Posted by solcloud 10/22/2024
You could make asynchronous servers using socket_select(), which was added in PHP 4.1.
https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.socket-select.php
There was also a third party extension that added threads to PHP 15 years ago, although it was buggy.
Reminds me of ReactPHP (no, not that React) that allowed you to do non-blocking I/O in PHP back in like 2012-2013 sometime. Maybe that's the library you're referring to actually?
Seems they still have the docs up: https://www.php.net/manual/en/book.pthreads.php
I don't know enough about PHP to understand this comment. Can you elaborate?
we have a linter that bitches anytime anyone uses php's empty. In fact, php has tons of these weird behaviours mostly masaradng as trying to be helpful
There are no dependencies besides threejs. No typescript or build pipeline. Actually fun to just read the code.
JavaScript modules are scoped, so nothing can be accessed outside unless explicitly exported.
FYI, you don't even need an IIFE. ES modules are block-scoped by default.
// Instead of,
let foo
(function() {
const bar = 1
foo = bar
})()
// `bar` is out of scope here
// You can just,
let foo
{
const bar = 1
foo = bar
}
// `bar` is out of scope here too> This is low violence game
I love this description for a game that is all about shooting others in face, planting/defusing bombs and trying to survive while being shot at.
As a side-note, has the OP ever seen a football field? :) Seems to have a bunch of crosses and other out-of-place lines, but I guess the football isn't the focus so probably matters the least :)
Sorry, small tangent. This project is still super impressive and I have played thousands of hours of CS so it's cool to see.
This is overly dismissive, and the sort of thing I'd expect on Reddit.
If you look at the most critically praised and fan praised AAA game of the last.. decade? It's Baldur's Gate 3. In the AAA-budget-quality space there's enough games out there released in the last few years without guns to keep you busy - Disco Elysium, Stardew Valley, Elden Ring, Minecraft, Persona, Witcher, Total War, Alan Wake(*) Stellaris are all in my "recently played" and there's no guns. Generally RPG, Strategy, racing, platformer style games avoid guns for the most part.
You've got AAA games that have guns in them that aren't focused on shooting - Xcom, Fallout come to mind where the guns are just a visual representation of a dice roll.
I know you mentioned "big budget gaming", but there's oodles of small budget games to play too. Balatro, Pacific Drive, Against the Storm, Dredge, Inscryption are all games I've played this year with no guns in them.
Fallout might not be ‘focused on shooting’, but it still has the look of a typical FPS game. It’s as if game developers have mostly converged on a standard game design. There are exceptions, but there’s still so much untapped room to be more creative.
I think it is true that most money in the games industry goes into making games that heavily feature guns. Films are the same; even the seemingly non-violent premises apparently have to involve constant peril and frequent (gun) violence. Maybe it’s a particularly American thing.
I think there's some subjectivity in most critically acclaimed game, and decade. TLOU Part 2 [0] is "slightly" lower than BG3 [1] (to the point you're well into subjectivity), and the remaster [2] technically falls out of the decade criteria by 6 months. I think at the point you're arguing about trying to objectively clarify the best subjective option.
> named a whole slew of “indie” titles.
I named a whole slew of indie titles (in a separate category to things like BG3, Elden Ring, Withcher, Total War, but nonetheless) because the boundaries are fuzzy. Do you mean indie budget (Stardew valley definitely falls into that, but it's an incredibly polished experience, to the level of many AAA games), do you mean "a small team" like Dave the Diver [3], do you mean no publisher - Star Citizen is an indie game by that metric, with it's "indie" budget of $700 million. Or CDPR - they _are_ a publisher, funding their own games (that meet the no-guns criteria too IMO - Cyberpunk 2077 has guns but playing it like a third person shooter isn't really how the game is set up).
I deliberately used the "AAA-budget-quality" term to try and differentiate that; it's subjective (like all art and art reviews are), but for the most part, people (in my opinion) are talking about differentiating "production quality" when they talk about AAA and non-AAA games. First and second party studio games like Zelda, Mario, Crash Bandicoot, had small development teams and budgets that make many definitely-PC-indie games (e.g. Hades) look like blockbusters in comparison.
[0] https://opencritic.com/game/8351/the-last-of-us-part-ii [1] https://opencritic.com/game/9136/baldurs-gate-3 [2] https://opencritic.com/game/234/the-last-of-us-remastered [3] https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/keighley-weighs-in-...
It was a shortcut around the points you made. Minecraft _was_ made by one person, and is now a team of who knows how many people for the best part of a decade. Stardew valley I think is a great example where it's an incredibly polished experience to the point that the polish level is up there with AAA games.
> and probably several of the others you’re talking about.
And you're ignoring the game of the _decade_ - a $100m follow up to one of the most loved games of all time.
