If I were Gabe...

[AgentSmith]

Im fine with CS:S (It's not my cup of tea, but I guess I can wait for mods), Im just dissapointed that the Secretive MP that Gabe alluded to playing was pure nonsense.

life goes on though.

I hear both Agent, and Pi are trying to convey and I agree with both.

Agent has the right to express how he feels about the mp component, that we were handed the short end of the stick, and I agree with that to some extent, because I did follow the developement of hl2 very closely and they did make me feel as though the MP component would be something spectacular.



PI is right in saying, being the developer the MP could be whatever they wanted.. the worth of the product is for the individual to decide.. a lot of people creamed themselves when they heard CS:S was hl2's mp component.

The fact that they sold Hl2 packages via steam and saying it was the full version of CS:S irritates me, as it most evidently was not. (or it should not, but then again perhaps some people just expect more/a certain level of quality out of something they pay for)

people either look at it as:
+Well you pre-ordered Hl2 via steam and got to play cs:s for free.
you should be thanking Valve that you can play CS:S in the time it takes for them to release, new content will come in patches.

-I bought Hl2 via steam, expressly for the ability to play CS:S now, thinking I was purchasing the full end version, didnt expect the beta with more maps.. if that were the case I would have waited for retail.

what you have to realize is that Valve are complete masters Of all marketing strategies.

oh crap gotta run, will continue this later.

great conversation btw.

Well said.

I think people confust me 'hating' CSS with me thinking CSS shouldn't be HL2 MP. Actually, I don't think so at all. If they had at least finsihed and polished CSS then it would be a legit MP component I suppose (allthough I think some maps and other new content and updates would be appropriate).

My issue is not with CSS as HL2 MP - my issue is that CSS is not (no matter whether you like it or not) a Source game - it is a HL1/Quake game. I bought HL2/Source, I just want a game made to run this engines features, not an engine that was great in its time but has long since been surpassed. Had CSS just gotten updated in a similar way to the way HL1 SP got updated to become HL2 SP then it would be a legit and decent product EVEN if it wasn't to my liking gameplay wise.

 

[Mac]

Well said.

I think people confust me 'hating' CSS with me thinking CSS shouldn't be HL2 MP. Actually, I don't think so at all. If they had at least finsihed and polished CSS then it would be a legit MP component I suppose (allthough I think some maps and other new content and updates would be appropriate).

My issue is not with CSS as HL2 MP - my issue is that CSS is not (no matter whether you like it or not) a Source game - it is a HL1/Quake game. I bought HL2/Source, I just want a game made to run this engines features, not an engine that was great in its time but has long since been surpassed. Had CSS just gotten updated in a similar way to the way HL1 SP got updated to become HL2 SP then it would be a legit and decent product EVEN if it wasn't to my liking gameplay wise.

I think you need to elaborated more on your definition of what a 'source game' is becuase saying cs:s is not a source game is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. Obviously its a source game.

also i think saying it is a hl1/quake game doesn't make any sense either without elaborating.

im just pointing out flaws in your argument, not your opinion.

 

[AgentSmith]

I think it is pretty clear what I mean - CS was designed for the HL1 engine (modified Quake 2). All its features and limitations are derived from the features and limitations of that engine. CS was ported to Source and dubed, 'CS:Source' but it still has all those limitations of features and gameplay the same as HL:Source will have with only the addition of some asthetic enhancements.

What I mean when I sya a true Source game is a game designed (at leat in practice if not concept) to fully utilize and integrate all of the Source engine features into the gameplay. CS:S, whether you like it or not, simply does not even come close to doing that. As a result those of us who care more about MP than SP got a 5 year old game to go with this great new Source engine - the fact that game is incomplete and slopilly ported just adds to the annoyance.

 

[AgentSmith]

mr. agent smith,

HL2 isnt out yet. (im sure you've noticed) Why dont you wait until the game is OUT, and you know FOR SURE that CS:S is the ONLY mulitplayer for it?

Q. Are there any plans for a standalone Half-Life 2 multiplayer part, deathmatch, co-op, somewhere down the line?
Doug Lombardi: Nope.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/half-life-2/558931p1.html?fromint=1

Kind of cements that argument. Look, CSS is fine if that is what Valve wants as HL2 MP; they SHOULD have finished it and they SHOULD have made it with the same quality and ability they did with the SP, as it is now it is just a cheap. sloppy port - not a retail MP component.

 

[Madhotch]

STFU!!!! DEAL WITH IT NO HLDM, AND I'M GLAD! GO, RIGHT NOW, AND LOK TO SEE WHOS PLAYING THE ORIGINAL DM, 5 PEOPLE, AND YOU ARENT EVEN ONE OF EM PROBALLY! CS WAS A GIANT SUCCESS BECAUSE OF Its SIMPLICITY, SO WHY CHANGE IT W/ SCOPE swAY AND SHIT!!AHHHHHHHHHHHH, GRRRRRRRRR, BROOOOOOORG!!! Ah...much better now that i let all those flames outta my heart (it was givin me heart burn)

PS. YOU'RE TALKIN SHIT ABOUT GABE? **** YOU! WHO ARE YOU? HE'S
THE POOR SLOB WHO'S BEEN MAKING THIS INSANE GAME FOR YEARS! AND FOR WHAT, TO BE KICKED IN THE ASS BY UNDESERVING PRICKS LIKE YOU? NOT ON MY WATCH!

