If I were Gabe...

[Carnage_333]

while i agree that they should have put more effort into cs:s as it being the only multiplayer element in hl2, im not 100% sure that mods are that restricted. Woudnt the low usage of physics being used for cs:s be limited to cs:s? would you not be able to utilize the source engine and include all the things they did not bother with in cs:s? I understand that while not all features of the source engine will be accessable, but surely a MOD team would be able to use the engine to create vehicles, larger maps, and many of the things you listed.
I know where your coming from by saying that MODs are purely the same game with a different theme, like BF and DC, and how the choppers were basicly remodeled planes, but im thinking that becuase valve is encouraging ppl to create mods, that they would give them more access to the source engine beyond just re-theming cs:s.

Im no modder, and if you know for a fact something im sayin is wrong, by all means point it out.


oh, and the chopper controls on DC cained vietnam

 

[AgentSmith]

It isn't a case of wrong or right about what MODs can do - certainly they can do anything a developer can do (well, sorta as the SDK only lets you at some things, not the actual engine source code like if you had bought a liscense of the engine). Maybe some talented MODers will do what Valve didn't, I just think it is terribly unlikely given that even games that have a unique, innovative, and complete multiplayer rarely get good MODs. Know what I mean, good MODs are just not that common and great MODs (ones that are as good as what you would buy in the store like Counter-Strike, Desert Combat, or maybe Tactical Ops) are just damn rare. The other MODs that are good are really just the same game with a new theme. I just haven't ever seena MOD that really added engine level content to the game - they remodel and they reskin but in the end it is basically the same as the parent game. What HL2 needs to truly get a Source MP is more on the level of what Valve did way back with the Quake 2 engine they liscensed - they tore it apart and rebuilt it to do new things that hadn't been done. That is why HL2 was so unique and why CS followed on it because they took the engine and made it more. It took them nearly 3 years to do that, I don't see a MOD team bascially doing the same creating a MP where none exists.

Engines are far more complicated now then when Cliffe and the CS boyz did it - and as I said they didn't really do anything 'new' other than the round system, the used the existing netcode and game systems - all of which were substantively less complicated than today's. The extra challenge that MODs will face is that they now have to create proper netcode (as CS:S netcode is barely good enough for CS:S let alone larger maps with vehicles and expanses and actual usable physics and all), they will have to create the GUI, they will have to create the game interface and whatever style it is (if it isn't gonna be DM, CTF, or rounds but maybe something like what most new MP games are with some kind of concuest base capture/hold thing). I am sure I am missing alot but that is a pretty hefty load in addition to the modelling and skinning and basic code modification to change the 'theme'. Look at FarCry - with that amazing engine and editor and it being the first next generation engine to hit the market MODers where dying to get at it. but SDK delays and no fixes for what was a horrible out of the box MP (very similar netcode problems to what we see in CS:S BTW) killed nearly every one of the MODs. Many switched to Source but so far it is looking like they might face a similar fate with a bad MP out of the box, netcode problems, and an SDK that is being delayed at least for now.

On top of all that we are not even sure if or when the SDK will come. Ask ANY MODer and they will tell you that developers allways promise the world about the SDK being released soon and often never release it or release it so late that it causes tons of problems. Now Valve certainly seems to intend to release it but they are allready month behind on thier promises, they had said it would be out last June and then they said a month or weeks before release and now they are hinting with release or shortly thereafter - sound familiar?

My thoughts are that Valve simply realixed that Source couldn't bring all this stuff to MP - not without alot of work (like what goes into making a BF2 or STALKER) so they simply dumped it and came up with the CS:S thing just to be able to say they had MP. CS has such limited demands (being based on a 5 year old engine) that they could make it work with little comprimise (the little being the cheesy force field physics) so they did that. People say that they did it to get the CS people to buy HL2, I don't think that is as big a motive as people might think as they want people to buy CS2 and TF2 both of which are seperate retail products that would be harmed if this HUGE block of thier fans get everything they want in HL2, namely CS on Source. Think about what I mean here - this HUGE block of CS people ahs allways worked for Valve, but now thier steadfast refusal to change is working AGAINST them. So how best to get them into the new Source titles, give them a sloppy version of CS that really has no legs but will get them to buy HL2 anyways and that will hold them over until your other Source titles hit the stores, or until CS2. My point being that I don't think Valve wants HL2 MP to succeed, either becuase it is not ready (remember the enigne is last years best, so it is limited in many ways and may need updating since it is being released so late).

