First, some background.

I grilled Tom Chick because he wrote several articles on FPS gaming mods, yet didn't seem to grok the importance of counter-strike-- easily the most important "mod" of all time.

I find this odd coming from a guy who gets paid to write about mods, and the FPS genre in general.

Allow me to quote from the Canon Of Tom Chick:

---

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

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*.

---

Well, ladies and gentlemen, here's yet another sign of how counter-strike is transforming the FPS industry. As if

1) being the most popular online FPS game in recorded history

and

2) blazing a trail for independent mod makers to go retail as standalone games

... wasn't _enough_ evidence .. now there's this.

---

Taken from http://www.shacknews.com

The CPL just delivered what could be the knockout punch to competitive Quake3 players around the nation. Quake3 has been dominating the 'professional gaming' circuit for the past year or so playing host to several big tournaments including a couple of $100,000 prize events. The peak of this interest probably at the Frag4 4on4 tournament. However over the past several months though there has been a noticeable drop in interest from the competitive scene, however many players were still pointing towards the upcoming $150,000 CPL Quake3 "World Championship" event as a reason to continue competitively. Well all that just changed.

---

The CPL announced today that their banner event of 2001, the CPL World Championships, will be a Counter-Strike tournament. The prize money for the event is $150,000. [... ] Long live Counter-Strike. Quake 3 - we hardly knew ye.

---

As a competitive Quake3 player myself for quite a while this is honestly no surprise. Quake3 was great fun for quite a while but for some reason it just "lost its legs" a while back. In fact my own Quake3 (r3v) clan which took 2nd place at the last CPL Q3 team tournament had nearly stopped playing Quake3 completely months ago. It just wasn't fun anymore. (Well, CTF is still fun) What have we been playing for the past few months? Counter-Strike. A ton of it. We're not alone either, several of the top Quake3 teams have been secretly or not-so-secretly trying their hands at Counter-Strike. It's a really amazing shift. Those 50,000 are about to meet up with some new friends. I'm looking forward to it.

----

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

So...

Who cares?

I'm not sure what is at stake here. Honestly, I think people give game journalists a hard time because they're easy to pick on. Sure, I don't agree with 50%+ of the reviews/articles I read, but it's not because they're WRONG. It's because my idea of a good game and the reviewer's idea happen to be different. And I'm OK with that.

"I'm not sure what is at stake here. Honestly, I think people give game journalists a hard time because they're easy to pick on. Sure, I don't agree with 50%+ of the reviews/articles I read, but it's not because they're WRONG. It's because my idea of a good game and the reviewer's idea happen to be different. And I'm OK with that. "

Counter-Strike is a doom level event in the FPS genre. It is indeed "literally transforming the industry", with regards to multiplayer. See the above for factual evidence of that.

The reason it aggravates me is because it's so painfully obvious, and Tom should know better. It's as if I proudly presented Tom a copy of Civilization, then he subsequently turned to me and said "so?". This is not the kind of thing you expect from a professional game journalist, particularly one who gets paid to write about FPS games and mods.

Tom should be a highly trained gaming ninja, able to suss out the merest whiff of greatness and expound upon it at great length. Instead, I get crap like this:

-- quote from Canon of Tom Chick

Wumpus, you seem to have trouble understanding what I'm writing, so let me distill it: You're singing Counter-Strike's praises as something that is "transforming the industry". You are wrong.

-- end quote from Canon of Tom Chick

Hell, you might as well get "I have no friggin' clue" tatooed on your forehead at this point. Same difference.

You want evidence that counter-strike is transforming the FPS industry? Just look around you, for God's sake. You'll see plenty of stuff like the article I quoted above.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I'm not sure what is at stake here."

Nothing is at stake here.

Wumpus,

The simple fact of the matter is that I like CS.

Why don't you go read last year's article on Gamecenter on the Top Ten Half Life mods or the 1999 overview of all mods for all games? Look what was chosen as #1 both times. Now look who wrote the article. Oh gosh, your argument, carefully constructed from incomplete quotes taken out of context, falls apart, doesn't it?

I'd be happy to explain again that CS is a *product* of the transforming industry, not the *catalyst*. But somehow, the tattoo on your forehead that reads "I have no friggin' clue" tells me I'd be wasting my time trying to actually explain something to you.

Now go away, troll. No one's amused.

-Tom

I ask again.

Who cares? Whether or not Mr. Chick happens to understate the importance of a mod is no reason to create a topic just to blast him in public. Get over it.

Having followed the last series of posts such as this very closely, I think that there's a very, VERY fine line between Wumpus's argument (The creationg of CS is changing the industry) and Tom's argument (The changing of the industry led to the creation of CS.) And the bottom line is this: Neither of you is going to be able to change the other's mind. The difference between the two of you is that Tom realizes this, and drops it. Just agree to disagree, because it would likely be impossible to determine the cause/effect relationship between the industry and its products.

