Destructible environments would very likely do more to screw the game up than they would to add anything. More maps I clearly agree with. Other than that you listed a bunch of graphical enhancements, which is what they tried to do going from 1.6 to source and had a bit of a negative reaction. I'm sure a lot of people are hoping that one day a new CS will come out with up to date graphics and gameplay that both the 1.6 and source crowds accept. That would be my ideal scenario.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Counter-strike still wins?
- Thread starter piscian18
- Start date
thats nothing to fix
also we get it, you dont like CS, please leave the thread. You probably got destroyed anytime you tried to play it, so youre just spewing youre little negative opinion now.
Its also very telling that an "old and busted" game still completely destroys the "new hotness" games.
I think you're missing the point - CS isn't about the aesthetics. The gameplay is what is so tightly tuned and refined, and that is what has sustained such an impressive community all these years.
The things you listed aren't 'broken', and therefore don't need to be 'fixed'. If your preference is just for more impressive effects that's fine, but the game is quite clearly not old and busted (the ~110k people playing at 11.30am on a Wednesday prove that, particularly as they outnumber those playing what you call the 'new hotness').
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
I think a sequel is well overdue. I wonder how a levelling/experience system would go down with the CS crowd in the place of the current "buy stuff before you play" mechanic.
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kexgh2QYra8
He's got to be hiding something, I can't imagine that they haven't at least toyed around with an update to CS even if it's gone through a ton of revisions that got scrapped like TF2. Maybe it will have to wait for HL3 and Source2 or whatever it will be called but they would be idiots to have not started some work on it.
I would hate for there to be a leveling "feature" in CSS2. Like a lot of other people that's what I love about CS. I can casually play it once a month or once a day and get the same play experience without having to worry about jackasses who play 24/7 or dump a ton of extra money on the game to get a huge advantage. This is an FPS, not an FPRPG. For that reason I still consider QWTF/TFC > TF2 with all its pay for pwnage nonsense.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
If theres leveling people won't play it. simple fact.
BETA.
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,906
Remember awhile back when gooseman left Valve? He said that CS2 was basically shelved as the project was slow moving, so I doubt we'd see it anytime soon. Heck, Valve may as well could just abandon the whole Counter Strike name to preserve the original and Source, then just create a new IP that takes on a similar game to CS.
I think that's their best bet. Anything with the name "Counterstrike" is likely to draw too much ire from the current CS/CS:S community. They fear change. More importantly, I don't think they'll welcome any design cues the game might take given the way FPS games are made today.
Last edited:
TheOneKnownAsMe
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,730
Implementing any sort of leveling/awards system where players are rewarded for playing for ridiculous amounts time will always stamp down pretty much any hope for the game being played competitively. Only once the playing field has been leveled can you adequately begin to measure skill and play competitively. That is one of CS's strengths, it isn't hampered by a cumbersome system of leveling up and unlocking content. You're given access to the same weapons as everyone else, it's your job to take advantage of the tools you're given.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
You could always have a "classic" or "legacy" mode and thus servers that have that specifically, whereas grind-addicts could stick to servers that allowed levelling. It would be win/win...bi-winning, if you will.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
Meh Source and TF2 got so much shit at first for not being true to the original, but people got over it.
I thought Source was the same damn thing with slightly upgraded graphics. And by slightly, I mean slightly. TF2 was drastically different, that's true.
Yossarian22
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,799
When they tweaked the stuff for the port to Mac OSX I didn't like it.
I think a large part of the appeal in a game like this is that people have been playing for quite awhile and as odd as it sounds, they feel and recognize every little nuance in the game world. Any changes to that == bad.
Sure, from a distance UT2K3 and Q3A play similarly but if you were to sit down, really sit down, and play both to death, you would feel a slight difference in how they're played. Or if you were playing Q3A and someone slipped UT2K3 under your nose, completely new, it would take a little adjustment. The gameplay is so simple but the engines are different, have different feels to them.
Oh and there is that whole competition thing, too. CPL and CAL.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
I never got very good at original CS. I played 1.5 a little and 1.6 and then played a some source. Can someone please try to explain to me what the difference is other then graphics? To me they feel like the same game. The maps are the same, the weapons are the same, the gameplay is the same and (at least to someone who only plays casually) the weapon physics are the same. What is the difference with source that has left so many people playing the original?
Also, no leveling in CS please or destructible environments. The consistency of CS and ability to jump right in are part of what make it such a fantastic game.
