|
Oh come on.. CS 1.5 not accessible? It was & is the most popular FPS on the market, and exactly because IT WAS ACCESSIBLE. That is the point. And that is what CS was crafted for: round based gameplay, elimination of movement in combat, slowing of movement in general, elimination of map power ups. All to serve one purpose: decrease learning curve compared to quake/ut -style games, make it more accessible for general populus. The stuff you point out is trivial and gimmicks compared to actual acrobatic combat in faster games.
CS was not meant to be accessible. It was a mod that got very popular because multiplayer was gaining popularity. Yes, it was dumbed down a little with each patch, but it maintained its high skill cap over the years. Source, however, was meant to be accessible. It was created by Valve and desgined to sell (and man did it sell!). The CS mod for HL1 was a community driven game.
Not sure what u mean by acrobatics, but I listed all the things that go above and beyond the game after first download that make it unique/difficult to play, not to mention .cfg settings and mouse/mousepad preferences. I believe CS is responsible for the mouse/mousepad market developing.
|
Can someone that's been around CS for years answer this question: why does everyone and there mother say "I was competitive in (insert CS game here)"? What the hell does that even mean? I literally here that every day when looking at either CS news or videos. -_- I look at it in BW terms were it means you played at a high enough level to win and participate in the "low tier" tournaments but never broke out into the big show like TSL/WCG or moving to Korea etc. Can someone elaborate please?
|
On August 29 2011 05:09 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +Oh come on.. CS 1.5 not accessible? It was & is the most popular FPS on the market, and exactly because IT WAS ACCESSIBLE. That is the point. And that is what CS was crafted for: round based gameplay, elimination of movement in combat, slowing of movement in general, elimination of map power ups. All to serve one purpose: decrease learning curve compared to quake/ut -style games, make it more accessible for general populus. The stuff you point out is trivial and gimmicks compared to actual acrobatic combat in faster games. CS was not meant to be accessible. It was a mod that got very popular because multiplayer was gaining popularity. Yes, it was dumbed down a little with each patch, but it maintained its high skill cap over the years. Source, however, was meant to be accessible. It was created by Valve and desgined to sell (and man did it sell!). The CS mod for HL1 was a community driven game. Not sure what u mean by acrobatics, but I listed all the things that go above and beyond the game after first download that make it unique/difficult to play, not to mention .cfg settings and mouse/mousepad preferences. I believe CS is responsible for the mouse/mousepad market developing.
This doesnt make sense. Multiplayer was becoming popular in 1996-1997 when QW and Q2 came out, and yet later on 1999 2000 when it was already established those same players flocked over to CS.
CS 1.6 is the most popular fps game in the world, and yet it is not accessible? How can this be for years, long after multiplayer FPSes have matured? The answer is It is as main stream as shooter games go, it is ridiculous to hear CS fans say that the game isnt such. Whatever the original ends or goals of Gooseman were, the reality is that the design of the game clearly implies suitability for mainstream casual player shooter.
The design is genius in that manner - that even the copies of it make great success popularity wise. I mean look at Urban Terror, the q3 mod. Almost a CS clone, and is way more popular than original q3 or other q3 mods. All because it copies the same magic CS formula that made it so popular in the mainstream: no movement during combat, combat ending in a couple of second burst exchanges followed by long downtime, little acrobatic abilities, no power ups.
And if you look at the other popular shooters - BF, CoD, its again the same formula. This is what works best for getting high amount of players, this is the magic formula.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 29 2011 05:37 RaLakedaimon wrote:
Can someone that's been around CS for years answer this question: why does everyone and there mother say "I was competitive in (insert CS game here)"? What the hell does that even mean? I literally here that every day when looking at either CS news or videos. -_- I look at it in BW terms were it means you played at a high enough level to win and participate in the "low tier" tournaments but never broke out into the big show like TSL/WCG or moving to Korea etc. Can someone elaborate please?