I don't know what you were trying to acheive by re-opening this wound, Wumpus. It's just not worth it, even if you're right. (Which is impossible to discern.)*

*Note - notice how careful I was not to offend anyone? I'm thinking of running for office...

For those who want a "realistic" millitary mod should look at infiltration instead. Infiltration is not only the first realism mod(which CS cloned) but the most realistic (with 2.85 it got even better). Since INF actually requires skills and patience it wont attract as many players as Quake or CS.

No crosshairs in real life :).

www.planetunreal.com/infiltration

Marcus

"And the bottom line is this: Neither of you is going to be able to change the other's mind. The difference between the two of you is that Tom realizes this, and drops it. Just agree to disagree, because it would likely be impossible to determine the cause/effect relationship between the industry and its products. "

Well said!

However, the logic that Tom uses is fundamentally flawed. Let's accept for a moment his premise:

--
I'd be happy to explain again that CS is a *product* of the transforming industry, not the *catalyst*.
--

Given that, consider this:

1) Team Fortress Classic

What better *product* of the "transforming FPS industry" than TFC? TFC, unlike CS, was a mod that was commercially groomed from the very day it began development. If any mod is a poster child for Tom's hypothesis, this is the one. Yet, the number of players is five times lower than counter-strike. And I see no tournaments based on this commercial mod. Furthermore, I see no future games in development (other than valve's own TF2) based on this gameplay model. I see precious little evidence has had any influence on the FPS game industry whatsoever.

If TFC is a shining product of this transformed FPS industry, it's an awfully dull one.

2) Where are the mods?

By Tom's logic, the rise of the mod is _inevitable_. If the industry has transformed itself such that mods have become so important, I ask you.. WHERE ARE THESE IMPORTANT MODS? The mods that are "must have", that become retail games, that spawn massive user bases? Answer: there aren't any. If you list TFC, and counter-strike, you account for 99% of all FPS gamers online. And 90% of that is CS.

If you accept Tom's premise, there really should be a thriving online population for _many_ mods. But there aren't. Quite the opposite in fact.

3) Popularity

Most mods are considered successful if they garner perhaps 100 servers and 5,000 players at any given time. But CS transcends mere "popularity" so forcefully it practically breaks the category. It is, far and away, the most popular online FPS in recorded history. That in itself is a big deal. I like to call this the "everquest" factor. So many people are playing that the industry has to sit up and take notice. Hell, Valve's own TFC-- a far more polished product-- isn't even remotely in the same league.

4) The magic formula

Tom's logic also completely discounts the way CS nailed the gameplay formula in a way nobody else had before. The teamplay, round-length deaths, the money system, the objectives, realistic weapons-- none of these items individually is a radical innovation, but taken as a whole, they add up to far more than the sum of the parts. There's magic in the formula that nobody has been able to duplicate thus far. Game design is an art, not a science.

That's like arguing that Sacrifice is nothing ore than the product of evolution in the RTS genre.

----

According to Tom, these "products of the transforming industry" should be all around us. Well, Tom, I gotta ask: where are they?

Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, there aren't any. Because your argument has no basis in fact.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

*yawn*

You're mistaking me -- and, I presume, the rest of this board -- for someone who cares. Enjoy your crusade.

BTW, I think you missed a windmill back there.

-Tom

"I grilled Tom Chick..."

Say that again in a Hannibal Lecter voice and you've got my money!

My favorite thing about wumpus is his total willingness to gleefully contradict himself. The old "I'm not gonna hold this against you BUT..." ploy.

I'm beginning to suspect, however, that wumpus is a Trevor. I think, in fact, that we should start to take his various "arguments" as the rantings of a fictional character. Perhaps Newman from "Seinfeld" or the Pets.com sock puppet*. That way we'd at least get some entertainment value out of them.

Amanpour

*Yes you idiots, I realize the Pets.com sock puppet is NOT a fictional character. Sheesh.

You know, I was gonna quote wumpus here and try to say something witty. But this amazing ennui has overcome me. Can't...keep..eyes..open...zzzz...

"Say that again in a Hannibal Lecter voice and you've got my money! "

Okey doke.

"wumpus is his total willingness to gleefully contradict himself."

I don't contradict myself. Wait-- I do contradict myself. Oh no, I've gone crosseyed.

"You're mistaking me -- and, I presume, the rest of this board -- for someone who cares. Enjoy your crusade."

I'm just waiting for you to provide evidence to support your argument, such as it is. Where are these fabulous user-created mods, these naturally occurring products of the transformation of the FPS industry?

On a different topic. I tried to pick up Sacrifice again recently and was completely nonplussed by the interface. I couldn't for the life of me remember how to set formations, and none of the cryptic on-screen icons seemed to work for me. Drag-selecting didn't work. How do I capture souls again? Can't just run over them and pick them up like you would logically expect. I have to cast sac doctor or something. But I can't because I have to build.. an altar or a manalith, or something.

