September 7, 2009 at 01:50Esports and comparison of Counter-Strike 1.6 with chess. Plus why no one is playing CS: Source
Here in a certain topic in the comments, a dispute began in the spirit of Counter-Strike 1.6 vs Call of Duty | [place any other modern FPS here]. I think that there are cybersportsmen on Habré, avid gamers, and just casuals, playing an hour from time to time after work. So, I hope that the topic will not go away immediately -∞, although I risk it.
WARNING. Comparison does not go with old games that have gained eSports popularity, such as Q3. And even more so not with Starcraft or Warcraft. We are talking about relatively new team games, players in which are contemptuous of CS 1.6.
Hereinafter, CS will mean Counter-Strike 1.6, FPS stands for First Person Shooter.
In my best years I played CS with varying success and consider myself an ex-sportsman. I did not achieve much success, but I had some experience and a fan of participation in tournaments of a local and regional nature. I can imagine the whole esports cuisine, and not just CS.
I believe that CS was and is an ideal team eSports FPS, its condition for the current day is extremely balanced and does not require any intervention except a couple of minor fixes. Very often I come across people who throwing mud at CS expose the chips of some other wannabe eSports FPS as undoubted advantages and advantages over it. So what I want to say ...
Some experience gained in the post-CS years allows me to look at games from the point of view of a novice developer and game designer. I'm not going to fanatically prove something with foam from my mouth. I will just state my opinion.
Who did not understand the previous paragraph, think about why CS is still an e-sports discipline (igruhe 10 years already) and so many people play it. The reasoning is mainly from the point of view of e-sports.
Too lazy to read. Conclusions.
Chess.
Let it be simple: simple as soon as possible, but not simpler. © A. Einstein
At first glance, it might seem ridiculous to compare computer shooting with such a fundamental game as chess. Comparing CS with chess, I especially want to emphasize balance and simplicity. Chess is a game with the simplest rules and abstract figures on the field. It is not difficult for a first grader to learn how to play them, but even without me you know how difficult it is to become an excellent player. Easy to start, hard to master. I can play chess with pebbles in the sand as well as pieces of masterpiece of jewelry on the roof of a golden skyscraper. I would still prefer pebbles, otherwise I’ll break half the figures and lose the other.
So, CS is loved for its clarity, simplicity, balance and hardcore (i.e. complexity, but complexity and simplicity in one sentence as double negation). Remember easy to start, hard to master.
Possible confusion of the concepts of sports / eSports. In sports, as in e-sports, complexity and detail are not needed. Athletes jump on a pole over a stick, run along paths and jump over barriers. Esportsmen are also easier in a simple and understandable environment, when nothing distracts and prevents them from concentrating. Drawing an analogy with the real world, the e-sports games heaped up graphically and by the realism of the physical model of wannabe are more like staging fights, where people dress up in SS armor / uniform and run to beat each other.
Arguments Briefly.
The main reasons for the grief of the debaters are:
I class age as "when it was all over and there is nothing to say." Look, they say about chess that they played in the 6th century AD, and nothing.
With graphics it's generally funny, have you ever seen playing Quake 2/3? They turn off everything. On the walls are blurry textures, the enemies against which are clear and visible for a kilometer. All sophisticated shaders, shadows, lighting and huge textures will immediately turn off. And if they can’t, then spit for a long time. The graphics engine renders a picture that allows you to instantly distinguish a friend from the enemy and accurately represent his location.
The physical model provides the behavior of characters and objects similar to reality. Remember simplicity. Often complain about standing shooting, lack of fatigue, unrealistic snipers with zoom. What I could agree with is a change in the trajectory of the movement during the jump, but it came to CS from the first Quake and over time turned into one of the elements that distinguish experienced players from beginners. The above in a refined simple gameplay adds a bunch of randomness and changes the balance. I stand concentrating and look into the scope of a sniper rifle, but no, I did not hold my breath, the scope randomly moves back and forth or I'm too tired and now I won’t get there. Random should have little effect on skill.
About the game.
