E-sports and comparison of Counter-Strike 1.6 with chess. Plus, why no one plays CS: Source
Here in some topic in the comments began a dispute in the spirit of Counter-Strike 1.6 vs Call of Duty | [place any other modern FPS here]. I think that on Habré there are cybersportsmen, avid gamers, and just casual, playing an hour from time to time after work. So, I hope, the topic will not go away immediately -∞, even though I am risking.
WARNING. The comparison does not go with old games that have won their eSports popularity, such as, for example, Q3. And all the more so not with starcraft or warcraft. It is a question of relatively new team games, players in which contempt for CS 1.6.
Hereinafter, CS means Counter-Strike 1.6, FPS stands for First Person Shooter.
')
In my best years, I played CS for a long time with varying success and consider myself an ex-sportsman. He did not achieve much success, but he had some experience and fan of participation in local and regional tournaments. The whole kitchen eSports perfectly imagine, and not only CS.
I believe that CS was and is an ideal team eSports FPS, its current status is extremely balanced and does not require any interventions other than a couple of minor fixes. Very often I come across people who, throwing mud at CS, expose the chips of some other wannabe cybersport FPS as undoubted advantages and advantages over it. So, what I want to say ...
Some experience gained in CS after years allows me to look at games from the perspective of a novice developer and game designer. I'm not going to prove something fanatically from my mouth. I just give my opinion.
Who does not understand the previous paragraph, think about why CS is still a cyber discipline (almost 10 years igrahe) and so many people play it. The reasoning is mainly in terms of eSports.
Who is too lazy to read. Findings.
Chess.
Let it be simple: as simple as possible, but not simpler. © A. Einstein
At first glance, it may seem ridiculous to compare a computer shooter 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 easy 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. In chess, I can play with stones on the sand, as well as with masterpieces of jewelry on the roof of a golden skyscraper. I would still prefer pebbles, otherwise I’ll break half of the figures and lose another.
So, CS is loved for clarity, simplicity, balance and hardcore (ie complexity, but complexity and simplicity in one sentence as a double negation). Remember, easy to start, hard to master.
Possible confusion concepts of sports / eSports. In sports, as in eSports, complexity and detail are not needed. Athletes jump on a pole through a stick, run along the paths and jump over barriers. Cybersportsmen are also easier in a simple and clear environment, when nothing distracts and does not interfere with concentration. Drawing an analogy with the real world, heaped up graphically and realism of the physical model of a wannabe eSports games are more like staging fights, where people dress up in SS armor / uniform and run to beat each other.
Arguments Briefly.
The main arguments for the grieving debaters are:
I refer the age to the category "when everything is over and there is nothing to say." Vaughn, they write about chess, that already in the 6th century AD they played, and nothing.
It's funny with graphics, have you ever seen playing Quake 2/3? They disconnect everything. There are blurry textures on the walls, the enemies against which are clear and visible a mile away. All the fancy shaders, shadows, lighting and huge textures will immediately turn off. And if they can not, then spit for a long time. The graphics engine renders a picture that allows you to instantly distinguish a comrade from an enemy and accurately represent his location.
The physical model provides similar to reality behavior of characters and objects. Keep it simple. Often they complain about shooting while standing, lack of fatigue, unrealistic snipers with zoom. What I could agree with is the change in the trajectory of movement during the jump, but it came to CS from the first Quake and eventually turned into one of the elements distinguishing experienced players from beginners. The above in a refined simple gameplay adds a bunch of randomness and changes the balance. I am concentrating and looking at the sight of a sniper rifle, but no, I did not hold my breath, the sight was randomly moving back and forth, or I was too tired and now I wouldn’t. Random should have a small effect on the 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
To remember the name
© Fort Minor
Again, briefly, maybe, who does not know what or does not understand.
The game goes 5 to 5 to 15 rounds for each side. One side attacks and must place a bomb and blow it up on one of two bombs. The other, respectively, is protected. Popular tournament cards are well balanced and provide tremendous tactical freedom to both terrorists and counter-terrorists.
The presence of money in the game, for which a weapon is bought at the beginning of a round, makes interesting nuances in the gameplay and makes the team more subtly plan their actions (there is a little more complicated than just who can buy what rounds, accumulation rounds, throwing off weapons).
In fact, only three types of weapons: pistol, rifle, sniper rifle. It stands 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 is very easy to understand the rules, it is much more difficult to learn to play as a team, listen to other players, feel the opponent, and of course shoot lightning fast. And here there are secrets directly arising from the game mechanics. To play well, you need perseverance, skill and long trainings.
