ENIGMA Development Environment

Harri, there is a reason too obvious to bother mentioning why the newest Call of Duty will run fast and smoothly on the Xbox as a compiled standalone binary but be completely unplayable, incompatible and suck rooster balls if ported to html5/shit5.

It wouldn't work not because of speed differences, but standard differences. WebGL is based on GLES, which means it is a subset of OpenGL and so has slightly less features. But still allows a great deal of games to be made (everything running on a phone, is based on GLES, even the "native" ones).

Also, all browsers that disable java by default prompt you whether to enable it automatically, which takes one click, oh fucking my, one extra click, guess using java isn't an option and isn't as good because it requires one fucking click.

It's not only that. Even if I do enable it, most of applets on the web don't work for some reason. And for me they really do work slower than pure HTML5 implementations. I often find applets for physics experiments when studying, and those that work are often VERY slow (taking into account that they usually solve 1 equation in real-time).

I've never met anyone who complained about installing or updating java, it take 2 minutes, and I've definitely never met someone who's too damn lazy to install or update it. Big whoop.

Well, you are going to meet a lot of people like that in the near future. Just like people don't want to use flash for anything anymore.

HTML5 / JS is not native, it's sandbox'd and interpreted.

Sandboxing doesn't mean it's not native and they are actually not interpreted. JS, for example, is usually compiled when you open the page, so when you run a game or something similar, then you are actually running bytecode native to your PC.

The big difference between JavaScript, Java, and native is the amount of runtime support crap they use. JavaScript is dynamically typed and uses hash tables for most variable lookups. asm.js is a specific subset of JavaScript that is closer to native in this way, and it gets within half native speed on FireFox (nothing else optimizes for it specifically). In fact, Mozilla has demoed running Unreal Engine in the browser by compiling it to asm.js using emscripten.

I was actually referring to asm.js previously. That is why I said that the fact you can run UnrealEngine in browser without any plugins, just shows how powerful and fast the thing can be. Unreal4 also runs in a browser now.

"Native" is "compiled to machine code", usually NOT with a JIT.

When I searched for "native", then wikipedia has the definition as "Something running on a computer natively means that it is running without any external support as contrasted to running in emulation" and while it does need extenral support (the JIT compiler), after it is compiled it still runs native machine code. So I guess it's mostly a definition issue.

Java is statically typed but forces crappy memory layout, requires the one object paradigm to rule them all, and is poorly integrated into the browser. It is much faster than JavaScript, even asm.js, at most things. Yes, even though it's in a plugin. That doesn't really affect it as it's no more layered than JavaScript in the actual things that get done.

Actually back in 2013 it was determined that asm.js runs faster that Java in most things. Sometimes asm.js worked faster than native C++ (even though the ams.js was generated from the same code). http://www.i-programmer.info/news/167-javascript/6238-java-asmjs-or-native-which-is-faster.html

I think now the difference is even more noticeable. And it's not only Mozzila. You can find cool stuff for chrome here: http://www.chromeexperiments.com/

And all of them run with 40+FPS on my AMD laptop which isn't that great (i3 CPU, ATI mobility radeon etc.).
http://alteredqualia.com/three/examples/webgl_terrain_dynamic.html
http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/webgl-water-simulation/

So I don't see how a 3rd party plugin would really run better than a HTML5 game, because they would probably both use WebGL which is as native, as OpenGL.

Native runs much better and faster because its native. JS/Html5-next is not native. Java is much better and can run native binaries.

JS/HTML5 IS native. Because I don't know what you mean by "native", but for me it means "compiled to bytecode". And JS is compiled to bytecode for years now (starting with Google V8 if I remember correctly). Java is also compiled on runtime, but it actually is slower most of the time. Mostly because Java usually works as a plugin, so there is another layer between hardware and the program.

More browsers are supported by java than WebGL, WebGL, especially it's 3D won't run on most browsers.

Java is plugin. Whether or not Java is runnable purely depends on whether the user has Java enabled. I, for example, cannot run any Java applets in my browser. It's not that I don't want to, but because of security reasons Firefox has disabled it for me. And I really don't miss it. On the other hand HTML5 and WebGL run just fine. Also, the only browser struggling with WebGL is IE (and it struggles with everything). WebGL is 100% functional in Firefox, Chrome and Safari for years.

I do like HTML5 and JS. It's not really slow just because it's HTML5. It's usually slow because it's coded badly. There are many badass HTML5 examples out there. Even Unreal Engine3 worked in pure HTML5/JS/CSS without any plugins. I think plugins are the thing of the past. Flash sucks, so does Silverlight. HTML5 that works everywhere with WebGL is a lot cooler. Like check this out: http://madebyevan.com/webgl-water/
Works without slowdowns for me. Of course wouldn't be that good for a phone.