Now this all gets away form the point of the topic I started but, I suppose it all relates. Mainly what I was suggesting I would have done is the thing I mentioned above like the BF series where the true sequal is still to come but we still take the old and make it new (the old being CS and the new being CS:S). I think that would have been better for the community and for the future success of the franchise. For instance, I can tell you without fail that I will NEVER buy another Valve CS series game. Probably HL2 if it follows in the advancement line of HL2 and HL1 for SP but I wouldn't ever consider CS2 given that to date I have been sold the same game three times (CS, CZ, and now CS:S). There are alot more people like me then one might think thta buy just for MP and most all that are not currently CS 1.6 freaks woudn't touch CS with a ten foot pole, Valve cemented that with this CS:S debacle and may have sealed the franchises fate.

Personally, I think that FarCry, Doom 3, Source are all great engines but being on the new side of the tehnology MP is just out of thier reach. Maybe patching will get them there but my guess is that it will take BF2 or maybe STALKER (if it lives up to its early press) to bring these next generation features online. I have NO doubt that you cannot do it with 56k support, no doubt at all. The trick here with all these Source MODs is that with BF2 due early next year and HL2 hitting the ground with nearly no MP are the ones with the big plans (not the guys who want a HL2 DM) but the big MODs gonna jump to these engines that where designed for next generation multi player because it just doesn't seem, even in spite of the hype, that Source was. If I where making a MP MOD I would go to a game that was made for MP, not a game that just ported a 5 year old MOD of Quake 2 in as its MP. I guess time will tell.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

What's the obsession with CS being a Quake 2 mod?

CS was a HL mod. HL wasn't based on Quake 2.

 

[AgentSmith]

Uh - yes it was. Half Life was not a proprietary engine, Valve liscensed the Quake engine and modified it to make Half Life. The skeletal animation was thier modification as well as some other such innovative additions. Nonetheless, at the core CS is Quake DM with some of the graphics benifits of the Valve modifcations. As I understand it the CS guys also did some very innovative work with the netcode early on and that helped really set apart CS (along with the whole round based style of gameplay).

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I don't need a history lesson, thanks. I just have no clue where you get the idea that it's based on Quake 2 from. Your last post even seems to contradict that.

HL was based on the Quake rendering technology, with a very small portion from Quake 2. Ultimately, around 70% of the total engine was written by Valve.

Early on, the CS guys wouldn't have had access to the netcode. It's not exposed in the SDK.

 

[AgentSmith]

Well, we can quible over how much of what makes up CS is Quake and how much is HL. Much of what Valve added, certainly the most revolutionary stuff was mostly SP releated. The core engine is basically the same. That is all my point was as the core engine is even older than HL itself. Much like a MOD of some Source game that comes out next year or after that would be quite old come 2011. As for giving credit to the CS guys for the netcode work I have read that a number of places, I am not sure if it is accurate allthough I think the sources that credited them for being innovative with the netcode where reliable - but that is why I preceded my comments on that issue with 'as I understand it'.

I recall on of the first games I played online (along with HL and CS) was Star Trek: Elite Force. If I recall it was based on the Quake 3 engine and I liked it because it was ST but also cause it wasn't mutants running around shooting each other. I hate mutant shooter games, the ST world gave it a relaity of sorts. It was alot of new stuff from Quake 3 itself but in the end - it was Quake 3. That is my only point in referring to CS as a Quake 3 MOD - as I tend to think of games in classes of thier engines because I have observed over the years that they all take on the basic characteristics of the parent engine. I am sure there are exceptions but not as much in MP as there might be in SP and not amoungst the big titles. I, for instance, know NEVER to bother with UT or anything that is powered by UT - I just cannot stand the disticntive cartoony type graphics and the movement of the models (they all seem to glide everywhere) and that general feel stays from UT to UT2k to UT2k4.

