Telltale Games

Toothless Gibbon · 07/23/2009, 06:18 am

No-one tries to replicate the look of a Windows application in Flash.

If the game was running in a browser, then the browser itself would be native. I just can't understand why you would want a game to look native.

I'm not trying to say desktop applications should be built in it, but thats not what this thread is about.

The only advantage a non-flash browser game would have is what you say about Adobe certified platforms. How many people would want to pay for a browser based game on the iPhone for example is extremely negligable considering how many other limitations you would have.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 06:24 am

But it doesn't look like a normal webpage either, because a normal webpage uses native widgets.

Look, can we get away from the visual appearance of Flash, because as you say, it's not terribly relevant in this case (eventhough I'd still get a mild heartattack if I did a rightclick).

But for a web game there are also other reasons to not use it. The compatiblity with other devices is one thing. The backwards compatiblity another. There was just a Shockwave game posted on this thread and there are dozens of Java games. Do any of these work anymore? Well, they do if you have the plugin, but few people do today. A few years ago I had the exact same discussion with a Shockwave developer and another time with a Java developer. Not so much in recent times, can you guess why?

Edit: what other restrictions on iPhone & Co? The browser is fully functional, just the Flash developers are out of luck.

Toothless Gibbon · 07/23/2009, 06:33 am

So your game would run on all browsers, IE3? Netscape 1? Of course not. What about the separete plugins youd need to play videos you mentioned in the OP? Would the user not have to install one of these?

Flash 9 has 98.8% browser pentetration in mature markets. Significantly higher than any other plug-in you would require.

Not so many discussions with Shockwave and Java developers is because they all use Flash now.

You are aware that the Flash right-click menu can be entirely removed and any custom behavior can be mapped to it? What will happen on a right-click in your browser game?

Toothless Gibbon · 07/23/2009, 06:42 am

I meant the limitations of creating something natively in a browser.. A text based adventure would be perfect I guess.

Show me a site that has seemlessly integrated animation, video and audio natively in a browser without using any plugins.

Do you have any examples of your engine online?

And the reason Apple dont want flash on the iPhone? Because anyone could make a free apps that run in browsers and they would lose a lot of iTunes revenue.

Strangely they are not worries about native browser apps, why do you think that is?

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 06:58 am

Sorry, I don't have the engine ready any more. It really was just a simple compositing engine. The most advanced thing it did was 2D polygons for the floors (to limit the walking area).

But here are few other things (not terribly polished yet, so it probably only works in FF3.5+ for now). There's other, more impressive stuff, but that's just a collection of stuff I have in my devel directory:
http://www.tapper-ware.net/stable/we...ls/index.xhtml
A simple voxel-like engine.

Or maybe a bit of MarioKart?
http://www.tapper-ware.net/stable/Pe...ed/index.xhtml

How about a 3D rendered car with realtime navigation & lighting?
http://www.tapper-ware.net/devel/js/JS.tinyDim/

Maybe a bit of audio visualization?
http://www.tapper-ware.net/devel/js/...iz/index.xhtml

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toothless Gibbon

Flash 9 has 98.8% browser pentetration in mature markets. Significantly higher than any other plug-in you would require.

Not so many discussions with Shockwave and Java developers is because they all use Flash now.

Exactly. Shockwave and Java were the dominant plugins of that era, but now they have gone the way of the dodo. The developers moved on, leaving an unintelligible blob of binary information behind. What makes you so sure that this is not the fate of Flash as well.

taumel · 07/23/2009, 07:10 am

I prefer it as a download if it's a larger game because then i don't have to redownload it every time i want to play the game or after something might have crashed.

Obviously you can split and stream the whole dataset so that you don't have to download the whole package according to were you're continuing with your savegame but practically there is always some redundancy.

Today i think browser based web games are fine for smaller games.

Of course you don't need to invent your own technology as there exists plenty of middleware already which is able to generate executables for different platforms as well as enabling the game in a browser via some plugin, thinking of Flash, Shockwave, Unity, Shiva, Virtools and such.

Fullscreen as well as performance aren't the main issues as fullscreen is normally supported out of the box, the more modern plugins are hw accelerated but the games are slower to a small degree due to browser communication. The embedded part, depending on the quality of the plugin, can also result into some more trouble due to the increased complexity beneath.