It's just ten percent luck
Twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure
Fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name
© Fort Minor
Again, briefly, maybe someone who does not know or does not understand.
The game goes 5 on 5 to 15 rounds for each side. One side attacks and must plant a bomb and detonate it on one of the two planets. The other, accordingly, is protected. Popular tournament cards are well balanced and provide tremendous tactical freedom of action for both terrorists and counter-terrorists.
The presence of money in the game, for which weapons are bought at the beginning of the round, brings interesting nuances to the gameplay and makes the team finer plan their actions (it’s a bit more complicated than just who can buy what round, accumulation rounds, dropping weapons).
In fact, there are only three types of weapons: pistol, rifle, sniper rifle. Stand out Desert Eagle in the low price category and Galil / Famas in the middle in front of rifles. You can pick up someone else's weapon.
It’s very easy to understand the rules, it’s much harder to learn to play in a team, listen to other players, feel the enemy, and of course shoot with lightning speed accurately. And here there are secrets directly derived from game mechanics. To play well, you need perseverance, skill and long training.
At the same time, there is luck and randomness in small quantities, which makes the game lively and interesting.
The absurdity of change.
CS now is a balanced, at the same time very simple and wildly complex game. Not without minor bugs, yes. Opponents of CS, expressing their claims, apparently want to make some changes to the game.
Suppose we want to improve the graphics and detail of objects. Remember, I said above that, on the contrary, detailing interferes with cybersportsmen. All this fancy graphics will be immediately turned off to the minimum walls, so that the characters can be seen better.
And then I got to the point of why no one plays in Counter-Strike: Source, except for a couple of tournaments that were held in the States from the hopelessness of Valve herself. In CSS, they just did what I was talking about - decorated everything around, changed the models, that FIGs understand where one of these twisted freaks, stumbled on idiotic bushes and barrels (demonstration of the engine, og), and of course the changes to the engine brought with them a change in the shooting that the people had been taking so long to do. The players spat and scored.
If I had the will, I would shoot in bounding boxes of monotonous color among the same walls.
Suppose I want to add a new weapon. Now I would just delete those guns that are used only for the sake of fun, to mock the opponent losing 15-0. New ones are NOT NEEDED. We have pistols in the lower price range, Navik is a little better (but which few people use anyway), in the middle price range is Famas / Galil, further than the rifle and, of course, the most expensive - AWP, sniper rifle. Plus more grenades, we get everything we need for all occasions. Two teams have the same (almost) set ofchess pieces of guns, which allows emphasizing skill. Adding new weapons will require careful analysis so as not to kill the existing balance and add too much randomness.
Okay, well, at least you need to fix the physics engine? Do not. The physical model is simple and intuitive. After all, no one adds to chess pieces fatigue, or movement on a sprint, and does not resent why a horse can suddenly jump turning around a corner? (he did not expect such an analogy). Because the system is in balance. Remember balance and simplicity.
The shocking part.
All new wannabe e-sports are played in major tournaments simply because the development company is investing a lot of money in it. As far as I remember, tournaments for new games that were held a couple of times and never returned. And the case of CS, StarCraft, WarCraft 3, Quake 3 lives on and is not supported by anyone except the community. Because games are a little less than completely perfect.
And for developers, this state of affairs is completely unprofitable. Together with iron producers, they need to sell new titles and new video cards for them. Funny, they made masterpieces, as they say, on their own head.
So it may very well be that the game that you so stubbornly defend with foam at the mouth is played by tournaments only because the publishers of this game invest in it.
Just look at the World Cyber Games disciplines by yearsand disciplines of ASUS Open Summer 2009: Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Masters - prize pool of 350 thousand rubles, Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 NoN Profi Open - prize pool of 150 thousand rubles, Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Female Open - prize pool of 25 thousand rubles, Pro Evolution Soccer 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, FIFA 2009 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, Warcraft 3 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, StarCraft: Bw 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, Quake 3 1v1 Open - prize fund of 50 thousand rubles.
Last thing.
Even if I’m not right in the previous paragraph, this does not give people any right in complete ignorance to defy Counter-Strike 1.6, which has been played by millions until now, at least not having read this post completely. I'm readywith foam at my mouth read the opinions of ardent defenders of competing games, where all my arguments will be refuted.