The POINT of this original thread and the subsequent discussion is that I just think Valve dropped the bal in not putting at least some original MP out there (or at least making CS:S really work with Source and changing it to represent all the engine can do) as this new engine should get its own style, not some port of what is basically Quake, albeit improved Quake, deathmatch. Source is this great new engine, it deserves a MP tat really puts all it can do on display, IMHO. I suggested the more realistic stlye CS as I think the best thing about Source I have seen is that while it might not be the best graphics it certainly does create these environments that just have a very real feel to them - so why not continue that new real feel with a new more real style.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

It's the mods that are going to drive the multiplayer longevity of HL2. The SDK is going to contain "multiplayer examples", according to one Valve employee. That suggests to me that the code for a basic DM game will be there, uncompiled, with no assets. Modders are going to use whatever they're given as a base and build the whole thing up.

I don't see it as Valve having "dropped the ball". Sure, I would have liked a HL2-themed multiplayer, but HL2 is all about the single-player and the mods that follow, just like HL was.

 

[Carnage_333]

i would continue in this discussion, if i didnt have to read a novel every time agent smith posts.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Brevity is King.

 

[Mac]

Brevity is King.

no kidding man its like a 800 word essay every time he posts

speaking of which, I got one myself that's due tomorrow.

i think ill hire agent smith

 

[Mac]

btw, they're saving the stuff you mentioned that you wanted to see in cs:source, for cs2.

(hopefully) that's what i hear anyway

 

[impakt]

I seriously doubt that for two reasons:
One - if CS:S is the same as CS then there is no reason to go to CS:S (just takes more money and runs slower which is bad for competiton). The hardcore CS people will remain with old CS.
Two - given the above the only way CS:S can really thrive is if it is CHANGED to use all Source can do (instead of just mimicking an outdated 5 year old engine) and if that happens then you will have old CS and new CS and maybe competition ladders for both.

You simply do not understand how things work, do you ?
The organizers are forced to move on to newer engines/games that pushes the hardwarelimit simply because that's how they get their sponsorship.

The main thing behind eSports is money, and the money is always in the newest technology. And sure, technology can change, but the game should stay more or less the same, you don't really see them overhauling football or hockey every other year just to "move on" do you ?

 

[ukfluke]

impakt, cpl have already told valve cs:s sucks. They have no plans to introduce it to cpl at the moment. Valve needs to bring back the old model stance/animations or cs:s is going nowhere.

 

[AgentSmith]

You simply do not understand how things work, do you ?
The organizers are forced to move on to newer engines/games that pushes the hardwarelimit simply because that's how they get their sponsorship.

The main thing behind eSports is money, and the money is always in the newest technology. And sure, technology can change, but the game should stay more or less the same, you don't really see them overhauling football or hockey every other year just to "move on" do you ?

I think that is a poor anology as eSports are a pittance compared to game sales and the real sports you mentioned. No game has ever been released to cater to eSports because it would fail miserably. If you want to talk about real sports like football and baseball then look at which game was #1 and is now struggling, MLB. Now of all the pro sports which has the reputation of not changing - baseball.

Football changes rules quite a bit in comparison - recent NFL realignmnet, NFL started back instant replay a few years ago, college football chaning overtime rules recently, the NFL just change the rules on pass interference this season, etc, etc, etc. MLB brags about thier refusal to change and how it links the stats of today with those of the past and that is one of the big reasons that it has fallen in popularity and why it cannot even beat a presidential debate in the TV ratings or get a decent TV contract.