*I recognize that 1.6 has the riot shield and CS:S does not...but I highly doubt that is keeping people playing 1.6
Also, no leveling in CS please or destructible environments. The consistency of CS and ability to jump right in are part of what make it such a fantastic game.
*I recognize that 1.6 has the riot shield and CS:S does not...but I highly doubt that is keeping people playing 1.6
Weather effects would promptly be turned off and destructable environments are not wanted.
The fear of change and progress seems rampant in CS players. I've never understood that. I like games to evolve with technology and as my tastes and expectations for games do.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
Don't fix it if it's not broken.
Destructible buildings would dramatically change the gameplay, weather effects cause a minor gameplay change in visibility. I would like to have new graphics (new models, dx11, new textures, etc) but the gameplay needs to stay intact as it is.
If you want newer features, other games have CS style modes. Search and destroy in COD is the same style as CS, I believe crysis 2 has a CS type mode as well. Leave counterstrike itself alone though.
You never understood that because apparantly your idea of fear of change is mixed up with discontent with changes that are fucking shit.
So you want CS to be more like BC2? Why would you have destructible terrain in CS? So we can blow the map apart with guns that don't exist in the game and never should(rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tanks)?
Obviously if a new one came out it would have updated graphics including models, textures, and likely even weather effects. CS already has tons of great maps, a lot more than most games have these days.
1.6 and CSS feel quite different. The weapon mechanics and movement were drastically changed in CSS. You'd have to play them both to see which one you prefer.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Destructible environments would change the gameplay, true. Gameplay would be more dynamic, which sounds good to me.
That's how I think of it, but I guess we are in the minority. Without rocket launchers and grenades, the need for a fully destructible environment isn't there. However, I think some middle ground like what we have in the more recent Call of Duty games would be great. Breakable glass, perhaps breakable doors, the ability to shoot through some objects, etc. would be great additions to the game play.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
What would you destroy the environment with? The only explosive weapon in the game is the HE grenade(of which each player is limited to 1), everything else is small arms. It's really hard to destroy a house with small arms fire.
CS already has breakable glass and some bullet penetration. You can shoot through file cabinets and boxes and stuff at reduced damage.
CS already has breakable glass and some bullet penetration. You can shoot through file cabinets and boxes and stuff at reduced damage.
I didn't remember that being the case, but as I said in my post above, without rocket launchers and grenades, the environment doesn't need to be fully destructible. Breaking windows, smashing open doors, and shooting through some types of walls and cover is enough.
go on youtube. Watch the cs videos. You'll find that a great majority of the recently published videos are either people who are trolling, or people who do not speak english.
They should tell us where the players are located. It will paint a better picture of why CS 1.6 is still popular, because i strongly disbelieve that it is because its just a "good game" to all the people who have money to upgrade their rigs and play more dynamic, diverse, and graphically intensive games. I'd go as far as to say that the reason so many people play it is because more countries are getting into it, especially the comparitively poorer countries where 10 yeras ago it was abnormal to have a houseohld computer, and in recent years computers hvae become more affordable.
Reminds me of the time i got bored of Halo 3, so i stuck Halo 2 in for some XBL play. I was confronted by many people screaming languages i did not understand in their hilarious nerd rage, i was the only english speaking person in ANY of the servers.
They should tell us where the players are located. It will paint a better picture of why CS 1.6 is still popular, because i strongly disbelieve that it is because its just a "good game" to all the people who have money to upgrade their rigs and play more dynamic, diverse, and graphically intensive games. I'd go as far as to say that the reason so many people play it is because more countries are getting into it, especially the comparitively poorer countries where 10 yeras ago it was abnormal to have a houseohld computer, and in recent years computers hvae become more affordable.
Reminds me of the time i got bored of Halo 3, so i stuck Halo 2 in for some XBL play. I was confronted by many people screaming languages i did not understand in their hilarious nerd rage, i was the only english speaking person in ANY of the servers.
I don't think you have ever played the game of counter strike.
I have but it's been years since I touched it. I played it regularly for about six months when it was still a mod and there was no retail version and then I played it just after retail for a couple weeks, then I didn't touch it again until the Orange Box came out. I installed Counterstrike Source so I could see what that was like. It was the same game I remembered from the late 90's with slightly updated graphics. Sorry but the game isn't all that memorable to me. It's so plain and basic. It literally does nothing for me anymore. I grew tired of it in the late 1990's early 2000's or whenever that was, and I've not ever been drawn back into it for any length of time. So I apologize for not recalling the details of the game play all that well. As I said it's among the least memorable games from the 1990's in my mind.