Not hard to see why this game didn't sell well and was a bomb at shoot club. Not to say that it isn't a good game, because it clearly is.. but it's far from ideal in many respects.

wumpus http://www.gamebasemenc.om

"Not to say that it isn't a good game, because it clearly is.. but it's far from ideal in many respects."

Huh?
Show me a game that is "ideal in many respects"... how many "respects" equals a single "ideal"?

Let me put this kindly: there's a reason Sacrifice didn't sell all that well.

That's the same reason it didn't go over with the shoot club folks, and the same reason I was frustrated by trying to jump into the game after a two-month absence. It's not an intuitive game, or an easily explainable one.

I also think it's seriously lacking in the strategy department for an RTS. If I get pressed on this, I will quote verbatim Dave Perry's strategy tips for Sacrifice in CGW, which are hilarious. Basically it boils down to "cast speed, then run as fast as you can to the other wizard and hit him with all your spells and units." And this is a guy who knows the game inside out.

That's the best "strategy" the developers themselves can muster. Pretty impressive, eh?!

For a hybrid RTS/FPS it's a solid effort. I do think it's somewhat critically overrated, and this is reflected in the lack of sales and popularity for the game. I think reviewers tend to get their rocks off on the succesful blending of the two modes without considering the actual gameplay underneath too closely.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

CS realistic weapons LOL.

Damn they forgot to tell me about the crosshair on my G3A3 in the army.

And again it was INF started it not CS. CS is more popular because it's more gamey.

Marcus

"And again it was INF started it not CS. CS is more popular because it's more gamey."

Did Rainbow Six predate Infiltration? I may be wrong, but I seem to recall RS was the advent of realistic lethality in FPSs, just as Team Fortress was probably the earliest instance of team-oriented MP in FPSs.

We fiddled with v2.85 of Infiltration tonight. I really like the weapons and the sighting model. Crosshairs are such a computer game convention and it's nice to have an alternative. I'm looking forward to more Infiltration game modes to channel the action, a la Double Stronghold in R6/RS.

-Tom

Yes i know Tom, this was more of an reply to wumpus. Infiltration was the first among mods though(R6 being a standalone game), and while they looked at R6 in the beginning they have left the Spe Ops theme for more infantry style combat. Strike Force and Tac Opes is more comparative to R6 and CS now.
Infiltration is a slow game that requires patience just like in real combat.

Btw which handle do you play with Tom, would be cool to see you online(depending on what server you are on) :).

Marcus

wumpus you are trying to tick everyone off today aren't you? ;)

Sacrifice is a deep game with a ton of different strategies depending on which God you are following. If you try to take Stratos and go head to head with Pyro using Dave Perry's strategy you will get your ass handed to you. Stratos is a hit and run god while Pyro is a mass offensive damage god.

At the lowest level of Sacrifice strategy you have the rock, paper, scissors match up of Air beats Ground, Ground beats Ranged, Ranged beats Air. Beyond that the number of special abilities of the creatures and differences in spells combine for almost limitless strategies. Use the Vortick to keep the other sides units off balance. Use the Scarab to guard your main tank creatures. Cast a couple of Ents with group shields and combine them with Dragons to create a killer one two punch. Drop a wall into a line of oncoming creatures then procede to divide and conquer.

So you have to take into account which God you are playing for over all strategy, what units you are going up against at the time you are fighting, and what spells/special abilities to cast/use in a given conflict to be successful. If that isn't enough strategy for you then nothing will likely satisfy you.

"Crosshairs are such a computer game convention and it's nice to have an alternative."

An alternative is fine, but removing crosshairs altogether just means people are going to put a piece of tape on their monitors. Can't say I blame them. Now if you want to talk about Operation: Flashpoint aiming, that's what I think we need to move to.

"Yes i know Tom, this was more of an reply to wumpus. Infiltration was the first among mods though(R6 being a standalone game), and while they looked at R6 in the beginning they have left the Spe Ops theme for more infantry style combat. Strike Force and Tac Opes is more comparative to R6 and CS now."

Navy Seals for Quake 1 from Gooseman predates R6 and all that other stuff. Just FYI. I know Tom likes to pretend, in the alternate plane of reality that he exists in, that Gooseman ripped it all off from someone else-- but the reality is that he's been into the whole "realistic weapons" stuff from day one, long before Rainbow Six was even in development. Marching to the beat of his own drummer, I suppose.

Here's a reference to it in an old shugashack news log. The same page mentions that Jedi Knight will be released in October if that gives you any timeframe (!).. Just search for "gooseman"

http://www.shugashack.com/archives/s20_s15.htm

Here's a review of the original Quake 1 Navy Seals TC, again by Gooseman.

http://www.public.usit.net/jerwin/seals.html

I hate to clutter up the discussion with tedious facts, but I just can't help it.

"Btw which handle do you play with Tom, would be cool to see you online(depending on what server you are on) :)."

