, by virtue of being simply great and fantastic, because it can work on a "whole host of browsers", including tablets and web TVs. About a quarter, a figure which I'm pulling out of my ass as I'm typing this, although I don't think I'm far off, of internet users are using IE8 or IE9, and if they say "a host of browsers" they want to make the impression that an overwhelming majority of users will be able to play the game in their browser of choice, it sadly being IE8 or IE9 in many cases. What I don't like is that they're lying without lying.

    Just to recap:

    • A majority of web users use IE8 or IE9
    • 25% of web users use IE8 or IE9
    • A majority is defined as any fraction greater than ½.

     

    And? Have you never heard of paraconsistent logic?

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.