The Declining State of Counter-Strike

[CSN NewsBot]

Ryan Garside, a contributing editor for bit-tech.net, recently wrote a brief opinion article, appropriately titled The Declining State of Counter-Strike.

The first thing Valve did with Source was to get rid of the God awful riot shield, cue lots of "Huzzahs!" from many shield-hating CS'ers. Other changes, such as being able to pick up dropped grenades were also welcomed with glee. Overall, though, the changes were disappointing - maps were tinkered with for aesthetical reasons rather than gameplay balance, new flash bangs were far more powerful (probably more realistic but certainly less fun) and in the initial release the net code made the game close to unplayable.



Furthermore, players were unhappy with the hitboxes and the fact that it was harder to stop yourself being headshotted (the one hit kill). Wallbanging (shooting through walls) was also limited which angered those who had spent so many hours working out all the angles to shoot through doors for maximum effect. Many described the initial launch of CS:S as an unfinished game, and that first impression it would seem, has been difficult to shake off.

I know I'm supposed to remain neutral in bringing the news to the readers of CS-Nation, but I can't help but scoff at a number of the points brought up in this article. From the point about the number of players (apparently ripped from one particular moment in time from the Status page) to a number of one-sided views, the article comes off as nothing more than a rant against any future progress of the game.



Yes, I do realize it's an opinion editorial, but I would have liked to have seen something that didn't resemble what is essentially a more elaborate forum post from the CS: Source forum at Steampowered. You know the type of posts I'm talking about, don't deny it.

[duhhhh]

Edited by [user="408141"] @ [time="1160599907"]

What else do we expect you to say zips, you and the other moderators here always agree with valve, no matter what.



Once, long ago, CSNation would actually point out things Valve has done wrong(not having VAC2 until nearly a year after CS:S was released). Right now, CSNation always agrees with Valve no matter what. Quite honestly, that isn't a way to run a website.



zips, I can understand that because you are a steampowered moderator



http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/member.php?u=10692



you can't say that valve has ever done anything wrong. But I still don't think it is right for you to agree with valve on every single thing .

[Splatula]

I think it's a little extreme to say that CSN always agrees with Valve. They just report the news mostly, it's the forums folks who usually point their opinion at someones head.



We shouldn't trash Valve all the time just for the sake of it... they did make the coolest game out there, after all. Whining that it isn't as cool as we think it should be, or because it's not the same as the last few revisions of the game is hardly worthwhile. If people were really as pissed about the game being the way it is, they could always get off their asses and actually make a mod.



His point about shooting through walls is silly. The end of 1.6 was just dumb... it meant everyone who downloaded the spam maps could fire at the right place and time after spawn without really using any skill. I admit, I did it... but it was a pussy way to play. Source, and the community that has sprung forth from it, just seems more mature than the 1.6 crowd. I see very few l337 haxors and whiny bitches... except on these forums. LOL

[Zips]

Just because I'm a moderator there doesn't mean I have to agree with everything Valve does to CS or any other game. I've been known to complain a LOT about some of the stunts they've pulled, but this article comes off as a joke with how completely one-sided it is.

[ZackMorris]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This article is mearly an opinion and only focuses on the negative aspects of Source. There are a lot more positive things and Valve has fixed many of the bad things as they show up - Zips and I both know that. It has nothing to do with where he is a moderator at and you bringing that up and trying to flame him is just lame. We love this game. Let me repeat this; we love this game. And we try to focus on the positive aspects of the game. Every game has positive and negative aspects. These points this guy brings up in his rant are just the same lame points that people always bring up as an argument of why they hate CS:S - Getting old. Focus on the positive people :)

[Gpig]

"I know I'm supposed to remain neutral in bringing the news to the readers of CS-Nation, but I can't help but scoff at a number of the points brought up in this article."



Are you fucking kidding me? That just blew my fucking brains out of my skull. You preface saying that you're taking a pro valve stance by saying that you try to remain neutral? Every newspost is always given a positive comment. I don't mind it, because I like steam releases like Defcon and Darwinia, and I like DoD:S, HL2, Episode 1, etc, but I never thought that you weren't aware of your lack of neutrality.



Also the points that are made in the little quote are why the competitive community doesn't deal with source and why I only played source for a month (and one CAL season to see if it was bearable) so it's not really anything new. I just think it's funny that the arguments haven't changed since the game came out, although he left out the crippling flaw of not being able to see your shadow. I can't speak for the rest of the article because I don't care to read it; I pretend source doesn't exist so that way I don't have to post angry tirades in comments and forums. I'll read the little news excerpts about new maps, the new radar, and stuff like that, but I read it as an ambivalent outsider and not as a member of that community.

[Zips]

Gpig wrote..

Are you fucking kidding me? That just blew my fucking brains out of my skull. You preface saying that you're taking a pro valve stance by saying that you try to remain neutral? Every newspost is always given a positive comment. I don't mind it, because I like steam releases like Defcon and Darwinia, and I like DoD:S, HL2, Episode 1, etc, but I never thought that you weren't aware of your lack of neutrality.