WARNING. Comparison does not go with old games that have gained eSports popularity, such as Q3. And even more so not with Starcraft or Warcraft. We are talking about relatively new team games, players in which are contemptuous of CS 1.6.
Hereinafter, CS will mean Counter-Strike 1.6, FPS stands for First Person Shooter.
In my best years I played CS with varying success and consider myself an ex-sportsman. I did not achieve much success, but I had some experience and a fan of participation in tournaments of a local and regional nature. I can imagine the whole esports cuisine, and not just CS.
I believe that CS was and is an ideal team eSports FPS, its condition for the current day is extremely balanced and does not require any intervention except a couple of minor fixes. Very often I come across people who throwing mud at CS expose the chips of some other wannabe eSports FPS as undoubted advantages and advantages over it. So what I want to say ...
Some experience gained in the post-CS years allows me to look at games from the point of view of a novice developer and game designer. I'm not going to fanatically prove something with foam from my mouth. I will just state my opinion.
Who did not understand the previous paragraph, think about why CS is still an e-sports discipline (igruhe 10 years already) and so many people play it. The reasoning is mainly from the point of view of e-sports.
Too lazy to read. Conclusions.
- The simplicity of game mechanics, a beginner will easily understand the rules
- It is difficult to become a good player, which is an undoubted advantage of the sports component
- Minimalistic graphics and models allow you to focus on the main
- Balance and refinement of game mechanics
- Time-tested tournament cards
- An interesting tactical component, including economic
- Entertainment and action games
- Elements of randomness and luck
Chess.
Let it be simple: simple as soon as possible, but not simpler. © A. Einstein
At first glance, it might seem ridiculous to compare computer shooting with such a fundamental game as chess. Comparing CS with chess, I especially want to emphasize balance and simplicity. Chess is a game with the simplest rules and abstract figures on the field. It is not difficult for a first grader to learn how to play them, but even without me you know how difficult it is to become an excellent player. Easy to start, hard to master. I can play chess with pebbles in the sand as well as pieces of masterpiece of jewelry on the roof of a golden skyscraper. I would still prefer pebbles, otherwise I’ll break half the figures and lose the other.
So, CS is loved for its clarity, simplicity, balance and hardcore (i.e. complexity, but complexity and simplicity in one sentence as double negation). Remember easy to start, hard to master.
Possible confusion of the concepts of sports / eSports. In sports, as in e-sports, complexity and detail are not needed. Athletes jump on a pole over a stick, run along paths and jump over barriers. Esportsmen are also easier in a simple and understandable environment, when nothing distracts and prevents them from concentrating. Drawing an analogy with the real world, the e-sports games heaped up graphically and by the realism of the physical model of wannabe are more like staging fights, where people dress up in SS armor / uniform and run to beat each other.
Arguments Briefly.
The main reasons for the grief of the debaters are:
- Wretched graphics
- Game age
- Unrealistic physics
I class age as "when it was all over and there is nothing to say." Look, they say about chess that they played in the 6th century AD, and nothing.
With graphics it's generally funny, have you ever seen playing Quake 2/3? They turn off everything. On the walls are blurry textures, the enemies against which are clear and visible for a kilometer. All sophisticated shaders, shadows, lighting and huge textures will immediately turn off. And if they can’t, then spit for a long time. The graphics engine renders a picture that allows you to instantly distinguish a friend from the enemy and accurately represent his location.
The physical model provides the behavior of characters and objects similar to reality. Remember simplicity. Often complain about standing shooting, lack of fatigue, unrealistic snipers with zoom. What I could agree with is a change in the trajectory of the movement during the jump, but it came to CS from the first Quake and over time turned into one of the elements that distinguish experienced players from beginners. The above in a refined simple gameplay adds a bunch of randomness and changes the balance. I stand concentrating and look into the scope of a sniper rifle, but no, I did not hold my breath, the scope randomly moves back and forth or I'm too tired and now I won’t get there. Random should have little effect on skill.
