New Counter-Strike game in the works from Valve!!

Grindspine

Grindspine

Moderator
Here's the story:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2011/08/valve-launching-new-counter-strike-title-in-2012/1

Looks like Valve will be working the same group used for Counter-Strike: Source to release a new CS game, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

CS: GO features new maps, characters, and weapons and delivers updated versions of the classic CS content (de_dust, etc.). In addition, CS: GO will introduce new gameplay modes, matchmaking, leader boards, and more.
Click to expand...

ss_6fb588280dfcfad6c98bf5d6d0fadd691b18e003.600x338.jpg


http://store.steampowered.com/app/1800/?snr=1_4_4__13
 
Kotaku posted an article on it too. Apparently Valve has enough of a game to already be getting feedback from some pro players. This is a distinct game from Counter-Strike 1.6 and Counter-Strike: Source...

http://kotaku.com/5830426/real-details-on-the-new-counter+strike-from-pros-whove-played-it?popular=true
 
GS and I were talking about it last night. I basically came to the conclusion that in order to make every gun viable, the pricing system needs to go. Period. The dynamic pricing experiment shows that, even at higher prices, players will only buy the best weapons. (Basically it was a change in 2006 to make the prices of a gun related to how often its purchased- the more used a gun is, the more it cost. But instead of balancing out weapon usage, the good guns like the M4 and AK reached absurd prices, while the SMGs and pistols hit rock bottom.) Thus, they need to use a more Call of Duty style weapon selection- each weapon type has its pros and cons, but isn't inherently better than other weapons/weapon types. Basically, in CoD, I can take an SMG and dominate someone using a sniper, or a shotgun etc if I play the strengths of my weapon and the weaknesses of theirs. As it stands, assault rifles are useful in any situation, and the high power of the AWP and Desert Eagle make them the go-to choice for snipers and pistols.

Suggesting becoming more like CoD may be blasphemy, but, if Valve actually wants to commit to making every weapon useful they will have to do something similar. Better weapons will always be chosen, regardless of price, so using pricing to balance weapons is flawed. Not to mention the fact many PC servers have unlimited money on them, so that ALL you see are the best weapons- there is no incentive to use anything else, not even money.
 
It'd be nice if close quarters maps like cs_office had selections of weapons only for close quarters while maps like de_dust would have more long range weapons available.

I hope they add maps like cs_business, it was one of my favorite maps, yet many servers did not have it.
 
I think the biggest problem is the fact they are using feedback from pros to balance the game. Not that pros don't have great insight, but I feel that they will give feedback detrimental to positive change.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
GS and I were talking about it last night. I basically came to the conclusion that in order to make every gun viable, the pricing system needs to go. Period. The dynamic pricing experiment shows that, even at higher prices, players will only buy the best weapons. (Basically it was a change in 2006 to make the prices of a gun related to how often its purchased- the more used a gun is, the more it cost. But instead of balancing out weapon usage, the good guns like the M4 and AK reached absurd prices, while the SMGs and pistols hit rock bottom.) Thus, they need to use a more Call of Duty style weapon selection- each weapon type has its pros and cons, but isn't inherently better than other weapons/weapon types. Basically, in CoD, I can take an SMG and dominate someone using a sniper, or a shotgun etc if I play the strengths of my weapon and the weaknesses of theirs. As it stands, assault rifles are useful in any situation, and the high power of the AWP and Desert Eagle make them the go-to choice for snipers and pistols.

Suggesting becoming more like CoD may be blasphemy, but, if Valve actually wants to commit to making every weapon useful they will have to do something similar. Better weapons will always be chosen, regardless of price, so using pricing to balance weapons is flawed. Not to mention the fact many PC servers have unlimited money on them, so that ALL you see are the best weapons- there is no incentive to use anything else, not even money.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I have to disagree.

The reason I liked Counter-Strike (Source especially) more than other First Person Shooters was because it was more realistic in terms of it's weapons and gameplay. The AK and M4 were the best all around weapons in the game precisely because they are the best all around weapons in reality (out of the selection of guns in CS). I always felt like CS was fun because it was more of a simulation than it was a game, so all the things CS would not change to make the game more balanced or fun or whatever, were in fact the things that made it a different experience and, in my opinion, more fun. If it's just another CoD, who cares?

I also feel like you shortchanged the usefulness of the other weapons a bit. When I wanted to be a shock trooper I would roll with a shotty (not the noob tube) and still maintain a positive K/D. I know sniper rifles could be your best friend or your worst enemy depending on how you played with them. Assault rifles were the better choice in most situations, but I think that's to the game's credit, not its detriment, because that's how it would be a real combat situation.
 
stealth toilet said:
Interesting idea, but I have to disagree.

