I dont know if the idea has been posted or anything, its just something that i tought while talking to my friends, i asked to play for old time sakes, but they said its too complicated to play/install under windows 7 and the color think, (even tho it has a fix).
So then I was thinking about "What if you could play BW as a browser game. And i think BW being as old as it is (I remember my friend use to play it on a 486 PC, LOL) It should be sort of easy to make it ?
Anyhow any toughts on this ?
EDIT: This was not about how easy or hard was to set up windows 7 to play BW, was just a reference, its still tricky/annoying for someone whos not as techy about PCs.
Maybe blizzard, could have in its power to do something like that ? How hard or costly would it be to them to just not want to do something like that, besides the fact that they dont give a shit about BW unless they could make a lot of money with it lol
I don't think you can emulate the broodwar engine in a browser but it would be cool to have something similar so people would gain interest by playing it and would want to play the real thing, it could help bring more popularity to bw.
Oh yah of we could play on browser that's definitely generate more interest biggest pain would prolly be getting Blizzard to not sue whoever makes it...
If we had the Brood War source code, I don't see why this wouldn't be possible (Correct me if I am wrong, but Quake Live is Quake III in a browser, so why wouldn't Brood War work in a browser?)
However, we don't have the source code, so I don't see how we could do this without some serious problems.
On November 28 2012 13:38 Kibibit wrote: The biggest issue would probably be delay, I think the only way around the delay would be to have the BW source code or some truly wizardly hacks.
I would still totally play vs ai in browser if the delay was bad.
Fix to windows 7 color issue is to while in a game, select menu, options, video. On the corresponding screen uncheck the box that says "enable color cycling"
On November 28 2012 13:56 vOdToasT wrote: If we had the Brood War source code, I don't see why this wouldn't be possible (Correct me if I am wrong, but Quake Live is Quake III in a browser, so why wouldn't Brood War work in a browser?)
However, we don't have the source code, so I don't see how we could do this without some serious problems.
Quake Live doesn't really run in the browser, the browser just acts as a launcher for it. But yes, without source code it would be a fairly impossible undertaking, and Blizzard is not and will never be id. Browser technologies are also not really there at this point. Web sockets can get you sorta close for multiplayer, but they're not P2P and they're TCP only (BW and almost all games use UDP so that they have more control over latency). WebRTC could maybe get it there but its still in the very early stages, so who knows.
It's not possible without source code, and even with source code it seems unlikely it would suffice for any serious player due to severe performance issues. I'd recommend against it completely unless a plugin like Quake Live's was written for it.
I guess everyone has their own anecdotal experiences... but thought I'd mentioned bw has always worked just fine for me in Windows 7 with no special effort. Sometimes the lobby colors are funny-lookin' but it's not too important and in-game is always fine! So, at least give it a try before deciding "it's too complicated."
On November 28 2012 18:32 Jonoman92 wrote: I guess everyone has their own anecdotal experiences... but thought I'd mentioned bw has always worked just fine for me in Windows 7 with no special effort. Sometimes the lobby colors are funny-lookin' but it's not too important and in-game is always fine! So, at least give it a try before deciding "it's too complicated."
run as admin when you play. If your monitor doesn't support 4:3 (some widescreen monitors do, mine does), then run in windowed mode (which is still better than playing in a browser). The end. Your friends are really tech-stupid if they can't figure that out. They probably get confused about .rar files too.
The logistics of transferring more than 100MB of spritesheets every time you load the game would make it unviable.
Performance is no problem at all. Running it in a browser or not makes no difference, you can run full 3d games in a browser no problem, the issue is transferring all that data (which is why most big games don't run in a browser), you may as well make it an installable game.
On November 29 2012 03:01 sluggaslamoo wrote: Impossible.
The logistics of transferring more than 100MB of spritesheets every time you load the game would make it unviable.
Performance is no problem at all. Running it in a browser or not makes no difference, you can run full 3d games in a browser no problem, the issue is transferring all that data (which is why most big games don't run in a browser), you may as well make it an installable game.