It's the mods that are going to drive the multiplayer longevity of HL2. The SDK is going to contain "multiplayer examples", according to one Valve employee. That suggests to me that the code for a basic DM game will be there, uncompiled, with no assets. Modders are going to use whatever they're given as a base and build the whole thing up.

I don't see it as Valve having "dropped the ball". Sure, I would have liked a HL2-themed multiplayer, but HL2 is all about the single-player and the mods that follow, just like HL was.

Multiplayer examples? Come on - aside from being a pale substitute for a viable mulitplayer with a active community for MODers to draw from Valve has also said the SDK would have been out long ago and that hasn't happened.

And as far as HL1, it had a viable and succesful MP - maybe not succesful on the level of CS but without at least that base MP game there is nothing to MOD. Yes, HL2 is CLEARLY a SP game, I agree there. It is sad they used hype and half true statements to hide that from us pre purchase but it is obvious now that it is just a SP game.

Name ONE single player game to have a succesful MP MOD, or even a quality MP MOD whether or not it is succesful. I can't think of a single one.

 

[impakt]

impakt, cpl have already told valve cs:s sucks. They have no plans to introduce it to cpl at the moment. Valve needs to bring back the old model stance/animations or cs:s is going nowhere.

They haven't told Valve that it sucks, they have told them which changes that needs to be done for it to be viable for competition, and Valve will certainly abide them for the funds.

 

[ukfluke]

wow agent smith...write a book.

p.s valve told evryone at e3 cs:s was the multiplayer. I repeated this many times on the forum u shouldnt have been surprised.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Multiplayer examples? Come on - aside from being a pale substitute for a viable mulitplayer with a active community for MODers to draw from

Have you seen the sheer amount of multiplayer mods planned for HL2? I haven't seen a single one saying they're giving up because there's no dedicated HL2-themed multiplayer.

Valve has also said the SDK would have been out long ago and that hasn't happened.

That is a bit annoying, but not really unexpected. I don't recall a single instance of an SDK being released before the game.

And as far as HL1, it had a viable and succesful MP - maybe not succesful on the level of CS but without at least that base MP game there is nothing to MOD.

But there is. If Valve included a basic DM mode in the SDK (DLL source only), then that's a more than sufficient base to start from. Drawing from my own experience on a HL mod, the first thing we did was use the basic rules given to us and change them. The base for the multiplayer mods doesn't have to be a viable game in its own right.

Yes, HL2 is CLEARLY a SP game, I agree there. It is sad they used hype and half true statements to hide that from us pre purchase but it is obvious now that it is just a SP game.

I don't see that it was hidden. Valve stated that CS:S was the multiplayer shipping with HL2 before it was available to preorder.

Name ONE single player game to have a succesful MP MOD, or even a quality MP MOD whether or not it is succesful. I can't think of a single one.

I don't need to - you're comparing apples and oranges. HL2 will have a multiplayer-based SDK. It's not like it's being tacked-on to the engine as an afterthought.

For whatever reason, Valve altered/abandoned their multiplayer plans in favour of CS:S. That doesn't make it not HL2's multiplayer.

I don't agree that the multiplayer portion of the SDK has to be from an already active game, as long as it works.

 

[Lep]

You'd figure if you could type out those 3 paragraph posts you could at least proofread it or spell check.

 

[AgentSmith]

I don't need to - you're comparing apples and oranges. HL2 will have a multiplayer-based SDK. It's not like it's being tacked-on to the engine as an afterthought.

For whatever reason, Valve altered/abandoned their multiplayer plans in favour of CS:S. That doesn't make it not HL2's multiplayer.

I don't agree that the multiplayer portion of the SDK has to be from an already active game, as long as it works.

I do not fault Valve for going with CS:S as its multiplayer - I fault them for CS:S being so sloppy and incomplete. Sure, it is CS with great graphics and in terms of CS it may be great overall but this is ot the game world that CS was born in and CS:S is not great in Source terms (I think that is pretty fair to say). Had they made the decision to go with CS:S and done it properly and completely I would not have a problem. As for what you say about the SDK I think that is all speculation, I hope it turns out as you believe it will but to date all we have is talk and promises and we all know how that turns to disappointment in a heartbeat where developers are concerned (and Valve is at the top of that list in many cases even including this SDK and HL2 in general).