Toothless Gibbon · 07/23/2009, 07:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hansschmucker

Exactly. Shockwave and Java were the dominant plugins of that era, but now they have gone the way of the dodo. The developers moved on, leaving an unintelligible blob of binary information behind. What makes you so sure that this is not the fate of Flash as well.

Considering its been around since 1996 and that content created then still runs on the latest plug-in, combined with the success of Youtube and other uber popular sites that use the technology, I think its fair to say it will be around for some time yet.

To think that any game you produce will outlast the Flash plug-in is laughable arrogance.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:15 am

Yet I still visit plenty of webpages that were created in the mid 90s and if they don't use any plugins, everything is fine. BTW. Youtube is currently testing an alternative standards-based implementation and so is Dailymotion. Without Flash.

I'm not going to discuss that last sentence.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by taumel

Obviously you can split and stream the whole dataset so that you don't have to download the whole package according to were you're continuing with your savegame but practically there is always some redundancy.

The game would obviously only load the data that's immediately needed to display the current room. The browser cache would take care that that data wasn't reloaded needlessly.

Toothless Gibbon · 07/23/2009, 07:19 am

How do those mid 90s pages look? Engaging? Media rich? Or just some text? The kind of thing you would expect from a modern game?

I think not.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:22 am

Text and images mostly. They may not look modern anymore, but at least they work.

taumel · 07/23/2009, 07:23 am

Believe me the cache isn't something you will rely on if you want it to be rock solid. Even if you define the streaming on a per object basis you'll still have to redownload if the chache is deleted or got broken, which as years of practice have shown, will definately happen.

As i said it's no to a minor issue for smaller games but it can be annoying depending on how much data you have to stream each time, your internet connection and the distribution mehtod of the data.

Beside of this it obviously depends on the quality of the game and how well it's working. Let's say you're doing The DIG II as a online only version, the game is great and the service is working, then most likely i would go for it, although i still would prefer having a downloadable version just for the sake that something gets broken on your side, my internet connection has problems or that your service isn't available anymore. And to be honest if such a version is available again, then i would prefer playing that version.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:29 am

It's really a minor issue... it's not foolproof, but good enough. We're not talking about 100s of megabytes per room. The details depend on the game that is supposed to be implemented. In a mostly linear game, it's no issue at all, since the player usually doesn't revisit locations too often. In a game where he does, the number of locations would typically be limited anyway.

Since cache problems like corruption (which is not a very common occurrence) are non fatal just reloading the data in that case is acceptable.

If you want it to be 100% safe, you can use the offline storage and implement your own system, but I don't think it would be worth the trouble in this case.

harlequ1n · 07/23/2009, 07:36 am

I'm against browser gaming because it's Windows only 99% of the time defeating the freaking purpose of playing in you browser!!!

taumel · 07/23/2009, 07:41 am

Use some reasonable middleware, at least if the project isn't plain simple, were people get payed for debugging and enhancing the tool for you so that you can concentrate on the game. If you don't have the proper ressources, anything else is almost insane.

One thing you shouldn't forget is that all this flexibility in a system also brings in more complexity and so there are more bugs and issues to be taken care of. You'll have to ask yourself how much this feature is worth to you putting efforts in. If it's the core of your business then it might be worth it, if it's not then i would say, stay with a more simple approach. That's also the reason why most online games do a much simpler streaming or distribute even via download.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by harlequ1n

I'm against browser gaming because it's Windows only 99% of the time defeating the freaking purpose of playing in you browser!!!

? That's exactly the point: A real browser game would be cross-platform. Anything from iPhone to Windows and beyond.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 07:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by taumel

Use some reasonable middleware were people get payed for debugging and enhancing the tool for you so that you can concentrate on the game. If you don't have the proper ressources, anything else is almost insane.

One thing you shouldn't forget is that all this flexibility in a system also brings in more complexity and so there are more bugs and issues to be taken care of. You'll have to ask yourself how much this feature is worth to you putting efforts in. If it's the core of your business then it might be worth it, if it's not then i would say, stay with a more simple approach. That's also the reason why most online games do a much simpler streaming or distribute even via download.

Of course it would be nice to do a universal engine and sublicense it. But the exact economics of producing a browser-based game are not really the topic here.

An adventure engine is a sufficiently simple matter that two persons can be done with the basic framework (rooms, items, moving, interaction) in a week or so. More exotic features would come later, but the basic logic is really quite simple.