 

[AgentSmith]

STFU!!!! DEAL WITH IT NO HLDM, AND I'M GLAD! GO, RIGHT NOW, AND LOK TO SEE WHOS PLAYING THE ORIGINAL DM, 5 PEOPLE, AND YOU ARENT EVEN ONE OF EM PROBALLY! CS WAS A GIANT SUCCESS BECAUSE OF Its SIMPLICITY, SO WHY CHANGE IT W/ SCOPE swAY AND SHIT!!AHHHHHHHHHHHH, GRRRRRRRRR, BROOOOOOORG!!! Ah...much better now that i let all those flames outta my heart (it was givin me heart burn)

PS. YOU'RE TALKIN SHIT ABOUT GABE? **** YOU! WHO ARE YOU? HE'S
THE POOR SLOB WHO'S BEEN MAKING THIS INSANE GAME FOR YEARS! AND FOR WHAT, TO BE KICKED IN THE ASS BY UNDESERVING PRICKS LIKE YOU? NOT ON MY WATCH!

And here we have the exact type of idiotic fanboy that is the reason the same game gets sold over and over and over. I mean what kind of moron would suggest that it is reasonable to seel CS over and over while at the same time NOBODY would accept the same type of BS from Valve with SP. Jeez, it is a wonder they didn't just cal HL:Source HL2 and sell it like that - with the kiss asses around here they would still make a ton of money.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

HL was not based on Quake2.

 

[Kyorisu]

STFU!!!! DEAL WITH IT NO HLDM, AND I'M GLAD! GO, RIGHT NOW, AND LOK TO SEE WHOS PLAYING THE ORIGINAL DM, 5 PEOPLE, AND YOU ARENT EVEN ONE OF EM PROBALLY! CS WAS A GIANT SUCCESS BECAUSE OF Its SIMPLICITY, SO WHY CHANGE IT W/ SCOPE swAY AND SHIT!!AHHHHHHHHHHHH, GRRRRRRRRR, BROOOOOOORG!!! Ah...much better now that i let all those flames outta my heart (it was givin me heart burn)

PS. YOU'RE TALKIN SHIT ABOUT GABE? **** YOU! WHO ARE YOU? HE'S
THE POOR SLOB WHO'S BEEN MAKING THIS INSANE GAME FOR YEARS! AND FOR WHAT, TO BE KICKED IN THE ASS BY UNDESERVING PRICKS LIKE YOU? NOT ON MY WATCH!

CS was good when the game wasn't owned by Valve. In my opinion it's gone down hill since then. Seriously Counter Strike Condition Zero WTF was that?

 

[AgentSmith]

HL was not based on Quake2.

Jeez, going to argue that again? HL was built of the Quake engine - is a fact not matter how much you want to claim otherwise. That isn't a bad thing, it just is true - Valve made alot of additions to make HL but in the end it is Quake. You could feel it in CS and you still can even now that they ported it to Source and added the bad netcode, crap hit detection, and wierd force field physics. CS, CZ, and CS:S are Quake style games in every respect no matter what aesthetic changes they make.

CS was good when the game wasn't owned by Valve. In my opinion it's gone down hill since then. Seriously Counter Strike Condition Zero WTF was that?

I agree with that (and the quote in your sig) but even so I would have enjoyed CS if they had just made it for Source instead of just copying it over. I mean even the bouncy physics would be tolerable if they weren't just tossed it to make it seem like a Source game instead of a 5 year old MOD. What really makes the whole thing bad though is that not only didn't they re-create CS on Source for MP they didn't even copy it over in a professional mannr. I mean if some high school gaming geeks announced they where doing a CS port I would expect what we got with CS:S, but for Valve to do it this sloppy and incomplete and then to try to pass it off as the MP of a retail game, come on. Very cheap and very unprofessional.

 

[Kyorisu]

Jeez, going to argue that again? HL was built of the Quake engine - is a fact not matter how much you want to claim otherwise. That isn't a bad thing, it just is true - Valve made alot of additions to make HL but in the end it is Quake. You could feel it in CS and you still can even now that they ported it to Source and added the bad netcode, crap hit detection, and wierd force field physics. CS, CZ, and CS:S are Quake style games in every respect no matter what aesthetic changes they make.



I agree with that (and the quote in your sig) but even so I would have enjoyed CS if they had just made it for Source instead of just copying it over. I mean even the bouncy physics would be tolerable if they weren't just tossed it to make it seem like a Source game instead of a 5 year old MOD. What really makes the whole thing bad though is that not only didn't they re-create CS on Source for MP they didn't even copy it over in a professional mannr. I mean if some high school gaming geeks announced they where doing a CS port I would expect what we got with CS:S, but for Valve to do it this sloppy and incomplete and then to try to pass it off as the MP of a retail game, come on. Very cheap and very unprofessional.

This is why people love it so much and why more and more people continue to buy the game. It's basic and simple gameplay suits perhaps the intelligence of an Ape. Seriously once the first decent HL2 strat game is announced I'm on it like flies on crap.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Jeez, going to argue that again? HL was built of the Quake engine - is a fact not matter how much you want to claim otherwise. That isn't a bad thing, it just is true - Valve made alot of additions to make HL but in the end it is Quake. You could feel it in CS and you still can even now that they ported it to Source and added the bad netcode, crap hit detection, and wierd force field physics. CS, CZ, and CS:S are Quake style games in every respect no matter what aesthetic changes they make.

