EPTCounter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
eohs
United States677 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On August 13 2011 03:16 samd wrote: Inviting only source players was a REALLY REALLY big mistake by the developers. First, simply because source isn't as big of a competitive game (it would be like blizzard inviting top wc3 instead of BW players when they wanted to develop SC2), and second because it makes the 1.6 community immediately look at it with suspicious eyes. If they had even bothered to invite ONE 1.6 top player (like f0rest, neo, markeloff) or legend (like Heaton, xeqtr, spawn, ksharp, potti), it would have made a world of difference to the 1.6 community. http://www.hiddenpath.com/contact/ Thats hidden path's (developers of the game) contact info. I suggest everyone send them an email telling them they're dissapointed that no 1.6 players were invited to provide feedback. they really shouldve invited 1.6 players but your analogy is really weird, wc3 and bw are vastly different compared to css and 1.6 oh well it just seems to be a wait and see game | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
"Leaked screenshot of CS:GO http://i.imgur.com/PMAqD.jpg?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" | ||
|
CamTSU
United States93 Posts
Source was a failure, the gameplay is horrendous, the community is god awful and the "pro" players are a complete joke. 1.6 is what made the game popular and respected, source just showed how out of touch valve is with esports in general, or competitive gaming for that matter. It was developed to be a pub game, and it ruined the amazing gameplay that 1.6 had. It would be like if blizzard added heroes to starcraft 2 and then claimed it was the 'NEXT STARCRAFT!", it would have been rejected by the community, just as source was rejected from the esports community. | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
Bring in 1.6 players for god sake, source players have no idea of the greatness that was real counter-strike. It's true though, valve has had no success as far as competitive gameplay goes. CS 1.6 was awesome but it was some college kid who modded it. Then Valve goes and makes CS: Source and that shows you how incredibly shitty Valve can be. I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to ruin DOTA. Still, it's better than no news about CS 2 so hopefully they do all right with CSGO. | ||
|
Gorguts
Canada254 Posts
 | ||
|
fadestep
United States605 Posts
But Source was a badass game and as a CAL/CEVO/ESEA veteran of both games, they both have strengths and weaknesses and trying to play the hate game with CS:GO is pretty fucking dumb. Just wait and see. | ||
|
samd
United States77 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:36 CamTSU wrote: No rabidch, the analogy is spot on. Warcraft 3 is vastly different to bw, just as Source is vastly different to 1.6 Source was a failure, the gameplay is horrendous, the community is god awful and the "pro" players are a complete joke. 1.6 is what made the game popular and respected, source just showed how out of touch valve is with esports in general, or competitive gaming for that matter. It was developed to be a pub game, and it ruined the amazing gameplay that 1.6 had. It would be like if blizzard added heroes to starcraft 2 and then claimed it was the 'NEXT STARCRAFT!", it would have been rejected by the community, just as source was rejected from the esports community. Thanks for the post CamTSU. Just reminding anyone who cares about the future of esports to email the developers http://www.hiddenpath.com/contact/ (hidden path is the main devs, not valve), and let them know that they should get in contact with some 1.6 pros if they really want the community to unite under their next game. I already send them an email, suggest everyone does. | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:47 fadestep wrote: I know that hating Source is really hipster and cool and people who pubbed 1.6 for 3 hours like to do it because it makes them look like hardcore competitive gamers... But Source was a badass game and as a CAL/CEVO/ESEA veteran of both games, they both have strengths and weaknesses and trying to play the hate game with CS:GO is pretty fucking dumb. Just wait and see. source was a badass game? are you being serious? | ||
|
samd
United States77 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:47 fadestep wrote: I know that hating Source is really hipster and cool and people who pubbed 1.6 for 3 hours like to do it because it makes them look like hardcore competitive gamers... But Source was a badass game and as a CAL/CEVO/ESEA veteran of both games, they both have strengths and weaknesses and trying to play the hate game with CS:GO is pretty fucking dumb. Just wait and see. Its not really people hating the game (no one's even played it). Its Hidden Path/Valve's decision to ONLY invite source players to provide feedback. Its an extremely harsh snub against the 1.6 community. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:36 CamTSU wrote: No rabidch, the analogy is spot on. Warcraft 3 is vastly different to bw, just as Source is vastly different to 1.6 Source was a failure, the gameplay is horrendous, the community is god awful and the "pro" players are a complete joke. 1.6 is what made the game popular and respected, source just showed how out of touch valve is with esports in general, or competitive gaming for that matter. It was developed to be a pub game, and it ruined the amazing gameplay that 1.6 had. It would be like if blizzard added heroes to starcraft 2 and then claimed it was the 'NEXT STARCRAFT!", it would have been rejected by the community, just as source was rejected from the esports community. The diference between 1.6 and Source isn't even close to BW and W3. In fact, it is even less than between BW and SC2. If they kept the same units but added things like auto mine and MBS, maybe that would be a good comparison. It was a grossly exaggerated analogy, if someone that has not played 1.6 in a long time and only did it casually played Source, they wouldn't even notice most of the diferences. Source didn't add nothing new to the game, only changed some mechanics. | ||
