RuneFireThor's Forum Posts

  • Well I think its a beautiful effect and cheap on processing resources to achieve, so it would be particular useful in mobile games.

    Changing a few pixels colors should be way more efficient that doing the same with an animated sprite that needs multiple images to accomplish a similar effect.

    For pixel art games this could do wonders not only on the beauty of the game but cutting also time on developing.

    There are all type of things you could do by playing just with colors in a pixel art game.

  • HTML5 browser and mobile games will get faster sure, but so will the cutting edge and HTML5/mobile based games will always be behind...

    It's always been that way, and always will...

    You can't fit a dedicated ?300.00 video card in a mobile device that sells for ?300.00 period.

    Sure, but I don?t think this is what most game developers need here.

    Those games that can run on a ?300 video card and use the latest available hardware on the market and are multi million dollar games developments.

    I don?t think must people can create a truly immerse 3D game with Hollywood voice-overs and soundtracks that compete with todays big 3D titles.

    Look at how indie developers are creating pixel art games. Mobile hardware will advance faster in terms of what games you can run as opposed to what indie developers will be able to achieve with them.

    The biggest problem with most developers today is getting allot of elements and more complex games on mobile games, not necessary high on graphics but moving elements, layers, effects, etc. And there is nothing worse than having to limit yourself in creativity because the hardware can?t keep up.

    This will be not be a problem for most games in the future anymore.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • > Next Generation mobile devices run HTML5 games with 60 fps after all.

    True but not completely, since a lot of weaker SoCs out there still struggle.. Intel's current Atom is a dog, it managed to run my game on Chrome at 15 fps, whereas my Nexus 7 tablet runs it a 60 fps.

    Likewise, Tegra 4 devices are horrible in comparison and its not even that old.

    While new stuff from here on out should have no issues, the majority of the mobile market is still on older hardware.

    But I do feel HTML5 is the future, its just I would like to be able to sustain myself until that future is realized, and with CocoonJS loading 400mb into the ram at the start, more than half the mobile market is automatically non-valid for my game. <img src="smileys/smiley19.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Do you mean the latests Atom chips? I don?t think so. You probably refer to the Atom chips that where so popular in netbooks like the Asus Eee.

    The new Intel Atoms chips which just hit the market on December of last year are Intel's response to the mobile market, its light, powerful and cheap. The Intel Atom Clover Trail is quad core and is quite powerful and you can see it already running on cheap Win8 tablets like the Dell Venu Pro 8 which is available for 250$ on Amazon, this is not a RT tablet but a full Windows 8 tablet !!!

    Microsoft was waiting for this chips and I always felt RT was a backup plan. This new chips are going to flood the market with Win8 tablets and as power phones as well, both Win and Android. While I don?t have one to test it out, I think this new chips must perform quite well for HTML5 games. I mean it seems to be able to run games just fine and I don?t think HTML5 will be the exception from this video:

    youtube.com/watch

  • Well I agree with DatapawWolf as well. I would also prefer an option for pure server to client implementation.

    In P2P the server just acts as a hub to connect players together or initiate the handshake connection, but users are not connected via the server after it, but directly passing data between from one user to the other. This creates all types of problems.

    I would prefer users connecting to the server only, not with each other.

    Maybe it comes with both options.

  • Even if it has P2P capabilities that is no the way you want to go.

    P2P does not work nicely in games and real time protocols because you can�t expect a certain quality in terms of lag, performance and speed. It may work great if your user A is in the same city as user B but go to hell if user C is in another part of the world with a crappy Internet connection. Microsoft recently killed that P2P features from Skype exactly for this reason, bad calls, dropped calls, etc, and centralized data on servers.

    So even if P2P works, you want to connect your players to a central server, its the only way to expect a decent output in terms of speed for your players and quality unless you want to frustrate allot of players.

    I don�t see how this is a problem in todays world where you can get cheap VPS for less than 20$ a month or go with some cloud provider.

    Finding or setting up your own server is just plain silly easy today and you will have so much more benefits, just use the same server where you are hosting your game.

  • I see allot of people really love Pixel Art games, so why not add features they can use?

    Does Construct2 support color cycling? If not, it would be a great feature since the code is free. More on this here:

    effectgames.com/effect/article.psp.html/joe/Old_School_Color_Cycling_with_HTML5

    But to actually see what it can do with demos take a look here:

    effectgames.com/demos/canvascycle

    It really brings back my memories to some of this 8 bit adventure games from the past, in particular Monkey Island. <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Now I think I?m starting to understand why this games where actually so popular and I still remember them today.