The reason I liked Counter-Strike (Source especially) more than other First Person Shooters was because it was more realistic in terms of it's weapons and gameplay. The AK and M4 were the best all around weapons in the game precisely because they are the best all around weapons in reality (out of the selection of guns in CS). I always felt like CS was fun because it was more of a simulation than it was a game, so all the things CS would not change to make the game more balanced or fun or whatever, were in fact the things that made it a different experience and, in my opinion, more fun. If it's just another CoD, who cares?

I also feel like you shortchanged the usefulness of the other weapons a bit. When I wanted to be a shock trooper I would roll with a shotty (not the noob tube) and still maintain a positive K/D. I know sniper rifles could be your best friend or your worst enemy depending on how you played with them. Assault rifles were the better choice in most situations, but I think that's to the game's credit, not its detriment, because that's how it would be a real combat situation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. CoD is more arcade-like and a bit easier to pick up and play and that's okay too. But it shouldn't try to be like the others because it's already established itself on the side of realism. That's what made CS, CS. It's all about tactics, not run and gun.
 
stealth toilet said:
I also feel like you shortchanged the usefulness of the other weapons a bit. When I wanted to be a shock trooper I would roll with a shotty (not the noob tube) and still maintain a positive K/D. I know sniper rifles could be your best friend or your worst enemy depending on how you played with them. Assault rifles were the better choice in most situations, but I think that's to the game's credit, not its detriment, because that's how it would be a real combat situation.
Click to expand...

In a real combat situation, SWAT teams would not take an AWP or m249 machine gun into an office; they'd more likely have sidearms and shotguns, maybe an smg.

That is the point Spartan is making, that the weapon selection often becomes unrealistic.
 
Grindspine said:
In a real combat situation, SWAT teams would not take an AWP or m249 machine gun into an office; they'd more likely have sidearms and shotguns, maybe an smg.

That is the point Spartan is making, that the weapon selection often becomes unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But part of the reason those weapons are more effective in that analogy is because an actual SWAT team would have trained with those weapons for that specific purpose. So part of the reason those weapons would be effective for the SWAT team would be because they were familiar with them, just like most CS players are most familiar with AKs and M4s and thus prefer to use them whenever possible. On paper, the shotgun or sidearm might be a better choice in a close-quarters situation (something I still believe CS encourages as I used to play according to my weapon and did just fine), but in a pressure situation, the best choice is to go with the gun you're best at wielding. I don't think that's unrealistic.

I do agree, though, that more realism would be better. I've always wanted players to be able to wound others, so that getting hit meant more than a health bar decreasing, it meant one might have to limp, switch to a one-handed sidearm, or something like that depending on where one was hit. I also really like BF3's idea of reducing the players vision and audio when they are under suppressing fire. Stuff like that.

I'm really hoping that CS steps up the realism in this new game, but I really don't think following a CoD model is going to do that. It might make it more of a game, more balanced, more of an incentive to try different weapons, etc., but not more realistic.
 
I don't care one way or another about the realism, I was just saying if they want to actually achieve their stated goal of making every weapon valuable they need to decrease the disparity between the performance of each.

And yes, anyone can do well with any weapon, if skilled enough. And shotguns aren't bad, in close quarters maps. But the fact remains that 90%+ of players use the same 4-5 weapons because they are flat out better than the others.
 
stealth toilet said:
Perhaps. But part of the reason those weapons are more effective in that analogy is because an actual SWAT team would have trained with those weapons for that specific purpose.
Click to expand...

So, SWAT teams rush into office buildings with hostages all armed with AWPS for close quarters combat? ::)

I have seen that happen countless times in CSS. I call that unrealistic.

The idea of just being able to wound is great. I recall Quake Team Fortress actually taking into account the difference between a leg shot, headshot, and body shot, where one could slow an enemy with a leg shot or kill with a headshot.

There was also the Action Quake mod for Quake II where one would bleed when shot until taking the time to bandage. Those added a different feel to the prior deathmatch type of games.

I do agree that there is a major bias toward the same few weapons in CSS. The Desert Eagle is BY FAR the most used pistol. The others are inordinately weaker; any handgun can kill in reality with a headshot. It would be nice if the SMGs were brought up in power a bit so that they could at least kill in close quarters as well as the assault rifles kill at medium range.
 
Grindspine said:
So, SWAT teams rush into office buildings with hostages all armed with AWPS for close quarters combat? ::)
Click to expand...

If that's all they've ever trained with, yes. :D

I don't care one way or another about the realism, I was just saying if they want to actually achieve their stated goal of making every weapon valuable they need to decrease the disparity between the performance of each.
Click to expand...

That's true. I honestly hope that's not their goal, though.
 
Instead of players committing solely to the strongest, most reliable options—the AWP, Desert Eagle, AK-47 and M4A1—it appears that the game's developers intend to make sub machine guns, shotguns and pistols viable purchases.
Click to expand...

They are, that's what I am basing my comments off of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top