Quake II GWT port proves HTML5 isn't just for video
By Donald Melanson 
posted April 2nd 2010 6:07PM
posted April 2nd 2010 6:07PM
There's no question that HTML5 is good for more than just video, but if anything will put that misconception to rest, it's Quake II running in a browser. Apparently built by a trio of Google developers in their spare time, the Quake II GWT port uses a HTML5 canvas and WebGL for graphics acceleration (also seen demoed on the N900), which seem to get the job done remarkably well -- although it's still a long ways from running on certain non-Flash-equipped devices. Then again, this project was revealed on April 1st, but quite a few folks have already reported success in getting it up and running -- so, unless there's a global conspiracy to dash our hopes and dreams (always a possibility), it seems to be the real deal. Head on past the break to check it out in action.
Is it me or does that look like shit?
@Mrwirez
That's how the original game looked. It is 13 years old after all.
@Mrwirez Well, it's Quake II. It's been more than 10 years since I played it but I'm sure it looked pretty much like that.
Time will take even the most mind blowing graphics and make them look like shit eventually.
@Lord Vader
Doth Lord Vader not know proper English?
*Prepares for force choke*
@Mrwirez
Believe it or not, Crysis will look just as bad as this in 10+ years and will be running in a browser on HTML91
@Lord Vader Sir: There is no rebel base on Endor(at least until after you die)
@JW You mean Crysis will look just as bad compared to the current games. I have high doubts it will decrease its graphics to Quake 2.
@Jacinth
Yea thats what I mean.
before you know it you will be able to play crysis from a browser
Will people shut up NOW?? Still no ... ::shrug:: whatever.
That's exactly the same thought I had when I first seen the Rebel Alliance's base on Endor too
HTML 5 leaves me quaking...
Quake Live without a plugin? Yes please!
How much spare time to Google developers have? Seems a lot of their products come out of that 20% spare time thing they do?
Eh. Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon. By the time HTML5 is on par to where Flash is today, Flash will be miles ahead and most likely be taking advantage of those things HTML5 has to offer: less resource consumption, higher frame rate, etc.
@Scape3d Unfortunately Adobe do not know of this 'less resource consumption' you speak of.
@richb93
Like Firefox, IE, Safari (especially) doesn't know too. I mean 40MB to just run a browser is asking a lot.
In the end, cram too many features into a software application and you will end up with bloatware, guaranteed.
@recharged95
Yeah, 40 whole megabytes!
...welcome to the 21st century, where we measure RAM in gigabytes.
@recharged95 Yeah, and while 40MB might be a lot, the performance of Google's browser if you are short on memory is a lot worse when you have multiple tabs open. They need to essentially re-render pages when you switch tabs, its miserable and I'm a Google fanboy, I wish I never had to ditch my desktop where it was my browser of choice.
@recharged95 40MB of my 12GB!?!?!? Nooooooooooooooooo
No firefox? what the deal? Does it have to be built specifically per browser?
Yup.
@Slick
": We would love to support FireFox. I think we would not have WebGL today without Vladimir Vukićević's pioneering work on Canvas 3D and WebGL. Actually FireFox was the first browser to support Canvas 3D: http://blog.vlad1.com/2007/11/26/canvas-3d-gl-power-web-style/
The main problem with FireFox is JavaScript performance: While WebGL shifts a lot of the work to the graphics card, there is still a significant amount of JavaScript code that needs to be executed. The frame rates we saw when doing experiments with FireFox were just too low to make the game playable" - Google Dude
This is not something you're likely to be running straight on your Android, iPhone/iPad, browser or even a Windows netbook.
@TheGM
thanks
@TheGM
but maybe a windows netbook w/ Ion / Ion 2 me thinks
@Slick
because firefox is a slow piece of sh#t. all chrome needs now is IE9 style graphics acceleration of javascript and it will FLY
So, no mention that this seems to be running on a Mac? The jewel buttons seem to indicate that.
@stg30rg3 Isn't that kinda obvious?
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget for me to notice, yeah, but what? No vitriol? No hyperbole? Not even a "Quake II: the state of the art gaming on the Mac" cracks?
... people are playing nice... Darn you, engadget, and your reasonable contributors!
Actually, given the state of affairs between Google and Apple these days, I'm kind of surprised. I'd have figured Goodle guys would go for Chrome.
I think flash's carbon footprint is bigger than a small country if you consider all the excess of power needed to run it.
New world power policy: kill flash save zillions of kw/h.
God bless google for letting employees use their paid time for awesoness like this.
@Drago
Err... you do know that the current builds of HTML 5 use more processing cycles than Flash for some applications, right?
@MarkAnderson
You mean if flash is 100% idle? Sure. But not if it's doing anything. Also, flash requires a proprietary plug in, HTML5 does not. Game over.
I guess hitting next, next, finish to install plugins is so complicated. And yes HTML 5 will use more CPU cycles while flash will utilize GPU which will be more efficient.
@Jack
Oh shut up. Seriously. You were funny for a bit but now your neurotic aggressive troll persona is just boring.
Go do some research or better still die in a fire.
So, the only real contribution here from the current html5 standards are the tag and the possibility of local storage larger than what was allowed with cookies?
Seems a stretch to credit javascript/java plugins an HTML5 feat of engineering.
HTML doesn't even have a standardized video codec yet to use one of the only real innovations of HTML5 ().
color me unimpressed.
@nickmcel
THANK YOU. Well said.
Flash rendering is far more superior that to html5. You get more FPS. Keep trying Apple, I'm not impress... Yet!
@cdf74dc9
Apple what? Apple had nothing to do with this. Are you always this dense?
let the party get start let the gibs fly ,let the blood flow!,,,yea and can it run crysis ?
i see the future of gaming.
People forgot most site still depend on Flash, it will take a decade before we see majority of site suppor HDMI5.
@techlord
Someone needs to learn about "Internet Time"
Nothing takes "a decade" around here.
@techlord Yeah, Maybe a couple of years. I was surprised how fast Firefox is dwindling. Thats internet time for you.
People who are familiar with HTML5 or at least follow the development of HTML 5 knows that WebML (aka OpenGL for web) is fairly capable.
The only thing missing from HTML 5 that can't exactly replace Flash is probably webcam support.
props for the neato factor, but at the end of the day this is still a 13 year old game running like crap in a browser.
What started out being able to run at 60fps on a pentium 200 now gets 15fps on a 3ghz dual core.
I know what will be happen...........S will say "Web GL should Die, it is memory and battery hog"
Here's a clear comparison between HTML5 vs Flash 10.1 on the Nexus One, and the iMac:
http://phandroid.com/2010/04/01/speed-test-flash-vs-html5-on-the-nexus-one/
Judge for yourselves...
@TareG
Michael Chaize is a Platform Evangelist for Adobe Flash
Why can't he just run Hulu on Nexus One, I really want to see it LOL
anyways the fact that they are comparing HTML5 to Flash says a lot about how scared Adobe is.
So HTML5 allows Mac users to finally play games on their computers?
@exenter Poor joke. I can run every PC game on my mac.