Careful! Tom gets really pissed off when you ask what handle he plays online with-- it's pedantic! Don't insinuate that he's not actually playing the games online!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Did Rainbow Six predate Infiltration? I may be wrong, but I seem to recall RS was the advent of realistic lethality in FPSs, just as Team Fortress was probably the earliest instance of team-oriented MP in FPSs."

Actually, I'd argue that Outlaws was probably the first. You can debate the relative "realism" of the weapons (how realistic can a six-shooter get?), but you did have to reload them, and on "Ugly" difficulty level, it pretty much became a one-shot one-kill game.

As for crosshairs in shooters, I consider them to be fair compensation for the fact that you are playing on a two-dimensional screen. In Real Life you have depth perception to help you aim; in games you don't.

-Ben

"Team Fortress was probably the earliest instance of team-oriented MP in FPSs"

Revisionist history alert! Class-based play, perhaps. If you're talking straight teamplay, it would have to be Zoid's CTF for Quake1. Those are two distinctly different models though.

"Actually, I'd argue that Outlaws was probably the first. You can debate the relative "realism" of the weapons (how realistic can a six-shooter get?), but you did have to reload them, and on "Ugly" difficulty level, it pretty much became a one-shot one-kill game. "

Funny you mention this. I just tried out infiltration 2.85, and the fatigue model is cribbed from that very game. But yes, Outlaws was incredibly innovative for its time. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it one-shot one-kill though.

"As for crosshairs in shooters, I consider them to be fair compensation for the fact that you are playing on a two-dimensional screen. In Real Life you have depth perception to help you aim; in games you don't. "

Well, as long as there's some visual aid there, I don't mind. It doesn't have to be a crosshair per se.

For example. The aiming model in Infiltration 2.85 is, indeed, similar to the one in Op: Flashpoint. The alt-fire brings the gun to bear and you physically look down the sights. Otherwise there isn't a crosshair per se. So the tradeoff is, bring the gun to bear and suffer the movement penalty in exchange for better accuracy.. or spray n' pray.

I like this approach. But if you want to see it done REALLY well.. look at Op: Flashpoint.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Btw which handle do you play with Tom, would be cool to see you online(depending on what server you are on) :)."

Marcus,

Actually, I haven't played UT Infiltration online. I had tried one of the very early versions for the original Unreal for some mod articles (there was another realism mod called Serpentine I also enjoyed). But otherwise, setting it up for Shoot Club was the first time I'd tried the UT version.

BTW, am I correct that the only gameplay mode in 285 is Last Man Standing? Does anyone know if there are other options?

-Tom

"Actually, I'd argue that Outlaws was probably the first."

Good point, Ben, but I think Outlaws was still chiefly a fantasy game rather than a quasi-military sim.

Hey, who are the guys who developed Outlaws and where are they these days?

"As for crosshairs in shooters, I consider them to be fair compensation for the fact that you are playing on a two-dimensional screen."

Absolutely, but that's why I like Infiltration's approach. You have a definite aim point with the weapon model, but it also obscures part of your view.

Turning crosshairs off in Tactical Ops for UT, on the other hand, requires that you guesstimate where your shot will hit, often firing a few spotting rounds. It's got a charm all its own.

-Tom

"On a different topic. I tried to pick up Sacrifice again recently and was completely nonplussed..."

Nonplussed? Huh. I find that the more I try Sacrifice the more plussed it makes me. I'm becoming more and more plussed the more I play it.

"Not hard to see why this game didn't sell well and was a bomb at shoot club."

The reason a game like Sacrifice doesn't do so well in a shoot club atmosphere has more to do with the numbers of shoot clubbers than with the game itself. Most of the time a shoot club will tend toward a game that allows higher turnover on the computers (assuming the gathering does not have one computer per gamer), so more guys get opportunities to play. A game like Sacrifice doesn't get much chance to take hold with a larger group because it takes more time both to adapt to the interface and to play out. Sorry to disappoint you, wumpus, but once the herd is thinned Sacrifice rears its ugly head.

"Btw which handle do you play with Tom, would be cool to see you online"

Um...Tom, did Marcus just ask you out?

Amanpour

"Turning crosshairs off in Tactical Ops for UT, on the other hand, requires that you guesstimate where your shot will hit, often firing a few spotting rounds. It's got a charm all its own."

Removing all aiming is a sloppy, lame design decision (good think it's optional). Aiming down the barrel of the gun makes far more sense. I'm really pleased that the Infiltration guys got this right.

However, the end result in all these approaches is the same-- when moving, you're less accurate, when moving slowly you're more accurate, and when motionless you are most accurate. Ditto, ditto, ditto. You have better visual feedback on gun kick and so forth when you're looking down the barrel (which is why it's slightly superior), but the physics (and resulting gameplay) are the same.

I do wish counter-strike had a fatigue model though. That is a fine addition to gameplay, and we can all thank Outlaws for that. You can read Tom's remarkably incorrect Outlaws review, in which he did not mention the fatigue model even in passing, here:

http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,759,00.html

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Hey, who are the guys who developed Outlaws and where are they these days?"