I'm curious to why transferring 100 mb every time you run the game would make it impossible, instead of inconvenient.
Its actually quite doable using html5, and websockets or a flash hack. As someone mentioned 100mb of data is a lot to download all at once, but with proper management you can only download a small bit of images at a time, like just the map you are on. And browsers are pretty good at caching data, so it would only be a one time thing. I am actually working on a browser based rts and its pretty similar to online broodwar programming wise at least. Of course if you used the assets/units I would prepare for a cease and desist letter.
On November 29 2012 03:01 sluggaslamoo wrote: Impossible.
The logistics of transferring more than 100MB of spritesheets every time you load the game would make it unviable.
Performance is no problem at all. Running it in a browser or not makes no difference, you can run full 3d games in a browser no problem, the issue is transferring all that data (which is why most big games don't run in a browser), you may as well make it an installable game.
I'm curious to why transferring 100 mb every time you run the game would make it impossible, instead of inconvenient.
And I'm curious as to how performance would be no problem at all. Performance would only be no problem if the code was modified specifically for browser usage. Outside of that, not a single version of windows emulation has been able to emulate it without latency issues.
On November 29 2012 06:00 asiantraceur wrote: So, what would need to be done to get this in a browser? -Blizzards permission -coder(s) with spare time -source code Anything else?
- either coders with spare time or the people managing the project has a shit ton of money
How awesome would it be if Blizz made a Browser version of BW (like Quake Live) and implemented a ladder system like they have for SC2. Also, I think it would be great if they released Diablo 2 for ios but now with an AH/RMAH. Yes I know some people hate the AH, but I feel it adds legs to the game. Similar to how a ladder system increases long term potential for competitive games, if you will.
On November 29 2012 09:06 AnomalySC2 wrote: How awesome would it be if Blizz made a Browser version of BW (like Quake Live) and implemented a ladder system like they have for SC2. Also, I think it would be great if they released Diablo 2 for ios but now with an AH/RMAH. Yes I know some people hate the AH, but I feel it adds legs to the game. Similar to how a ladder system increases long term potential for competitive games, if you will.
It would definitely increase the player base and be awesome... too bad blizzard won't make it or let anyone make it. They care too much about squeezing the most out of their current flagship titles.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
did you click on the links?
The links you keep giving only get you halfway there, at best. There's tons of code in the game that simply does not port to a browser, like the network and graphics stuff. And since BW was coded kind of badly, there's not a whole lot of abstraction and thus they enter tons of parts of the code. Not to mention the fact that it'd be almost guaranteed illegal to distribute a copyrighted binary that was programmatically translated to javascript, regardless of whether or not you include the assets.
So now we're talking about someone needing to write a way to programmatically translate specific parts of the code to javascript that compensates for the fact that its in a browser and combine it with the emscripten parts, then distribute *that* program to anyone that actually wants to use the thing. Those people would then have to run it on a legal copy of BW to get the actual browser code, at which time there's no point in having it run in a browser any more.
Clean-room reverse engineering would be the only way to do this without guaranteed legal consequences, and good luck finding 2+ people with enough time and dedication to clean-room RE the entirety of BW.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
did you click on the links?
The links you keep giving only get you halfway there, at best. There's tons of code in the game that simply does not port to a browser, like the network and graphics stuff. And since BW was coded kind of badly, there's not a whole lot of abstraction and thus they enter tons of parts of the code. Not to mention the fact that it'd be almost guaranteed illegal to distribute a copyrighted binary that was programmatically translated to javascript, regardless of whether or not you include the assets.
So now we're talking about someone needing to write a way to programmatically translate specific parts of the code to javascript that compensates for the fact that its in a browser and combine it with the emscripten parts, then distribute *that* program to anyone that actually wants to use the thing. Those people would then have to run it on a legal copy of BW to get the actual browser code, at which time there's no point in having it run in a browser any more.