HL was based on Quake, not Quake 2, which is my point. As Valve themselves said, 70% of the HL engine was their code - Quake was just a base.
The changes to CS:S aren't just aesthetic. It's on an entirely different engine. However, one thing that Valve would have done while developing Source was to try and retain the same "feel" as HL did, and that's not a bad thing. Again, you seem to be advocating change for the sake of it.

I agree with that (and the quote in your sig) but even so I would have enjoyed CS if they had just made it for Source instead of just copying it over. I mean even the bouncy physics would be tolerable if they weren't just tossed it to make it seem like a Source game instead of a 5 year old MOD. What really makes the whole thing bad though is that not only didn't they re-create CS on Source for MP they didn't even copy it over in a professional mannr. I mean if some high school gaming geeks announced they where doing a CS port I would expect what we got with CS:S, but for Valve to do it this sloppy and incomplete and then to try to pass it off as the MP of a retail game, come on. Very cheap and very unprofessional.

Right, I'm intrigued now. What would CS:S have to be, what would it have to contain in order to meet your expectation of it being a "source game"? (as opposed to the port that it was always touted as)

 

[impakt]

Right, I'm intrigued now. What would CS:S have to be, what would it have to contain in order to meet your expectation of it being a "source game"? (as opposed to the port that it was always touted as)

It would have realistic looking hydras, random earthquakes and other realistic forces of nature, wind and gravitationalforces from the mapgeometry would affect the bullettrajectory and velocity( thereby letting mappers place out black holes that could bend spacetime and thereby creating physicalanomalies that could kill the enemy before the round even started), fatigue, randomly moving crosshairs to simulate 'shaky hands', napalm, tripwires, REALTIME BOMBDEFUSING meaning if you screw up the bomb could go off and killing everyone, bazookas, riotshields, nightsticks, mmorpg style charactercreation and experience points that lets you upgrade your aim(controlled by engineside-aimbots), lots of vehicles and planes, gunjamming, temperature making guns jam and campers freeze to death, rebel ai-controlled hostages sneaking up on unsuspecting terrorists, nosehair, handcuffs, bleeding, nervous breakdowns, the ability to stumble and trip (falling down stairs and landing on your knife cutting yourself up),black/hispanic/chinese/japanese/gay/female/lesbian/crippled/mentallydisabled/dwarves/elves playermodels to not offend any minorities, lots of premade annoying gestures and things you could scream, tapping into the enemy's radio and radar, moles and snitches giving up enemy positions, undercover ct's that stab you in the back

THE LIST COULD GO ON FOREVER WITH THIS TRULY AMAZING SOURCEMULTIPLAYER!!!!!!111

 

[ukfluke]

lol impakt

 

[Zopac]

It would have realistic looking hydras, random earthquakes and other realistic forces of nature, wind and gravitationalforces from the mapgeometry would affect the bullettrajectory and velocity( thereby letting mappers place out black holes that could bend spacetime and thereby creating physicalanomalies that could kill the enemy before the round even started), fatigue, randomly moving crosshairs to simulate 'shaky hands', napalm, tripwires, REALTIME BOMBDEFUSING meaning if you screw up the bomb could go off and killing everyone, bazookas, riotshields, nightsticks, mmorpg style charactercreation and experience points that lets you upgrade your aim(controlled by engineside-aimbots), lots of vehicles and planes, gunjamming, temperature making guns jam and campers freeze to death, rebel ai-controlled hostages sneaking up on unsuspecting terrorists, nosehair, handcuffs, bleeding, nervous breakdowns, the ability to stumble and trip (falling down stairs and landing on your knife cutting yourself up),black/hispanic/chinese/japanese/gay/female/lesbian/crippled/mentallydisabled/dwarves/elves playermodels to not offend any minorities, lots of premade annoying gestures and things you could scream, tapping into the enemy's radio and radar, moles and snitches giving up enemy positions, undercover ct's that stab you in the back

THE LIST COULD GO ON FOREVER WITH THIS TRULY AMAZING SOURCEMULTIPLAYER!!!!!!111

handcuffs would be good, bleeding would be goodd, gunjamming would be good, shaky hands' would be good, campers freeze to death
would be VERY VERY GOOD :thumbs: , nervous breakdowns might be good, lots of vehicles and planes would be good, stumbling would be good

 

[Madhotch]

hey, if hl:s was hl2, yes I'd raise hell...but cs;s is a fine multiplayer game...ALOT better than most (farcry, doom3, pandora tommorrow).
And why do you want a hl2dm, hldm was HORRIBLE is my point, and hl2dm would be hldm:s, exacty what your complaining about.

 

[DevgruSeal]

Do you always write a book when you post? I saw all your posts on this thread, and they're like 2 and a half paragraphs long....

 

[AgentSmith]

Right, I'm intrigued now. What would CS:S have to be, what would it have to contain in order to meet your expectation of it being a "source game"? (as opposed to the port that it was always touted as)

Uhm, original?

Come on, are you seriously going to argue that CS:S is not, in practice if not technically, the same game as CS 1.6 and CZ? I mean that is like saying those digitally remixed Star Wars movies are new films. I mean how about if you went to see SW Episode I and all you got was one of those remixes - you would be pissed as it is the same movie, albeit with some visual enhancements. Now, I saw those remixes and enjoyed them - but Lucas didn't tell me they where new - Valve did.

What would have to be differant? Well, I would say first that the game should be complete and polished like any retail product should be. I mean not only did they not come up with anything original they didn't even finish the copy.