> Fallout might not be ‘focused on shooting’, but it still has the look of a typical FPS game.
You mean it has a gun in it, and it's in first person? If that's your gauge for a shooter game then I don't think you're informed enough to have a discussion on this topic. A game or movie with nudity in it isn't pornographic any more than a game with a gun in it is a shooter.
> It’s as if game developers have mostly converged on a standard game design.
You're just spouting nonsense now. Here [0] is a list of the top games of this year. Only one of the top 10 is a shooter (And it's a critically acclaimed final expansion to a 7 year old game that has shown how to do a fun shooter). If you go back to 2023, you'll see the same.
> I think it is true that most money in the games industry goes into making games that heavily feature guns
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Of course mnost money goes into games that heavily feature guns; because if you look at absolute spend on development and marketing costs, pretty much everything is going to be dwarfed by Call of Duty. Meanwhile you have Baldur's Gate 3 which again, is probably the best received game of the decade, Cyberpunk (one of the most expensive games made), Star Citizen (lol), Genshin Impact - all of which are _not_ based on guns (but may contain them to some extent) with mind numbing amounts of money being spent on development.
I am a Fallout diehard, but you and I both know combat was the worst part of those games. Imagibe how a Fallout calibre game without combat could be fun and you might start to see what I mean. All that amazing lore, story and worldbuilding and then the only activity we come up with is combat. Snooze fest.
This is a very subjective discussion of course.
That's not what I meant, but even if it was I think my point stands. There are too many 'first person games with guns' in general. It's hard to imagine the possibilities precisely because the market is so saturated with monotony.
> spouting nonsense
By the way, your response seems unnecessarily aggressive. Sorry if you interpreted mine as such; that wasn't the intention.
To address your list of games: it's worth observing that they all fit very neatly into categories (shooter, fighter, platformer, etc.), so I do think this shows a lack of creativity. Even within each category, there are similarities — every game seems to build on the existing idioms that have built up over the last thirty years or so, and that's without mentioning all the firearms paraphernalia and language that is standard in most big-budget games.
But the same is true of music and film and probably everything else, so it's probably just that my taste is unusual. I'm aware of that.
I actually think Minecraft was a good example of fresh game design — it didn't fit into any of those categories. Hell, it didn't even have much of an objective and it certainly didn't feel like a reskinned version of a thousand other games.
Again, not opposed just bored. I seek out non-violent games not for the lack of violence but because they have interesting mechanics. Violence/combat is the majority of top selling games, top played games. That has been true for decades.
Pacific Drive was a gem and the level of creativity I hope more studios to aim for. Another great example was Jusant. There is indeed no shortage of great indie games with what I am after. Sim games, farming/life games, factory/automation games, puzzle games are all great examples of non-combat genres with decent budgets too. But you do find there's usually just one or two big hitters, as it's a smaller market.
four of the most successful (perhaps iconic) games in history do not exactly meet your description in any meaningful way: baldurs gate franchise, warcraft franchise, different mmo franchises, diablo franchise.
but let's take your description and apply them to iconic fps over the years:
doom, ok shooty mc shooty goes shootin -- doomguy agrees. but theres a lot more to doom than just shooting.
cs source: nah sorry tactical strategy is not shooty mc shooty goes shootin.
quake world up to quake live/quake champions: nah sorry tactical strategy and fps-chess (duel) is not shooty mc shooty goes shootin.
halo franchise: epic sci-fi campaign story which was differentiating at the time AND tactical strategy -- while it sorta fits your description, it also sorta bucks it in the face because it was praised for its campaign as well as its online play.
overwatch: role-based tactical strategy.
battle royal genre: kinda shooty mc shootin goes shooting, but on hard mode with variance and.. tactical strategy requirement.
i mean the list goes on. reducing the surface area of FPS games historically to just some reddit meme bc it gets a lot of updoots makes me think you do not have a ton of experience playing shooters historically or otherwise (happy to be proven wrong here).
marketing is strong.
I have been playing FPS, guns or no guns, for 25 years. I also vehemently seek nuanced, interesting and intelligent game mechanics, and there is certainly many amazing games that fit the bill.
I am well informed, this is just my desire and not a fact or what I think should happen.
At any rate, the comments in defense so far have told me some of the most popular games are not shooters, and then that there are shooters with depth. No dispute there. I probably should have not been so pithy and stated it's combat in general, not shooters.
I also make games in my spare time, so I am at least practising what I preach. I think combat is a crutch for the gaming industry, and I would love to see more mechanics be explored with the budget a typical combat focused game gets. Gimme a AAA first person puzzle explorer ala Obduction, Pacific Drive, Viewfinder. Imagine a Fallout scale narrative exploration game that doesn't require combat to fill in the gameplay.