Clean-room reverse engineering would be the only way to do this without guaranteed legal consequences, and good luck finding 2+ people with enough time and dedication to clean-room RE the entirety of BW.
this has already been done on a smaller scale. this is certainly not an easy task but it is probably a lot more technically feasible than people think. The assets can be located on a random server in china or on your personal dropbox.
Legally, this is almost certainly against the EULA -- (from sc2 eula) 2.A In whole or in part, copy or reproduce (except as provided herein),translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Game; -- about C&Ds, knowing about ICCUP, Fish, bwapi etc. there is a chance they let it slide.
Personally I do not play BW and I am too busy so I won't start that.
EDIT: clean room a sufficiently close enough version of BW gameplay-wise shouldn't be that hard nowadays since you don't have to care about performance at all (replicating all the bugs might be painstakingly hard though). you can throw away solo mode (and the tons of stuff necessary for campaign scenari), battle.net, the customs, and everything except the actual game 1vs1 (and you could add a true observer mode). however you wont be able to use the assets anyway and without a dedicated graphic team you'll get a shitty looking game!
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
did you click on the links?
The links you keep giving only get you halfway there, at best. There's tons of code in the game that simply does not port to a browser, like the network and graphics stuff. And since BW was coded kind of badly, there's not a whole lot of abstraction and thus they enter tons of parts of the code. Not to mention the fact that it'd be almost guaranteed illegal to distribute a copyrighted binary that was programmatically translated to javascript, regardless of whether or not you include the assets.
So now we're talking about someone needing to write a way to programmatically translate specific parts of the code to javascript that compensates for the fact that its in a browser and combine it with the emscripten parts, then distribute *that* program to anyone that actually wants to use the thing. Those people would then have to run it on a legal copy of BW to get the actual browser code, at which time there's no point in having it run in a browser any more.
Clean-room reverse engineering would be the only way to do this without guaranteed legal consequences, and good luck finding 2+ people with enough time and dedication to clean-room RE the entirety of BW.
this has already been done on a smaller scale. this is certainly not an easy task but it is probably a lot more technically feasible than people think. The assets can be located on a random server in china or on your personal dropbox.
Legally, this is almost certainly against the EULA -- (from sc2 eula) 2.A In whole or in part, copy or reproduce (except as provided herein),translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Game; -- about C&Ds, knowing about ICCUP, Fish, bwapi etc. there is a chance they let it slide.
Personally I do not play BW and I am too busy so I won't start that.
EDIT: clean room a sufficiently close enough version of BW gameplay-wise shouldn't be that hard nowadays since you don't have to care about performance at all (replicating all the bugs might be painstakingly hard though). you can throw away solo mode (and the tons of stuff necessary for campaign scenari), battle.net and everything except the actual game. however you wont be able to use the assets anyway and without a dedicated graphic team you'll get a shitty looking game!
You don't even have to bother looking at the EULA (BW has a different EULA than SC2 btw ), its a DMCA restriction. ICCup and Fish run on PvPGN, which is the second coming of bnetd. You may not be familiar with bnetd, but it was sued into the ground by Blizzard for violating the DMCA. PvPGN remedied this by only reversing network packets to construct the server (a variant of clean room techniques), and by basing themselves in countries not as friendly with US law.
Trust me, I am intimately familiar with the internals of BW. I have a very good idea of what would need to be rewritten, and its not the least bit simple or straightforward. The removal of single player also doesn't really save you a whole lot of effort, and if you want to support UMS maps it saves you basically nothing at all.
Does the color problem necessarily have to be a problem? I downloaded SCBW from my account on battle.net (added the key from my CD, so it was free), and encountered no problems whatsoever - color or otherwise.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
I didn't know they tried to emulate Muta Stacking in SC2 but failed .
The biggest issue here lies in the fact that no one has access to/permission to the original source code. Backwards engineering SCBW is perfectly doable, but then even after that porting all that to JS/AS/HTML5, optimizing it, organizing it would take even a team of full-time employees anywhere between a few months to a year. and then it would be shut down by Blizzard.
I think it either has to be done by Blizzard, or someone has to make a clone, building everything from ground up. Means better optimization from the beginning and cutting all but the most necessary features.