It is still a good game, the fact that Europeans slaughter Americans in competitive gaming is old hat, ditto we lose in RTS games, and we also lose in fighters. America is the joke competitive gaming, and has been for a while. Well, we always were, our last top player was Thresh in Quake World, and team DR, some of whom I know.
The problem is, Americans don't like games. They like to upgrade, tinker with shit, play badly, and then upgrade to the next simulation... that sums up American PC gaming for the most part, guess what, laptops and small desktops took over and now arguing for gut breaking games is as silly as arguing for the return of the type writer.
SK, a EURO team, has long be dominant in most FPS games. When UT2k4 took over for a bit (which was a bad game), they hired on Gitz and sent the US players packing, oh well. The best arena players regardless of game at the time (from quake 4 all the way down to quake world, quake 2, quake 3, ut 99, and ut2k4) were all euros.
Americans are just very bad at video games, we fucking suck! We always have.
So yes, expect any skilled videos not to have english in them and not to feature Americans, we are the Jamacan bobsled team of competitive video gaming.
If you cannot remember being able to shoot through objects in CS or CS:S, then you simply never took the game seriously. Dan_D just wasn't a fan of the game - it's obvious, and that's fine. I love CS, and I've always played it in cycles, but I cannot stay attached to ANY game year-round.
I agree that competitively, COD-type games are nowhere near the play-level and feel of CS/Quake. COD games are for casual players - there's no point practicing and honing ones skills in such a game.
That said, the following changes would be welcome:
- updated graphics, more precise hit and collision detection
- more realistic weapons ballistics (would this ruin the game at all?) and physics of all objects
- more realistic vehicle physics and feel (for the purely fun maps that happen to use vehicles)
- partially destructible environments. This can be controlled somewhat by map-design and weapon selection. Some maps are not made to be competitive, and more destructible environments and full-weapon selection is warranted in this scenario.
I understand that fully-destructible environments might ruin the game, but it'd be damned cool to shoot some pebbles off the corners of brick walls (might need to limit such permanent physically altering effects on walls to the corners - I'm not sure current hardware or physics engines can realistically process the cracking of an entire brick wall under siege) using a sniper rifle, or to actually put holes into those crates we love so much. This should be possible (to a great extent) considering the limited size of each map - it should be easier to assign very specific attributes to (applicable portions of) each object. I'd like very specific, pinpoint damage modelling as opposed to things simply being destroyed - destruction (objects completely flying apart) would not happen often using bullets.
I think the level-designers may need to assume that many of the objects, boxes, and walls in the game are quite robust in order to preserve the current gameplay.
I think this could be a good thing, but it would require the nextgen Valve engine, and a powerful computer. Perhaps we need to wait another few years...and for now, the minor updates are enough.
I agree that competitively, COD-type games are nowhere near the play-level and feel of CS/Quake. COD games are for casual players - there's no point practicing and honing ones skills in such a game.
That said, the following changes would be welcome:
- updated graphics, more precise hit and collision detection
- more realistic weapons ballistics (would this ruin the game at all?) and physics of all objects
- more realistic vehicle physics and feel (for the purely fun maps that happen to use vehicles)
- partially destructible environments. This can be controlled somewhat by map-design and weapon selection. Some maps are not made to be competitive, and more destructible environments and full-weapon selection is warranted in this scenario.
I understand that fully-destructible environments might ruin the game, but it'd be damned cool to shoot some pebbles off the corners of brick walls (might need to limit such permanent physically altering effects on walls to the corners - I'm not sure current hardware or physics engines can realistically process the cracking of an entire brick wall under siege) using a sniper rifle, or to actually put holes into those crates we love so much. This should be possible (to a great extent) considering the limited size of each map - it should be easier to assign very specific attributes to (applicable portions of) each object. I'd like very specific, pinpoint damage modelling as opposed to things simply being destroyed - destruction (objects completely flying apart) would not happen often using bullets.
I think the level-designers may need to assume that many of the objects, boxes, and walls in the game are quite robust in order to preserve the current gameplay.
I think this could be a good thing, but it would require the nextgen Valve engine, and a powerful computer. Perhaps we need to wait another few years...and for now, the minor updates are enough.
