[johnmatthais]

So, recently, I was shocked to log on to the website of one of my favorite indie companies and see that someone had recreated Quake 2 down to the pixel in HTML5. I then learned that the ability to create such a thing had been brought about by the development of WebGL.

So, I must ask. Does anyone see this as a new gaming platform that could pave the way for browser gaming? The game seems to work pretty well in full 3D.

Could it compete with Flash? I honestly think so.

Being able to run fully functional games with real content without the need for any arbitrary plugins is quite a convenience.

Now, this isn't to say it'll replace Flash. I don't think Flash will die out any time soon. With its accessibility, I can easily say that it will be around for a while. Besides, who doesn't have Flash installed these days?

All I'm saying is that it could easily compete with Flash in the webgaming category. We've already seen the Unity engine and Java used for web development. Why can't we see something like this used for web development, as well?

This post has been edited by johnmatthais: 14 April 2010 - 01:17 PM

[NeoTifa]

HTML itsself is just a language to determine how a website looks if I'm not mistaken. I don't think you really program games in HTML.

[PsychoCoder]

That game was not created with HTML, it's created with the WebGL library. HTML cannot be a gaming platform as it's not a language, it's a markup syntax

[Tom9729]

You guys are being too pedantic, HTML5 encompasses more than just HTML. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to "HTML5 As A Gaming Platform" as it's more descriptive.

WebGL isn't a library, it's a standard that anyone is free to implement, and most major browsers are already working on it.

[modi123_1]

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

You guys are being too pedantic, HTML5 encompasses more than just HTML. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to "HTML5 As A Gaming Platform" as it's more descriptive.

WebGL isn't a library, it's a standard that anyone is free to implement, and most major browsers are already working on it.

I think you are too broad and general with your definition of HTML5.

WebGL is a library.. it's a set of library files to help define javascript standards.

[lesPaul456]

Quote

...WebGL isn't a library, it's a standard that anyone is free to implement, and most major browsers are already working on it.

Quote

...WebGL is a library.. it's a set of library files to help define javascript standards.

Yeah, it's in the name: Web Graphics Library (WebGL).

[Tom9729]

modi123_1, on 14 April 2010 - 02:35 PM, said:

I think you are too broad and general with your definition of HTML5.

WebGL is a library.. it's a set of library files to help define javascript standards.

HTML5 standard includes Javascript, which you can write applications with. Saying "But HTML is just a markup language" is dancing around the point, as it was pretty clear the OP was referring to HTML5 as a standard.

WebGL is not a library, it's a standard that most major browsers are implementing. That doesn't mean it couldn't be implemented as a third party library/plugin (which is probably what is going to happen if Microsoft decides not to implement it in Internet Explorer).

[johnmatthais]

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 11:45 AM, said:

HTML5 standard includes Javascript, which you can write applications with. Saying "But HTML is just a markup language" is dancing around the point, as it was pretty clear the OP was referring to HTML5 as a standard.

+1 for paying attention. No, really, I'm giving you rep for that one since none of the other responders did. The thread title was a bit off, but I'm pretty sure that the post itself was clear about it.

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 11:45 AM, said:

WebGL is not a library, it's a standard that most major browsers are implementing. That doesn't mean it couldn't be implemented as a third party library/plugin (which is probably what is going to happen if Microsoft decides not to implement it in Internet Explorer).

Given that WebGL is based off of a form of OpenGL, and OpenGL is both open-source and in direct competition with DirectX, I can easily say that I don't have very high hopes for WebGL being implemented into IE on a first-party level. That is to say, given that anyone that would want the implementation of WebGL hasn't seen all the faults and gaping holes in IE's security level and moved on to Mozilla or Chrome by now.

Bashing IE aside, I'm serious. The trend seems to be that Microsoft employs proprietary first-party support *cough*Silverlight*cough* into its own applications and tells everyone else to go screw themselves. Hell, if you even want Flash, which is considered a requirement for web browsing, pretty much, then you have to install it on your own.

However, I think it's safe to say that since Unix and Mac OSX pretty much rely on OpenGL for all things graphics, that Safari will be seeing WebGL support asap, and Chrome as well, seeing as Google is very supportive of open sourcing everything they've done (Chrome, Chrome OS, and even the Android OS are all open source). It wouldn't be a bad idea to think that Mozilla will follow suit, either.

[PsychoCoder]

For the record Flash is known for crashing Chrome so I wouldn't say it really supports it, plus Chrome is a complete POS browser

Quote

Bashing IE aside, I'm serious. The trend seems to be that Microsoft employs proprietary first-party support *cough*Silverlight*cough* into its own applications and tells everyone else to go screw themselves. Hell, if you even want Flash, which is considered a requirement for web browsing, pretty much, then you have to install it on your own.

Wow what a statement, I had to install the Flash plugin for Opera & FF so I'm not sure sure I'm understanding that statement, except as a chance to take a shot at Microsoft.

And for the record, Apple also tells everyone else to go screw themselves so it's not something unique to Microsoft (if you want to argue this point take a look at Apple's closed computing requirements for the only languages they'll allow for development on the iPhone just to take a shot at Adobe

[Tom9729]

johnmatthais, on 14 April 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

However, I think it's safe to say that since Unix and Mac OSX pretty much rely on OpenGL for all things graphics, that Safari will be seeing WebGL support asap, and Chrome as well, seeing as Google is very supportive of open sourcing everything they've done (Chrome, Chrome OS, and even the Android OS are all open source). It wouldn't be a bad idea to think that Mozilla will follow suit, either.