But getting SWBW 1:1 in browser will never happen from community effort. I mean sure it might, but i don't think it would last, and that prospect is pretty heart-breaking to most devs.
But then again getting something VERY close (1:A clone) is "just" a lot of work and time. And that would in the end be doable - just very time consuming.
On November 29 2012 03:01 sluggaslamoo wrote: Impossible.
The logistics of transferring more than 100MB of spritesheets every time you load the game would make it unviable.
Performance is no problem at all. Running it in a browser or not makes no difference, you can run full 3d games in a browser no problem, the issue is transferring all that data (which is why most big games don't run in a browser), you may as well make it an installable game.
I'm curious to why transferring 100 mb every time you run the game would make it impossible, instead of inconvenient.
And I'm curious as to how performance would be no problem at all. Performance would only be no problem if the code was modified specifically for browser usage. Outside of that, not a single version of windows emulation has been able to emulate it without latency issues.
@question 1: Okay, inconvenient, not impossible. But it is practically impossible. Someone also mentioned dynamic loading, unfortunately for a game such as starcraft, most if not all of the graphics need to be loaded before the game can be run. Something like an RPG would be much more suitable to dynamic loading.
@question 2: Its not emulation. It would be more than 10 times, if not 100 times faster if you remade it because you can run hardware accelerated graphics and that is where the main bottleneck is. OpenGL would piss all over the bitmap blitting that was used in traditional Starcraft, you could render 10,000 sprites without your computer breaking a sweat. V8 Javascript is also really damn fast, not as fast as C, but its also not the main bottleneck.
The core of starcraft, without the single player campaign, all the music, videos etc, just what you need to play multiplayer is about 20-30 megs, it's been done before with sclite, i used to stick it on a 128 mb usb key and play it on the go in college. HTML5 specifies a cache for file storage in a browser around 10 mb (forget exact specification) still not close enough, and as someone mentioned early, really smart caching won't cut it, you need that 30 megs in memory accessible at all times. Someone earlier mentioned websockets for multiplayer support, again the standard isn't mature enough, nor is the backend server support (see node.js, which is js only) unless you rewrote chunks of starcrafts network code from scratch in javascript, good luck.
Making a starcraft 2 port with pure HTML5 isn't viable, without making some severe compromises and lengthy developer time. Fortunately you don't have to, chrome has native support for c and c++, converting to said languages from others is very doable.
Wow, WarCraft actually works. And since there is no way they had the source code, this means some nerd reverse engineered it and ported it.
Pretty sure it was already done a long time ago in freecraft. Warcraft 2 logic is extremely simple compared to starcraft though.
I don't want to port StarCraft to Java Script (Which I think is what this guy did to WarCraft II, since it runs in a browser). I just want to reverse engineer it so I can add features. It'll still be C++, just like the original.
As a programmer of a few network games I can tell you that it's most likely too server intensive (latency would be terrible when you use website URL calls instead of plain optimized network packets).
The problem is that strategy games require you to poll every time and await a result (a few times a second preferably). While 3D shooters poll the same way, they can skip a few poll iterations of the networked game loop because it will catch up in the end (and retrace the missing steps) and usually not influence the game outcome. With strategy games this is very different, the information send from one to another can not be lost or ignored, because it might change the outcome of the game for one player.
Luckily there are some languages that can exert more control over this, so by using such languages it could be possible, but it's very time consuming even if you manage to get the source code.
Wow, WarCraft actually works. And since there is no way they had the source code, this means some nerd reverse engineered it and ported it.
Pretty sure it was already done a long time ago in freecraft. Warcraft 2 logic is extremely simple compared to starcraft though.
I don't want to port StarCraft to Java Script (Which I think is what this guy did to WarCraft II, since it runs in a browser). I just want to reverse engineer it so I can add features. It'll still be C++, just like the original.
I'm pretty sure it's a Java applet, not Java Script.
But an in-browser version would definitely be badass.
