Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Gets Quake II Running In HTML5

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the browsing-for-strogg dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 258

Dr Herbert West writes "A trio of Google engineers have ported id Software's gib-filled first-person shooter Quake II to browsers — you know, for kicks — as a way to show just what HTML5-compatible web browsers are capable of. According to the developers, 'We started with the existing Jake2 Java port of the Quake II engine, then used the Google Web Toolkit (along with WebGL, WebSockets, and a lot of refactoring) to cross-compile it into JavaScript.' More details are available on one developer's blog, and installation instructions have been posted as well."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OMGLOLWTF (1, Insightful)

bjartur (1705192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708852)

This is really cool and awesome, but why would I wan't to run this on my browser?

Re:OMGLOLWTF (5, Funny)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708878)

wan't

I think that's the popular contraction of "wang" and "not." Am I correct? If so, your sentence doesn't make sense.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708922)

more likely just a typo of "want"...

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0, Redundant)

CAFED00D (1337179) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708936)

Or "want not".

Re:OMGLOLWTF (2, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709038)

In other words, DO NOT WANT [knowyourmeme.com]

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31708976)

You'd have to have a pretty unusual keyboard layout to be able to typo "want" into "wan't".

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709200)

I once typoed milk as milf on a QWERTY keyboard.

Typos aren't always about fat-fingering a key.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709242)

Well, if you're gonna type with your dick...

Re:OMGLOLWTF (4, Insightful)

endikos (195750) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708910)

Because you can.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709502)

Because online game developers now have web platform options for the iphone/iPad

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708942)

why wouldn't you?

netbook + small SSD + browser-based full PC game = fun times

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709106)

Yes, when you have a netbook, you don't need to worry about CPU overhead.

Why not have a game within an emulator within a platform within an app within a platform within a VM?

And being browser based (webkit only, only tested on Mac and Linux) this thing runs on almost as many machines as a Windows binary executable, with only a lot more work needed to get it running.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709222)

For now, you may have a point...but eventually, full games will be natively coded to be browser-based without any extra plugins.

That was what I was referring to, not this version of Quake II specifically. For what it's worth, the "original" Quake II runs quite well on just about any decent netbook out there.

Proof of Concept (4, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709050)

The purpose of something like this is to push the boundaries of what can be done in web development as a means of determining where it falls short, and what needs to be done to allow efficient practical applications in the future.

Re:Proof of Concept (4, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709482)

So does this mean the folks whining about "flash is needed for cheap space invader games" can go away now?

Re:Proof of Concept (5, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709582)

For the love of God, I hope so.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709072)

>>>why would I want to run this on my browser?

It's free.
It's easy to set up (just type google.com/quake2 or whatever).

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709164)

that's a proof of concept, a technical demo... but I agree with you, I don't need it in my webbrowser.

Re:OMGLOLWTF (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709518)

This is really cool and awesome, but why would I wan't to run this on my browser?

From your implied lack of interest in things technical and nerdy, I would venture a guess that you (you personally) would NOT want to run this in your browser.

Installation Instructions? (1)

methano (519830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708886)

If this is so cool as described, why do I need installation instructions? Shouldn't it just run in Chrome or Safari?

Now it's time to go RTFA.

Art is not redistributable. (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708966)

From the project FAQ [google.com] :

We are as yet unable to provide a public demo link. The Quake II code is GPL licensed, but the demo resources (textures, models, sounds, et al) are not, so we cannot simply upload them to a server. We are pursuing legitimate avenues to do so, though -- stay tuned.

Re:Art is not redistributable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709172)

Meh, you can rely on leilol in a few years to make some anime prostitutes with laser guns for the base game.

Hey, at least it's GPL!

Make a new level! (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709456)

There's GOT to be some good levels, characters, weapons available under Creative Commons. How about stealing some from OpenArena?

Re:Installation Instructions? (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709022)

I saw this running a couple of months ago when I visited Google London. The guy who wrote it said it ran in Chrome with no plugins, so I'd imagine that you'd just go to the page and view it, although you'd need to grab the resources from a real Q2 install or demo. It's a nice tech demo, but on his modern multi-core machine it ran about as fast as Quake 2 ran on my old P166. It's one of those hacks that is cool because it's deeply wrong, not something that is in any way sensible.

progress! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709224)

This is exactly the kind of thing to create a new need for progress in computing. Remember when quake1 came out? We didn't have 3D acceleration in the consumer PC market.

Re:Installation Instructions? (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709478)

It's one of those hacks that is cool because it's deeply wrong, not something that is in any way sensible.

