Hacker News Reader

Comment by factorial | Hacker News Reader

"Honestly, HTML5 games get more attention just for being HTML5 – deserved or not."

...that's one of his arguments why HTML5 is the "best platform". I wish he would have gone more into detail how he defines "best" as his understanding of that adjective doesn't seem to take into account that more mature platforms have some benefits too. For instance, maturity.

View on HN

It's definitely a shallow argument, but still a pro for HTML5 nonetheless. If I can make a game that's more likely to be played simply because of the tool I use, it's more lucrative to me.

I listed various other arguments for why I feel it's the "best" out there right now. I think the strongest arguments however are the two games in < 24 hours each.

If it's only played due to the platform it is on, then it's due to a novelty factor. I got that you were after "viral spread", but imagine a world in which people cared a bit less about rapid deployment and more about quality. I rather play a finely-crafted game than one that was put out in less than a day. This is not to say that it is not possible to put something decent together in a short amount of time. Just check out Ludum Dare for some examples.

The post was on "rapid game development", not "polished game development". It's up in the air which platform is best for a more generalized game, each have their strengths and weaknesses. Ludum Dare is a good example of games developed quickly in various languages -- it's certainly possible to create a quality game under time constraints in C++, Java, what-have-you, my thoughts however are that HTML5 is the optimal platform for that.

>it's certainly possible to create a quality game under time constraints in C++, Java, what-have-you, my thoughts however are that HTML5 is the optimal platform for that.

you should probably substantiate that, at least in the article if not here, as you have not given any reason for why this would be true (I have no idea if it is or not).

It may well be, but nothing of what you wrote in the article supports this.

EDIT: let me clarify:

* Mobile Support (large support is not speed of development)

* No compiling (the only thing that seems somewhat related. Many things don't need to be compiled this days though)

* It’s not a plugin (irrelevant to the speed of development, at most a distribution issue)

* It’s not controlled by a single corporation (irrelevant)

* More active development (doesn't make you faster)

* HTML5 games get more attention (irrelevant to your speed)

If you meant "wanting to support gaming in mobile and desktop quickly html5 is the best solution" then it could make sense.

I would argue that "not a plugin" and "not controlled by a single corporation" are more than "irrelevant". Here's a few reasons:

- Want to port your game to a new platform (game console? embedded device?) - just get webkit/mozilla/<your favorite open source browser> to compile. Although this is no small task, in many cases it can be easier and way faster than rewriting the code for an entire game. not to mention this mandates one port per console, rather than one port per game per console. N^2->N time savings :D

- Not being controlled by a single corporation is incredibly important. Take iphone games: want to update your game to use some newly released feature of the sdk? Get ready for 1+ weeks of waiting for approval. Notice a low-level bug in the sdk? ha-ha, have fun talking to Apple's technical support. These are the obvious reasons, there are a million-and-one examples as to how limited access can slow down - and even halts - the game development process.

That's all I have time for now, I'll try and think of some more later

Edit: too/to

they are mightily important concerns but not relevant to "create a quality game under time constraints".

Take flash, which is evil in a plugin and controlled by a cruel corporation and runs on unicorn blood. You will still be able to create a game in 24 hours and put it on the market, people do it all the time. No ipad? Sure, read the end of my previous comment.

Also, while this is still irrelevant (cause the statement is that html5 is better than all the others, but there are plenty of open source things), I don't see how finding a bug in the iOS sdk is any different than finding a bug in a browser's canvas implementation. You work around it in both cases cause you can't control your users software setup.

And the fact that iOS apps have to go through an approval process bears no weight in the generic statement that a proprietary platform causes slow time to market.

Okay, semantics; you're right, in my haste I misread the original quote. If you're judging a game strictly on quality, platform has nothing to do with it; most (all?) modern platforms have decent game libraries so dev time just depends on what you're used to. If you're judging a game on mass appeal, popularity, or user friendliness -- or just plain success -- platforms absolutely, beyond a doubt, matter.

As for your last point though... lolwut. iOS was just an example, the same is true for consoles, other app markets, etc. iOS apps bear "no weight" in the statement that a proprietary platform causes slow time to market?! iOS is one of the largest and most developed-for proprietary platforms, which makes it a great example, which means it absolutely does bear weight -- and a lot of weight at that -- in a statement that generalizes proprietary platforms. </semantics>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com