Wow, WarCraft actually works. And since there is no way they had the source code, this means some nerd reverse engineered it and ported it.
Pretty sure it was already done a long time ago in freecraft. Warcraft 2 logic is extremely simple compared to starcraft though.
I don't want to port StarCraft to Java Script (Which I think is what this guy did to WarCraft II, since it runs in a browser). I just want to reverse engineer it so I can add features. It'll still be C++, just like the original.
You can't reverse engineer the machine code into C++. Its possible, but not for something like Starcraft.
You can't run C++ on the client side.
Even if you could, you would be defeating the entire purpose of your project. The low level code is what is causing the cross-platform problems. It would take you an eternity to understand the old code and rewrite it to work for Windows 7. If you want it to be more cross-platform, then Javascript/JavaApplet would be the way to go.
However this project might take you 2 years to complete at least.
Wow, WarCraft actually works. And since there is no way they had the source code, this means some nerd reverse engineered it and ported it.
Pretty sure it was already done a long time ago in freecraft. Warcraft 2 logic is extremely simple compared to starcraft though.
I don't want to port StarCraft to Java Script (Which I think is what this guy did to WarCraft II, since it runs in a browser). I just want to reverse engineer it so I can add features. It'll still be C++, just like the original.
You can't reverse engineer the machine code into C++. Its possible, but not for something like Starcraft.
You can't run C++ on the client side.
Even if you could, you would be defeating the entire purpose of your project. The low level code is what is causing the cross-platform problems. It would take you an eternity to understand the old code and rewrite it to work for Windows 7. If you want it to be more cross-platform, then Javascript/JavaApplet would be the way to go.
However this project might take you 2 years to complete at least.
On December 02 2012 02:55 peacenl wrote: As a programmer of a few network games I can tell you that it's most likely too server intensive (latency would be terrible when you use website URL calls instead of plain optimized network packets).
The problem is that strategy games require you to poll every time and await a result (a few times a second preferably). While 3D shooters poll the same way, they can skip a few poll iterations of the networked game loop because it will catch up in the end (and retrace the missing steps) and usually not influence the game outcome. With strategy games this is very different, the information send from one to another can not be lost or ignored, because it might change the outcome of the game for one player.
Luckily there are some languages that can exert more control over this, so by using such languages it could be possible, but it's very time consuming even if you manage to get the source code.
Websockets can let you set up a pretty standard socket from a browser. Check out socket.io
On November 28 2012 18:32 Jonoman92 wrote: I guess everyone has their own anecdotal experiences... but thought I'd mentioned bw has always worked just fine for me in Windows 7 with no special effort. Sometimes the lobby colors are funny-lookin' but it's not too important and in-game is always fine! So, at least give it a try before deciding "it's too complicated."
this is my case as well, only the menu is messed up in colors but inside bnet and in game its all fine.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
llvm-qemu is pointless here, emscripten emits javascript from LLVM IR. All you need to do is convert all of the starcraft binaries to llvm IR, then write a directdraw/directinput to sdl binding, and then write whatever parts of win32 starcraft touches, and then make the thing actually work (because it won't because of how emscripten works w.r.t. render loops, so you'll need to probably dive into that and rewrite parts (if not most) of it.) Actually, that sounds like a fun project.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
llvm-qemu is pointless here, emscripten emits javascript from LLVM IR. All you need to do is convert all of the starcraft binaries to llvm IR, then write a directdraw/directinput to sdl binding, and then write whatever parts of win32 starcraft touches, and then make the thing actually work (because it won't because of how emscripten works w.r.t. render loops, so you'll need to probably dive into that and rewrite parts (if not most) of it.) Actually, that sounds like a fun project.
and how do you convert the binaries in llvm IR without llvm-qemu?? anyway it's againt the eula so bw would really need to be blackboxed while cutting edges with new technologies and not supporting things like bnet or custom games, just the basic multiplayer game with a web app to actually launch games.
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
I didn't know they tried to emulate Muta Stacking in SC2 but failed .
That is a load of BS. Adding in muta stacking to SC2 is extremely easy. Unit pathing is more of a problem for the engine.