Hah... I'm a staff member here, I report the news based off of a company, do you honestly expect that I'm going to slam every news piece publically when I don't personally agree with it? I wouldn't have a job for too much longer if I did. And I have tried twice in the past to get some interviews for you guys that are a little on the "not so nice" side, but I never received responses back from Valve about them. Perhaps I struck a couple of nerves that they didn't like.

Also the points that are made in the little quote are why the competitive community doesn't deal with source and why I only played source for a month (and one CAL season to see if it was bearable) so it's not really anything new. I just think it's funny that the arguments haven't changed since the game came out, although he left out the crippling flaw of not being able to see your shadow. I can't speak for the rest of the article because I don't care to read it; I pretend source doesn't exist so that way I don't have to post angry tirades in comments and forums. I'll read the little news excerpts about new maps, the new radar, and stuff like that, but I read it as an ambivalent outsider and not as a member of that community.

The arguements haven't changed much since probably the BETA days on GldSrc. Always complaints about the hitboxes, netcode, and every single minor change that people cannot simply adjust to. It's not their game to hold back, it's Valve's game to progress and grow. I'm frankly tired of progress on this game being stunted due to a community that cannot accept change. I don't agree with everything Valve does, but at least I try the changes before forcing my opinion on anyone.

[Renegade[CSR]]

Woh woh, can't we all just get along? =)



Source is still in development, yes, and valve has made some mistakes, but I still support them whole heartedly because they still support us through their games and their continual updates.

[borsdy]

I like that he mentions Betafield 2.142 and forgets Enemy Territory Quake Wars.

[frenzyfol]

With regards to the part of the article about cheating in cs vs css.



I've played freekin millions of hours in cs and css for the last 6 years. INHO cheating in source is no where near as rife as it was in cs. I can only attribute that to people loosing their steam account ($) if busted.



Sure it can be done, but it makes it just that little bit more scary for the average joe.

[Mazuko]

I oft wonder however how the people that write these sort of articles get their material. Every comment that was brought up has been up in the air for awhile. Do you really want to know why more people play CS 1.6 than CS:S? The answer is simple really. Steam and CS 1.6 are free, CS:S is not. 99% of the time if a GREAT GAME is free, why bother to pay the $20+ to buy the new version of the game when you already enjoy it's predecesor?



Honestly, I've played most variations of CS since it's introduction to the "masses". Hell I even remember when the M4 and AK-47 was scopeable.



Doesn't that mean to you that, as it is today, CS is a constantly growing dynamic game? I mean seriously, can you name a single game that has more content available? More ways to play? More variations of weapons/models/sounds/sprays/maps?



CS:S is not dead or dieing, it is simply going through the same growing pains as CS did. Call me crazy, but if I remember correctly CS took several years, and MANY MANY revisions, to "take off" (hell how many beta renditions can you name?) Give CS:S some time and it too will do the same.

[duhhhh]

frenzyfol wrote..

I've played freekin millions of hours in cs and css for the last 6 years. INHO cheating in source is no where near as rife as it was in cs. I can only attribute that to people loosing their steam account ($) if busted.

I don't think people are vac2 banned for cheating in 1.6, only source.

[Zips]

duhhhh wrote..

I don't think people are vac2 banned for cheating in 1.6, only source.

VAC2 bans by engine. If you're caught cheating in GldSrc games you are banned from all GldSrc games. If you are caught cheating in a Source game, you are banned from all Source games.



So yes, VAC2 is for GldSrc (CS1.6) games as well.

[omgomgz]

Here's my opinion short and sweet (ok long and boring):



Valve doesn't care about CS, it wasn't originally their idea and they recognize that so they try to use CS players to promote their "own" games. If Valve denied me an interview as a CS-Nation staff member I would lash out at them for all CS-Nation has done for CS and all they have done for Valve. Without CS, would Valve have had the money and resources to create Half-Life 2?



CS started out as a free half-life mod. The fact that Valve is now "endorsing" mods only shows that they are hoping for another CS to come out so they can make money off of it.



I know I sound nothing different from all of the other complainers out there, but through my entire gaming experience I've never seen a company so devious to make more money. If CS dies, I would not be surprised.



Delete this at your leisure, Zips, god of the internets.

[evofytr]

Valve didn't just "endorse" CS:S, it hired Jess Cliffe to its staff and developed it on its own. I call that success, don't you? I'd love to be in Mr. Cliffe's shoes. It's any modders dream to be picked up by a developer, and I think in the case of CS:S, for me personally, I have reaped the benefits. I respect those who don't agree, but I don't respect those who disagree in a way that is misleading or wrong in its portrayal of the game, simply because it doesn't suit their tastes. Which happens all the time, just go browse the steampowered.com forums.



There are modders out there who are working on a so-called "pro" mod. If that's as good as it claims, that it'll take off. Just like Counter-Strike. Of course Valve wants to make money off of Counter-Strike, it's their game now. If someone wants to develop another "free" mod based on the Source engine, they can - just remember it's up to the community how popular it becomes.