A game consists of rooms and characters.
Rooms consist of floors, layers and items.
Characters and items consist of multiple states

taumel · 07/23/2009, 07:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hansschmucker

? That's exactly the point: A real browser game would be cross-platform. Anything from iPhone to Windows and beyond.

Only if a browser really works the way it should or a certain plugin is available for that platform as well, and then you still can face those tiny but neat platform specific issues.

Beside of this you'll have to take care of things like different resolutions, different media support, diffferent donwload speeds, different input capabilities, legal restrictions, ...

But don't get me wrong, i don't want to discourage you, my point just is, there are things to be considered.

hansschmucker · 07/23/2009, 08:15 am

I'm not about to create this game. I know of the issues and I'm not saying that creating an engine would be trivial, I just wanted to know how players feel about web-based adventures (actually, I didn't want to discuss the technology either, but I guess you simply can not avoid it).

View Poll Results: Would you use a browser version of equal quality?
I don't want a browser version: It would only take away development time from the dedicated browser.	14	46.67%
I don't really care. I'd only play the application anyway	11	36.67%
I'd use it on the road or using my smartphone. I'd only use it if it was free/included/ad-based	4	13.33%
I would be willing to pay for it when I need it, on a pay-per-room/hour/whatever basis.	0	0%
I would actually prefer a web implementation and be willing to pay a one time fee just it.	1	3.33%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

07/23/2009, 06:42 am	#24
Toothless Gibbon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: UK Posts: 933	I meant the limitations of creating something natively in a browser.. A text based adventure would be perfect I guess. Show me a site that has seemlessly integrated animation, video and audio natively in a browser without using any plugins. Do you have any examples of your engine online? And the reason Apple dont want flash on the iPhone? Because anyone could make a free apps that run in browsers and they would lose a lot of iTunes revenue. Strangely they are not worries about native browser apps, why do you think that is? Last edited by Toothless Gibbon; 07/23/2009 at 06:46 am.

07/23/2009, 06:58 am	#25
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	Sorry, I don't have the engine ready any more. It really was just a simple compositing engine. The most advanced thing it did was 2D polygons for the floors (to limit the walking area). But here are few other things (not terribly polished yet, so it probably only works in FF3.5+ for now). There's other, more impressive stuff, but that's just a collection of stuff I have in my devel directory: http://www.tapper-ware.net/stable/we...ls/index.xhtml A simple voxel-like engine. Or maybe a bit of MarioKart? http://www.tapper-ware.net/stable/Pe...ed/index.xhtml How about a 3D rendered car with realtime navigation & lighting? http://www.tapper-ware.net/devel/js/JS.tinyDim/ Maybe a bit of audio visualization? http://www.tapper-ware.net/devel/js/...iz/index.xhtml Last edited by hansschmucker; 07/23/2009 at 07:03 am.

07/23/2009, 07:10 am	#27
taumel Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,654	I prefer it as a download if it's a larger game because then i don't have to redownload it every time i want to play the game or after something might have crashed. Obviously you can split and stream the whole dataset so that you don't have to download the whole package according to were you're continuing with your savegame but practically there is always some redundancy. Today i think browser based web games are fine for smaller games. Of course you don't need to invent your own technology as there exists plenty of middleware already which is able to generate executables for different platforms as well as enabling the game in a browser via some plugin, thinking of Flash, Shockwave, Unity, Shiva, Virtools and such. Fullscreen as well as performance aren't the main issues as fullscreen is normally supported out of the box, the more modern plugins are hw accelerated but the games are slower to a small degree due to browser communication. The embedded part, depending on the quality of the plugin, can also result into some more trouble due to the increased complexity beneath. Last edited by taumel; 07/23/2009 at 07:17 am.

07/23/2009, 07:23 am	#33
taumel Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,654	Believe me the cache isn't something you will rely on if you want it to be rock solid. Even if you define the streaming on a per object basis you'll still have to redownload if the chache is deleted or got broken, which as years of practice have shown, will definately happen. As i said it's no to a minor issue for smaller games but it can be annoying depending on how much data you have to stream each time, your internet connection and the distribution mehtod of the data. Beside of this it obviously depends on the quality of the game and how well it's working. Let's say you're doing The DIG II as a online only version, the game is great and the service is working, then most likely i would go for it, although i still would prefer having a downloadable version just for the sake that something gets broken on your side, my internet connection has problems or that your service isn't available anymore. And to be honest if such a version is available again, then i would prefer playing that version. Last edited by taumel; 07/23/2009 at 07:34 am.