Wow, WarCraft actually works. And since there is no way they had the source code, this means some nerd reverse engineered it and ported it.
Pretty sure it was already done a long time ago in freecraft. Warcraft 2 logic is extremely simple compared to starcraft though.
I don't want to port StarCraft to Java Script (Which I think is what this guy did to WarCraft II, since it runs in a browser). I just want to reverse engineer it so I can add features. It'll still be C++, just like the original.
Reverse engineering to add features is something people have been doing for years, its not really a new idea. Reverse engineering to run on a browser is a whole different level of endeavor.
I considered porting SC1 to HTML5 as well... I think I could port a decent version within a couple of months with my existing HTML5 RTS engine, if I had access to game sprites and images....
Unfortunately, unlike C&C, there isn't easy access to the game/image data... If you know of any source, let me know and I would be glad to give it a shot.. I love SC...
I considered porting SC1 to HTML5 as well... I think I could port a decent version within a couple of months with my existing HTML5 RTS engine, if I had access to game sprites and images....
Unfortunately, unlike C&C, there isn't easy access to the game/image data... If you know of any source, let me know and I would be glad to give it a shot.. I love SC...
Wow, that would be SO cool. Keep up the good work !
On November 28 2012 18:32 Jonoman92 wrote: I guess everyone has their own anecdotal experiences... but thought I'd mentioned bw has always worked just fine for me in Windows 7 with no special effort. Sometimes the lobby colors are funny-lookin' but it's not too important and in-game is always fine! So, at least give it a try before deciding "it's too complicated."
Same, i have to run a registry every time before i start up BW and runs fine in W7 without any problem, the only issue is if i alt tab out, the lobby colors goes crazy
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I am not a computer expert but I beg to differ. If you don't have the source code in which the game engine was built upon, you are not going to be able to replicate a lot of the bugs and tricks you can do in game. Without those bugs and tricks, it is not SC. I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
I didn't know they tried to emulate Muta Stacking in SC2 but failed .
That is a load of BS. Adding in muta stacking to SC2 is extremely easy. Unit pathing is more of a problem for the engine.
Yeah that made me laugh out loud just now. They can make their engine do whatever they want, its just like their excuse for global play "the technology isn't here yet". Though it was in 98, and before then...
Just a note to everyone, this won't be compatible with the real StarCraft(you won't be able to play a multiplayer match with someone on the real client). The AI/pathing will be practically impossible to recreate
wow wow interesting development after a few pages of negativity
Afterall day9 is part of a team that is developing a browser RTS, so it should be fundamentally possible.
very nice links! so much nostalgia! The left clicking instead of right clicking takes time geting used to. Could add a function to make the left and right clicking more like bw. Anyway I completed 2 NOD missions, and it seems similar enough to the original CnC, great job!
I considered porting SC1 to HTML5 as well... I think I could port a decent version within a couple of months with my existing HTML5 RTS engine, if I had access to game sprites and images....
Unfortunately, unlike C&C, there isn't easy access to the game/image data... If you know of any source, let me know and I would be glad to give it a shot.. I love SC...
How did you port it without any source if I may ask?
Afterall day9 is part of a team that is developing a browser RTS, so it should be fundamentally possible.
There is a HUGE diffrence between creating one, and porting it without having any source code.
Yes I understand. I was referring to some of the posts stating that it's impoossible to create a browser based RTS, citing fundamental technical concerns.
On September 09 2015 01:05 therockmanxx wrote: there is a game the is very similiar to the mechanics you want. You might check it out littlewargame.com
Come to say that =) So far its the most advanced RTS browser i ever saw. Only downside is they mostly come from sc2 and u feel that in the game. (that broodwar in browser is fun but micro is ...)