Firefox
http://hacks.mozilla...gl-for-firefox/

Chrome
http://www.m0interac...gle_chrome.html

Safari
http://webkit.org/bl...bkit-nightlies/

[Tom9729]

PsychoCoder, on 14 April 2010 - 03:20 PM, said:

For the record Flash is known for crashing Chrome so I wouldn't say it really supports it, plus Chrome is a complete POS browser

Wow what a statement, I had to install the Flash plugin for Opera & FF so I'm not sure sure I'm understanding that statement, except as a chance to take a shot at Microsoft.

And for the record, Apple also tells everyone else to go screw themselves so it's not something unique to Microsoft (if you want to argue this point take a look at Apple's closed computing requirements for the only languages they'll allow for development on the iPhone just to take a shot at Adobe

Flash crashes everything. It's not that big of an issue any more with growing support for sandboxed plugins (newer IE, Lorentz, etc) though.

On a side note, what's wrong with Chrome?

Apple is probably more proprietary than Microsoft but occasionally something good comes out of them. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but Webkit, OpenCL, LLVM, and WebGL are all things coming from Apple that are NOT proprietary.

Bringing up the iPhone language debacle is a strawman and is completely unrelated to this discussion.

Yes the OP is undeniably aligned against Microsoft, but I think it's good that we have a few people to balance against your Google/Apple hatred.

[johnmatthais]

PsychoCoder, on 14 April 2010 - 03:20 PM, said:

For the record Flash is known for crashing Chrome so I wouldn't say it really supports it, plus Chrome is a complete POS browser

I have no idea what you're talking about. I play Flash games in Chrome all the time and have never had a problem with them. Chrome is also extremely clean and streamlined with none of those useless toolbars clogging up the screen. I also have noticed significant browsing speed increases and even less memory usage when using Chrome. Best of all, it's got an open source version called Chromium, which is even being used inside of games for things like updaters, and even in-game browser windows. Want proof? Look at Overgrowth. It shouldn't be hard to find it if you look at the link I posted in the OP.

PsychoCoder, on 14 April 2010 - 03:20 PM, said:

Wow what a statement, I had to install the Flash plugin for Opera & FF so I'm not sure sure I'm understanding that statement, except as a chance to take a shot at Microsoft.

The point is that IE comes standard. Why not make Flash a standard? Last I checked, even Apple's Software Update handles Flash.

PsychoCoder, on 14 April 2010 - 03:20 PM, said:

And for the record, Apple also tells everyone else to go screw themselves so it's not something unique to Microsoft (if you want to argue this point take a look at Apple's closed computing requirements for the only languages they'll allow for development on the iPhone just to take a shot at Adobe

This is so arbitrary that it's not even worth mentioning. I'm a long-time Apple user (we've had Apple computers in the house since I was born in 1993) and I personally have used an Apple up until this past January when my Macbook Pro's logic board fried and we didn't have the money to replace it, so I was placed with an ASUS. I'm mainly a musician. With apps like Garageband on the Mac, it's really no wonder I'm biased towards Apple. It's user friendly, relatively virus free, and now even supports near-fluid emulation of Windows, as well as running on Unix. Really, what's not to love now (besides Steve Jobs still running the company)?

I also had a thing for using Xcode back in the day, but now I can't, shamefully.

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Flash crashes everything. It's not that big of an issue any more with growing support for sandboxed plugins (newer IE, Lorentz, etc) though.

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Apple is probably more proprietary than Microsoft but occasionally something good comes out of them. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but Webkit, OpenCL, LLVM, and WebGL are all things coming from Apple that are NOT proprietary.

This is my point. Apple openly supports open source software. To my recollection, OpenGL wouldn't be supported on Windows if it were really all that up to Microsoft.

Tom9729, on 14 April 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Yes the OP is undeniably aligned against Microsoft, but I think it's good that we have a few people to balance against your Google/Apple hatred.

I just support open-source software. It tends to work out better in the long run.

[lesPaul456]

How did this suddenly turn into a Apple vs. Microsoft argument?

@johnmatthais: I was reading some articles about this, and from what I read, it appears that this could potentially provide some competition for Flash (although I don't think that's its purpose). However, it's still very limited in what it can do, so don't expect Unity quality games any time soon.

[johnmatthais]

lesPaul456, on 14 April 2010 - 02:49 PM, said:

How did this suddenly turn into a Apple vs. Microsoft argument?

Honestly, I don't know. I meant to keep my last post more on-topic, but both of the posts I quoted were off.

lesPaul456, on 14 April 2010 - 02:49 PM, said:

@johnmatthais: I was reading some articles about this, and from what I read, it appears that this could potentially provide some competition for Flash (although I don't think that's its purpose). However, it's still very limited in what it can do, so don't expect Unity quality games any time soon.

I don't expect Unity quality games. I also don't expect Unity quality games out of Flash, either, though.

Not that fully featured 3D games at all would really be completely functional yet. It still doesn't allow the mouse to be locked in, if you didn't notice. Of course, it's not without good reason.

The point is that, given that it doesn't require any arbitrary downloads, which I still think should be standard and updated with the browser by now, it could easily gain a foothold in the 2D gaming community.

Also, from a Javascript vs ActionScript viewpoint, I know I've learned more Javascript than ActionScript in my high school classes. There are definitely more people (students and schools, especially) that would be more interested in teaching this than Flash. Given that the Webkit is pretty much available to anyone for free, it wouldn't be all that budget breaking either.

This post has been edited by johnmatthais: 14 April 2010 - 03:56 PM

[SixOfEleven]

A believe another problem with Flash is that it still does not support 64-bit browsers. From what I recall, the only 64-bit browser I've found so far is IE-8, which is sad as well.

I would like to see better browser based games in the future, and this does look promising.