    Because it seems pixel art which I learned from this forums, has some strange effects on peoples imagination as opposed to trying to correlate real images to real objects in life in your brain, this type of games leaves your imagination to construct the ideas you want, that with added text instead of characters voice meant you imagined the voice of the character to your own imagination as well.

    Just like a good book, where its pure text but your mind creates the puzzle in your head.

    I?m new to all this and I found this type of games are completely ready for today browsers and they are just absolutely beautiful, regardless if some see them as outdated, they are art in every aspect.

  • > In 10 years from now, you are going to be able to render in your browser similar games you can run in a PS3 console now.

    10 years? You can do that already. Unreal engine 3 was made to run in web browsers via asm.js a while ago, and unreal engine 4 is said to be on the way. :)

    Well, I was referring as 10 years to when it will be more standard, as people are probably not aware how powerful games in a browser can be today.

    I have no doubts about graphics today, just about elements, and AI, it seems that is the part where browsers are bit lacking, many elements doing allot of things interacting with each other. This is why AI games like RTS seems to be rather simply today in browsers.

    Is this the link to Unreal demo you mentioned?

    unrealengine.com/html5

  • If HTML5 is the future then Google needs to accept it as a native programming language for Android.

    -Mike

    Android is an operating system and as such needs to be able to control hardware functions. This and the reason that every phone manufacturer uses different hardware is why Google finally went with Android which is Java/Linux based and we know where Java excels, compatibility, it runs everywhere.

    A game does not need to control hardware, rarely it would, a web app probably requires more hardware control than a game will ever need. The only think a game requires is to be able to access the video card and sound card and browsers can use hardware rendering already sometime now.

    There are several reasons why you would not want an operating systems in HTML5 either, mainly security and its not ready yet for that kind of low level hardware operations.

    Google does believe HTML5 is ready for gaming as well as they are the ones that launched the website

    html5rocks.com

    And it has a full section just on games:

    html5rocks.com/en/gaming

    If you decide to master something like Unity, you will find out that eventually in 10 years for now you are going to be forced to learn something new, html, javascript, css, etc instead of just doing it today in standard technologies and keep updating your knowledge as they keep advancing.

    The only limiting factors where always browsers, why where we not able to do even the basic things we can today on the web some years back? RAM was there, CPU was there, but browsers where still mainly only for web page content, not multimedia.

    Because browsers where slow adopting new changes. Google Chrome changed that and everyone is developing their browsers in a fast peace, even Microsoft supports HTML5 because they are forced too, and Windows 8 is heavily promoting HTML5 for their metro apps as well.

    As browsers keep evolving and integrate better with hardware in the future, there are more and more things your browser is going to be able to render.

    Would someone had expected something like this in their browsers years back, when they had to buy a full computer to do this and just play a basic game?

    jsmachines.net

    Something as a full computer from decades back work in a browser.

    In 10 years from now, you are going to be able to render in your browser similar games you can run in a PS3 console now.

  • I have read this common myth here and other forums for a while now.

    Its common sense in some topics here and other similar software communities that HTML5 is not ready, here in particular with Construct2 performance is attacked and this may be related to how JavaScript performs as well HTML5 with allot of elements/layers.

    Some even suggest to go with Unity completely, but from my background experience which comes completely from a non game world there is always something missing in such debates. So far web development has never once go back, but always forwards into the future.

    Even the Facebook owner said betting on HTML5 was a mistake. Another company that focused on HTML5 Moblyng shuts down.

    But personally I think all of this debates are just plain silly. Its just not the time for heavy gaming in HTML5 today, but it will be. There is no going back and there is nothing you can do, it will be the future, regardless if its html5 or html6, or html7.

    The biggest attack is always mobile and how ugly performance is, but most mobile phones released today are just or more powerful than small computers, so there is absolutely no way mobile phones will not improve performance, it has to do in particular with browsers running in mobile phones, which are improving and so will HTML5 games.

    Its possible and it will be possible to create great HTML5 games in the future, this includes with Construct2 as they are limited to only what HTML and JavaScript can do. This is a tool that makes it easy for non coders to develop, but it still has to rely on external libraries, and once this improves, browsers improve, and computers improve, so will your games done with Construct2 or any other html5 game engine.

    Look what this guys from Facebook and Google are doing.

    It looks they will release this for developers as well in order to develop your own HTML5 games. This is the biggest prove that HTML5 can perform well and look great as well run in a browser natively:

    artillery.com