On November 28 2012 14:17 quirinus wrote: Lol every time someone says something is easy, it's anything but.
thats the interesting paradox of computers.
things humans consider easy is often extremely hard for computers and vice versa.
for example, if you tried to ask a computer: does this picture have a bird in it? the computer would be super confused (it would have a hard time understanding the concept of a bird, even if you tried to teach it) but a human wouldn't have an issue.
if you asked a computer what the optimal route from address A to address B is, taking into account traffic conditions and weather, the computer would readily present you the answer approximately 2 seconds later (depending on computer prestanda) whereas a human would have to figure out where those addresses even are.
if you asked a computer what the proper english translation is for the swedish tounge twister: "far, får får får? nej min son, får får inte får, får får lamm" it would give you: "father, will be getting? no, my son , may not get the sheep, sheep , lambs" whereas a human will tell you the proper translation is: "father, do sheep get sheep? no my son, sheep do not get sheep, sheep get lambs"
you don't need the source code you probably don't need blizzard authorization as long as you only provide the code to use legal bw files to launch the game (but you dont provide the assets yourself)
I remember very clearly that Chris Sigaty tried so hard with his team to emulate muta stacking in SC2, they simply cannot do it because of a different game engine.
Everything is easier said than done, people should know that.
On November 28 2012 14:17 quirinus wrote: Lol every time someone says something is easy, it's anything but.
thats the interesting paradox of computers.
things humans consider easy is often extremely hard for computers and vice versa.
for example, if you tried to ask a computer: does this picture have a bird in it? the computer would be super confused (it would have a hard time understanding the concept of a bird, even if you tried to teach it) but a human wouldn't have an issue.
if you asked a computer what the optimal route from address A to address B is, taking into account traffic conditions and weather, the computer would readily present you the answer approximately 2 seconds later (depending on computer prestanda) whereas a human would have to figure out where those addresses even are.
if you asked a computer what the proper english translation is for the swedish tounge twister: "far, får får får? nej min son, får får inte får, får får lamm" it would give you: "father, will be getting? no, my son , may not get the sheep, sheep , lambs" whereas a human will tell you the proper translation is: "father, do sheep get sheep? no my son, sheep do not get sheep, sheep get lambs"
On September 09 2015 01:05 therockmanxx wrote: there is a game the is very similiar to the mechanics you want. You might check it out littlewargame.com
Come to say that =) So far its the most advanced RTS browser i ever saw. Only downside is they mostly come from sc2 and u feel that in the game. (that broodwar in browser is fun but micro is ...)
sc2? the game feels more like wc2 I really like it
I considered porting SC1 to HTML5 as well... I think I could port a decent version within a couple of months with my existing HTML5 RTS engine, if I had access to game sprites and images....
Unfortunately, unlike C&C, there isn't easy access to the game/image data... If you know of any source, let me know and I would be glad to give it a shot.. I love SC...
Hahaha, this is awesome! I love how everyone who has zero knowledge of html5 is like "No, it's not possible."
I considered porting SC1 to HTML5 as well... I think I could port a decent version within a couple of months with my existing HTML5 RTS engine, if I had access to game sprites and images....
Unfortunately, unlike C&C, there isn't easy access to the game/image data... If you know of any source, let me know and I would be glad to give it a shot.. I love SC...
Hahaha, this is awesome! I love how everyone who has zero knowledge of html5 is like "No, it's not possible."
As far as im aware its that their saying it not because of something to do with html5.
On November 29 2012 03:01 sluggaslamoo wrote: Impossible.
The logistics of transferring more than 100MB of spritesheets every time you load the game would make it unviable.
Performance is no problem at all. Running it in a browser or not makes no difference, you can run full 3d games in a browser no problem, the issue is transferring all that data (which is why most big games don't run in a browser), you may as well make it an installable game.
that command and conquer browser recreation is amazing... just think of all the problems BW could eliminate if it wasn't bound to a 1998 bnet system, and color fixes, and launchers, and ladders, etc etc etc...
the HTML5 game was shut down because it was gaining too much publicity and Blizzard have to take action to show they still enforce their copyright like what Ty2 said (otherwise people will ask questions on why Blizzard isn't doing anything, Blizzard is finally allowing people to use their assets? etc.)
obviously Blizzard knows about torrents/illegal dls but its torrents they won't/can't really do much Like other big companies they usually close an eye since its not really affecting their overall sales and bottom line (plus piracy does help in publicity)
and anyway with the exception of a 5 year old promise called LotV, Blizzard are moving towards the F2P model in their newest games so piracy becomes a non-issue.