In short, I expected CS on Source (CSS) to at least be as finished, polished, and well done as the SP is since I paid for both. I expect that even if the core game stays the same that it would be updated in much the same way that the SP of HL2 was updated given all the new features and capabilities of the Source engine. You can't tell me that HL2 SP didn't get updated and expanded according to the engine, so why should the MP be any differant.

hey, if hl:s was hl2, yes I'd raise hell...but cs;s is a fine multiplayer game...ALOT better than most (farcry, doom3, pandora tommorrow).
And why do you want a hl2dm, hldm was HORRIBLE is my point, and hl2dm would be hldm:s, exacty what your complaining about.

I never said I wanted HL2DM, I just want a professionally done, polished, complete Source MP - not some cheap, incomplete port of a 5 year old game. Make CSS MP, fine - just do it well and finish it and add in something new even if not gameplay changing.

Do you always write a book when you post? I saw all your posts on this thread, and they're like 2 and a half paragraphs long....

I suppose if I was simple minded I could make short stupid posts like you did, oh well - each according to his ability.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Uhm, original?

Come on, are you seriously going to argue that CS:S is not, in practice if not technically, the same game as CS 1.6 and CZ? I mean that is like saying those digitally remixed Star Wars movies are new films. I mean how about if you went to see SW Episode I and all you got was one of those remixes - you would be pissed as it is the same movie, albeit with some visual enhancements. Now, I saw those remixes and enjoyed them - but Lucas didn't tell me they where new - Valve did.

This is the bit I don't understand - why do you seem to have been expecting CS:S to be any different in terms of gameplay to it's predecessor? Since CS:S was announced, that's what it's been - a port of CS to Source. That means the same core gameplay, updated maps, models, textures and sounds

What would have to be differant? Well, I would say first that the game should be complete and polished like any retail product should be. I mean not only did they not come up with anything original they didn't even finish the copy.

I don't see anything particularly unpolished about it. Yes, there could be more content (which is coming) but otherwise, it's exactly as advertised.

I never said I wanted HL2DM, I just want a professionally done, polished, complete Source MP - not some cheap, incomplete port of a 5 year old game. Make CSS MP, fine - just do it well and finish it and add in something new even if not gameplay changing.

As I've said before, you seem to be in a minority in this.


I suppose if I was simple minded I could make short stupid posts like you did, oh well - each according to his ability.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aaron Lee]

Yeah, I guess I'm not really getting AgentSmith's line of thinking either. CS:S is CS 1.6 on the source engine. That's it. Why expect it to be so much different gameplay wise? If you're that caught up on it, just wait around for CS2, which by every right should be the game your expecting.

It just boggles me, since day one of this games release you've done nothing but complain about it, but your points just aren't sound. This is counter-strike, on the source engine. Better graphics, some physics, reworked maps, but the core is identical. And you didn't even pay for it! You payed for HL2, but you're getting this with it. If you don't like it, wait fo a different multiplayer mod to come out after the game's release.

 

[AgentSmith]

I did pay for it, in fact Valve used it to get people to buy off Steam instead of through VU at the stores.

As for my point, I think anyone who doesn't have the foggy fanboy glasses on can clearly see my point and understand it. For one CS:S as a port is incomplete and sloppy. One model per team, just a few maps, horrible hit boxes/netcode issues, physics that are buggy at best and detrimental to gameplay at worst (I mean come on - walk into a barrel and get pushed away a few feet?). That is bad enough but once you look at CSS as a retail game it is even worse, as the MP component of the most anticipated game ever (and factor in all Valves hype about MP along with the hype about Source) it is clear to see why a sloppy, incomplete port of an old game is a bid disconcerning. I mean if I wanted HL1/Quake gameplay I would by HL1/Quake, I bought Source and at the least deserve a Source MP game and not a cheap rushed copy of a 5 year old HL1/Quake game.

If you don't understand this I suggest you consider how you would feel if HL:Source was the SP element of HL2, that is how I feel as a person that bought HL2 for MP.

 

[Vas]

If you have so many excellent ideas, why don't you put together your own HL2 MP mod (or join an existing project) and cease complaining? If you don't have the skill to do this, then how can you claim to have any credibility in criticizing those who are a lot more knowledgeable than you are about game programming (i.e. Valve)?

There is no question that Valve would have been able to make a game similar to the one you would have liked to have seen be produced. However, Valve decided that CS was an excellent game in its current state (as millions of people would agree), and any significant change to the gameplay at this point would be detrimental.

 

[AgentSmith]

If you have so many excellent ideas, why don't you put together your own HL2 MP mod (or join an existing project) and cease complaining? If you don't have the skill to do this, then how can you claim to have any credibility in criticizing those who are a lot more knowledgeable than you are about game programming (i.e. Valve)?

Hmm, interesting idea. I guess anyone who can't make a movie should not critique one. Nobody who can't cook should say they dislike the food at a resteraunt. And nobody who can fix a car should bitch if thier car doesn't run. Ok, now that makes pefect nonsense.

There is no question that Valve would have been able to make a game similar to the one you would have liked to have seen be produced. However, Valve decided that CS was an excellent game in its current state (as millions of people would agree), and any significant change to the gameplay at this point would be detrimental.

