"Counter-Strike is a phenomenon, there is no denying it. Probably every person who plays FPS games and has been online knows about the game or is already playing it. There are over 40,000 people playing Counter-Strike right now online and that isn't even including what is probably a few thousand more people playing on LANs. No FPS action game has ever had this many people playing it online at a single time. Why is that? What could possibly elevate one FPS mod so far above and beyond anything else out there? What is going on?"

http://www.shugashack.com/extras/e_counterstrike/index.x

Steve's not the best writer I've ever read, but his website is an essential stop for FPS gamers.. and his opinion generally reflects his very large constituency. Core gamers, if you will.

Of course counter-strike is really a non-event, hardly important in the big scheme of things. Or so I've been told, though all available evidence points to exactly the opposite...

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Of course counter-strike is really a non-event, hardly important in the big scheme of things."

No one here said that, wumpus. Or didn't you read all those messages you tried to reply to?

-Tom

"No one here said that [cs was a non-event]."

Well, Tom, you said: "You say Counter-Strike is 'literally transforming' the industry, but you sound a little star struck. How is it 'literally transforming' the indsutry? "

This is akin to arguing that Ultima Online (or R6, if you like) set the stage for EverQuest and therefore the incidental "success" of EverQuest doesn't matter.. it's just a related event. But the massive, unheard-of popularity of EverQuest clearly elevates the MMORPG genre to another level beyond what the modest numbers of UO were able to do-- in effect making the entire genre viable and attractive for all future players. It just screams "we're not a niche! develop more games like this! fat piles of cash await you!" And that's a big, big deal.

This is what CS does for online FPS teamplay games. And it's a real cinderella story since it came out of nowhere, isn't a commercial product (until recently), and was developed by just a few guys.

And you said, "You don't seem to be able to differentiate between Valve and Counter-Strike. This 'transformation' is a result of how Valve interacts with the mod community. It predates Counter-Strike and probably even the hiring of the Team Fortress guys from Australia, John Cook and Robin Walker. Valve is transforming the industry. Counter-Strike is the *result* of that, not the *cause*. "

First, there is some misinterpretation of FPS history going on here to support your argument, because id started the trend of paying mod-makers by contracting with Zoid to write CTF for Q2 based on his highly successful CTF mod for Q1-- the first teamplay mod of any kind for a FPS.

Second, If CS was developed for Q3, UT, or any other engine, it would have had the same sweeping, dramatic effects. It has nothing to do with the engine-- plenty of mods for all those engines (and 99% of them suck, IMO)-- and everything to do with the unique formula in the gameplay.

Your argument that CS is a mere side effect of Valve's engine, or Valve's patronage, doesn't wash with me. id paid Zoid to write CTF for Q2 and Q2-- and you didn't see that go on to become the most popular online FPS in gaming history, did you?

It just boggles my mind that a crack game journalist like yourself can't or won't grok this.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"It just boggles my mind that a crack game journalist like yourself can't or won't grok this."

Counter-Strike is not a force that magically transformed the industry with the sheer unprecedented brilliance of one little man's humble efforts. The things that made:

1) multiplayer gaming,
2) the mod community, and
3) realistic weapon effects

what they are today were in motion well before Valve started siphoning funds into Minh Le's figurative garage.

Your fanboy stance towards CS is obvious, but I don't see why the above is so hard for you to understand. CS can still be a great mod without being the Second Coming.

And it's still not the Best Game of 2000.

-Tom

"1) multiplayer gaming, 2) the mod community, and 3) realistic weapon effects what they are today were in motion well before Valve started siphoning funds into Minh Le's figurative garage."

I don't see how that's relevant.

You could make the same arguments about EverQuest. Every geeky guy in the world has imagined an online, massively multiplayer, hack n' slash, renfaire-style fantasy game practically from the moment of birth.

Yet nobody was able to pull it off like EQ was.

And that massive success led to everyone taking notice of the MMORPG genre.. whereas they had written it off as a niche before.

Every game builds in some way on all the games that came before it. Does this in any way diminish the success or importance of EQ? No. And I'd say the exact same things about Counter-Strike.

There is a certain magic in the formula, Tom. According to you, it's just "make a realistically themed multiplayer FPS game for a popular engine", instantly get all-time most popular online FPS game. Hell, anyone could do it according to you! Just follow the recipe, right?

"Your fanboy stance towards CS is obvious, but I don't see why the above is so hard for you to understand. CS can still be a great mod without being the Second Coming."

CS is a brilliant, groundbreaking game. I'd go to the wall for this game in the same way I would for other bedrock genre classics like DOOM or Civilization. Everyone I know that I have introduced to the game (and has any interest in FPS shooters) has become immersed in it; it's that good.

So yeah, when a well known game journalist dismisses CS as "a side effect" and "just a mod" I think that deserves some scrutiny. If that's so, then Michael Jordan is just another basketball player, and any NBA player could be just as good.

Your vehement opposition to any whiff of importance I try to attribute to this massively popular game is.. a little weird, frankly. Do you have something *against* it? Put all your cards on the table, Tom. Comments like "siphoning funds" and "figurative garage" seem to insinuate you have a beef here.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Man, Wumpus, you sure seem to take this personally!! I don't really have anything to contribute to this conversation, having never played the game myself, but I sure find this ongoing conversation fascinating...I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone so zealous over a game.