On October 12 2015 05:05 Biolunar wrote: Why is iCCup allowed to distribute a cracked version of BW then?
They're not allowed.
Interesting to think what would have happened if they had taken action against PGT or iCCup or Fish or any variant. Were the bots WGT used on official battle.net even technically allowed?
Blizzard doesn't release games all that often, so I think they kind of do rely on having people play their games for years. If all these volunteer organizations hadn't done it for them, they might have had to actually fix the ladder, and I sort of believe they would have given how long they supported the Diablo 2 ladder. Though I think it would be a poorer experience with more cheaters running freely.
On December 02 2012 02:55 peacenl wrote: As a programmer of a few network games I can tell you that it's most likely too server intensive (latency would be terrible when you use website URL calls instead of plain optimized network packets).
The problem is that strategy games require you to poll every time and await a result (a few times a second preferably). While 3D shooters poll the same way, they can skip a few poll iterations of the networked game loop because it will catch up in the end (and retrace the missing steps) and usually not influence the game outcome. With strategy games this is very different, the information send from one to another can not be lost or ignored, because it might change the outcome of the game for one player.
Luckily there are some languages that can exert more control over this, so by using such languages it could be possible, but it's very time consuming even if you manage to get the source code.
You're not a good programmer if you think you can't achieve low latency socket connections from a browser.
On October 13 2015 09:01 Dumbledore wrote: You're not a good programmer if you think you can't achieve low latency socket connections from a browser.
Coincidentally the browser RTS Day9 is involved in, Atlas, listed this as one of the reasons they're now offering a native client and might not even ship the game as playable in the browser.
I don't think they're using website URL calls though but apparently it can still be an issue.
On October 13 2015 02:04 Antisocialmunky wrote: A Broodwar HTML5/JS thing is nice but why not just make a new rts that is a spiritual successor?
Its basically what those Artillery people used to advertise their platform (though it seems like a bad vaporware version of unity at this point).
hey, i'm all for a spiritual successor too.. an rts that rewards both skill and composure under high apm. with regards to Artillery, last i heard it was a 3v3 moba rts TCG mashup
On October 13 2015 04:06 GGzerG wrote: I guess its b/c iCCup server is in Russia, and Blizzard won't be able to bring Vladimir Putin to court. XD
On October 13 2015 09:01 Dumbledore wrote: You're not a good programmer if you think you can't achieve low latency socket connections from a browser.
Coincidentally the browser RTS Day9 is involved in, Atlas, listed this as one of the reasons they're now offering a native client and might not even ship the game as playable in the browser.
I don't think they're using website URL calls though but apparently it can still be an issue.
I don't recall all the specifics, but the man himself said it will still certainly run in-browser, in addition to having a native client, whatever that entails. Whether or not it ships as a browser game, the reason won't be because it wasn't possible.
On October 14 2015 07:14 NewSunshine wrote: I don't recall all the specifics, but the man himself said it will still certainly run in-browser, in addition to having a native client, whatever that entails. Whether or not it ships as a browser game, the reason won't be because it wasn't possible.
We may decide not to allow play in the browser when the game launches, if we think that the browser experience won't do justice to the game, or if the presence of a browser player in a game negatively impacts that game for other players, due to longer load times, lag, etc.
Don't want to split hairs about what something being possible means but sounds like there certainly are challenges involved in making it work at a pleasing level at this point.
EPT
), its a DMCA restriction. ICCup and Fish run on PvPGN, which is the second coming of bnetd. You may not be familiar with bnetd, but it was sued into the ground by Blizzard for violating the DMCA. PvPGN remedied this by only reversing network packets to construct the server (a variant of clean room techniques), and by basing themselves in countries not as friendly with US law.
.