Fine, defend making CS:S the same as CS if you want - that is a matter of taste and opinion. However, you cannot defend them porting it over in such a sloppy manner, there is no defense for that. That is all I am saying, I would have done it differantly updating the game to the new engine and new times (today's games have new features that old games couldn't have) and I would have added at least some new content as well as all the old staples. What Valve did is worse than making a new game based on CS (OK, thier call) and worse than just porting CS (as they left off a ton of content and shipped it terribly unfinished and buggy (built in wall hack anyone, physics that act like force fields, and bad hit detection/netcode).

If you want to blindly accept whatever trash Valve dishes your way the go ahead but at least admit that is what you are doing. NOBODY can offer a reasoned excuse for CS:S being incomplete and sloppy like it is now as it is the MP of a brand new retail product. Going further, I think it is also ridiculous to defend not including new content (non gameplay and gameplay alike) geared to making the old game run with the new engine instead of just on it.

P.S. Millions of people would not agree, BTW - in fact only thousands have even played CS:S and only a fraction of a million play CS, CZ, or CS:S or ever will (MP that is, not SP). I know CS is popular but don't inflate that popularity beyond reality and then use tha tinfaltion to claim some righteous perfection. McDonanld's is also very popular but that doesn't mean it is the best resteraunt to get food at, there are alot of things that go into popularity that have little to do with quality.

 

[Vas]

It's difficult to critique a book if you can't read, just as it's difficult to critique the coding of a game if you have little understanding of programming yourself. You can't be an effective critic unless you are skilled enough to give some more constructive and precise criticism, instead of giving some vague and crude hints about developing a game that you yourself could not produce.

Actions speak louder than words.

If you can't produce a mod, then learn how (since you are so passionate about your "game"). Obviously, you have enough energy to complain, but not enough to actually do anything beneficial. I certainly think this lessens your credibility as a well-informed critic.

And if you detest CS: Source so much, then don't play it. No one is forcing you to devote all of your energies to lamenting the myriad of "bugs" in this game.

Likewise, Valve has recently corrected the more blatant bugs in this game, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. Source can obviously be played in its current state, or otherwise there would not be thousands of servers hosting the game (before the retail version has even been released).

You should also try and learn the concept of patience. If Valve is capable of producing a game like HL2 (which has been universally acclaimed), then Valve can certainly release new content for CS: Source.

 

[AgentSmith]

LOL, I wonder why a paying customer should be patient in waiting for what they payed for. As for the rest of your blabber I don't have to be a game coder to know that only one model per side and just a few maps and hit detection that is terrible and physics that are ridiculously crappy make CSS a mess.

I wonder, Vas, where is the MOD you produced to justify your defense of CSS? Or in your strange world is it OK to complement a product if you can't produce it and only not ok to comment if you see problems?

CSS is a miserable mess and given that they allready sold CSS Final it is more than fair to critique the game as any other retail game. If you want to ask for patience then get Valve to give me a refund while the finish the game, otherwise your argument is pretty stupid.

 

[Aaron Lee]

I am by no means a CS:S fanboy. I don't play too often, and I got most of CS in general out of my system years ago. I guess my point was it seems your expectations of the game exceed what the game was promised to be. Yes, on many levels I agree that the game is lacking in features that 1.6 had, and certainly bugs need to be fixed. But honestly, the game functions well enough, thousands are content playing at the moment (who would likely be complaining here more so if we had nothing to be playing). It will get better, it will be stabalized, and content will be added. But at it's core it is and always will remain CS.

Personally, I'm just more anxious for other MP mods to come out. TF2, or TFC:S, or even new original mods. CS:S is fun, but it's not what I want in MP. However, I didn't get HL2 for the multiplayer, I got it for the SP experience, and I don't believe I'll be disappointed.

 

[AgentSmith]

Well, I buy games for MP as SP is a one time limited thing (why pay $50 for 20 hours of play?). As a SP buyer imagine how jipped you would feel if you fired up your copy of HL2 to find it was just HL1 on Source. Now maybe you wouldn't mind that but if in addition it was sloppily done and incomplete I am sure you would be just a bit ticked.

As for the 'MODs' you mentioned, TF2 will be a stand alone retail product and TF:S they say will not happen. CS2 (if ever) will also be a stand alone retail product. Sure, user MODs will come in time but they admitted that they are just NOW starting on the SDK so that is at least a month or more away (probably December at the earliest) so user MODs are a long, long way away from being out.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Well, I buy games for MP as SP is a one time limited thing (why pay $50 for 20 hours of play?). As a SP buyer imagine how jipped you would feel if you fired up your copy of HL2 to find it was just HL1 on Source. Now maybe you wouldn't mind that but if in addition it was sloppily done and incomplete I am sure you would be just a bit ticked.

Hang on, hang on....

You bought HL2 for the multiplayer, after it was known that CS:S was the only multiplayer, and knowing that CS:S was just a port of CS.

So what on earth were you expecting?

I also want to address another point that you keep raising, about CS being a "Quake game". That's just like saying Doom 3 multiplayer is just like Doom multiplayer. Yes, the rules are the same, the concept is the same, but the implementation has to be different, because of the fundamental engine differences. The fact that Valve aimed to make CS:S play as much like CS as possible should tell you something, no?

As for the 'MODs' you mentioned, TF2 will be a stand alone retail product and TF:S they say will not happen. CS2 (if ever) will also be a stand alone retail product. Sure, user MODs will come in time but they admitted that they are just NOW starting on the SDK so that is at least a month or more away (probably December at the earliest) so user MODs are a long, long way away from being out.

No, they didn't just admit that they are now starting on the SDK. They said that they've just given it to a couple of mod teams for evaluation. The SDK is something that evolves throughout the development of the engine and game.