 

[Quelaar]

Between reproducing CS and HL: DM, I'm pleased that Valve took on the much more difficult task. I think the HL2 mod community would have had much more trouble making an equivalent to CS:S than a DM remake, so I'm happy by the way things turned out.

Also, in regards to CS:S it feels, in my opinion, very different than CS 1.6. I certainly think that people die much faster, and it gives the game a more gritty and realistic taste (not to suggest that the game is realistic). I especially like the changes made to the machine gun, which now seems to hold its own at a long range far better than the 1.6 version. I'm not going back to CS 1.6 or CZ.

Also, there's no denying that making CS:S was the smart thing to do: I know many people that have bought steam packages solely for CS:S, and I'm sure many legions of CS fans are giving Valve hard earned money for that reason too.

I stressed that my points are opinionated because Agent Smith scares me, and I thought I should appropriately defend my individual beliefs

Quelaar

 

[Carnage_333]

Pi Mu Rho makes some good points.
The sheer number of multiplayer mods alone is reason to belive that the modding community for HL2 is going to be stronger than ever, and that there will be a way to make quality mods that are not just re-themed cs:s.

im pretty sure most of what you have said agent smith has been addressed. Your only valid point is now your opinion that cs:s is slopy and crap.

I disagree.

 

[AgentSmith]

Well, all I know is I handed over my money a couple weeks ago and even if everything you guys hope for comes to pass with the MODs it will be nearly a year before I get a true Source MP and for that reason alone I think Valve jipped us. I have NO DOUBT that if HL2 SP comes in the same condition of completion and quality that CS:S is in that people would be gathering at Valve HQ with pitchforks and torches - if HL2 SP would come and be the same or as similar to HL1 as CS:S is to CS then there would be complete anarchy.

:cheers:

 

[impakt]

Stop rambling about a "true source MP". CS:S is a true source MP, you just don't like it.

 

[AgentSmith]

NO, CS is a port - you can't have it both ways. Either it is a bad Source MP or it is just a port. When people judge it as a new retail MP game (which I don't think it is at all) the fanboyz scream back it is just a port, if someone says it sucks that HL2 has no MP then they say CS:S is HL2 MP. I realize that CS:S as HL2 MP is pretty hard to defend even by the fanboyz but at least find a consistent postition.

 

[Eat Fresh]

Jesus buddy... CS is how it is for a reason. If you add all this other crap it loses what little teamplay it has and becomes "who can grab the vehicle and run over his own team first" THe accuracy, recoil, and damage are done in ways that the players know so that people that were good at it, in general, still are good at it. Cs doesn't need to change. A new mod that did all this in a way that worked would be fine though.

 

[AgentSmith]

Jesus buddy... CS is how it is for a reason. If you add all this other crap it loses what little teamplay it has and becomes "who can grab the vehicle and run over his own team first" THe accuracy, recoil, and damage are done in ways that the players know so that people that were good at it, in general, still are good at it. Cs doesn't need to change. A new mod that did all this in a way that worked would be fine though.

Spoken like a true fanboy who has no exposure to other games and what is being done with MP these days. CS is the not at all team opriented compared to games like BF, BF:V, DC, JO, etc - the fact that they have powerful vehicles neccesitates the opposing tean working together. CS is many things but a 'team' game it really isn't, one or two guys on a team can dominate an opposing team and once one team gets money the other team is severely disadvantaged - besides that most pub games have the teams stacked with all the good players on one side and just a bunch of targets on the other.

Fact is that just like there is a need and desire for graphics and the like ot change with subsequent releases, gameplay and the like should as well. If you think CS is perfect then more power to you, play 1.6 and your little world will remain the same.

