The declining state of Counter-strike

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/10/11/state_of_counter_strike_review/1.html



Digg to share: http://digg.com/software/The_declining_state_of_Counter_strike

 

Problem with Huxley is a) It isn't released yet so you can't say it has a thriving comunity and b) it looks like theres been no news on it for about 3 months!

Also in regards to CS servers, the CS-S ones have a ratio of just over one player per server compared to a ratio of just under two players per server on CS.

A better ratio you guys should have tried to get is the active server loads. For example a lot of those servers will be empty, A LOT, so why are they counted? A good server won't have just one or two players on it.

 

Ryan, you quote a CS Pro player saying that 'Counter-strike: Source will never be a pro-level game'. Did he say why not?

Personally, I'm a Day Of Defeat player, converting from CS five years ago. And there's a lot of debate over how DOD:S has been nerfed to make it 'noob' or 'casual gamer' friendly. It'd be interesting to hear if the same problem has occurred with CS:S, or if it's down to the higher system requirements the Source version demands to get a good consistent framerate... or some other reason?

 

Two major reasons that I mentioned earlier in the article appear to be:

Changes have been made to make the game look nicer, rather than play better.

Changes have been made to the physics of the game, such as hitboxes.

Overall I think the problem is for pro gamers, that the game in its current state is not of the standard required for high-level competitive play.

Hope that answers your question.

 

I used to play cs every day for at least an hour, but over the last two years I've maybe played 30mins online. Apart from two lans that would be my total play.

CS has been abandoned by valve and has grown stale, I got bored of all the rubbish that goes on with cheaters and lamers. And just got fed up with the repetition of it all.

I tried source a couple of times but it lacked the feel of traditional cs, for want of a better description it feels disjointed. With cs you feel part of it, you can feel and hear the shots, for me that and the fact you are forced pretty much to sit out for some time in rounds was why it was so great.

The issue with source and all the other pretenders to the crown is that I've yet to play a game that is like cs in feel but modern in all other aspects. I mainly play bf2 and thats great for all the extra's but its as bad as source for close up infantry action.

Its about time a developer took a good look at the feel of games not just eye candy.

 

Many says the changes valve made to the gameplay are noob-friendly... like the awp-delay, the intelligent radar, shield(gone now). The proposed dynamic weapon price is also IMO geared towards non-pro - since most pro players (in tournaments) will almost always choose from usp, deagle, colt, ak and awp.

Pro market is a niche, and casual is the mainstream. All profit-making companies love mainstream.

 

I hate CS with a passion, I don't think gaming pros are important for the gaming community, and I wonder why a game as e.g. Battlefield is not 'pro level' (explanation?)

Personally I believe that the main reason for CS's popularity are it's measly hardware requirements making it run on older computers (I am making the wild assumption that many young players do not have the money to constantly upgrade their systems to current high end or even mid-range hardware ...). Another reason is that once people are used so much to something and know how to handle it perfectly well, they are very reluctant to leave their area of success and expertise and start all over again with a new game with new game mechanics. A third reason may be that e.g. BF(2) requires far more tactical and strategic thinking and flexibility over a far longer time per match than CS - imho. You have to communicate to team mates and commander, you have to be flexible in the combat roles you have to take (and there are way more combat roles) - imo it just takes way more than CS. CS looks like a team game, but is it really one? Compared to BF2, it falls far behind in this regard.

Well, just my two cents.

 

I don't get this fanboy "CS-S Sucks" attitude. The fact is it's NOT the same as 1.6 and never will be, if you want to play a game that's constantly changing and being upgraded play Source, otherwise keep playing 1.6, it's not like there's a forced upgrade to Source.

 

The problem is that Source doesn't have the same gameplay mechanics as 1.6 and it isn't great for competitive play. However, it is great fun for running around servers like headless chickens.

Anyone who's played competitive CS will understand exactly what CS is all about - it's about playing together as a team, a squad. It's about being the best team. What CS isn't about is running around a public server playing team deathmatch or even deathmatch. CS isn't necessarily about individuality either (although that's often the case on public servers), it's about playing as a team and being the best team. If you're a decent, well drilled team, you can beat out even the most skilled group of individuals that don't play together.

