EPT
+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.dreamhack.se/dhs12/2012/08/13/major-counter-strike-global-offensive-tournament-at-dhw12/
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 86
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Kevan
Sweden2303 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
gTank
Austria2570 Posts
On August 13 2012 22:46 Tobberoth wrote: The reason Counter-Strike: GO exists is because CS: Source was a failure, a way newer game, but still never got close to the popularity of 1.6, which even continued after CS:S was released. I mean, some people liked CS:S... but they have CS:S, CS:Go is NOT made for their benefit. It's valves attempt to get the playerbase from 1.6 back, and they won't do that if they make it like CS:S but with slightly better graphics. This is so true, CS:S failed to carry on the torch and even Source players admit it. This is also the reason why GO isn't ment to be a new source. It would divide the already shrinking playerbase to 2 mediocre games and scare 1.6 players away even more. I have high hopes, mostly since this genre suffered enough thanks to all the new cod games that come out every year like FIFA. You won't get a popular competitive game with high playerbase and viewers by milking the money out of them. | ||
|
Meatloaf
Spain664 Posts
Wallbanging is great to have , but make it so it doesnt feel as a glitch/exploit in the game | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
It just seem weird to me when people say "CS:Go is OK, but it seems like it will get better". If they just went the way of Dota 2, the game would have been great from the very start of beta, since there shouldn't be much tweaking needed, just slight improvements. | ||
|
gTank
Austria2570 Posts
- Valve doesn't want to openly admitt they screwed up with CS:S. - Most people actually want something fresh and not only 1.6. It should be as good as 1.6 but have something new and fresh to it. | ||
|
whatusername
Canada1181 Posts
| ||
|
Am0n3r
United States254 Posts
On August 13 2012 23:03 whatusername wrote: Does anyone know the system requirements for this game? OS: Windows® 7/Vista/XP Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 processor or better Memory: 1GB XP / 2GB Vista Hard Disk Space: At least 7.6GB of Space Video Card: Video card must be 256 MB or more and should be a DirectX 9-compatible with support for Pixel Shader 3.0 | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3684 Posts
I have been playing the beta for a few months now and I'm quiet happy with what they are doing tbh. It's still not as good as 1.6 but it's already miles ahead of the terribly awful game that source was/is and given how actively they are patching and how interested they are in using pro gamers for feedback I think that cs go has a bright future ahead of itself for atleast a year. Oh and I'm super excited to play cs all day with my mates again :D | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On August 13 2012 23:02 gTank wrote: I think there are 2 reasons: - Valve doesn't want to openly admitt they screwed up with CS:S. - Most people actually want something fresh and not only 1.6. It should be as good as 1.6 but have something new and fresh to it. I agree with both, but I don't think that would stop them... I mean, they've already added new maps and modes to CS: Go, I think even the most hardcore 1.6 fans agree that those measures are fine, as long as the old modes and maps are still there. They also added matchmaking, which is a great addition. Other additions are dangerous though. New weapons? Uuugh, that's just asking for different balance and thus gameplay. | ||
|
smr
Germany4808 Posts
Let's say I want to play a 3v3 against another team (not 3 randoms who were just put together). If we have a warserver, can we tell the game: here that's our server, that's us 3 search us another team of comparable mmr or will those semi-organized games still require irc where everybody is low as well as highskill and you never find a good game? | ||
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
As players, we all want to be playing the best game possible. From our perspective as TLers, we generally consider that to be a game with enough depth to maintain our interest as well as be played competitively. CS 1.6 filled those criteria for a number of years but now it doesn't: no cool graphics to keep your interest, few friends/dwindling player base which makes 'being good' less satisfying, and a small competitive scene. Therefore, as players, we would like Valve to "easily" update 1.6 so that people play again and we have a few new features while maintaining the gameplay. The business' perspective (Valve) explains why that is not CS:GO and why you might be confused about the changes. Valve is trying to optimize their profits on their brand (CS) which does not mean simply re-skinning Counter-Strike. If they did that, the 1.6 people might not bother buying it just for new graphics and young gamers wouldn't pay much attention to it. Valve is attempting to make some phat stacks by appealing to more gamers than the old people who used to play 1.6. There are far more gamers to profit from than the dwindling old group (growing up). They are attempting to create interest by making the changes significant enough while still getting the credibility and support of their brand. That is why you have new weapons, new skins, new sounds, and new gamemodes. Valve isn't concerned about recreating the "ideal competitive game" but rather tweaking it a bit so you buy the game. P.S. I was also going to provide the example of BW and SC2, showing that it may be an inferior game but still made Blizzard a lot of money for the same reasons. BW and 1.6 don't sell that many copies anymore so you have to kill off the old while bringing in a new wave of gamers based on the brand. You can also use the example of D2 and D3 to show what happens when you try and do it but fuck up a bit. Edit: On August 14 2012 00:06 smr wrote: I have a question regarding matchmaking, maybe somebody can answer this. Let's say I want to play a 3v3 against another team (not 3 randoms who were just put together). If we have a warserver, can we tell the game: here that's our server, that's us 3 search us another team of comparable mmr or will those semi-organized games still require irc where everybody is low as well as highskill and you never find a good game? I think you can do that but only with 5v5 at the moment. You invite friends into a lobby/group and then you can search with the matchmaking system. I don't know what a warserver is so I'm ignoring that part in my answer. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On August 14 2012 00:15 Durak wrote: I think you guys are ignoring the divide between the business' perspective and the player's perspective. Players want a game that is enjoyable while a business wants something that will make them the most profits. I'll try to show why that isn't simply 1.6 with updated graphics which should explain why Valve doesn't just do what seems obvious. As players, we all want to be playing the best game possible. From our perspective as TLers, we generally consider that to be a game with enough depth to maintain our interest as well as be played competitively. CS 1.6 filled those criteria for a number of years but now it doesn't: no cool graphics to keep your interest, few friends/dwindling player base which makes 'being good' less satisfying, and a small competitive scene. Therefore, as players, we would like Valve to "easily" update 1.6 so that people play again and we have a few new features while maintaining the gameplay. The business' perspective (Valve) explains why that is not CS:GO and why you might be confused about the changes. Valve is trying to optimize their profits on their brand (CS) which does not mean simply re-skinning Counter-Strike. If they did that, the 1.6 people might not bother buying it just for new graphics and young gamers wouldn't pay much attention to it. Valve is attempting to make some phat stacks by appealing to more gamers than the old people who used to play 1.6. There are far more gamers to profit from than the dwindling old group (growing up). They are attempting to create interest by making the changes significant enough while still getting the credibility and support of their brand. That is why you have new weapons, new skins, new sounds, and new gamemodes. Valve isn't concerned about recreating the "ideal competitive game" but rather tweaking it a bit so you buy the game. P.S. I was also going to provide the example of BW and SC2, showing that it may be an inferior game but still made Blizzard a lot of money for the same reasons. BW and 1.6 don't sell that many copies anymore so you have to kill off the old while bringing in a new wave of gamers based on the brand. You can also use the example of D2 and D3 to show what happens when you try and do it but fuck up a bit. Fine, but how do you apply that logic to dota 2? Everything which is true for a CS 1.6 to a new CS transition should be true for a Dota 1 to Dota 2 transition, yet Dota 2 is exactly like Dota 1, but CS:Go is not allowed to be exactly like CS 1.6. This is what confuses me, since it's the same company. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
| ||
|
ArYeS
Slovenia268 Posts
Dota 2 has smaller map, different jukes, different trees, different pathfinding, no sleeping creeps and you could find more things if you were picky. People just don't complain so much and are happy to get a new game, and aren't so afraid of learning different metagame. People have to trust in game and believe that game will evolve and new metagame techniques will be spawned with new engine. | ||
|
RLTY
United States965 Posts
On August 14 2012 00:47 ArYeS wrote: + Show Spoiler + For those who say Dota 2 is exactly like Dota 1. Thats not true. I'm not a veterean of CS series (played only CS:S a while). It's like saying CS:S is same as CS1.6. Dota 2 has smaller map, different jukes, different trees, different pathfinding, no sleeping creeps and you could find more things if you were picky. People just don't complain so much and are happy to get a new game, and aren't so afraid of learning different metagame. People have to trust in game and believe that game will evolve and new metagame techniques will be spawned with new engine. You blew the differences out of proportion. smaller map It's off by something like 2 seconds difference to move across the length of the entire map. (This isn't really noticeable at all and was pretty much just the Chinese making an excuse to not play DotA2 at the time, but most of the top teams iG, LGD, DK, TF, etc have all transitioned) different jukes no (there's a reason why you can use the dota6.xx jukemap for dota2 and vise versa) different trees only in places where it honestly wasn't that relevant anyways; valve did a pretty job of keeping things consistent different pathfinding irrelevant no sleeping creeps no, just because the creeps don't have the same visual indicators doesn't mean the day/night neutral creep mechanics are not the same. Yes there are some differences between the games like like ramp sizes, rosh pit size, certain spell/ orb interactions, and the 'feel' of the game/heroes, etc. but most of the tangible differences are either very small differences that make no impact in 99% of games or the way that the game was intended to be made only hindered by the limitations of the wc3 engine. The difference between DotA and DOTA2 is not nearly as significant as I understand the difference between CS1.6 and CS:S to be. | ||
|
Vansetsu
United States1454 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On August 14 2012 01:26 skyR wrote: DotA 2 and DotA differences are a joke. Most people you ask will tell you it's the same game with matchmaking, UI update, etc. They won't tell you it's a different game. Different trees and smaller map? That's a good joke. This. You could ask any non-pro player to point out the differences and I doubt they would find even a single one unless they had read up on technical differences. The juke paths are the same, the heroes are the same... hell, even extremely minor mechanics in how some spells work together are just the same as in Dota 1. You could pick even a single difference between CS 1.6 and CS:S, and I'd wager that one difference alone makes more of an impact than most of the Dota 1->Dota 2 differences put together. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On August 14 2012 01:07 Vansetsu wrote: One thing I absolutely do not understand is why so many people act like Valve masterminded CS (1.6)... CS was originally a Halflife mod created independently by 2-4 guys, because the HL engines have always been open source. I can't remember at what version Valve finally got its hands on it, but it was a pretty defined game by then whenever it was, and if you owned halflife, was completely free to play for a time. How is that relevant... Just like with Dota, except Dota was made in another companys engine. In both cases, Valve hired the developers and took over development. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19077 Posts
EVER HEAR ABOUT THAT COUNTER-STRIKE GAME? | ||
| ||