 

[ukfluke]

agent smith. Why dont u leave cs alone and make a mod or something

and if other games have progressed mp by so much how come u can add all of the people playing them together and it comes nowhere near the number playing cs?

 

[impakt]

CS isn't about pub'ing Agent Smith.

 

[Eat Fresh]

Spoken like a true fanboy who has no exposure to other games and what is being done with MP these days. CS is the not at all team opriented compared to games like BF, BF:V, DC, JO, etc - the fact that they have powerful vehicles neccesitates the opposing tean working together. CS is many things but a 'team' game it really isn't, one or two guys on a team can dominate an opposing team and once one team gets money the other team is severely disadvantaged - besides that most pub games have the teams stacked with all the good players on one side and just a bunch of targets on the other.

Fact is that just like there is a need and desire for graphics and the like ot change with subsequent releases, gameplay and the like should as well. If you think CS is perfect then more power to you, play 1.6 and your little world will remain the same.

Have you played any battlefield style games? Ever? I own them all. I'm a casual gamer, no clans or competition. I like to pop into a server, play for an hour or so, and quit. Thing is, people just rush for the vehicles and rush headlong at the enemy. Some lone guy is always spawn camping in a house near your spawn with an m60. People don't work together, they just see that there happens to be alot of enemy tanks and pick an AT kit knowing they can get up to 2 kills per tank they destroy. From my impression of the public servers there is little to no teamplay.

CS on the other hand has streamlined maps that force players to choke points. I can pop into dust 2 and spawn with the bomb and say "Rush short A" and everyone knows exactly what I am talking about and a surprising number of people comply. The money thing is punishment for losing, but the more rounds you lose in a row, the more money you get, helping the losing team with a comeback if they have the skill to perform it.

As for your "domination" comment, I rarely see a BF server that the leader isn't 10 or so kills ahead of the rest of the pack. You know why? Spawn camping. The winning team can move on the losing teams spawns and wait for them. This is worse than just getting less money because you can't fight beck when you are already dead. You can fight back in CS if you can afford a desert eagle or a shotgun or something.

Waiting for your esteemed reply so I can argue with you some more...

 

[AgentSmith]

What you describe is simply online gaming, Rambos exist in everything. CS is not a team game, it is a collection of individuals split into to teams just as most other games are in public circles. I think other games require more teamwork to achieve the game's objectives than do CS, like capping a flag in BF or taking a PSP in JO but without regard to that in all games there are people who ignore the objectives and just run around for the best K.

But my comment stands, BF and other games are more about teamwork than CS, for instance - in BF you cannot win as a team unless you achieve the team objective, period. In CS no matter whether a bomb or a hostage map you can win by killing the other guys and ignoring the map objectives completely. I am not saying that is a bad thing but it is the case and in most public servers that is about all everyone does. Remember, I was only replying to the guy that held up CS as some team game, it simply is not - nothing wrong with that in and of itself I am just stating the reality of the situation.

As for the guy that says CS isn't about pub'ing I say are you crazy? Public play is 90% of the people at any given time playing, it far outweighs the few people who play in some ladder. Give me a break.

and if other games have progressed mp by so much how come u can add all of the people playing them together and it comes nowhere near the number playing cs?

Easy to cheats, easy to exploits, easy entry (being great might be hard but being OK is easy), and low hardware requirements, and plentiful and cheap servers. Of course the gameplay attracts alot of people but I think more than anything else it is just the fact that it is a simple, easy game and the bulk of people simply are not willing to try anything else as much because they are closed minded as because they are in love with CS. Consider that McDonalds services far more people than any 5 star restaurant - that doesn't mean McDonalds has better food or that other restaurants are not just as good or even better.

Evidence of what I am saying is the reaction of people in this forum - I mean who in the world can defend getting the same Quake based game 5 years later on this new Source engine which is capable as so much more? I mean it makes no sense. If you love CS then play CS - but how does it make any sense to then suggest by your support releasing that same game over and over (now the third time). It is like if Star Wars 2 came out and it was the same as one but just with better actors or something - why make another if only to make the same again?