Honestly, I'm not sure. It was all done internally at LucasArts, I think, but I'm not sure who actually worked on the project. They've had a fair bit of turnover since then, though. Perhaps some of the Outlaws people ended up at Nihilistic. If I could find my damn manual, I'd check.

-Ben

Nope it's TDM, DM, AS and CTF (well at least as far as maps are concerned).

Only servers online so far are TDM (which is fun).

Btw if you dont wish to reveal your online handle that's fine with me, would be fun though :). Since i'm in Europe i don't play US servers too much due to lag but i could do it a couple of times just to see how you play :).

Marcus

I don't really have an online handle, Marcus. Usually, I just type in "Tom" or something. Since the computer tends to have the name of whomever used it last at Shoot Club, there's no telling whose name I might be playing under. I'm afraid I've long since stopped tracking my ngStats.

I also don't frequent any particular servers. I tend to jump into whichever one has the lowest ping.

-Tom

"I don't really have an online handle, Marcus. Usually, I just type in "Tom" or something. Since the computer tends to have the name of whomever used it last at Shoot Club, there's no telling whose name I might be playing under. I'm afraid I've long since stopped tracking my ngStats. "

You wear it like a shiny badge of honor. It's not only a victory for you, but for the common man everywhere, Tom. I salute you.

If you consisistently sign all your reviews "Tom Chick", why wouldn't you want to use a consistent handle online? I vote you start treating your reviews with the same sort of affected indifference. Just sign them "Tom", or whatever quirky alias comes to mind at the time.

It's just funny because most people want, nay, _need_ to be identified. But not you! You're a bastion of calculated indifference. Damn, you're smooth.

"I also don't frequent any particular servers. I tend to jump into whichever one has the lowest ping. "

Those are always going to be the closest servers to you, so actually you probably do frequent some servers.

Unless it's a game like CS which has so many servers that most people have at least 10 that they ping well to.

But for mods-- especially a low-impact one like Infiltration-- you'll be lucky to have 3-4 good servers near you.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

You really love to argue, don't you Wumpus?!? Why would Tom lie about a thing like this?!?

He's not the only one capable of such a thing, either. I have no problem playing under a different (or anonymous) name anytime I play any game online, which is seldom. Very seldom. It depends on the game, and my mood.

I commend you on your ability to find evidence to support any point. You've made it very clear to us all that you avidly support CS. Good for you. I'm sure it's a great game. I'll probably give it a try sometime, just so I'll know first-hand.

But, come on! Let Tom have his opinion. I have no strong feelings either way -- like I said, I've never played it -- but you have failed to convince me in your arguing that CS was a catalyst and not a result. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know. Neither do you. Neither does Tom. We may affect the industry, and it may affect us, but we are not truly "inside" the industry far enough to make statements like that. Not with any accuracy, anyway. All we have is speculation and our opinions -- which, by the way, each and every one of us is entitled to. That goes for me, for you, Wumpus, and for Tom. It's obvious that you and he will never change each other's mind. Accept that. It was fun for awhile. It's becoming less and less so.

"I have no problem playing under a different (or anonymous) name anytime I play any game online"

I almost always play under a different name because I just use some dumb variant of Mark, and as you might guess, most Mark variants are taken.

I always thought Tom should use something like "HotChick"... or even "JackChick"... but, to my experience, he's always used "TommyBoy".

Mark, you should always just use "Masher".

I've seen Bruce Geryk use "Brewski".

I tend to use "Damndrew or Hub-Bub" because I'm witty like that.

For some odd reason I was profoundly disappointed to find out my friend and former editor William Harms went by "Creamy Smooth" online. With a name like "Harms" why would you bother with anything else?

~Andrew

"Mark, you should always just use "Masher"."

It's almost always taken. Another one I like from time to time is Smashington, but that's often taken too. Sometimes I go by Sir Smashington, but usually I'm just MarkAsher or Mark152, etc.

"He's not the only one capable of such a thing, either. I have no problem playing under a different (or anonymous) name anytime I play any game online, which is seldom. Very seldom. It depends on the game, and my mood. "

That's a reasonable course of action for someone who doesn't play online much. However, do you think it's appropriate for someone who doesn't play online very much to write mod reviews for GameCenter? Or make sweeping conclusions about the impact of said games?

In my experience, anyone who plays online games for any length of time settles on a standard "handle" so other people they like to play with can recognize them (or avoid them as the case may be).

Except "Tominator". There is a reason us gaming types (well some of us anyway) like to come up with handles like "Blue", "Redwood", "Scary", et al.

"That goes for me, for you, Wumpus, and for Tom. It's obvious that you and he will never change each other's mind. Accept that. It was fun for awhile. It's becoming less and less so."