|
soullogik
United States1171 Posts
but nothing can compare to 1.6. its just too good & i really hope cs2 lives up to 1.6 i agree with everyone else, inviting source players is a joke also the new engine update for source is the worst update ive ever seen in a game. ive played it once since then and was to horrified to continue the round. tldr : cs 1.x 4 life | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:51 SKC wrote: The diference between 1.6 and Source isn't even close to BW and W3. In fact, it is even less than between BW and SC2. If they kept the same units but added things like auto mine and MBS, maybe that would be a good comparison. It was a grossly exaggerated analogy, if someone that has not played 1.6 in a long time and only did it casually played Source, they wouldn't even notice most of the diferences. Source didn't add nothing new to the game, only changed some mechanics. Source changed all of the mechanics, added physics, changed footstep noise and distances, changed all of the gun mechanics (outside of damage), changed flashes/smokes. Basically, the only things that stayed the same between CS:S and 1.6 was the types of guns (and their costs) and the types of maps (and objectives). Pretty much all of the actual gameplay was altered. | ||
|
Mannerheim
766 Posts
e: the word I was looking for is "responsiveness". CS was extremely responsive, CS:S felt sluggish as hell in comparison. And it wasn't because of the higher system requirements either, it was by implementation. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:57 TheRabidDeer wrote: Source changed all of the mechanics, added physics, changed footstep noise and distances, changed all of the gun mechanics (outside of damage), changed flashes/smokes. Basically, the only things that stayed the same between CS:S and 1.6 was the types of guns (and their costs) and the types of maps (and objectives). Pretty much all of the actual gameplay was altered. That's very minor to a casual player, and very minor compared to what SC2 changed, even just mechanically, ignoring units. If 1.6 didn't exist and Source was released as the first CS, it wouldn't get all this shit it gets. Yes of course the sequel should be better and improve, 1.6 can be considered the better game, but people treat it like they were expecting 1.6 v2 and got Halo. It's not even close. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:03 SKC wrote: That's very minor to a casual player, and very minor compared to what SC2 changed, even just mechanically, ignoring units. If 1.6 didn't exist and Source was released as the first CS, it wouldn't get all this shit it gets. Yes of course the sequel should be better and improve, 1.6 can be considered the better game, but people treat it like they were expecting 1.6 v2 and got Halo. It's not even close. Its not minor at all, its a completely different game. I am/was a casual player, I never played in any leagues but I noticed every single change. If they had called CS:S Call of Duty, it wouldnt have gotten shit. It is a good game, but it is nothing like CS 1.6. People were expecting and wanting a graphically updated 1.6 and instead got a completely different game. Some might like that it is completely different, but its not what people were generally wanting at the time. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:51 SKC wrote: The diference between 1.6 and Source isn't even close to BW and W3. In fact, it is even less than between BW and SC2. If they kept the same units but added things like auto mine and MBS, maybe that would be a good comparison. It was a grossly exaggerated analogy, if someone that has not played 1.6 in a long time and only did it casually played Source, they wouldn't even notice most of the diferences. Source didn't add nothing new to the game, only changed some mechanics. source changed a lot, no doubt the game was very different but for people to say that its like comparing bw and wc3 thats just a bad analogy, no matter how bad you feel about css because bw and wc3 are just worlds apart in how you play them, heroes with items and mercenaries, micro, creeping, expanding, economy and macro. while css changed the game vastly it was still similar objectives with many of the same maps except with different mechanics, different feel, lots of bugs, and source engine abuse | ||
|
GrapeD
Canada679 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8097 Posts
From the looks of it, they probably wont ever be able to satisfy hardcore CS fans so I think the best course of action would be to make a lot of changes to the game while still going for the ideals of CS (same sort of 1 life per round and earning money to buy gear gameplay, being able to get killed in 1-2 shots, etc) but go for different types of map layouts and objectives than before maybe. I dunno. I hope it isnt just CSS with a few more guns and COOL SOCIAL FEATURES. | ||
| ||