 

[Kyorisu]

CS:S is still running becuase it's so bloody popular. Valve won't dare make another MP game.

Think about it they bought DOD, CS and copied the idea of TFC from the Quake 1 mod.

Right, I'm intrigued now. What would CS:S have to be, what would it have to contain in order to meet your expectation of it being a "source game"? (as opposed to the port that it was always touted as)

Maybe a new MP element. I'm serious HL2 is one of the most anticipated games ever. Millions of people will buy it for the SP and modability. Mods take time to make so people have to play the MP that comes with the game, and all we get is a port of a 5 year old mod.


Don't even think of coming back with one of those "You go mod something then" becuase I will. However the SDK isn't out yet and I don't plan on working on something which only has model renders.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You appear to be arguing with yourself there.

One correction though - they didn't copy TF from the Quake mod, they hired the creators, thereby buying the rights.

 

[Kyorisu]

Close enough It's still not built from scratch. They had something to build off of.

Now I'm off to do some more research before I make an ass out of myself.

 

[AgentSmith]

You bought HL2 for the multiplayer, after it was known that CS:S was the only multiplayer, and knowing that CS:S was just a port of CS.

So what on earth were you expecting?

Hmm, I was expecting the final version to, well, be finished. I wasn't expecting 5 or 6 maps, one player model, and not a single bug fix or netcode adjustment. I was expecting that you wouldn't be bale to, still, cheat from the console or just type in a few charaters to crash any server. I was expecting that CSS Final would be a finsihed and polished retail product and not the same cheap port from the BETA. Why did I expect that, because that is what Valve said it was. Looking back I was foolish to believe Valve but, nonetheless, Valve was CLEARLY deceptive.

I also want to address another point that you keep raising, about CS being a "Quake game". That's just like saying Doom 3 multiplayer is just like Doom multiplayer. Yes, the rules are the same, the concept is the same, but the implementation has to be different, because of the fundamental engine differences. The fact that Valve aimed to make CS:S play as much like CS as possible should tell you something, no?

Look, saying CS or CSS is just the same 'ole Quake MOD is PERFECTLY legit. It moves the same, feels the same, and is governed by the same 'rules'. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. Now, I openly admitted that the graphics from Source are dramatically better but the rest of the SOurce engine features are simply not used in CSS, or not used in any relevant way. You can argue all you want but if you are going to tell me that CSS is a true Source game then you are just exposing yourself as a fanboy who cannot objectively discuss the issue. CSS is CSS, CS is a great game and very popular but it, in large part, is basically a MOD of Quake DM which is based on old game engine features and limitations. Just about every one of those limitations are directly ported right into CSS so instead of a next generation MP game with HL2 (the most hyped next generation game of all time) we get a Quake MOD with SOurce graphics. Give me a break, you simply cannot defend the manner in wihch they did CSS - even if you argree with doing CSS as HL2 MP you have to admit that Valve did it sloppily, cheaply, and incompletely and that they added NOTHING to the game in the process which is the whole point of a sequal.

No, they didn't just admit that they are now starting on the SDK. They said that they've just given it to a couple of mod teams for evaluation. The SDK is something that evolves throughout the development of the engine and game.

Now that development on the game is done, a number of engineers are preparing the first version of the Source SDK for release. I don't have an exact date for when this will be available, but it shouldn't be too much longer and will send out word when I have an ETA.

- Doug Lombardi:

That means they are NOT done, they are working on it and they started when HL2 was done which was just a few days ago.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hmm, I was expecting the final version to, well, be finished. I wasn't expecting 5 or 6 maps, one player model, and not a single bug fix or netcode adjustment. I was expecting that you wouldn't be bale to, still, cheat from the console or just type in a few charaters to crash any server. I was expecting that CSS Final would be a finsihed and polished retail product and not the same cheap port from the BETA. Why did I expect that, because that is what Valve said it was. Looking back I was foolish to believe Valve but, nonetheless, Valve was CLEARLY deceptive.

Those bugs have been fixed, have they not? And the extra content is coming soon.

Look, saying CS or CSS is just the same 'ole Quake MOD is PERFECTLY legit. It moves the same, feels the same, and is governed by the same 'rules'. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

So, to be a modern game, you have to change the gameplay too? Gotcha.

Is Doom 3 MP the same as Doom MP? By your logic, the answer would have to be "yes"

Now, I openly admitted that the graphics from Source are dramatically better but the rest of the SOurce engine features are simply not used in CSS, or not used in any relevant way.

What are these multitudes of features? The only one that springs to mind is the physics. The way the physics works in CS:S is a function of bandwidth and server CPU utilisation. It's not possible to have MP-enabled physics the same as SP physics.

You can argue all you want but if you are going to tell me that CSS is a true Source game then you are just exposing yourself as a fanboy who cannot objectively discuss the issue.

Bollocks. I can (and have) been arguing against you for a few days now, in a perfectly objective manner. Let's try this:

"You can argue all you want but if you are going to tell me that CSS isn't a true Source game then you are just exposing yourself as a whiner who cannot objectively discuss the issue."

There we go. Fair?

CSS is CSS, CS is a great game and very popular but it, in large part, is basically a MOD of Quake DM which is based on old game engine features and limitations. Just about every one of those limitations are directly ported right into CSS so instead of a next generation MP game with HL2 (the most hyped next generation game of all time) we get a Quake MOD with SOurce graphics. Give me a break, you simply cannot defend the manner in wihch they did CSS - even if you argree with doing CSS as HL2 MP you have to admit that Valve did it sloppily, cheaply, and incompletely and that they added NOTHING to the game in the process which is the whole point of a sequal.