Sort of, but technically it's a different playstyle. That's a good general way to look at it, but in the game style level it's completely different.
Imagine in BW, the default game type is BGH (pubbing in CS.) 90% of players in BW played BGH, and the rest played normal ladder/OSL/MSL maps. Of that last 10%, some are still bad, some are ok, and a tiny, tiny, tiny % are capable of playing at a professional or semi-pro level.
|
United States22883 Posts
I agree with Klaca, although keep in mind no game is designed with a singular goal in mind (except maybe Quakeworld or Farmville or something.) It's a balancing act and CS was/is easier than Q3/QL but still harder and more strategic than most other FPS games. On top of that, people don't only play games for that balance, there's obviously other factors as well.
Competitive 1.6 players criticizing CSS are criticizing it for the way it feels, and how it removed difficulty by lowering recoil, or added more RNG, or made flashes/nades too powerful and removed technique in throwing them, etc. Neither side is technically correct, but 1.6 has historically crushed CSS in player numbers (it's more even now) and its pros were able to crossover and dominate in CSS, while the same never happened in reverse.
The point is that there's a balance of accessibility and skill cap, and the skill cap is set by the availability of techniques or features, which are things that make the game fun for people. For whatever reason, people were attracted to the objective based CS round style rather than deathmatch style.
|
Uhh.. I dont think so man . Im struggling to think of a FPS that would take less skill than CS(well, aside from console games). At least 90's shooters like doom series, duke 3d, etc all have very fast movement and sharp aiming, making multiplayer far more difficult than CS. Only with the tactical shooter craze did those elements disappear.
Meaning the dichotomising of CS and CSS is a red herring from the POV of the "harder gameplay", as harder gameplay is not the goal of cs anyway, as is immediately apparent from all the penalties on movement and aiming the game has.
|
Since you brought up the grenade thing has anyone found info on them for CS:GO? I have been looking all over for if there going to be like Source (were for the life of you to try to fit a nade through a crack in a door/corner the damn thing will be off a bit and come back at you) or like 1.6 (lovely nades that fit into almost any little space, there so cuddly  ) and I haven't been able to figure it out. I think that's a really relevant topic since nades are a huge part of 5v5 game-play and hell even pubs as well.
It would be ridiculous to keep Source grenades as far as where you can throw them and how you throw them. If you can manage to find a pub with people on it in 1.6 you rarely get team flashes but in Source its like every other second, and its almost always an accident due to there shitty nade style in Source. As far as how strong nades are I actually don't really care, I prefer 1.6 grenades all around aside from Flash and Smoke of which Source are better (except you can't dodge Source flashes which is gay as hell). edit for paragraph instead of mass of text XD
|
Well, this looks like just another game to me unfortunately.
CS 1.6 is perfect (well, besides the AWP delay IMO). The reason it's so awesome are the graphics. The crosshair, the way the guns look, the way you move, everything is just right. I don't care for the realism aspect at all.
Overall, it seems compagnies don't understand the appeal of the game. It's the feel. You ruin it when you change flashes. You ruin it when you change the crosshair. You ruin if when you add pointless physics and make aiming 10 times easier.
By all means, make a 1.6 port with update graphics. But keep the lively graphic STYLE and throw away the dark stuff like source did (and GO will be I assume). And keep the gameplay the same. There you go. You just made a great game.
|
I have to say that as someone who played CoD professionally, CS has a very high skill cap... much higher than that of modern shooters. I was never able to compete at the highest level in CS, but I was more than capable of it in games like CoD. I played CS for YEARS and was never able to achieve what I achieved in CoD in ONE year. Sure, games like Unreal Tournament and Quake have a higher skill cap, but they are also 1v1 shooters. They never focused around team play like CS or other team games... the skill set for those games was different in a lot of ways. I played with and against Jonathan Wendel (Fatal1ty) in team-based shooters and he was HORRIBLE. You have never seen so many team kills, lol.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 29 2011 07:45 Klaca wrote:
Uhh.. I dont think so man . Im struggling to think of a FPS that would take less skill than CS(well, aside from console games). At least 90's shooters like doom series, duke 3d, etc all have very fast movement and sharp aiming, making multiplayer far more difficult than CS. Only with the tactical shooter craze did those elements disappear.