However I have a question, it looks like the game end event executes everything linearly (not like a step)

EVERYTHING in ENIGMA executes linearly. Including step event. So of course you cannot drawn anything from game end event to the screen, just like you cannot do it from step or key press. Drawing happens in draw event. What you want is "Close button" check event and Esc key event. There you check if the user wants to close your game. Then you set a variable like "close_popup = true; alarm[0] = room_speed*3;" and in draw event do "if (close_popup == true) draw_text("Game will end in 3 seconds!");". In alarm[0] you just put game_end(). Or you can just do "room_goto(room_end);" and then have an alarm to end it there.

So what game end event does is call the event when the game ends (magical, isn't it?). And after that event there isn't any other event. So no drawing, no step, no alarm, nothing. It's the last event your game calls. So you shouldn't add text prompts in there. The point of game end event is to release resources, change back resolution, write save to file and so on.

So true, but then again there is the psychological factor of people playing against other live human beings and feeling right up there and powerful as they go on a frag frenzy

If multiplayer is bad, then it doesn't matter if you fight humans or AI's. Today most people play multiplayer games like BF4 or COD. On the other hand competitive multiplayer is either Starcraft or LoL. The difference between them is that one has a lot of luck - weapons damage is 'from - to'. Starcraft and LoL has constant very precise damage. LoL has critical hits, but that is about the only thing on percentage right now. They removed everything else like that because competitive multiplayer needs to be about skill, not about random number generator. And while competitive multiplayer is not really "casual", the same logic actually applies to casual games as well. Counter-Strike, for example, was and is quite casual (with a large competitive aspect of course). But there is also very little random involved. The most popular casual game that did this was Quake3 - almost every weapon in that game shoots with 100% precision, so you don't have to rely on luck, but skill.

With "casual" in this context I meant "popular". Like Quake3 of course was very competitive, but it was also a game everyone played.

and the cardboard box and DVD would end up in the recycling bin, smashed to smithereens !

That just shows how today people have anger issues and lack patience. It's in no way a good thing and shouldn't be bragged about.

Some people have all the time to spend playing games, some don't.....

Grown people in the 80's and 90's had as much time as we have now. So lack of time isn't a good reason on why games need to be easy.

That's exactly my point !

Your point seemed to be that regenerative healing is arcade, but picking up healthpacks is simulator. I said that none of those are simulators.

If these games were based off realistic models, people would probably not play them but only a single digit percentage who like them.

DayZ, which basically is a simulator of sorts, is one of the most popular games on steam. Or at least previously was. Arma is also very popular and it's based on Operation Flashpoint which was also quite a simulator.

Are you kidding me ? Mario is easy ! also wen you died you didn't start the game all over, except if you lost all lives.  However in Mario there was a secret area with pipes where you could warp to selected levels.

I meant more like the arcade machine style. Like Metal Slug, where you had to put in money to get lives. So people actually had a reason to be good in it.

Nothing prevented a dev from using lots of graphics, sounds, resources, etc.  Under a killing moon came on 4 CDs packed  Monkey Island was multi CD, some other games were multi CD.

I was actually referring to games on floppy disks, not cd's. Like the late 80's and early 90's.

Good point, so I guess there is the "psychological" factor.  Making the player feel powerful, successful, etc. 

I am 98% convinced this is also because of kids. They are often so spoiled and get stuff without effort, that they want their games to be the same.

Which is the creepiest game you've ever played?

I don't really play that many creepy games. The last one I actually was scared of playing was Doom3 back in the day. Nothing else really comes to mind.

(yours is mainly about difficulty, but I like how you put it )

Well yes, for me it's the difficulty and challenge. I don't think it's valid to say old games had better "gameplay" as in retrospect they probably didn't have. There were very few rules, few possibilities and you just had to do the same thing all the time. And comparing "graphics" is also not very objectively. But they don't really make the game.

And I also think that maybe PC gaming could have a revival. We start to finally get games that previously where often console exclusives. So we get Watch Dogs, Wolfeinsten (want to play it for nostalgia sake. It also has healthpacks, so it has that going for it), Tom Clancy’s The Division. While they might not be good games, they at least come to PC. And as far as I know they won't be bad ports, but real PC games. That means better graphics, more features and so on.

any limit on the number of textures per page or not.I don't think there is a limit on that. Why should there be? The size of the texture page is important. It doesn't matter if you have 127 font characters in it or 1 sprite. So there is no need for any limit there. Just allow making an nxn texture page and either automatically pack it with as many sprites as possible, or allow the user to do so manually. The idea itself isn't complex. The problem is that we would have to rewrite basically all of drawing functions. Although maybe by modifying that texture struct we could be able to get away without doing much modification elsewhere.

