Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games?

kumpetan writes "After seeing so many games built with JavaScript, and considering the applications it powers and the use of Ajax, it seems like web developers are now in the game development pot. It is getting easier and more popular with libraries like jQuery, MooTools, Prototype, etc. There are even libraries like Game JS, GameQuery or JavaScript GameLib, specifically for this purpose. So, will we start to see more ambitious game projects arise using these tools?"

Comments

java != javascript

[QuantumG]

javascript is more like scheme with a C syntax (the one and only syntax, all hail!)

http://www.quantumg.net/tetris.php

Enjoy.

Re:java != javascript

[QuantumG]

That's a feature.

Re:java != javascript

[QuantumG]

Because, for some ungodly reason, everyone still uses keyboards that put the cursor keys on the same side as the mouse. Surfing the web is all about the freakin' mouse.. so making a web game that requires you to take your hand off the mouse is a bit silly.

Re:java != javascript

[AKAImBatman]

http://www.quantumg.net/tetris.php

Needs work. Here's my version, complete with an adapter for Internet Exploder:

http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/ie

(Mine is based on the NES version rather than the more modern Tetris versions, so use UP to rotate, DOWN to make it drop faster, LEFT/RIGHT to reposition the piece. If you use IE, click outside the block-drop area to make sure that it has proper focus as I have not finished the adapter.)

While not as pretty, there's also an online multiplayer version written in Javascript here:

http://www.wiicade.com/gameDetail.aspx?gameID=1063

That one is not mine, though the programmer did use my network technology. ;-)

Easier?

[Psychotria]

It is getting easier and more popular with libraries like jQuery, MooTools, Prototype, etc

What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game? It could probably be argued that "easiness" (fancy API's etc) actually reduce the quality of games by giving tools to people who do not know how to wield them properly. This is obviously not true for all games; there are simple games that can be adequately programmed in lots of languages. Addictive, puzzle-like, entertaining games. Then there are other games that push the envelope of what is possible. Pushing the envelope does not make a good game though so I digress.

To cut a long story short I don't think the availability of libraries etc to do the grunt work of games will improves things. In fact, I think it may result in an influx of poorly programmed/poorly thought-out games written by people who know enough to program a web page or move a LOGO turtle. It may of course be great for prototyping.

Note to QuantumG: Exclude your tetris implementation from the above comments. Nice work.

Re:Easier?

[Xest]

It's because most game developers wont want to pratt about for weeks trying to get the core Javascript stuff done, they'll want to write games.

The availability of these libraries mean they can do that.

There's the argument that developers always used to have to write their own driver layer and such in the DOS days and then build a graphics engine on top of that so it's not like game developers didn't used to have this barrier and yet still did well. The problem with that argument is back then, everyone had to do that, nowadays people could just go build something with Flash or just do a non-web game with XNA or something instead.

The importance of good and easy to use libraries means Javascript has a more level playing field with other technologies that currently attract game developers.

Messing around developing the underlying APIs, framework and such detracts from the important part of developing games- developing the game itself. The more time that can be spent actually developing games, the more potential there is for the games to be better because more time can be spent on the actual gameplay.

Re:There are Java games, so why not JScript?

[farnsworth]

I very seriously doubt the designers of Java would have envisioned someone making a couple of FPS out of their creation.

Java was originally designed to be a multi-media platform for televisions. It's 2d and 3d APIs are, although simple, pretty good. Actual functionality was bolted on later (see ya Vector!).

Yes. See Flash.

[naz404]

it seems like web developers are now in the game development pot

Flash was the realm of web designers/web developers and is now one of the most widespread game development platforms.

Moreover, Flash's scripting language, Actionscript is based on ECMAScript which is in turn based on JavaScript, so Flash game developers have in fact been creating games in Javascript for some time now.

Flash Actionscript = JavaScript (although Actionscript 3.0 now resembles Java more)

So yes, Javascript is not just ready, but has in fact been one of the de facto languages for creating quality (fun and addicting!) (Flash) games in the past few years.

short answer: yes

[El_Muerte_TDS]

There is no reason why you can't use JavaScript as the script engine for your game engine. Just like you could use lua or python.

If the question is if JavaScript + WebBrowser is ready for games? Yes, has been for quite some time. With improving javascript interpreter speed and better webbrowser functionality (i.e. "canvas") element you can even create graphic intensive games. But javascript based sudoku, tetris, sokoban, etc. games have been possible for over 10 years.

Re:The keyword, however, is "quality"

[oliderid]

Javascript can't. The biggest problem imho is animation and vectors. You can't really use formats like SVG which is poorly supported by most browsers (if not all). So if you plan a 100% javascript+html+css, you have to stick to bitmap sprites and even there, there are some issues (slow, browser compatibility, etc.).

Quality? Games?

[sweet_petunias_full_]

How about we start with some quality... webpages?

You know, the type that worked reliably with just about any browser, the way it used to in Web 1.0 before web standards became a marketshare battleground?

Lately, websites have become picky about which browser you use for just this reason. The AJAX monster they're trying to get everyone to use is just too unwieldy and expensive to maintain in terms of programmer time if they actually have to support all of the browser versions. The outstanding bug count is too much even for some of the big players in this space, I dare say.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not that optimistic that games will be very well supported across browser versions to think that it will result in "quality". Instead I have a sneaky suspicion that someone will try to use some slick game that works on a couple of browsers to pull marketshare over to its cloud, but all the while dictating to people which browser they must waste their time upgrading in order to participate in the hypefest. Then, a few browser versions later, the game won't work anymore.

Blame CSS, HTML and IE

[Nicolas MONNET]

HTML+CSS (current versions) is inadequate for most of what it's used for (user interfaces), as opposed to what it's meant for (documents). Add to the mix the monster that is IE, and you need javascript to make it bearable.

Define "ready"

[Kjella]

Q: Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games?

A: No, but it's happening anyway.

People build quality games out of the wierdest languages, for example Transport Tycoon Deluxe was built in assembler around 1995. I have no doubt you can write quality games in javascript. I don't think it's the easiest or best way, but it's not really my concern. If they cna make it happen, more power to them.

Re:The keyword, however, is "quality"

[aliquis]

Safari, Opera and Firefox already have support for embedded videos thru HTML 5. So we're already there.

All I want for christmas is YouTube, DAP- and game-reviewing sites to start using it instead of flash. Probably won't happen until Microsoft has managed to drag their balls out of their ass and manage to pull IE8 out at the same time (and way ..)

If only atleast Google had some balls big enough to say "oh well, YouTube requires a decent browser!", or they could just check with JavaScript if the browser is new enough to have HTML5 video support and fall back on Flash if it's not.

Interesting Turn Of Events

[Jekler]

I find it interesting that we're still figuring out how to implement games on a 32/64-bit 2+ gigahertz computer that barely rival games we previously implemented on an 8-bit 2 megahertz platform (NES). I would have imagined that even in a worst case scenario, emulation of an NES system in JavaScript would be trivial just by throwing more processor cycles at it, but the games people are creating in ActionScript and JavaScript are closer to Atari 2600 games than anything else. The games that are more complex tax a modern computer as much as the latest 3D games.

Re:breakout

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Another great one is DHTML Lemmings