Meaning the dichotomising of CS and CSS is a red herring from the POV of the "harder gameplay", as harder gameplay is not the goal of cs anyway, as is immediately apparent from all the penalties on movement and aiming the game has.
Movement techniques in CS (pre and post-bunny hopping) are definitely more complex than Duke 3D or most early DM games. Even aside from things like duck walking, the mechanics and movement of models as they relate to viewing angles of the enemy was fully fleshed out in CS. Reaction times are even more critical because of that, as is dealing with severe recoil and wall shooting, which none of those games have. Movement speed is not the only criteria. On top of that, there's the obvious teamwork aspect which fat and dkt weren't able to master.
I won't contest that CS is easier than Q3/QL/mods and is arguably even easier strategically, but to treat it like it's in a completely different realm of difficulty is a bit silly.
|
On August 29 2011 09:00 Kurr wrote:
Well, this looks like just another game to me unfortunately.
CS 1.6 is perfect (well, besides the AWP delay IMO). The reason it's so awesome are the graphics. The crosshair, the way the guns look, the way you move, everything is just right. I don't care for the realism aspect at all.
Overall, it seems compagnies don't understand the appeal of the game. It's the feel. You ruin it when you change flashes. You ruin it when you change the crosshair. You ruin if when you add pointless physics and make aiming 10 times easier.
By all means, make a 1.6 port with update graphics. But keep the lively graphic STYLE and throw away the dark stuff like source did (and GO will be I assume). And keep the gameplay the same. There you go. You just made a great game.
You cant just make a game like that you know. When CS was being made they didnt have it in the thoughts and game design to add all the things that make the game so appealing and competitive. The developers werent like "this instant jumping off the ground to get speed would be great for competitive play!! We will call it bunnyhopping".
And what do you mean by aim easier?
Aiming hasnt changed, only recoil has and gun control, although most guns arent terribly off between 1.6 and source imo. Its only the 1.6 perfectionists who cant live without it.
I agree that the lighter environment in 1.6 was much better but seriously, its the players who find the exploits and work around how the game was meantt to be that make the game great.
|
I disagree with just updating the graphics in 1.6, at the moment, I really don't think that would be enough to revive CS.
We need new maps, new and rebalanced guns, dota2s interface, new aswell as reworked game modes and a new, more complex money management system. Modern netcode for modern broadband connections will also allow for a higher level of precision - raising the skill cap. Keep the all the movement related aspects of 1.6 + LAN.
CS:GO is, just like source, a different version of 1.6. We need a new game, not another version of 1.6.
|
On August 29 2011 09:07 sunchopper wrote:
I played with and against Jonathan Wendel (Fatal1ty) in team-based shooters and he was HORRIBLE. You have never seen so many team kills, lol. Fatal1y was a top fragger (along with destructo) when he played with Forsaken and iFate for cs1.6 in 2004. Just sayin'
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 29 2011 10:21 Obscure wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:07 sunchopper wrote:
I played with and against Jonathan Wendel (Fatal1ty) in team-based shooters and he was HORRIBLE. You have never seen so many team kills, lol. Fatal1y was a top fragger (along with destructo) when he played with Forsaken and iFate for cs1.6 in 2004. Just sayin'
He played well but he was a huge baiter, and his teams were never great. Those two were mid-high American CAL-i teams, so they were still significantly worse than Europeans. Dkt adapted to the team aspects a bit better with rdw and DoP but again, neither were on world class teams.