Cyberpunk is a fantastic story and exploration game, with interludes of stat based combat. I have spent hours just wandering the city and finding the cool hidden stories, but most 90% turn into 5 minute combat crescendos that add nothing to the story, while super obvious mechanics that would match the story go unexplored. That's more or less what annoys me, it's not a big deal I just find it a shame.
Again, I don't exactly care what other people play or do, this is just what I want.
The client is a lot of JavaScript (with graphics via Three.js)
on more humor side there is also php cli interface (https://github.com/solcloud/Counter-Strike/blob/master/cli/c...), but unless you have fancy matrix like font in your terminal emulator you probably do not see woman in red dress laying on pitch :)
We simply aren't discussing how to prove his identity, just how to contact him (or whoever he could be impersonating) when he didn't provide contact info.
those are very dissimilar licenses in the sense that wtfpl is basically a cute way of putting something into the public domain, while MIT et. al. do actually have (albeit minor and reasonable) restrictions on the conduct of people using the code.
So I can take it and reuse it exactly as is and claim it's my own and sell it on Steam for $60 a pop?
So I can take it and use your name that is surely somewhere in the code and fill it with swastikas and hate speech and say that this represents your views?
Or more reasonably since I don't see a license this is copy written reserving All Rights and anything said here is just a trap you're just waiting for me to do something cool with it then hit me with a lawsuit and take my money, right?
But more seriously head over to the open source initiative read up on a couple of licenses and pick one. Almost any license will prevent people from using your name but let other people use the code if that's a thing you want.
If you just want to protect your name and let people use the code for whatever even making money consider an MIT or BSD Style license.
If you want (to protect your name and for) other people to be able to use the code but need to share their changes consider a GPL style license. This will complicate other people making money but doesn't strictly prohibit it.
If you don't want (the previous stuff and for) other people to be able to prevent people from selling it you might want to use something like a Creative Commons non-commercial license, I won't be perfect but there are flowcharts you can follow to figure out which license works for you.
That has nothing to do with the game being free. If you dedicate source code to public domain and someone slaps swastikas on it, it doesn't represent OP's views all of a sudden
More likely people just won't use it without a license.
free software is software you don't have to pay money to use, it doesn't matter if you have access to the code or not.
source available means the source is available on request and with restrictions to keep it private. doesn't matter if the software is free or not.
> [common; also adj. open-source] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term “free software”.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html
I looks like open source means more that just ability to read the code.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
If someone uses a term like "open source" in a way that is clearly different from how you understand the word, that doesn't make them wrong. All it does it highlight a different perspective.
You can attempt to tell them that they are wrong to use the term that way. It's changing the topic and distracts from the point, so if that's your goal, go for it. Most people don't react well to it. You can think that they should be okay with it, but people don't tend to react well to that either.
it's your choice.
This is a daily thing in my experience, often internalized to the point I don't notice until reflecting later. It doesn't feel like friction to me. This is the unavoidable nature of trying to connect with someone using language.
Ditto (first tech job was in '87).
So I guess you are saying that you're aware that "open source" means a specific thing to many people in this field, but are going to use it in a confusing (to many) way rather than using the unloaded "source available"? You do you, but don't expect everyone to agree to switch from this fairly common usage. Makes it look like you're just searching for an argument.
Free software is software that grants the four essential freedoms [0]. It doesn't matter if it's gratis or not.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
But source available would be the term to use if one wants to point out that the source is on github.
He expressed anxiety and unfamiliarity with adding a license he didn't understand. Not to mention multiple users started arguing over the best license, further highlighting why he shouldn't just trust random internet comments and actually look into it. You're going to harass him for it? Do you own his time for the next week because he made a post on HN? Because that attitude is way more harmful to OSS than what you're up in arms about.
Furthermore, this is colloquially open-source to most people, and you're hung up on semantics. Anybody that needs to care about a license can look and see if one is there. If it's so simple to understand a license and add it to your project in such a short span of time, surely it's simple to check for the existence of one in the first place.
Not a great response. Do you know where you are right now?
(It's kinda weird, because to make a PR, I had to make a fork, and then I added the licence to my fork, even though I'm not allowed to pick the licence, but )
Github has an overview of some of your options: https://github.com/readme/guides/open-source-licensing
Something similar to OpenArena for quake but for cs 1.6.
Could be built on top of https://github.com/Velaron/cs16-client
I was very impressed with the level of detail and meticulous implementation. The level of control and posible automation is high, I feel that it should reasonate with most tech oriented ppl
If anyone wants to play my in game username is [ZWD]_jaan, just add me as a friend and I can intro you to the basic concepts (im still a noob tho), we can play a coop game or find a noob lobby :)