07/23/2009, 06:18 am	#21
Toothless Gibbon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: UK Posts: 933	No-one tries to replicate the look of a Windows application in Flash. If the game was running in a browser, then the browser itself would be native. I just can't understand why you would want a game to look native. I'm not trying to say desktop applications should be built in it, but thats not what this thread is about. The only advantage a non-flash browser game would have is what you say about Adobe certified platforms. How many people would want to pay for a browser based game on the iPhone for example is extremely negligable considering how many other limitations you would have.

07/23/2009, 06:24 am	#22
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	But it doesn't look like a normal webpage either, because a normal webpage uses native widgets. Look, can we get away from the visual appearance of Flash, because as you say, it's not terribly relevant in this case (eventhough I'd still get a mild heartattack if I did a rightclick). But for a web game there are also other reasons to not use it. The compatiblity with other devices is one thing. The backwards compatiblity another. There was just a Shockwave game posted on this thread and there are dozens of Java games. Do any of these work anymore? Well, they do if you have the plugin, but few people do today. A few years ago I had the exact same discussion with a Shockwave developer and another time with a Java developer. Not so much in recent times, can you guess why? Edit: what other restrictions on iPhone & Co? The browser is fully functional, just the Flash developers are out of luck.

07/23/2009, 06:33 am	#23
Toothless Gibbon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: UK Posts: 933	So your game would run on all browsers, IE3? Netscape 1? Of course not. What about the separete plugins youd need to play videos you mentioned in the OP? Would the user not have to install one of these? Flash 9 has 98.8% browser pentetration in mature markets. Significantly higher than any other plug-in you would require. Not so many discussions with Shockwave and Java developers is because they all use Flash now. You are aware that the Flash right-click menu can be entirely removed and any custom behavior can be mapped to it? What will happen on a right-click in your browser game?

07/23/2009, 07:15 am	#29
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	Yet I still visit plenty of webpages that were created in the mid 90s and if they don't use any plugins, everything is fine. BTW. Youtube is currently testing an alternative standards-based implementation and so is Dailymotion. Without Flash. I'm not going to discuss that last sentence.

07/23/2009, 07:19 am	#31
Toothless Gibbon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: UK Posts: 933	How do those mid 90s pages look? Engaging? Media rich? Or just some text? The kind of thing you would expect from a modern game? I think not.

07/23/2009, 07:22 am	#32
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	Text and images mostly. They may not look modern anymore, but at least they work.

07/23/2009, 07:29 am	#34
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	It's really a minor issue... it's not foolproof, but good enough. We're not talking about 100s of megabytes per room. The details depend on the game that is supposed to be implemented. In a mostly linear game, it's no issue at all, since the player usually doesn't revisit locations too often. In a game where he does, the number of locations would typically be limited anyway. Since cache problems like corruption (which is not a very common occurrence) are non fatal just reloading the data in that case is acceptable. If you want it to be 100% safe, you can use the offline storage and implement your own system, but I don't think it would be worth the trouble in this case.

07/23/2009, 07:36 am	#35
harlequ1n Hellish Caribbean mulato Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Barcelona Posts: 187	I'm against browser gaming because it's Windows only 99% of the time defeating the freaking purpose of playing in you browser!!! __________________ no gods or kings, only man

07/23/2009, 07:41 am	#36
taumel Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,654	Use some reasonable middleware, at least if the project isn't plain simple, were people get payed for debugging and enhancing the tool for you so that you can concentrate on the game. If you don't have the proper ressources, anything else is almost insane. One thing you shouldn't forget is that all this flexibility in a system also brings in more complexity and so there are more bugs and issues to be taken care of. You'll have to ask yourself how much this feature is worth to you putting efforts in. If it's the core of your business then it might be worth it, if it's not then i would say, stay with a more simple approach. That's also the reason why most online games do a much simpler streaming or distribute even via download. Last edited by taumel; 07/23/2009 at 07:52 am.

07/23/2009, 08:15 am	#40
hansschmucker Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 945	I'm not about to create this game. I know of the issues and I'm not saying that creating an engine would be trivial, I just wanted to know how players feel about web-based adventures (actually, I didn't want to discuss the technology either, but I guess you simply can not avoid it).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search