|
On August 29 2011 05:49 Klaca wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:09 slytown wrote:Oh come on.. CS 1.5 not accessible? It was & is the most popular FPS on the market, and exactly because IT WAS ACCESSIBLE. That is the point. And that is what CS was crafted for: round based gameplay, elimination of movement in combat, slowing of movement in general, elimination of map power ups. All to serve one purpose: decrease learning curve compared to quake/ut -style games, make it more accessible for general populus. The stuff you point out is trivial and gimmicks compared to actual acrobatic combat in faster games. CS was not meant to be accessible. It was a mod that got very popular because multiplayer was gaining popularity. Yes, it was dumbed down a little with each patch, but it maintained its high skill cap over the years. Source, however, was meant to be accessible. It was created by Valve and desgined to sell (and man did it sell!). The CS mod for HL1 was a community driven game. Not sure what u mean by acrobatics, but I listed all the things that go above and beyond the game after first download that make it unique/difficult to play, not to mention .cfg settings and mouse/mousepad preferences. I believe CS is responsible for the mouse/mousepad market developing. This doesnt make sense. Multiplayer was becoming popular in 1996-1997 when QW and Q2 came out, and yet later on 1999 2000 when it was already established those same players flocked over to CS. CS 1.6 is the most popular fps game in the world, and yet it is not accessible? How can this be for years, long after multiplayer FPSes have matured? The answer is It is as main stream as shooter games go, it is ridiculous to hear CS fans say that the game isnt such. Whatever the original ends or goals of Gooseman were, the reality is that the design of the game clearly implies suitability for mainstream casual player shooter. The design is genius in that manner - that even the copies of it make great success popularity wise. I mean look at Urban Terror, the q3 mod. Almost a CS clone, and is way more popular than original q3 or other q3 mods. All because it copies the same magic CS formula that made it so popular in the mainstream: no movement during combat, combat ending in a couple of second burst exchanges followed by long downtime, little acrobatic abilities, no power ups. And if you look at the other popular shooters - BF, CoD, its again the same formula. This is what works best for getting high amount of players, this is the magic formula.
I understand your point, but you're interpreting the context completely wrong when he's talking about accessibility. He's talking about accessibility not in the fact that any joe blog can pick up the game, he means that not any player can pick up the game and be moderately good in a short time frame (which, without being too derogatory, is true). I've played both games at a pretty high level and enjoyed them both but the notable thing about CSS is that it is slightly less rewarding and it does not contain the intricacies that 1.6 has.
Anyway, I think the sole premise that Valve is aiming at the esports market for the PC platform is great. Regardless of the similarities it looks to be sharing with CoD/CSS, we should give it a chance at the least - way too many game bashers in the CS community 
|
On August 29 2011 09:00 Kurr wrote:
Well, this looks like just another game to me unfortunately.
CS 1.6 is perfect (well, besides the AWP delay IMO). The reason it's so awesome are the graphics. The crosshair, the way the guns look, the way you move, everything is just right. I don't care for the realism aspect at all.
Overall, it seems compagnies don't understand the appeal of the game. It's the feel. You ruin it when you change flashes. You ruin it when you change the crosshair. You ruin if when you add pointless physics and make aiming 10 times easier.
By all means, make a 1.6 port with update graphics. But keep the lively graphic STYLE and throw away the dark stuff like source did (and GO will be I assume). And keep the gameplay the same. There you go. You just made a great game.
You ruin it by being a leech attached to an old game and afraid of change. If you can't have fun without blocky graphics, weird reg, and crappy sound, then you are not the target audience of anything because you are an impossible to please dick. That goes for everyone else in this thread with that line of thinking.