There's a deeper issue here that I'm trying to get at. You may recall my earlier hypothesis that sometimes the best game writers are not necessarily representative of the gaming community. And yes, within the right context, I do like to argue.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I think Creamy Smooth is friggin' hilarious. Great name.

I think the argument wumpus makes about using an online gaming handle is completely valid. I mean, I use a handle whenever I do fun stuff too. Because I want to be identified. What is the point of doing something if you don't get credit for it? I have a special reading handle for when I'm sitting around reading books (BooKboY_2001) and special movie handle for when I go to the movies (moovee_turmguy_2394). So it just seems to follow that everybody would use the same handle when playing games.

I also have a special handle I use when my fiancee is out of town, but I'd rather not talk about that.

Amanpour-inator

"And yes, within the right context, I do like to argue."

Really? We hadn't noticed. That context would be ...what? Anytime Tom posts...anything?

"There's a deeper issue here that I'm trying to get at. You may recall my earlier hypothesis that sometimes the best game writers are not necessarily representative of the gaming community."

Nor should they be expected to be. They are allowed -- nay, expected -- to have their own opinions. Who on earth would say "Tom Chick, now that you review games, you are forbidden from having your own opinion; you must express the opnion of the masses"? Readers come to agree and identify with some people, based on similar experiences. It may be that I seem to agree with Tom on a lot of different issues. (Which, in fact, I do. We seem to have similar tastes.) Thus, any review that he writes I'm going to loan anywhere from 75% to 95% credibility to -- there's a good chance that if he doesn't like a game, I won't either. The point here is, I don't think we should expect writers to be representative of the gaming community; rather, I think they should voice their opinions and reasons for them, so that a reader can hope to establish his own opinion of a game that he hasn't played. Different people have different priorities and points of view when playing games. Ideally, readers can learn who has similar ideas, and use that to base decisions.

"That's a reasonable course of action for someone who doesn't play online much. However, do you think it's appropriate for someone who doesn't play online very much to write mod reviews for GameCenter? Or make sweeping conclusions about the impact of said games?"

I think it is absolutely appropriate, given the fact that Tom openly admits anytime he's asked, and often within an article making any statements that may merit the disclaimer, that he doesn't play online often. So long as readers understand his frame of reference, he should be allowed to make any judgements he deems fair. He may not play online much, but he has a good working knowledge of the online industry, and therefore has a right to opinions in the field. He does his research; he should be allowed to say what he thinks, regardless of the level of personal experience.

Make no mistake, I do not intend to fight Tom's battles for him. He is quite capable of defending himself, should he deem it necessary. I just don't think you're being fair, Wumpus. And I don't agree with your opinion. You're entitled to have it -- I just don't agree. You have failed to convince me of your point, so it's not so bizarre that other people may not agree. I've never played the game, granted, and maybe that makes a difference. But I doubt it.

"I think it is absolutely appropriate, given the fact that Tom openly admits anytime he's asked, and often within an article making any statements that may merit the disclaimer, that he doesn't play online often. So long as readers understand his frame of reference, he should be allowed to make any judgements he deems fair. He may not play online much, but he has a good working knowledge of the online industry, and therefore has a right to opinions in the field. He does his research; he should be allowed to say what he thinks, regardless of the level of personal experience. "

That's an utter and complete crock. So if I openly admit that I rarely play RPG games, it is appropriate for me to then turn around and review Baldur's Gate II?

I'm not saying Tom shouldn't have an opinion, I'm saying there's considerable evidence that he's wrong about this, some of which I posted above, and not the least of which is his very own -- according to you, self-professed -- lack of experience in this particular genre.

For God's sake, this is a guy who gave Outlaws-- which is by all accounts a highly influential FPS-- a FOUR OUT OF TEN. Yeah, I know, it was translated from a star rating or whatever, but dizamn.

Shit, you don't see me going around telling Mark stuff like "you're singing EverQuest's praises as something that is 'transforming the industry'. You are wrong." I've dabbled in MMORPGs a tiny bit, but does that qualify me to have an opinion? Especially such a fucking obnoxious one?

Granted there's some chicken-and-egg-y stuff there. So Tom maintains that Valve is the chicken, and CS is the egg. However, if you magically erased counter-strike from the world, it does NOT logically follow that another mod of that popularity would have automatically plopped out of the chicken to take its place.

There simply aren't any other mods of any significant popularity to _take_ its place. Period. Heck, you could make a better case that UT and Q3 are equally popular based on their stats. But when it comes to mods? There's CS, TFC (way way back), and.. a vast wasteland of nothingness.

The reality is that CS is the golden egg. It's one of a kind. *Because* we have this golden egg, farmers are now buying up every chicken in 50 mile radius in homes of one of them producing another golden egg.

And there's puh-lenty of chickens out there pooping out generic, worthless mods. You know the old adage that 90 percent of everything is crap? Well when it comes to user created mods, 99 and 44/100ths of everything is crap.