You apparently don't fully understand the bane on existence that flash is. The POC is as a flash replacement, not as a platform for replacing your xbox/ps3/wii.

Re:Installation Instructions? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709578)

I don't see how WebGL is a Flash replacement, given that Flash is a 2D platform. JavaScript + Canvas or SVG gives you the 2D stuff, without WebGL. WebGL is aimed squarely at things that Flash can't do.

Re:Installation Instructions? (4, Informative)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709086)

Also, it presently needs a dev version of chrome started with a command line parameter that disables some sandboxing features.

Re:Installation Instructions? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709124)

The installation is actually for the server. If someone else installs it, hosts it, and gives you the website you should be able to run it without installing anything but the browser. (Though according to the guy above me it has to be a dev version of chrome).

the linky in the video not working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31708888)

Where can I try it out online?

Re:the linky in the video not working (2, Informative)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709010)

Re:the linky in the video not working (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709540)

Javascript != Java. That link if for the Java version, not the HTML5 version which is the current topic.

Re:the linky in the video not working (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709674)

yeah but the Java version is basically the same thing according TFA and it works now in 95%+ of peoples browsers AND its an order of magnitude faster.

April Fool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31708898)

Wasn't this posted yesterday?

Re:April Fool (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709706)

Yes, the original blog post was, in fact, posted on April 1.

Innovation (1, Insightful)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708934)

we were honestly a bit surprised when we saw it pushing over 30 frames per second on our laptops

Holy shit! Quake II hasn't seem frame rates like that since the 486! No matter how fast computers get programmers will always find a way to slow down their programs.

Re:Innovation (5, Interesting)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709152)

Um, dude? I know this certifies me as Gamer Grandpa, but you were unlikely to see a solid 30 fps in Quake II with the software renderer on less than a Pentium 166. Behold the miracles of the (many, many) layers of browser abstraction in action. Or perhaps inaction...

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709170)

They're using WebGL. It's hardware accelerated and still runs that slow. Although, they did say it was on a laptop - if it's on an Intel graphics chip, it might be faster in software mode.

Re:Innovation (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709192)

you mean we are reaching the performances we had 15 years ago instead of 20 ?

Re:Innovation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709570)

you mean we are reaching the performances we had 15 years ago instead of 20 ?

You weren't playing Quake II in a Web Browser 15 years ago, douche.

Re:Innovation (2, Informative)

stevenvi (779021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709386)

I played the original Quake on a 486/66 DX2. It ran at about 2 fps. I went back to playing Duke Nukem 3D and never looked back.

Re:Innovation (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709474)

Yeah, Quake on a 486 gave me impression that I'm in fact controlling a slow, bulky battle tank instead of a nimble marine. :) After running it on a Pentium, though, it got much, much snappier, and quickly became my favourite game for a few months. Even now, I sometimes launch fuhquake and have some deathmatch fun with omicronbots.

Re:Innovation (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709496)

Even Quake one would barely run on a 486.

486s were faster than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709690)

I can't speak for Quake, but plenty of DOS based software ran a lot faster faster on my 100 MHz 486-DX than on a similar spec Pentium. Animator Pro did 2x screen averaging SEVENTEEN TIMES FASTER. It depends what hardware a program is optimized for.

PS XTree Gold was much faster on a 286 than any file manager on a Pentium or later.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709614)

seriously, there was a point here, and you missed it by at least a mile.

HTML5 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31708962)

Capable of further dragging us down as we fall into ever more inefficient programming paradigms.

Lovely.

Re:HTML5 (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709178)

Yeah, it's like adding lanes to choked freeways.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709234)

More like, dividing existing lanes into sublanes.

Re:HTML5 (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709508)

More like, adding more cars.

Re:HTML5 (1)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709646)

Where are our flying cars?

Demostration of what? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708968)

Is this a demonstration of how far browser tech is now, or how far browser games are behind on native application?

Re:Demostration of what? (2, Insightful)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709028)

Both I believe

Re:Demostration of what? (4, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709056)

The Java version of Jake2 runs at around the same speed as the native C version (sometimes a little slower, sometimes a little faster):

http://download.java.net/javadesktop/plugin2/jake2/ [java.net]

Off Topic but your sig is 6 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709294)

.NET has changed significantly over the past 6 years, can the same be said for Java?

Re:Off Topic but your sig is 6 years old (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709342)

Yes, considerably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history [wikipedia.org]

Re:Off Topic but your sig is 6 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709490)

I believe that most of it is syntactical sugar, like generics:
generics just compile down to objects and are just cast into the generic type. Not like .NET.
No nullable primitive types.
Not sure if you can use a string for a switch statement
Do you have attributes? Instead of the ugly getters and setters?
What about nice nestable master pages?