About the game.
It's just ten percent luck
Twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure
Fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name
© Fort Minor
Again, briefly, maybe someone who does not know or does not understand.
The game goes 5 on 5 to 15 rounds for each side. One side attacks and must plant a bomb and detonate it on one of the two planets. The other, accordingly, is protected. Popular tournament cards are well balanced and provide tremendous tactical freedom of action for both terrorists and counter-terrorists.
The presence of money in the game, for which weapons are bought at the beginning of the round, brings interesting nuances to the gameplay and makes the team finer plan their actions (it’s a bit more complicated than just who can buy what round, accumulation rounds, dropping weapons).
In fact, there are only three types of weapons: pistol, rifle, sniper rifle. Stand out Desert Eagle in the low price category and Galil / Famas in the middle in front of rifles. You can pick up someone else's weapon.
It’s very easy to understand the rules, it’s much harder to learn to play in a team, listen to other players, feel the enemy, and of course shoot with lightning speed accurately. And here there are secrets directly derived from game mechanics. To play well, you need perseverance, skill and long training.
At the same time, there is luck and randomness in small quantities, which makes the game lively and interesting.
The absurdity of change.
CS now is a balanced, at the same time very simple and wildly complex game. Not without minor bugs, yes. Opponents of CS, expressing their claims, apparently want to make some changes to the game.
Suppose we want to improve the graphics and detail of objects. Remember, I said above that, on the contrary, detailing interferes with cybersportsmen. All this fancy graphics will be immediately turned off to the minimum walls, so that the characters can be seen better.
And then I got to the point of why no one plays in Counter-Strike: Source, except for a couple of tournaments that were held in the States from the hopelessness of Valve herself. In CSS, they just did what I was talking about - decorated everything around, changed the models, that FIGs understand where one of these twisted freaks, stumbled on idiotic bushes and barrels (demonstration of the engine, og), and of course the changes to the engine brought with them a change in the shooting that the people had been taking so long to do. The players spat and scored.
If I had the will, I would shoot in bounding boxes of monotonous color among the same walls.
Suppose I want to add a new weapon. Now I would just delete those guns that are used only for the sake of fun, to mock the opponent losing 15-0. New ones are NOT NEEDED. We have pistols in the lower price range, Navik is a little better (but which few people use anyway), in the middle price range is Famas / Galil, further than the rifle and, of course, the most expensive - AWP, sniper rifle. Plus more grenades, we get everything we need for all occasions. Two teams have the same (almost) set of
Okay, well, at least you need to fix the physics engine? Do not. The physical model is simple and intuitive. After all, no one adds to chess pieces fatigue, or movement on a sprint, and does not resent why a horse can suddenly jump turning around a corner? (he did not expect such an analogy). Because the system is in balance. Remember balance and simplicity.
The shocking part.
All new wannabe e-sports are played in major tournaments simply because the development company is investing a lot of money in it. As far as I remember, tournaments for new games that were held a couple of times and never returned. And the case of CS, StarCraft, WarCraft 3, Quake 3 lives on and is not supported by anyone except the community. Because games are a little less than completely perfect.
And for developers, this state of affairs is completely unprofitable. Together with iron producers, they need to sell new titles and new video cards for them. Funny, they made masterpieces, as they say, on their own head.
So it may very well be that the game that you so stubbornly defend with foam at the mouth is played by tournaments only because the publishers of this game invest in it.
Just look at the World Cyber Games disciplines by yearsand disciplines of ASUS Open Summer 2009: Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Masters - prize pool of 350 thousand rubles, Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 NoN Profi Open - prize pool of 150 thousand rubles, Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Female Open - prize pool of 25 thousand rubles, Pro Evolution Soccer 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, FIFA 2009 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, Warcraft 3 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, StarCraft: Bw 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles, Quake 3 1v1 Open - prize fund of 50 thousand rubles.
Last thing.
Even if I’m not right in the previous paragraph, this does not give people any right in complete ignorance to defy Counter-Strike 1.6, which has been played by millions until now, at least not having read this post completely. I'm ready