But, again, according to Tom we should be up to our ears in golden eggs by now. Because we have so many chickens, natch.

"I also have a special handle I use when my fiancee is out of town, but I'd rather not talk about that."

I grasp the concept. You're very clever. So, how's that working out for you? Being clever?

"I've never played the game, granted, and maybe that makes a difference. But I doubt it."

Well, there's another thing that you and Tom have in common, eh? ;)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>So if I openly admit that I rarely play RPG games, it is appropriate for me to then turn around and review Baldur's Gate II?

It coudl be, because your review would be from the perspective of someone who rarely plays RPG games. It could be of value perhaps to other people who are casual fans of the genre, particularly if you say something like, "For a casual fan, the amount of detail is overwhemling," or alternately, "for a casual fan, it's incredibly easy to play and doesn't have many of the problems other RPGs have."

>>I'm saying there's considerable evidence that he's wrong about this, some of which I posted above, and not the least of which is his very own -- according to you, self-professed -- lack of experience in this particular genre.

He can't be wrong. He could have a less informed opinion, but he's not wrong.

>>For God's sake, this is a guy who gave Outlaws-- which is by all accounts a highly influential FPS-- a FOUR OUT OF TEN.

So what? I disagree with that rating. He's on crack. Fine. But if he made his case well, I respect his opinion even though I don't share it.

>>I've dabbled in MMORPGs a tiny bit, but does that qualify me to have an opinion? Especially such a fucking obnoxious one?

Sure it does, but it also qualifies you to have a half-assed opinion.

>>There simply aren't any other mods of any significant popularity to _take_ its place.

There's no way to actually measure that, so it's a pointless argument.

You do realize that Counter-strike hardly qualifies as a mod, right, that besides Valve contributing money/time to it, Barking Dog (I believe), a Seattle-based game developer who did Homeworld Cataclysm, did a lot of work on it? If they had eyes on releasing it commercially after the early betas, then it's not even a Mod, it's a commercial product that had an especially long public beta.

"That's an utter and complete crock. So if I openly admit that I rarely play RPG games, it is appropriate for me to then turn around and review Baldur's Gate II?"

If you'd like, sure. If a magazine that you're writing for asks you to review it, go right ahead. Preface the review with the fact that you seldom play, we'll all know to take your opinion with a grain of salt. If you don't play RPG's much, and you love it, then perhaps someone else who doesn't play RPG's much will think "maybe I should check it out." You could be doing someone a huge favor.

"you don't see me going around telling Mark stuff like "you're singing EverQuest's praises as something that is 'transforming the industry'. You are wrong." I've dabbled in MMORPGs a tiny bit, but does that qualify me to have an opinion?"

If you've done some research on the topic to the point that you have an opinion, then yes -- that opinion is justified. If you've played Everquest, and that's the only MMORPG you've ever played, and you thought it was overrated, then you're entitled to think that.

"Granted there's some chicken-and-egg-y stuff there. So Tom maintains that Valve is the chicken, and CS is the egg. However, if you magically erased counter-strike from the world, it does NOT logically follow that another mod of that popularity would have automatically plopped out of the chicken to take its place."

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Eventually, it would have been bound to happen. I'm not trying to downplay the game's greatness -- I have no right to do that. I have NO frame of reference from which to judge. I'm sure it's a great game. But, anything that's humanly possible will eventually be done. You can quote me on that. ;-)

"The reality is that CS is the golden egg. It's one of a kind. *Because* we have this golden egg, farmers are now buying up every chicken in 50 mile radius in homes of one of them producing another golden egg."

I haven't heard anyone argue against this point yet. I'm not about to do so. CS is a great egg. It might be the greatest egg ever laid in this genre. It could be the end-all of eggs. But that doesn't make it a chicken. Is it an egg of great proportions, perhaps unequalled by all eggs that have come before and all that will come? Perhaps. But no matter how hard it tries, it will always be an egg. And if it hadn't come along, pretty soon, another egg would have come along, and it would have been the best. The point I'm trying to make is that it's hard to tell the chicken from the egg at this stage, and you're arguing awfully strongly for something that likely cannot be proven. And if it cannot be proven, all we're left with is one side against the other, all spouting opinions.

Please understand my frame of reference here. I have little experience in the FPS genre. That should make me easy to convince, Wumpus. And you haven't done so. But, my opinion must be taken as it's intended. I'm not so much supporting Tom's side as trying to state that yours may not be the hard and fast truth. Just don't put all your eggs in one basket! ;-)

"Is it an egg of great proportions, perhaps unequalled by all eggs that have come before and all that will come? Perhaps. But no matter how hard it tries, it will always be an egg."

It is indeed an egg that became a chicken. Check your local EB store shelves and you will find a game box with "half-life: counterstrike" written on it.

"There's no way to actually measure that, so it's a pointless argument."