Back on topic:
The thing that has me most interested about this game is the cross platform play. Mostly because I want to see if the Shadowrun adage holds up and the PC gamers just completely stomp again. Apart from that, more Counter-Strike can't be a bad thing. I probably won't buy it until the price drops, though, no matter how competitive the multiplayer is, if that's all I'm playing for I'm not paying $50.
|
On August 29 2011 11:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:21 Obscure wrote:On August 29 2011 09:07 sunchopper wrote:
I played with and against Jonathan Wendel (Fatal1ty) in team-based shooters and he was HORRIBLE. You have never seen so many team kills, lol. Fatal1y was a top fragger (along with destructo) when he played with Forsaken and iFate for cs1.6 in 2004. Just sayin' He played well but he was a huge baiter, and his teams were never great. Those two were mid-high American CAL-i teams, so they were still significantly worse than Europeans. Dkt adapted to the team aspects a bit better with rdw and DoP but again, neither were on world class teams.
This is the truth. My tiny point was merely that he
wasn't horrible.
|
On August 29 2011 04:06 Klaca wrote:
q3 isnt that brutal.. even with cpma settings, its still very weak weapons compared to qw. also movement physics and lg&rl knockback are tiny compared to manly weapons in qw
Way to miss the point ._.
|
On August 29 2011 12:25 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:00 Kurr wrote:
Well, this looks like just another game to me unfortunately.
CS 1.6 is perfect (well, besides the AWP delay IMO). The reason it's so awesome are the graphics. The crosshair, the way the guns look, the way you move, everything is just right. I don't care for the realism aspect at all.
Overall, it seems compagnies don't understand the appeal of the game. It's the feel. You ruin it when you change flashes. You ruin it when you change the crosshair. You ruin if when you add pointless physics and make aiming 10 times easier.
By all means, make a 1.6 port with update graphics. But keep the lively graphic STYLE and throw away the dark stuff like source did (and GO will be I assume). And keep the gameplay the same. There you go. You just made a great game.
You ruin it by being a leech attached to an old game and afraid of change. If you can't have fun without blocky graphics, weird reg, and crappy sound, then you are not the target audience of anything because you are an impossible to please dick. That goes for everyone else in this thread with that line of thinking. Back on topic: The thing that has me most interested about this game is the cross platform play. Mostly because I want to see if the Shadowrun adage holds up and the PC gamers just completely stomp again. Apart from that, more Counter-Strike can't be a bad thing. I probably won't buy it until the price drops, though, no matter how competitive the multiplayer is, if that's all I'm playing for I'm not paying $50.
Haha kind of like BW. "Impossible to please" is right on the nose. But then again how much could you possibly add onto a multiplayer game? New guns, new maps, balance it (hard part), and call it a day?
I love 1.6. I loved the mechanics of that game and I haven't played much shooters in a long time because every other shooter just didn't cut it. Every FPS game I played that had similar mechanics I expected CS like mechanics (and then disappointed). The only thing that ultimately drove me away from 1.6 was all the stupid servers running stupid mods/maps.
I don't know what is with all this talk about accessibility. CS 1.6 was stupidly popular. CS was not some hardcore game that only hardcore gamers played. Every cyber cafe was filled with people playing it.
Anyway, I can't wait for CS:GO.
|
On August 26 2011 18:08 T0fuuu wrote:
It could be fresh. I dont see how people can comment on the gameplay when they havent tried it yet. Obviously its not 1.6 but it could be a shot in the arm for competitive pc fps.
I hope they leave all the console command stuff in the pc game so we can adjust xhairs and stuff like that.
This is pretty much how I feel. I love competitive shooters and if the game is amazing. It will be a boost to competitive pc FPS. If it gets the following that cs1.6 or css has early. It will replace Cod at MLG, which would be epic *F call of duty*. I really hope the game is very good. I really can't wait for the beta. Hopefully, valve doesn't drop a bomb, but from seeing the pro reviews. It looks like valve is really trying to put the pc community first. From what I get out of most reviews is the recoil needs to be fixed to allow tap shooting instead of a spray fest. The guns need to be more balanced and ak/m4 take charge as the top tier weapons. I see those as the main complaints that need to be changed for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