Last edited:
Yossarian22
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,799
I understand where Dan_D is coming from. I like arena shooters for the feeling you get of trying to be as fast and mobile as possible and get those quick consecutive frags vs. the twitch boom that guy is dead style play CS offers. I enjoy both honestly.
The thing though is that if you change CS, it is no longer CS. I agree I'd like a more realistic game based on the whole counter-terrorist/terrorist thing in CQB. SWAT 5, maybe?
The thing though is that if you change CS, it is no longer CS. I agree I'd like a more realistic game based on the whole counter-terrorist/terrorist thing in CQB. SWAT 5, maybe?
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
Saw this linked on Blue's today and got a chuckle out of it: http://games.on.net/article/12148/Refried_Pwners_Syndrome
Glory be the days when CS was only in beta and goose didn't answer to Valve. I think 3.1 was actually the first version I got into.
Glory be the days when CS was only in beta and goose didn't answer to Valve. I think 3.1 was actually the first version I got into.
CS has superior mechanics. You watch people play CoD and it's just a bunch of idiots running around, jumping off bridges and trying to get mid air no scopes while they spin. I'm still a huge BF fan and I played BF2 for 4-5 years but if I'm looking for an infantry based head-to-head shooter I play CS.
I think fRoD said it best when he mentioned that he still feels there is room to expand with 1.6. He mentioned that with source there's a skill ceiling but with 1.6 you can always improve on your game. Source itself has a lot of randomness but it's still 100x less than with CoD or any other FPS. You're facing your enemy straight up and the better player will win, not whoever can climb the highest building and camp there the longest under the protection of claymores and UAVs.
Anyone who thinks all of these players are overseas is crazy. ESEA is still huge and it grows daily. They may not be playing in public servers but they're definitely still in the game and loving it.
I think fRoD said it best when he mentioned that he still feels there is room to expand with 1.6. He mentioned that with source there's a skill ceiling but with 1.6 you can always improve on your game. Source itself has a lot of randomness but it's still 100x less than with CoD or any other FPS. You're facing your enemy straight up and the better player will win, not whoever can climb the highest building and camp there the longest under the protection of claymores and UAVs.
Anyone who thinks all of these players are overseas is crazy. ESEA is still huge and it grows daily. They may not be playing in public servers but they're definitely still in the game and loving it.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
Lol thats pretty good.
Dynamic placed second at DSrack not too long ago in source. They absolutely shattered most of the competition and they were at a massive disadvantage given time differences/jet lag coming from NA - they also only had NA teams to practice against whereas the euros all were really used to combating each other's play styles. Idra is American and he's one of the top SC2 players in the world and most non-Koreans are on about the same level. Part of me feels like half of the NA vs EU argument in FPS games stems from the difference in quality of internet. I remember in BF2 watching euros play was a fucking joke because they all had amazing registration and really fast internet.
IMO in CS(S) specifically the main difference is that there are tons of top level euro teams on salary whereas over here there are only 2-3 truly high level 1.6 teams and then just Dynamic in source. The top level players aren't any better in Europe, there's just more depth.
Also, not sure if it's been posted, but http://eseanews.com/cs/index.php?s=news&d=comments&id=9451
There's all of that in cs, especially in 1.6 where even deep concrete walls and floors are penetrable. In source there's tons of pots and other smaller toys/objects to be broken and most windows can be shot out. Many maps feature tunnels/vents that need to be broken open to travel through and a few maps have wooden doors that can be shot out (and all of them can be shot through).
de_inferno (source version for sure) is a great example. There's so much that can be shot through, especially walls and crates, and so much to be broken up (especially in apartments where there's a covered over wall that can be broken up and then a series of rooms with props to be shot up). de_nuke shows you the vent concept perfectly.
I played CS back in the late 90's and early 2000's. Long before 1.6 and as far as CS:S goes, I played it just for an hour or two. That's it. It was the same game as far as I could tell and I stopped playing it. I had higher hopes for CS:S than just a minor graphics update.
The thing is kinein, like Dan said CS:S really just is a graphical upgrade. There is no actual new content. The gameplay is more or less the same, sure 'minor' things are different such as jump height, player height, recoil etc but... getting those nearly identical when changing engine is really extremely difficult. People would complain no matter what if it was branded as a graphical update. (Hell, look at CS:CZ)
They are far better off doing something different that can attract both new players and old players alike. No need to split the community into a fourth game based on roughly the same content and gameplay.
Bobthecoolguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 140
The only reason I play CSS is for one of the most original gameplay in mods ever: Surf. Seriously, so awesome.