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 very simple and wildly complex game balanced at the same time. Not without small 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 to cybersportsmen, detailing on the contrary hinders. All this fancy graphics will be immediately turned off to the minimum walls, so that you can see the characters better.
And then I got to the point why no one plays Counter-Strike: Source, except for a couple of tournaments that were held in the States because of the hopelessness of Valve itself. In CSS, we did exactly what I was talking about - they painted everything around, changed the models, where you can figure out where some of these crooked freaks, poked idiotic bushes and barrels (engine demonstration, ord) and, of course, brought changes to the engine change of shooting, on which people so long zadrachival. Players spat and scored.
If I were my will, I would shoot at the 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 fun, to mock the opponent losing 15-0. New DO NOT NEED. We have pistols in the lower price range, Navik is a little better (but which few people use anyway), in the average price range Famas / Galil, further rifles 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 you to focus on the skill. Adding new weapons will require careful analysis in order not to kill the existing balance and not add too much randomness.
Well, at least the physics engine needs to be fixed? Do not. The physical model is simple and intuitive. After all, no one adds to the chess pieces fatigue, or movement on the sprint, and does not resent why the horse can suddenly jump turning the corner? (I myself did not expect such an analogy). Because the system is in balance. Remember, balance and simplicity.
Shocking part.
All new cybersports wannabe are played in major tournaments simply because the developer company invests a lot of money into it. How many I remember tournaments on new games, which were held a couple of times and never returned. A case of CS, StarCraft, WarCraft 3, Quake 3 lives and is not supported by anyone except the community. Because the games are a little less than completely perfect.
But for developers, this state of affairs is completely unprofitable. Together with iron manufacturers, they need to sell new titles and new video cards for them. Funny, they made masterpieces, as they say, on their heads.
So it may very well be that tournaments play in a game that you so stubbornly protect with foaming at the mouth just because the publishers of this game invest money into it.
Just look at the World Cyber Games disciplines over the years and ASUS Open Summer 2009 disciplines: Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Masters - prize money 350 thousand rubles, ounter-Strike 1.6 5v5 NoN Profi Open - prize money 150 thousand rubles, ounter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Female Open - a prize fund 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 - prize fund 50 thousand rubles, Quake 3 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles.
Last thing.
Even if in the previous paragraph I am not right, it does not give people any right in perfect ignorance to blame Counter-Strike 1.6, which millions play until now, at least not having read this post completely. I'm readyto fool around the mouth of the ardent defenders of competing games, where all my arguments will be refuted.
WARNING. The comparison does not go with old games that have won their eSports popularity, such as, for example, Q3. And all the more so not with starcraft or warcraft. It is a question of relatively new team games, players in which contempt for CS 1.6.
Hereinafter, CS means Counter-Strike 1.6, FPS stands for First Person Shooter.
')
In my best years, I played CS for a long time with varying success and consider myself an ex-sportsman. He did not achieve much success, but he had some experience and fan of participation in local and regional tournaments. The whole kitchen eSports perfectly imagine, and not only CS.
I believe that CS was and is an ideal team eSports FPS, its current status is extremely balanced and does not require any interventions other than a couple of minor fixes. Very often I come across people who, throwing mud at CS, expose the chips of some other wannabe cybersport FPS as undoubted advantages and advantages over it. So, what I want to say ...
Some experience gained in CS after years allows me to look at games from the perspective of a novice developer and game designer. I'm not going to prove something fanatically from my mouth. I just give my opinion.
Who does not understand the previous paragraph, think about why CS is still a cyber discipline (almost 10 years igrahe) and so many people play it. The reasoning is mainly in terms of eSports.
Who is too lazy to read. Findings.
- The simplicity of the game mechanics, the novice 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 allows you to focus on the main
- The balance and sophistication of game mechanics
- Tournament cards verified over the years
- Interesting tactical component, including the economic
- Entertainment and Action Games
- Random Elements and Luck
Chess.
Let it be simple: as simple as possible, but not simpler. © A. Einstein
At first glance, it may seem ridiculous to compare a computer shooter 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 easy 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. In chess, I can play with stones on the sand, as well as with masterpieces of jewelry on the roof of a golden skyscraper. I would still prefer pebbles, otherwise I’ll break half of the figures and lose another.
So, CS is loved for clarity, simplicity, balance and hardcore (ie complexity, but complexity and simplicity in one sentence as a double negation). Remember, easy to start, hard to master.
Possible confusion concepts of sports / eSports. In sports, as in eSports, complexity and detail are not needed. Athletes jump on a pole through a stick, run along the paths and jump over barriers. Cybersportsmen are also easier in a simple and clear environment, when nothing distracts and does not interfere with concentration. Drawing an analogy with the real world, heaped up graphically and realism of the physical model of a wannabe eSports games are more like staging fights, where people dress up in SS armor / uniform and run to beat each other.
