It's not the JavaScript part that is interesting, but the fact that it's running in a browser. In fact, "Diablo (alpha) in Browser" would've been a more appropriate title. And it's interesting because, well, it's programmed for a browser, which is made of open-standards.
And I know people will complain about how "we were doing this kind of stuff in the 90s", but I still think it's quite an accomplishment given that it's programmed at a much higher-level of abstraction than the original Diablo (which was C and some machine code).
But I still think it's stupid to have games in the browser. The browser does not take full advantage of the hardware - it shouldn't, it's made for content and information. Its priorities are security (sandbox) and accessibility.
So it's gonna be a while before we'll see games - that require lots of raw machine code processing - in the browser. Because in principle, if browsers give accessible raw processing power, they'll suffer on security. And it's proven really hard to have the best of the both worlds, otherwise today we would have mainstream cutting-edge graphic games available in the browser.
And I know people will complain about how "we were doing this kind of stuff in the 90s", but I still think it's quite an accomplishment given that it's programmed at a much higher-level of abstraction than the original Diablo (which was C and some machine code).
But I still think it's stupid to have games in the browser. The browser does not take full advantage of the hardware - it shouldn't, it's made for content and information. Its priorities are security (sandbox) and accessibility.
So it's gonna be a while before we'll see games - that require lots of raw machine code processing - in the browser. Because in principle, if browsers give accessible raw processing power, they'll suffer on security. And it's proven really hard to have the best of the both worlds, otherwise today we would have mainstream cutting-edge graphic games available in the browser.
And we don't, we have 90s games.