 

[ukfluke]

agent smith, people arnt stupid if they enjoyed another game more they would play it. Oh and a 5 star restraunt cost alot more...and doesnt have drive through

 

[Eat Fresh]

But my comment stands, BF and other games are more about teamwork than CS, for instance - in BF you cannot win as a team unless you achieve the team objective, period. In CS no matter whether a bomb or a hostage map you can win by killing the other guys and ignoring the map objectives completely. I am not saying that is a bad thing but it is the case and in most public servers that is about all everyone does.

You can win by killing the other team. BF has the "tickets" which go down every time a player dies. Just as long as the enemy doesn't take all the control points it's just a game of kill the other guys.

The maps and constraints in CS are what makes the gameply how it is. The open areas and huge fields of BF style gameplay don't encourage close knit groups battling it out with each other.

I'll say that both CS and BF style gameplay benefit greatly from good teamplay. Maybe even BF benefits more. Close knit groups using voice ghat in BF can rock an entire server. I survived an entire map in BF:V because I had a friend in the room with me who was an engineer so he could repair me and scout ahead and call out targets for me to blast. Good times.

The thing is, the maps and gameplay style of BF games don't encourage teamplay as much as the maps and gameplay style of the current CS, and when teamplay works right, it adds exponentially to the fun.

PS - make a mod. You've been told by almost everyone here. If you don't like it you can always change it.

 

[impakt]

As for the guy that says CS isn't about pub'ing I say are you crazy? Public play is 90% of the people at any given time playing, it far outweighs the few people who play in some ladder. Give me a break.

Sure there's more people playing it public, but all the money is at the clanplay, that's what makes it a team game.

 

[AgentSmith]

You can win by killing the other team. BF has the "tickets" which go down every time a player dies. Just as long as the enemy doesn't take all the control points it's just a game of kill the other guys.

The maps and constraints in CS are what makes the gameply how it is. The open areas and huge fields of BF style gameplay don't encourage close knit groups battling it out with each other.

I'll say that both CS and BF style gameplay benefit greatly from good teamplay. Maybe even BF benefits more. Close knit groups using voice ghat in BF can rock an entire server. I survived an entire map in BF:V because I had a friend in the room with me who was an engineer so he could repair me and scout ahead and call out targets for me to blast. Good times.

The thing is, the maps and gameplay style of BF games don't encourage teamplay as much as the maps and gameplay style of the current CS, and when teamplay works right, it adds exponentially to the fun.

PS - make a mod. You've been told by almost everyone here. If you don't like it you can always change it.

It is not about one being better than another, it is about the stupidity of releasing the exact same game over and over and over. I mean take BF '42, a succesful game and popular, so they make BF:V but it isn't exactly like BF '42 - it takes the main elements and creates a new game with differances and similarities. It doesn't use the same wepaons with the same characterisitcs on the same maps with the exact same choke points and the near exact same everything else. Come on, I am not debating whether CS is good or not, obviously I don't like regular CS (I just don't like the Quake style unrealistic DM play with the run and jump sprayfest) - the point is not whether CS is good as it is, the point os why make a whole new engine with the benifit of 5 years of gaming advancement only to, in the end, have the near exact same game. That just makes no sense, just like CZ made no sense and just like HL2 SP being HL1 single player with better graphics but the same everything else would make no sense.

Sure there's more people playing it public, but all the money is at the clanplay, that's what makes it a team game.

LOL, there is no money in CS play - not on a scale that is relevant to anything but the few involved in it.