Arguments Briefly.
The main arguments for the grieving debaters are:
- Poor graphics
- Age of the game
- Unrealistic physics
I refer the age to the category "when everything is over and there is nothing to say." Vaughn, they write about chess, that already in the 6th century AD they played, and nothing.
It's funny with graphics, have you ever seen playing Quake 2/3? They disconnect everything. There are blurry textures on the walls, the enemies against which are clear and visible a mile away. All the fancy shaders, shadows, lighting and huge textures will immediately turn off. And if they can not, then spit for a long time. The graphics engine renders a picture that allows you to instantly distinguish a comrade from an enemy and accurately represent his location.
The physical model provides similar to reality behavior of characters and objects. Keep it simple. Often they complain about shooting while standing, lack of fatigue, unrealistic snipers with zoom. What I could agree with is the change in the trajectory of movement during the jump, but it came to CS from the first Quake and eventually turned into one of the elements distinguishing experienced players from beginners. The above in a refined simple gameplay adds a bunch of randomness and changes the balance. I am concentrating and looking at the sight of a sniper rifle, but no, I did not hold my breath, the sight was randomly moving back and forth, or I was too tired and now I wouldn’t. Random should have a small effect on the 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
To remember the name
© Fort Minor
Again, briefly, maybe, who does not know what or does not understand.
The game goes 5 to 5 to 15 rounds for each side. One side attacks and must place a bomb and blow it up on one of two bombs. The other, respectively, is protected. Popular tournament cards are well balanced and provide tremendous tactical freedom to both terrorists and counter-terrorists.
The presence of money in the game, for which a weapon is bought at the beginning of a round, makes interesting nuances in the gameplay and makes the team more subtly plan their actions (there is a little more complicated than just who can buy what rounds, accumulation rounds, throwing off weapons).
In fact, only three types of weapons: pistol, rifle, sniper rifle. It stands 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 is very easy to understand the rules, it is much more difficult to learn to play as a team, listen to other players, feel the opponent, and of course shoot lightning fast. And here there are secrets directly arising from the game mechanics. To play well, you need perseverance, skill and long trainings.
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 very simple and wildly complex game balanced at the same time. Not without small 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 to cybersportsmen, detailing on the contrary hinders. All this fancy graphics will be immediately turned off to the minimum walls, so that you can see the characters better.
And then I got to the point why no one plays Counter-Strike: Source, except for a couple of tournaments that were held in the States because of the hopelessness of Valve itself. In CSS, we did exactly what I was talking about - they painted everything around, changed the models, where you can figure out where some of these crooked freaks, poked idiotic bushes and barrels (engine demonstration, ord) and, of course, brought changes to the engine change of shooting, on which people so long zadrachival. Players spat and scored.
If I were my will, I would shoot at the 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 fun, to mock the opponent losing 15-0. New DO NOT NEED. We have pistols in the lower price range, Navik is a little better (but which few people use anyway), in the average price range Famas / Galil, further rifles 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
Well, at least the physics engine needs to be fixed? Do not. The physical model is simple and intuitive. After all, no one adds to the chess pieces fatigue, or movement on the sprint, and does not resent why the horse can suddenly jump turning the corner? (I myself did not expect such an analogy). Because the system is in balance. Remember, balance and simplicity.
Shocking part.
All new cybersports wannabe are played in major tournaments simply because the developer company invests a lot of money into it. How many I remember tournaments on new games, which were held a couple of times and never returned. A case of CS, StarCraft, WarCraft 3, Quake 3 lives and is not supported by anyone except the community. Because the games are a little less than completely perfect.
But for developers, this state of affairs is completely unprofitable. Together with iron manufacturers, they need to sell new titles and new video cards for them. Funny, they made masterpieces, as they say, on their heads.
So it may very well be that tournaments play in a game that you so stubbornly protect with foaming at the mouth just because the publishers of this game invest money into it.
Just look at the World Cyber Games disciplines over the years and ASUS Open Summer 2009 disciplines: Counter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Masters - prize money 350 thousand rubles, ounter-Strike 1.6 5v5 NoN Profi Open - prize money 150 thousand rubles, ounter-Strike 1.6 5v5 Female Open - a prize fund 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 - prize fund 50 thousand rubles, Quake 3 1v1 Open - a prize fund of 50 thousand rubles.
Last thing.
Even if in the previous paragraph I am not right, it does not give people any right in perfect ignorance to blame Counter-Strike 1.6, which millions play until now, at least not having read this post completely. I'm ready
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/68890/
All Articles