Most of the links on the site are broken... seriously.

Reason #1: Public Domain APIs - Any Java public apis are part of the public domain, .NET apis are proprietary and can open the door to a law suit.[citation needed]

Reason #2: Standard Library Source Code Availability - Java source code for the core libraries are available in every J2SDK distribution, .NET sources can only be seen by resorting to illegal means.

Mono does this for one.

Re:Off Topic but your sig is 6 years old (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709720)

The vast majority of the items apply just as much today.

Mono does this for one.

Not really. A nice chunk of the .NET platform isn't implemented yet in Mono (unimplemented exceptions) and a sizeable part of that will never be implemented due to manpower and patent reasons. In addition, Microsoft's .NET platform is not open source and Mono is not the same thing (see last sentence).

I think Mono is a good thing but it's not even close to supporting the type of WORA support that Java enjoys today. Write Once, Debug Everywhere used to be the joke about Java but today WORA has really come true there. Hopefully, one day Mono with get there but I doubt it will because it's not in Microsoft interest.

Sun and Oracle actually work with the open source community, Microsoft attempts to subvert it wherever it can.

Re:Off Topic but your sig is 6 years old (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709722)

(Primarily a .NET developer myself)

No nullable primitive types.

They have them for primitive types, actually, and had for ages - java.lang.Integer for int etc.

Since Java, unlike .NET, doesn't have user-defined value types, they didn't need to come up with an extensible scheme to derive a nullable type from any random value type. And for a fixed set of primitive types, it's easier to just hardcode the reference type wrappers.

Not sure if you can use a string for a switch statement

You can't. There are some plans for Java 7, apparently.

Do you have attributes? Instead of the ugly getters and setters?

If you mean "properties", then no, they don't have them.

If you mean "attributes" in the .NET meaning of the word, then they have them in form of @Annotations.

What about nice nestable master pages?

It's a library issue, not a language issue. And it's not even the core library.

Besides, have you seen how many web frameworks there are out there for Java?

Reason #2: Standard Library Source Code Availability - Java source code for the core libraries are available in every J2SDK distribution, .NET sources can only be seen by resorting to illegal means

Actually, .NET sources have been available for close to 2 years now, for debugging and exploration purposes. You can't redistribute, or even modify & recompile them locally, though.

Interesting (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708970)

The most recent Jake2 release was comparable and faster in some situations than the native C version.

I wonder how the javascript version stacks up to the Java and C versions.

Re:Interesting (2, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708982)

Oh, Jake2 benchmarks: http://bytonic.de/html/benchmarks.html [bytonic.de]

Re:Interesting (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709096)

You seem to really really want an informative mod, dont you?

Re:Interesting (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709108)

I just didn't want some douche bag crying about how I lacked a reference. ;)

Re:Interesting (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709252)

That graph compares "original C code" to a Java version using jogl. Does the original C version of Quake use OpenGL or software rendering? If they are comparing software-rendered C to OpenGL accelerated Java, that's a silly comparison. Or am I mistaken about the original C version?

Re:Interesting (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709272)

The benchmarks are against the hardware accelerated OpenGL path of Quake2.

I agree, benchmarking the C software renderer against a hardware accelerated Java renderer would be a joke. :)

No Chome? (0)

msavory (1734428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31708998)

Why Safari and not Chrome?

You Heard It Here First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709048)

admit it [slashdot.org]

How about Urban Terror? (2, Informative)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709116)

Since I can already play QuakeLive in a browser, I probably won't get too excited about Q2.

How about OpenQuartz? (3, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709302)

No you can't. QuakeLive requires a "browser plugin" which defeats the whole point of playing in a browser. You don't get any of the advantages, like sandboxing, cross-platform, or no installation required.

This article is about running Quake in a browser, which is pretty dang cool, if not really practical. Also, it's not really about Quake or FPS so much as HTML5.

Urban Terror was a good suggestion. They probably could have gotten permission to distribute it if they asked. I would have suggested OpenQuartz, which is GPL. It's only half a level, but that's plenty for a demo.

Re:How about OpenQuartz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709528)

You don't get any of the advantages, like sandboxing, cross-platform

You think complex html+javascript endeavors will actually work the same in different browsers/platforms? You're funny..

Re:How about Urban Terror? (0, Offtopic)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709800)

QuakeLive doesn't run in Chrome.

Quake Live (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709136)

This is what Quake Live should have been!