 

[AgentSmith]

Look, I get that lots of people love CS as it is - I am not confronting that. Heck, I like CS too I just am tired of the same 'ole CS on the same 'ole maps with the same 'old run to choke point and park x-hair on corner and fire gameplay. A couple people here have stated they have played some of the BF games, think about this then. In Desert Combat there are a couple great infantry maps that I would love to see in a CS environment/style. Basrah's Edge and Lost Village. Both are great T VS CT type maps that Source would allow for but instead we are still crashing the same office and the same dust over and over. Imagine CS pased action on the SOurce engine with that kind of a map/environment - to me that is the whole point of Source, the whole reason to get excited - not just get a new looking CS but to get a CS that is as new and evolved as Source is over the orignal modified Quake engine. Finally the maps and the weapons can be as real as CS allways looked but couldn't be because of the engine limitations. I dunno, I just don't get why anyone would want the same thing over and over - progress to me is taking the best of the old and creating something new with it.

 

[ukfluke]

the things u speak of may be in CS2.

 

[AgentSmith]

Maybe - what I am saying is they should have been in HL2. HL2s MP should have been CS2 or at least been what BF:V was to BF '42, a continuation of the orignal with new environments and some new features while the full sequal is developed.

Given what Valve did hear I wouldn't touch CS2 if they paid me to try it because I have seen 2 games now that they sold that where just the orignal repackage with superficial changes.

 

[The Mullinator]

Maybe - what I am saying is they should have been in HL2. HL2s MP should have been CS2 or at least been what BF:V was to BF '42, a continuation of the orignal with new environments and some new features while the full sequal is developed.

Given what Valve did hear I wouldn't touch CS2 if they paid me to try it because I have seen 2 games now that they sold that where just the orignal repackage with superficial changes.

You say all of this as if giving us another kind of multiplayer like CS2 could be done easily and within a decent amount of time. People just spent the past year doing nothing but bitch and moan trying to force Valve to release the game as soon as possible and then suddenly when they do they start to complain that its missing some features. Well guess what, this is what happens. Valve doesn't have an infinite amount of resources to use so if they didn't include another form of multiplayer then it is most likely because they had to decide between releasing the game early and eliminating a feature that modders will end up adding anyways. Or adding another two or three months to development time to include multiplayer.

 

[Eat Fresh]

Look, I get that lots of people love CS as it is - I am not confronting that. Heck, I like CS too I just am tired of the same 'ole CS on the same 'ole maps with the same 'old run to choke point and park x-hair on corner and fire gameplay. A couple people here have stated they have played some of the BF games, think about this then. In Desert Combat there are a couple great infantry maps that I would love to see in a CS environment/style. Basrah's Edge and Lost Village. Both are great T VS CT type maps that Source would allow for but instead we are still crashing the same office and the same dust over and over. Imagine CS pased action on the SOurce engine with that kind of a map/environment - to me that is the whole point of Source, the whole reason to get excited - not just get a new looking CS but to get a CS that is as new and evolved as Source is over the orignal modified Quake engine. Finally the maps and the weapons can be as real as CS allways looked but couldn't be because of the engine limitations. I dunno, I just don't get why anyone would want the same thing over and over - progress to me is taking the best of the old and creating something new with it.

Well, as it is right now, we have CS in an engine that supports all these things - vehicles, large maps, large player limits, etc. When the SDK comes out, all of what you just described could be done in a map. No programming. No modding. Maybe a text file and some 3dsmax time to make a vehicle or 2. Wait and see or do it yourself when it comes out.

 

[AgentSmith]

You say all of this as if giving us another kind of multiplayer like CS2 could be done easily and within a decent amount of time. People just spent the past year doing nothing but bitch and moan trying to force Valve to release the game as soon as possible and then suddenly when they do they start to complain that its missing some features. Well guess what, this is what happens. Valve doesn't have an infinite amount of resources to use so if they didn't include another form of multiplayer then it is most likely because they had to decide between releasing the game early and eliminating a feature that modders will end up adding anyways. Or adding another two or three months to development time to include multiplayer.

Please, Valve punted on MP because they knew that all the sickophants would kiss thier buts even though this would make the third time they are selling the same game.

HL2 stands to earn millions upon millions of dollars, they could have easily hired 5 or 8 people to work on CS:S to make it a true HL2/Source MP instead of the same old thing they have allready shipped twice before.