So to be a next-generation game, the gameplay has to be changed? What utter tripe. As I've said before, you're advocating change for the sake of change. What does BF:V bring to the table that's new? Doom 3? Far Cry? All been done before.

That means they are NOT done, they are working on it and they started when HL2 was done which was just a few days ago.

No it doesn't. It means they're preparing the first version for release.

What do you think they used to actually develop the game? Graph paper and a few pencils?

SDK =

Game logic source
Map editor
Map compile tools
Model tools
Model exporters
Model compilers
Texture converters

All of these were used to build the game. Throughout development, documentation will have been written for each. By "preparing", they are assembling the relevant parts into a form suitable for third-parties to use.
Obviously, they must have had a working SDK in order for them to a) write HL2 and b) license the engine out to another company in order for them to develop (and complete) their own game.

 

[AgentSmith]

Those bugs have been fixed, have they not? And the extra content is coming soon.

The discussion is whether the release was sloppy - those bugs where pretty agregious and where shipped in the so called Final version, a retail product. There is no excuse for that as there is no excuse for still having several crash bugs (only some where fixed) and the lack of maps and models and poor netcode.

So, to be a modern game, you have to change the gameplay too? Gotcha.

Is Doom 3 MP the same as Doom MP? By your logic, the answer would have to be "yes"

No, keep the gameplay the same but does everything have to remain the same? I for one started this thread as my suggestions, dislike them if you will but at least admitt that a new title should be new and not just the same old thing as before. I suggested what I did because to me, this engine is good for creating a real looing environment so it seem natural that a more real playing CS would go with it well. It also seems that is the way the SP evolved so why not the MP. I mean come on, show me a single game sequal where allmost down to every detail it is the same as the original. Yes, the graphics are better but there are no new weapons, no new maps, no new non gameplay features, and on top of tht many of the original content is missing like models and maps. You simply cannot argue that CSS is a completed retail product or that it is not sloppilly done.

What are these multitudes of features? The only one that springs to mind is the physics. The way the physics works in CS:S is a function of bandwidth and server CPU utilisation. It's not possible to have MP-enabled physics the same as SP physics.

Again - this is why I say this is not a SOurce game. By adding these cheapy force field physics (clearly the worst of any of the games out that use physics) you actually inhibit gameplay because aeverything else about the game was designed for gameplay that doesn't have them. Thus my call that if CS was goign to be HL2 MP they should have reworked it for SOurce to make use of the new engine capabilities instead of just slapping some of the new stuff in the old game making a discombobulated end result.

Bollocks. I can (and have) been arguing against you for a few days now, in a perfectly objective manner. Let's try this:

"You can argue all you want but if you are going to tell me that CSS isn't a true Source game then you are just exposing yourself as a whiner who cannot objectively discuss the issue."

There we go. Fair?

Not a question of fair - it is incorrect. There is absolutely no way you can call CSS a completed retail game unless you are applying fan predjudices. Now you can say you love it, you can say you think it is better than the original or the best game ever or whatever, but it is clearly not a complete or polished retail game just as it is not an original game.

So to be a next-generation game, the gameplay has to be changed? What utter tripe. As I've said before, you're advocating change for the sake of change. What does BF:V bring to the table that's new? Doom 3? Far Cry? All been done before.

Obviously you do not play those games or you would notice added content and changes to the prior version. Take BF:V - it adds improved graphics, it changes the base structure so there are on no longer uncappable bases to minimize base raping, it adds heat seeking missles, adds the ability to dig foxholes for spawns, incorporates mobile spawn points, etc, etc, etc. All these things (and the many more new things) add to the gameplay without changing it dramatically. And the most important thing they did is not just ship BF 1942 with improved graphics and call it a new game.

No it doesn't. It means they're preparing the first version for release.

What do you think they used to actually develop the game? Graph paper and a few pencils?

SDK =

Game logic source
Map editor
Map compile tools
Model tools
Model exporters
Model compilers
Texture converters

All of these were used to build the game. Throughout development, documentation will have been written for each. By "preparing", they are assembling the relevant parts into a form suitable for third-parties to use.
Obviously, they must have had a working SDK in order for them to a) write HL2 and b) license the engine out to another company in order for them to develop (and complete) their own game.

And you claim you are ot a apologist for Valve. They said the SDk would be out in June, then they said one month prior to release and then weeks before and now they say they are starting on it now that the game is done - those are thier delays, thier mistakes. The SDk as released is not what they use, not at all. The fact of the matter is that they are the ones making promises and not delivering, why is it that you must insist of denying the facts? I mean Valve does great work on the game side of things but for years have been notorious for bilking titles and missing deadlines and not delivering on prmises - I am not saying they are any worse than most developers as that just seems to be the way the industry runs these days but if you can't call it as it is then, jeez, why bother.

 

[AgentSmith]

On the SDK - here are some of Valves statements from the past:

The impending SDK released was confirmed Valve PR head Doug Lombardi. "We will be releasing v.1 of that in the coming weeks" - January 2004

Erik Johnson was asked about the SDK release at E3, he said that they got sidetracked with E3 preparations, but that he's going to focus on that when they return. His estimated release date was "about a month."

http://www.halflifesource.com/sdk/

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

There really is no point to this discussion.

a) You ignore or misread the points that I make.

b) We've been arguing the same points over and over again for 11 pages. I don't see any reason to continue, do you?