Re:Quake Live (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709392)

Yup... I can only imagine a *MASSIVE* CTF match, would be much better than just a fragfest :)

Re:Quake Live (2, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709732)

This is what Quake Live should have been!

It should have been turn-based? ~

I'm sorry - the point?? (-1, Troll)

Agamous Child (538344) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709162)

I am duly impressed I guess. What I just saw was not worth playing when you can play games already on your PC (PS3, XBOX360) with much better graphics and quality.

It doesn't count if it can't play Doom (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709184)

It doesn't count if it can't play Doom

Benchmarks (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709276)

Does it run Crysis?

Die Flash games! (1)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709334)

The thing that is killing my old iBook G4 are the bloody Flash games that my wife wants to run on it. The thing is still perfectly capable of doing most stuff but Flash is such a resource hog and the OS X version of Flash so poorly optimised, especially since they released Flash 10 for Mac which made the PPC performance much worse. I'm tempted to get an iPad but the lack of Flash would upset her indoors but I think lack of Flash is a bonus. Anyway, if all these Flash game writers started porting over to HTML5 once it is finalised then the lack of Flash will not be an issue. Oh, and Steve Jobs will have done us all a great service in releasing the iPad without Flash and ending it's tyrannical reign.

Re:Die Flash games! (2, Insightful)

Firehawke (50498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709448)

Simply isn't going to happen until someone writes a development environment on par with Flash's, which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. Chicken and egg problem. There's no interest in moving off Flash until the tools are there and nobody wants to write tools until there's interest in them.

Re:Die Flash games! (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709538)

Well the lack of tools is certainly a gap in the market that some party could cash in on right now with a pretty big payoff long-run.

This makes it look like GWT is becoming a candidate. Also based on some of the assertions made recently by Adobe in the vein of "we're in the creative tools business, not the technologies business" I think they may jump on board the HTML5 train soon as well.

Re:Die Flash games! (1)

GravityStar (1209738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709822)

Adobe itself could put a "render as html 5" function in Flash CS 5.

Re:Die Flash games! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709574)

Yeah cuz her iBook reaches out and steals CPU resources from whatever computer you're using, right?
(point being, what a pointless rant you've made! If your wife enjoys the games, who gives a fuck?!)

Saved Page For Offline... (1)

Xin Jing (1587107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709406)

I wonder if a browser game like this would work if you saved the page for offline access.

Re:Saved Page For Offline... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709780)

I'm not sure about android and chrome, but in the iPhone + Safari, there is away to make your web apps downloadable and useable offline.

Good job Jobs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709416)

The truth is, Apple should get the credit for this. After all, if not for the iPod's brave refusal to use Flash, these Google employees would NEVER have wasted their time on this.

Javascript is becoming an assembly language (5, Interesting)

mrspecialhead (211339) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709430)

It may be hard to understand the significance of this if you are not immersed in the hell that is web front-end engineering. Javascript in isolation is not as bad a language as people make it out to be, but supporting common browsers and fixing all bugs as you're writing it is terrible. It is an incredibly hostile development environment.

The dream, from a developer's perspective, is this: In 3-5 years (this is the dream part given how fast the web changes), Javascript is an assembly language. You don't write it unless you really need to dig down to the "bare metal" of the browser itself. You compile to it from your language of choice. Your compiler spits out Javascript and any HTML/CSS containers required to skin your app and allow it to render in the browser. Your application can be linked to and run directly in the browser with no Flash, no Unity3d, no JavaFX, no plugins or installation required.

That no plugins are required is incredibly significant from the perspective of a company trying to distribute a product to as many people as they can, as cheaply as they can. Losing 20% of potential users because you required an installation of them is unacceptable--this increases your marketing costs by at least 25% and dampens the spread of your application via word of mouth, email, Facebook sharing, or whatever viral channels you happen to be using. This is why new 3D browser plugins are not succeeding. Unless it's Flash, no one has the plugin you need and you can't get them to install it reliably enough.

As someone who is frequently made miserable by having to support stupid browser oddities, I would kill to be able to write an application in Python, C#, or Java and know that I can compile to a package supported by >90% of people on the web. Yes, running complex stuff in Javascript is slow. But as seen in Chrome and Firefox, it's getting faster. Much like writing in assembly versus higher-level languages, writing Javascript directly will always be faster than compiling from another language. But at what cost to your time and sanity?

In 2010, my real options for rich content on the web are (1) Javascript/Browser Support Hell and (2) write a Flash application instead. That #1 is so miserable is one of many reasons for Flash's continuing success. The dream shown by this demo and others is that we will get a real Option 3.