And, sorry Tom, but it doesn't seem that you are allowed to have your own opinion, even here, on your own website. Too bad.

"And, sorry Tom, but it doesn't seem that you are allowed to have your own opinion, even here, on your own website. Too bad."

Yeah, it kind of sucks that we have to clear our Game of the Year picks with wumpus. I just feel sorry for Mark when his turn comes up.

:)

-Tom

If Mark needs someone to pick on his choices, I'll do it. Not that I have anything against Mark but if the job is open.....;)

CS isn't some kind of mindblowing idea. Everything that it does has been done before. One-shot One-kill for online was in Rainbow 6. Tactical warfare centered on teams working together was already in several games, Tribes being the big one that comes to mind. Tribes also had a similar system of buying equipment and having classes. CS just happens to have taken all these revolutionary ideas and packaged them better than anyone else has been able to.

I finally blew the dust off of my Half-Life CD and installed it so I could try out CS. Felt kind of silly talking about it without at least playing a few rounds. I admit that it is a blast to play, so much so that I'll probably leave it installed for a while. It plays different than any other FPS that I've played, but not because it had new ideas. It plays better for the same reason Half-Life played better than, say, Quake III; because it implemented the same ideas in a much better way.

So, does the success of CS change the industry? Perhaps it does, but who can be sure? Swat 3 was advertised as an alternative to Rainbow 6, not CS. I think the industry was already moving in the direction that CS went, but can I say that definitively? No, I can't.

"And, sorry Tom, but it doesn't seem that you are allowed to have your own opinion, even here, on your own website. Too bad. "

I don't think that's true; I agree with Tom's review of Deus Ex though not his Old Man Murray methodology.

Hey, you think Civilization or DOOM weren't groundbreaking titles (as Tom thinks of CS), be my guest. But don't expect to go out without a token dissent. ;)

"I finally blew the dust off of my Half-Life CD and installed it so I could try out CS. Felt kind of silly talking about it without at least playing a few rounds. I admit that it is a blast to play, so much so that I'll probably leave it installed for a while. It plays different than any other FPS that I've played, but not because it had new ideas. It plays better for the same reason Half-Life played better than, say, Quake III; because it implemented the same ideas in a much better way. "

Good for you, Jim.

I'm not posting this stuff because I enjoy typing; I'm posting it because I honestly believe that CS is the best multiplayer FPS game ever released. And I believe I can make a strong case that the facts support my position on this.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Yeah, it kind of sucks that we have to clear our Game of the Year picks with wumpus. "

Wait a second. I never said that Tom had to pick CS as GOTY. Tom just can't let me attribute a single whiff of importance to the game without just letting it sit. He goes out of his way to dispute any such claims.. these thread(s) would have been long dead if not for that.

I mean, heck, if people want Deus Ex to be GOTY or the "most influential" FPS of the year, you won't see me arguing with them. I understand their position and I can see where they're coming from. Though the game had some severe issues, it was definitely a step in the right direction.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"So, does the success of CS change the industry? Perhaps it does, but who can be sure? Swat 3 was advertised as an alternative to Rainbow 6, not CS. I think the industry was already moving in the direction that CS went, but can I say that definitively? No, I can't. "

Lost in all this Chickian noise is the fact that Gooseman, the primary creator of CS, has been doing military themed FPS games for years. He originally did a "Navy Seals" mod for Quake 1, then moved on to "Action Quake" for Quake 2.

And those both predate the living hell out of Rainbow 6. So I doubt he was copying so much as just following what he loved.

But please, don't let these irritating facts get in the way of Tom's burning desire to smack down any claims I make that CS is groudbreaking or influential in any way.

(but it is.)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I've been thinking and reading a lot about team game design and what makes Counter-Strike such a remarkable success.

The key element is progress.

More specifically, Counter-Strike is such a radical improvement on other team oriented first person shooters because it so strongly cultivates a sense of progress along an axis that is completely unavailable in non-team forms of competition, namely the always dwindling health of your team as a whole, in relation to the health of the other team.

This sense of progress is the core attraction of Counter-Strike, and CS manipulates it masterfully, though at times it seems that this has been achieved without a great deal of forethought. CS prides its self on realism, but it would lose a great deal if you didn't always know the active rosters of each team, watching your own and your opponents cohorts fall. Getting health reports on your teammates by looking at them is likewise critical in fostering this sense of progress, as is the ability to watch any part of the fight once you're dead.

In fact, that last element is the answer to another of the riddles of Counter-Strike: "Why do people love a game that keeps them dead half the time they play it?" Because Counter-Strike reinforces the sense of progress throughout, especially when the players are dead! The game builds an intense interest in the progress of your team, and when you are no longer able to contribute to your team, you receive the surprisingly rewarding ability to monitor their progress even more accurately and completely than when you were alive. That is what keeps the dead players interested, and this is why gamers who previously avoided team competition now clamor for the chance to play a game that will keep them dead for minutes on end.

I think that something else CS has on R6 and RS is that it is more action oriented. The players move faster, jump higher, and (most of the time) can take more damage. No massive trip through the mission plan is required, you just buy your gear and start shooting. CS is the Hollywood version of counter-terrorist teams, while R6/RS is more like the Avalon Hill version.