Moving on to another topic. The split is even bigger than just Source versus 1.6. The CS 1.6 community is split into two halves (and I'm sure the Source community is the same too). There are those that play "competitive public CS" (also known as Gathers or Scrims) and those who play public server CS. The two game types are completely different - the former is more like playing in a clan match, but with a bunch of strangers. It develops the team mentality further and helps to develop the right skills if you play CS for a team.

I play both games - I play Source in public mode, and I prefer to play 1.6 in competitive mode although my skills aren't what they used to be in 1.6. I've played Source in a couple of clan matches and I can say that the competitive experience simply isn't the same as it is in CS 1.6. I do find public server CS: Source much more enjoyable than public server CS 1.6 though.

 

I'd say that the reason that teamplay etc isn't as good in Source is because everyone who has HL2 gets a copy installed anyway, so you get alot of players who don't play many online games joining up and doing their own thing. Whereas with 1.6 you had to go and download it especially, so you'd get a higher ratio of serious/casual players.

Personally I look at them as two completely different games, it's like comparing the gameplay mechanic of BF1942 to the mechanic of BF2, it's different, but it's not really worse (Except for the horrible BF2 engine ).

 

That's precisely the point! CS:S was billed as a spangly CS but it it wasn't, it was something completely different which was a huge disappointment to a lot of people. Since then Valve have not succesfully made a new franchise or addressed peoples concerns. It's not just differences either it's fundamental flaws e.g. the supposedly clever physics that just spazzes you out when you walk over a barrel - it's not realistic, in real life i'd step over it.

Incidentally, GET ON THE BIT-TECH SERVER PEOPLE!

 

Couldn't agree more.
Its so stupid that you get stuck on barrels and filing cabinets and bounce about like a retard on e.

I think if valve just fixed the flaws like barrels and prevented cheating it would make the game soooo much better than adding all this new stuff like the radar (which I like btw) and this variable pricing.

Fix what you have forst before adding to it IMO!

 

The main issues for the current games played on a competative level (BF2, COD2, Quake4 and CS:S) is that there is no way (or there is, its just piss poor) of broadcasting the games unlike Counterstrike, which is why it is still played at all the top competative competitions (WSVG, CPL, ESWC, WEG & WCG). The main guy at the CPL is currently helping valve fix the main issues with Source:TV (like HLTV for CS but for CS:S) apparently it will be replacing CS1.6 at the 2 main events and world tour stops in 2007, but this is not comfirmed.

In my personal opinon CS:S is a different game to CS1.6, ok u have the same style of game ie Terrorists Vs Counter Terrorists but that is where the game similarities end.

The game engine is completely different, the hit boxes are completely different, the net code of the game is different and blah blah blah, the reason why alot of so called professional players dont like CS:S at the moment is because they would have to pretty much learn a new game.

Saying that the current world #1 CS1.6 squad Team 3D crossed over to play CS:S for WCG 2005 and won the event, didnt hear them whinge about playing CS:S, they all said it was different but hey guess what its a different game.

 

The variable pricing can be turned off on or off i believe.

 

CS died with 1.0.

Viva beta 6 and 7 and the reasonably sized, generally non cheating semi intelectual community that went with it.

 

You're right, it can... though it drags the two communities further apart - do you think that's a good thing?

 

Well, I like it.

 

They might as well just go ahead and formally fork the game, with one more real-world thing they're aiming for with this update and one that's more focused as a 1.6 replacement that focuses on competitive gameplay and balance and whatnot.

 

yeah, I think you hit an interesting point there. That's where I think CS Pro Mod comes in, but I think it's going to take too long to develop and the novelty will have worn off by the time it ships.

 

CS:S has a more active CAL community then 1.6 actually, and personaly I don't think the its going to go away anytime soon. Being CS:S Cal-Invite could taint that opinion but I know what alot of the players today are thinking.