Re:Javascript is becoming an assembly language (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709444)

Let me guess: you're John Dvorak... ?

Re:Javascript is becoming an assembly language (2, Insightful)

mrspecialhead (211339) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709702)

If "ha ha your outlandish prediction will never come true" is what you are trying to say, I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I described the problem with rich web application development as I see it from my own experience, and the way I would love to see the web evolve in order to fix it. It's a dream, as I said. There are definitely a lot of other ways this could go.

One possibility is that Adobe adds a ton of new capabilities to Flash and either (1) Adobe's SDK is good enough by itself and everyone writes for Flex/Actionscript directly, or (2) the same thing I described above happens with developers compiling to Actionscript as the world's new assembly language. In either case, Adobe continues to rule the world. It could happen. I'd much rather not have them as a middle-man in the space I'm working in, but it would be better than today's status quo.

What other possibilities are left? Rich web content being a passing fad and everyone moving on to something else? The games industry would love for this one to be the case, but they don't believe it. For evidence, ask EA who they just bought or who they're buying next.

In the short term, obviously nothing changes. More than 80% of my users are on IE7 and IE8, and that's probably not going to budge until the next major release of Windows. So, again, this is a dream. But damn, it would be nice to have it come true sooner rather than later.

Re:Javascript is becoming an assembly language (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709818)

Tried Pyjamas [pyjs.org] ?

Totally going to hook this up with an iPad (0, Redundant)

subanark (937286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709446)

The iPad doesn't support Flash, but it does support HTML5 [slashdot.org] , so we can totally Quake II on the iPad... because you know we can... and have lots of money and free time.

Re:Totally going to hook this up with an iPad (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709590)

The iPad doesn't support Flash, but it does support HTML5 , so we can totally Quake II on the iPad... because you know we can... and have lots of money and free time.

I am rich
I deserv it
I am good,
healthy &
successful

Re:Totally going to hook this up with an iPad (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709624)

Can anyone confirm that this would work on the iPad? I mean, any HTML5 compliant browser should be able to run this shouldn't it? The iPhone/ITouch? (Granted a slide show) .. Just curious.

Re:Totally going to hook this up with an iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709752)

It would technically work, but it would be horribly slow, even on the iPad. Don't even try it on iPhone/iPod touch.
This is simply a demonstration of what HTML5 is capable of, it is not meant to be seriously played by anyone, especially not on mediocre hardware.

Why do I have to install something for a browser (-1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709460)

based game?

It has installation instructions ... with things I have to install to get it to work ...

Uhm, so if I'm going to install shit, then its not really the browser doing it, its a plugin or addin or what have you.

Don't tell me how kickass your HTML5 app is when it won't work out of the box in my HTML5 capable browser. Flash games aren't browser games. Anything that requires me to install something other than the browser fails.

I can make browser plugins that will run quake far more efficiently than this crap with a lot less work. I realize what google was trying to accomplish, but if anything this just makes me fear that the awesomeness that is supposed to be HTML5 is not really any different than anything we have today.

Time (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709476)

...and Sergey asked of them: "What is that you have so much of on your hands?" and in unison and with a great shout they cried out "TIME!". And Sergey said to them: "You shall take the shootem, not from the land of ego, but from the land of id, and you shall polish it till it shines on the chrome, and you shall take it on safari, and you shall make it follow the law of web compliance. And they went to the land of id which was the place of doom, and took it with them and fit it to the chrome, and took it on safari and they even had the firey fox following after them, for even the fox sought compliance under the web law. But there was no exploder in their midst, for they were not seekers of the web law but kept to their own and wouldn't listen to any other. And they showed it the the netizens present at the dotted slash, and they said behold, look what the Googlers have done with the doom from the land of id, and they marveled at it and karma was burned and even from Soviet Russia they were proclaimed as new overlords.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709488)

I can run Doom on my SATNAV. This is way cooler, means I will be able to run it on my netbook with ease.

What install? (0, Redundant)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709542)

If it has to be installed then its not running in the browser.

If it has to be installed we don't need no sticking browser.

As with any "new" technology (1)

furrymitn (1681200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31709638)

the age old question of how does it apply in practice: "COOL! But how do I game on it?"

anything quake can do, advertisers can do too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709654)

*sighs nostalgically for when the most annoying, distracting thing a web designer could put on their page was a blink tag*

This is why HTML5 will suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31709750)

Soon we will have advertisements and website navigation "taking advantage" of these capabilities. At least now some of the crap can be filtered by just filtering out flash.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?