A Look at the CounterStrike Source Beta 262
mutewinter writes "CounterFrag.com has posted an article reviewing the recent CounterStrike Source beta. What is unusual about Source is that it keeps the same gameplay, including guns and maps, of the original CounterStrike and simply brings CounterStrike (which uses the original Half Life engine) up to date graphically. Imagine if Doom 3 had been just like the original Doom, but with a better engine. Many gamers look down on recycled content, but is this a problem for a 5 year old game that is still as popular as ever?" S!: We also had an alternative look at the Beta over on Slashdot Games a couple of days back.
CS is insanely popular. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Score:1, Interesting)
Touchy subject (Score:3, Interesting)
CS has been a great ride (Score:4, Interesting)
Once it started to become more and more popular, a lot of the team play went away on "common" servers where it just became a frag fest. I'll definitely check out Source and see how it looks and feels. Hopefully most of the map exploits have been fixed better cheat prevention mentions have been added.
Re:Hitboxes (Score:5, Interesting)
You figure they could stop all the hitbox complaining by getting rid of them entirely. If you get hit you are really hit, if they miss then they really missed you.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love it. I love the atmosphere, the level design, the graphics, the sound (underrated, it's excellent), and the nods to other games, including Half-Life, System Shock 2 and of course Doom itself. It managed to freak me out in a couple of parts (one with a ghost women voice truly perturbed me), and it's also funny in parts; check those PDAs as you go along.
Best single player FPS experience in years. I downloaded it, but as soon it's published here (South America), i'll be first in line to buy it. Can't wait for the Linux binary either.
Re:This isn't counter strike 2, just CS: Source (Score:1, Interesting)
This is like giving away an OS, or charging for updates (and thus requiring the updates to keep the product functional). This is the same thing as the threat of MS charging for product updates (that is, aside from their yearly product release cycle).
Sure, they might alow original CS to be played for a while until enough people transition over. How long will that last, though? Seems like the MS business model to me: get people hooked, and then charge for that 'addiction'.
Re:Why mess with the best (Score:3, Interesting)
It's currently too balanced. It's like a symetrically perfect face - it looks weird and awkward.
That's what CS is like now. Everything is so perfectly balanced, that there's no excitement to playing any longer. There's no challenge.
If you changed it people would go ape shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Doom (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, that would've been awesome. I like Doom3, but something from the originals is missing, and it reminds me waaay to much of Half-Life rather than Doom. Actualy, is anybody aware of some group re-creating Doom and Doom2 on Doom3's engine?
And more on-topic now, I think it's good they kept the same maps and guns from the original Counter Strike. For a beta version, it helps to see the differences between the old engine and the new one.
Argh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hitboxes (Score:1, Interesting)
What is the difference between per-polygon and per-pixel? What components are there to models other than polygons? If you hit a polygon of the player, how could you not have hit a pixel of the player? If you don't hit a polygon of the player, how could you have hit a pixel of the player?
Re:Hitboxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Why per-pixel? (Score:2, Interesting)
-ReK
Re:NOT just a graphical upgrade! (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition:
- The muzzle flash is vastly improved
- Flashbangs visual affects are VASTLY improved and give a real feeling of disorientation, with images overlayed and what looks like a 2 year old playing with the brightness and contrast controls.
- The physics can not be understated! You can hide behind stuff, that might get shot away! Its not a static world, most stuff is dynamic! I played it for ages and ppl were *still* playing with the physics! A grenade explosion will send objects (weapons, bodies, small objects) flying
- The dust looks awsome, try wasting a few clips into the ground and tell me you dont drool!
On top of that
Re:Why mess with the best (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a popular myth. Agreed, great graphics is not substitute for great gameplay, but advances in graphics if used effectively can greatly change the nature of the game. Making a game look and feel more real is especially important for 3D shooters.
Here are a few instances where improvements in lighting can have a significant effect on the way Counter-Strike would be played.
-You see realistic muzzle flashes that light up the surroundings. The position of an enemy firing around the corner is given away.
-You see shadows of other players. Many a player's position will be given away by the shadows they cast.
-Dark or poorly lit areas have different strategic significance. For example, a camper's position is given away when momentarily illuminated by the flash of a firing weapon, or a distant frag grenade.
Physics is another area, and the articles have already highlighted their importance.