Diablo in JavaScript

[overgard]

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!"

[MichaelGG]

I've had this sentiment from 1996 on. I worked for a company creating Internet materials for use in classrooms (Internet-on-CD, books, etc.). I remember seeing a "frog dissection" thing on a website and everyone seemed to impressed with it. Why? You'd click a gif, it'd run a CGI and deliver a new image. Just what you could do with actual clients, just slower, more limited, and lower resolution.

There's something neat about "X in Y" for some technical novelty (like emulators) but I don't get the excitement in general.

[minimaxir]

The next logical step is Diablo in CSS3.

[jere]

Agreed. The worst part is that, as far as I can tell, this isn't actually Diablo. So we can't even claim a foothold on 1997.

[cryowaffle]

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.

[MatthewPhillips]

Dead Space 3 wasn't created by 1 person in their spare time. But by all means, don't let that temper your cynicism.

[scarecrowbob]

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.

[dwallin33]

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

[darkchasma]

If this isn't a comment about the project, then maybe you could step off the soapbox.

[jQueryIsAwesome]

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?

[aw3c2]

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.

[fletchowns]

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.

I thought it was really neat, I don't know what all your hate is about. I also like that the source code is friendly looking and you could show it to somebody new to coding to inspire them.

[sebkomianos]

My bad - haven't actually played Diablo. (and I guess that's extra uncool points for me, but, yeah..)

Also, to clarify, I found this while browsing through http://gistflow.com (specific gist: http://gistflow.com/posts/201-diablo-js)

[qznc]

You click around to run around. You click on enemies. You click on dropped loot. Looks like Diablo to me. ;)

[zopticity]

It's not that bad. If you go behind a building, it becomes transparent. Pretty close to Diablo. Of course it's a demo not meant to be a full blown game.

[sktrdie]

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.

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).

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.

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.

And we don't, we have 90s games.

[taeric]

The odd implication I get from this, is that somehow the original Diablo was not programmed against open standards. Is that on purpose?

[fiatpandas]

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?

[dbaupp]

Sometimes it is laziness on the part of the developer (i.e. only using webkit- prefixes on the new JS/CSS features, even though the moz- prefixed equivalent works perfectly), other times it just hasn't been implemented in FF yet (although sometimes the demos do work in the aurora/nightly versions).

[pjmlp]

WebKit is the new IE.

[jQueryIsAwesome]

No -webkit- specific code in sight and the console shows no error; the worst kind of bug.

Edit: I found it; It is using the event property offSetX instead of a cross-browser property; if the developer or someone else want so fix: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11334452/event-offsetx-in... [Line 151 in diablo.js]

[alexpeattie]

Pretty cool. The full source code's on Github as well:

https://github.com/mitallast/diablo-js

The code's not commented very heavily, but it's pretty readable nonetheless.

[edgar_di]

Is this your code? I would like to contribute (I'm not so proficient with JavaScript though, but a huge fan of diablo. (usually re-install it every two years)

[moron4hire]

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 http://www.oocities.org/webspynner_99/games/RPG/rpg.html

The fact that browsers are still able to run my shitty code is kind of impressive.

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.

[runn1ng]

I see a green blob and a blue blob.

What should do with it? :)

[saroho]

Framerate was a bit choppy for me. It ran smoother back in 1997. The open web still has a long way to go.

[phasevar]

Cool, I guess. No instructions what-so-ever. Can we get some documentation on keys to use?

[philipbjorge]

It appears to be Chrome only which might explain your problem with controls...

Edit: Yes, I did only test in Firefox and Chrome. According to the comments below, it appears to work for modern browsers except Firefox.

[onli]

Well, click left and use 1-9 for drinking potions.

Nothing else is implemented - and that much is probably obvious for people who played a hack'n slay before.

But thinking about it, it is interesting how games explain their shortcuts in the interface.

[fletchowns]

This is Hacker News, hit F12!

[okamiueru]

Just another misleading HN titles to a technically uninteresting project. I believe this is a fair assessment.

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).

Just to make it clear, regarding the creator and the project:

* Is there something bad with him creating something? 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.

* Is there something bad with with how he is doing it? Yes, he is using copyrighted graphics he doesn't own the rights to use.

Regarding this as HN:

* Is this technically interesting? 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).

* Is this aesthetically interesting? 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.

* Is the title accurate? No, not even remotely (there is much more to Diablo than sprites).

* Is the project anywhere finished and presentable? Maybe this just personal preference, but I don't like seeing other people's pre-alpha demos.

tl;dr: Stop wasting people's time with technically uninteresting posts with misleading titles alluding to the contrary, to projects using assets they shouldn't.

[shocks]

I can't wait for Far Cry 3 in Javascript.

[lists]

Weird, controls worked in Firefox on Windows but not Firefox on Linux

[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.

[Scene_Cast2]

There's a Diablo-like game also made in Javascript - http://www.smokymonkeys.com/triglav/. 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.

[VMG]

One the one hand - great. On the other hand - we've been there ten years ago.

[isacikgoz]

doesnt work on iPad in stock browser

[pjmlp]

Great! Now the browser finally caught up with MS-DOS games!

[jrogers65]

Diablo was a Windows game - it didn't run on MS-DOS.

[Bockit]

I look forward to the day when I can watch in-game footage of games, maybe replays from RTS games for example, in a game-engine in the browser.

[metaphorm]

Borrowing some sprites and textures from Diablo 2 is hardly sufficient to call this "Diablo in Javascript".

[rawriclark]

This is running on a ie10 on winrt surface , cool stuff good job to the maker (even touch is working)

[DigitalSea]

This is pretty cool. It's obvious it's not a 1:1 port of the original, but still fun and entertaining.