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?"<p>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!"
Random Javascript point and click game demo in alpha quality. Uses sprites ripped from Diablo 2. Other sprites from an unknown source. Not actually Diablo. Not anywhere close.
It's not the JavaScript part that is interesting, but the fact that it's running in a browser. In fact, "Diablo (alpha) in Browser" would've been a more appropriate title. And it's interesting because, well, it's programmed for a browser, which is made of open-standards.<p>And I know people will complain about how "we were doing this kind of stuff in the 90s", but I still think it's quite an accomplishment given that it's programmed at a much higher-level of abstraction than the original Diablo (which was C and some machine code).<p>But I still think it's stupid to have games in the browser. The browser does not take full advantage of the hardware - it shouldn't, it's made for content and information. Its priorities are security (sandbox) and accessibility.<p>So it's gonna be a while before we'll see games - that require lots of raw machine code processing - in the browser. Because in principle, if browsers give accessible raw processing power, they'll suffer on security. And it's proven really hard to have the best of the both worlds, otherwise today we would have mainstream cutting-edge graphic games available in the browser.<p>And we don't, we have 90s games.
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 What is so out of date with Firefox that this cannot work?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?
Pretty cool. The full source code's on Github as well:<p><a href="https://github.com/mitallast/diablo-js" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mitallast/diablo-js</a><p>The code's not commented very heavily, but it's pretty readable nonetheless.
This is neat, but it's not really that big of a leap. Here is a thing I wrote in 2002, as I was just starting to learn to program. It's a little broken now because the character image didn't get archived, but you get the idea. A lot more was possible, I just didn't quite have the chops before I got distracted by my next project
<a href="http://www.oocities.org/webspynner_99/games/RPG/rpg.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.oocities.org/webspynner_99/games/RPG/rpg.html</a><p>The fact that browsers are still able to run my shitty code is kind of impressive.<p>But just sayin', it's nice to see this, but even in the "on the web" realm, it's not that big of a leap. It's more of an indication of how much network and processor speeds have advanced in the last 11 years than how much capability of web browser has.
Just another misleading HN titles to a technically uninteresting project. I believe this is a fair assessment.<p>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).<p>Just to make it clear, regarding the creator and the project:<p>* <i>Is there something bad with him creating something?</i> 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.<p>* <i>Is there something bad with with how he is doing it?</i> Yes, he is using copyrighted graphics he doesn't own the rights to use.<p>Regarding this as HN:<p>* <i>Is this technically interesting?</i> 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).<p>* <i>Is this aesthetically interesting?</i> 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.<p>* <i>Is the title accurate?</i> No, not even remotely (there is much more to Diablo than sprites).<p>* <i>Is the project anywhere finished and presentable?</i> Maybe this just personal preference, but I don't like seeing other people's pre-alpha demos.<p><i>tl;dr:</i> Stop wasting people's time with technically uninteresting posts with misleading titles alluding to the contrary, to projects using assets they shouldn't.
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.
There's a Diablo-like game also made in Javascript - <a href="http://www.smokymonkeys.com/triglav/" rel="nofollow">http://www.smokymonkeys.com/triglav/</a>. Unfortunately, as it was made more than five years ago, it's IE only (no ActiveX or installing anything necessary, though). Check out some screenshots on the "gallery" page it you don't feel like booting up IE.
this must have been posted in HN before... NES emulator in javaScript <a href="http://fir.sh/projects/jsnes/" rel="nofollow">http://fir.sh/projects/jsnes/</a>