 

[Dekstar]

Again - this is why I say this is not a SOurce game. By adding these cheapy force field physics (clearly the worst of any of the games out that use physics) you actually inhibit gameplay because aeverything else about the game was designed for gameplay that doesn't have them. Thus my call that if CS was goign to be HL2 MP they should have reworked it for SOurce to make use of the new engine capabilities instead of just slapping some of the new stuff in the old game making a discombobulated end result.

Cheapy force field physics? There isn't another game out yet that actually has real time physics implemented like Source Does. You wonder why the physical objects have to push you back? It's because if they didn't, they would all have to be generated server-side. And we all don't live in switzerland you know - Some of us have slower connections than others.

That was such a stupid argument. It was unfounded, and uneducated. Farcry multiplayer doesn't even have physics implemented like you think they do. Of course, Single player games CAN have physical objects that you can stand on, but that's because it doesn't use bandwidth.

 

[AgentSmith]

Cheapy force field physics? There isn't another game out yet that actually has real time physics implemented like Source Does. You wonder why the physical objects have to push you back? It's because if they didn't, they would all have to be generated server-side. And we all don't live in switzerland you know - Some of us have slower connections than others.

That was such a stupid argument. It was unfounded, and uneducated. Farcry multiplayer doesn't even have physics implemented like you think they do. Of course, Single player games CAN have physical objects that you can stand on, but that's because it doesn't use bandwidth.

Well - that is my point. If they truly cannot be done better (the physics) then the game should have been redesigned at least enough to accomodate them. Instead you have all these maps that are ruined by these odd force field objects blocking doors or hallways or whatever.

Look, how many times did we hear Valve talk over the years about taking the time to do things right and all that - do you really think that CSS is done right? Do you honestly believe the game is a finished product? Forget about gameplay issues like dmg or recoil - I just mean the overall integrity of the game and the netcode - is it the type of spit and polish you expected for all this hype about HL2? All I am saying is that given that Valve talk and the hype that they at least fed - CSS falls well short. For a game that will sell upwards of $100 million they could have spent a bit more effort making a decently complete and polished MP (even if it is just CS 1.6 on Source). People say they didn't have time - come on, they took so much time and even so with that revenue this game is going to generate they could have hired a few people just to polish off the MP and not hardly made a dent in the profits.

 

[AgentSmith]

Someone posted earlier that I was suggesting that to bea next generation game they had to change the game just for the sake of change - I am not saying that, I am suggesting evolution and adaption to take advantage of the great new enigne.

Some posting in here are familiar with the BF series, take a look at this newest BF2 movie and you get a feel for what I mean about evolution. In the end it is BF all the way but the new next generation engine allows for new features, detail, and gameplay enhancements that prior version could not do.

BF2 demo movie.

Now, CS is not BF - this I know. But if you watch that movie can you honestly tell me that CS is even in that league as far as using the enigne it is on? I mean The Refractor 2 engine has all the goodies that Source does (including, if I recall correctly) Havoc 2 physics, ragdolls, adv graphics, etc. But look at that video and you see so much more than we got from HL2/Source MP - the whole thing was recorded with an INCLUED game recorder (BF recorder, it is new) and he says a 30 minute game saves in about 5 Ms. Look at the stinger missle as it passes through the opening of the BlackHawk - no hit detection issues there. Look at the guy with the ATA on foot, the detail of the anti tank rocket he launches at the M1. The game will support from 16 to 100 players online and the maps auto re-scale according to player count so that the map is sized to fit the amount of players playing. Also included in the game is detailed stat reporting and tracking, not a user made MOD as with CS/CSS.

Now, that is just a sampling of what is offered in that sequal (is out in March, 05). Could not CSS get some similar updates. Many of those updates do not alter gameplay or change the type of game BF is - it just expands on the original idea taking the new technological features of the engine into account.

I relly wasn't trying to start an argument here but I just cannot believe that people actually think CSS is anything but a cheap copy and find it hard to believe that they are not up in arms about Valve copping out, big time. I belive Source can do far more, we have seen the SP binks and been enticed by them - is it really too much to expect Valve to incorporate this stuff into MP at least in some way, let alone to at least do a complete and polished port if they are not going to evolve the game as the engine would allow.

If interested, more BF2 videos below:
http://www.gigahurtz.net/pn/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=145

 

[AlaskanStewie]

There really is no point to this discussion.

a) You ignore or misread the points that I make.

b) We've been arguing the same points over and over again for 11 pages. I don't see any reason to continue, do you?

Quoted for emphasis.


CS became popular by the way it is. Jeez, CS is NOT realistic, and that is why people like it. If I (or anyone that participated in the LANs we have up here) want realism, we'll play a Rainbow Six game.

CS:S will be added apon later, probably around the time HL2 comes out, then you'll be able to make your maps and have a few more skins.


My 2 cents.

 

[Carnage_333]

^

agreed.

oh agent smith, i remeber saying on the first page (ages ago), that cs:s is not a sequal, and you are expecting too much of it. Yet even still on this page you are using the fact there is no new content to backup your agrument.

so, once again, there is no new content and it is basicly the same game because thats all it was ever meant to be. this was stated many times, surely you must have known this before you bought the game (if u bought it), so how can you expect so much of cs source when you knew there was no new content.

last time i view this thread, agrument is going nowhere.