I personally also think that modern games are too casual. With casual I mean that they target the lowest denominator. And in most cases those are 12 year olds. So they end up VERY easy (in a modern game playing on Normal/Hard I rarely fail more than once in the whole game). I remember playing everything from Doom and Quake to Starcraft and Diablo for weeks until I actually finished them. Today I finish single-player games in max 2 play sessions (so basically two days). The only games I play longer are RPG's like Skyrim or Fallout which sometimes turn into hundreds of hours (because I want to do EVERYTHING). But they are also very easy and when you play for about 16 hours you are basically unkillable. The only thing that can kill you is if you fall of a cliff in skyrim or if you blow yourself up with a nuke in Fallout.
There are also very few reasons to ever replay a game these days. While there was little reason to do so in the 90s as well, I still found myself playing a lot of the same games back then. I haven't really replayed a game in 4-5 years now. I plan to replay DeusEx:HE though.
Dev's often boast about "replayability" and yet there is basically no reason to do so. More stuff != replayability. Look at original Diablo3. If you finished it, then you basically didn't start it up again ever. And it has tons of stuff in it. You are just not interested in that. I hear it's slightly better in the expansion. On the other hand FTL:Faster Than Light - which has relatively few things in it, can make you play it 100 times over. Mostly because when you die you die. No checkpoints, no saves.
What I hate most about today's games though is regenerative healing. That thing took every challenge out of games. Stepped on a mine in Half-Life1 and don't have enough health left for a boss? Better reload. Stepped on a mine in Battlefield4? Stay put for 5 seconds and you will be alright.

I also remember point-and-click games (we called them "quest games") like Spacequest, Kindquest, Leisure Suite Larry etc. Those were fun. They actually required you to use your brains instead of clicking randomly. And they had a twisted sense of humor that is not really matched these days. Like in Spacequest where you could pick up an "unstable explosives" which basically blows you up at random time in the game and is totally useless as an item. Which meant that if you picked that item up in the first 5 minutes of the game, then you have to restart after playing hours. And I liked that in games - you could shoot yourself in the foot in the first 5 minutes and never know about it until hours later. It made you pay more attention to the game and in a sense "respect" it more. The same was in strategies as well. Even newer ones like Homeworld, where you had the instinct to build as many guys as possible, but you couldn't actually ever win by doing that. If you didn't attack in the first 10 minutes then you actually were already lost - you just didn't know that until 1 hour in the mission.

Another problem with today's games is consoles. Just like I said in the first line - Companies target the lowest denominator. That means consoles usually get the main games and consoles are often played by more children than PC. Even if not children, then VERY casual gamers indeed. That leads to problems I already mentioned before, but they also create new ones for PC games. Like ports are often crap (hint: Deus Ex 2) or they are dumb'd down. An example I would point out is Portal2. I was VERY disappointed in that game, because it had such great potential and yet it was so remarkably easy just because of consoles. Valve added several things to "simplify" the game and yet it was more offensive to people who actually think or can play than more helpful to those who need that simplification. I list some here:
1) Decals on walls. I hated when you could put portals only in VERY specific places and you could see those places a mile away. That meant there was very little figuring to do and just put portals there. But I get that it was usually needed for gameplay reasons (so players wouldn't have the possibility to "cheat"). But I hated the alternative even more - when I played the game I was so offended that they actually put decals on walls always pointing to where you need to have a portal. Like imagine a gray wall that has like a 2mx2m tiles where you could put portals. And in this tiled wall there is a one tile 1mx2m SPECIFICALLY were you have to put the portal. So they basically show you where to put the portal even if you could theoretically put it everywhere. So they took any required thinking out of it. And the reason I am saying that this is more offensive than helpful, is because people who actually need this hint, they don't see it. Like I have seen several Let's play's of Portal2. In all cases American players (don't want to be offensive, but I have noticed this is especially a problem for American players) don't actually notice those decals. They put portals everywhere and get frustrated and when they "figure it out" (guess) they are happy and feel accomplished. Yet if they just looked at the god damn wall they would have saved 10 minutes.
2) Every level had maximum of two gameplay elements. I remember watching Portal2 trailers showing a paint puzzle together with turrets, jumppads, anti-gravity beams and a timing puzzle with crushers at the same time. Yet in the final game every level was very underwhelming and took no effort to figure out. The longest I was stuck in a level in portal2 was about 15minutes when I played with a friend in Co-op and we were drunk in the middle of the night. So basically the game was "difficult" only when you are tired and drunk. And even then we figured it out sooner than many Lets players.
3) That freaking ball following to portals. I don't even think many people noticed this (which is part of the problem I guess), but the explosive balls near the end of the game FOLLOWED the portals. If you put a portal on the ground and trow the ball it will "magically" try hit the portal even if you thrown it imprecisely. I hated that so much. I am 100% sure that was for console gamers as it is a lot harder to aim precisely with a controller. But because of this they ruined any challenge in PC as well.

And there were more points as well. But long story short - the game sucked balls because of that. Story was okay, gameplay had potential, but the in the end I would have put it a 6/10 at best. I haven't played user made levels though. As valve released that cool level editor I believe someone has made levels worth playing.

I think there are three main reasons why games in the 80s and 90s were hard:
1) Games couldn't be long or complex back then because of hardware reasons. So they made them tough. They made them so tough most people didn't finish most of them.
2) PC demographics was mostly 20-40 year olds. Not many kids played games, so they didn't have to make it easy.
3) Everyone had a keyboard and mouse. So no auto-aim, no balls following portals and no button mashing.

Yes, I just checked and there is typo because of how triangle strips are handled. Thank you for reporting, I will maybe fix it in the evening.