Sure there is! Number of players. Visit the gamespy home page and click on the stats link. Hell, I'll make it easy for you. Just click here.

http://www.gamespy.com/stats/index.shtm

And just a reality check, multiplayer games kinda suck when there's nobody else to play them with. There's no fallback.

"You do realize that Counter-strike hardly qualifies as a mod, right, that besides Valve contributing money/time to it, Barking Dog (I believe), a Seattle-based game developer who did Homeworld Cataclysm, did a lot of work on it? If they had eyes on releasing it commercially after the early betas, then it's not even a Mod, it's a commercial product that had an especially long public beta. "

Unlike TFC, CS never had any intentions of being a commercial mod. It just happened. Sure, we can argue when valve got involved, how much they got involved, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, but the fact remains: it was never intended to be a commercial mod.

It became commercial _because_ it was so popular.

Conversely, Valve has also funded plenty of mods that were complete failures. Raise your hand if you've ever played Ricochet? Raise your hand if you've ever HEARD of Ricochet? Go look it up if you don't believe me. Especially you, Tom.

"He can't be wrong. He could have a less informed opinion, but he's not wrong."

Funny, because I was told I was wrong by one Mr. Tom Chick. Perhaps you know him? If he's not afraid to use the spurs and whip, then by God, neither am I.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"It is indeed an egg that became a chicken. Check your local EB store shelves and you will find a game box with "half-life: counterstrike" written on it."

That just makes it a bigger egg. I believe that my argument is that the transforming game industry is the chicken, and that the games that it brings forth are eggs. (In Tom's argument, Valve is the chicken, I believe. So, CS is still an egg.)

"And just a reality check, multiplayer games kinda suck when there's nobody else to play them with. There's no fallback."

Yeah, what's your point? Or, more accurately, how does that factor into the current discussion? There are a lot of people playing CS. That's great. The numbers are record-breaking? Fantastic. That still does not mean that it's transforming the industry, and not the result of an industry that's transforming.

Again, I, personally, am not arguing that CS did not change the industry. Maybe it did. I'm just trying to say that, for crying out loud, it's just not right to criticize someone for not agreeing with you. Needless to say, were I to take sides (which, contrary to what it may sound like, I haven't) I'd be most likely to take Tom's. (Mostly, though, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.) Anytime someone creates a game, or mod, because he's not happy with the current standards, then that game seems to me to be the result of the changing industry. If someone who had never, ever, ever seen or played a game before went and wrote one, and it sold ten bazillion copies, then I would say that perhaps that game transformed the industry, but the industry had not touched the person writing the code. Aside from that, I think that games are almost always the result of a changing industry, not the cause.

That's my opinion. Maybe it's not entirely accurate. I can see how someone might not agree. But, nevertheless, that's what I think.

I love it when nerds fight.

Your both wrong. Its neither catalyst or result, it's a happy step backward to the days when a guy with a 386 and decent garage space could make doom. The industry isn't changing, it's remember it's roots.

"For God's sake, this is a guy who gave Outlaws-- which is by all accounts a highly influential FPS-- a FOUR OUT OF TEN."

I loved Outlaws, but I'd hardly call it "influential." It was pretty much a commercial flop, the few people who played it mostly loved it, but there weren't many of them. And how many western-themed games have we seen since? Even outside the shooter realm? One?

>>Sure there is! Number of players. Visit the gamespy home page and click on the stats link. Hell, I'll make it easy for you. Just click here.

This tells you nothing other then, duh, Counter-strike is incredibly popular. You originally said: "There simply aren't any other mods of any significant popularity to _take_ its place."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Counter-strike hadn't existed, or it suddenly went away, what would all of those people now playing Counter-strike move on to? Who knows? That's a pointless argument.

And it's really hard to battle creatures of habit. No one has created a Mod that gives people a compelling enough reason to switch from Counter-strike.

But many of those Counter-strike people were playing Team Fortress, and before that Zoid's Capture the Flag. Now if we had some numbers to compare, perhaps those two games had an equal number of players at one point. I dunno. Do you?

Bah! SWAT 3 co-op is more fun then Counter-strike, so there.

Well,
I'd call Outlaws influential but that wasn't completely evident at the time it came out. And I do think a 4 of 10 is too low, but bear in mind that Outlaws was competing with full 3D shooters when it was released. It looked like a throwback in many ways.

I still have "Come out sheriff" engrained in my brain and you know what? I actually hate the game for that. Great music, terrible and terribly annoying voice acting.

~Andrew

I would argue that Counter-Strike's contribution was not to the MOD scene but to games in general - but its contribution was not the concept of a Team-based mod with realistic looking weapons and a high-risk damage model.

No, Counter-Strike's major contribution was the concept that a decidedly *unbalanced* multiplayer game world can be not only succcessful but fun.

Think about it. The WINNING team - not the losing team - gets more advantage - they keep their weapons, and they gain a lot of money. This makes winning a strategic enhancement, while the losers have to regroup and form a more tactical approach.

This helps the teamplay - and the excitement of the game - more than any other aspect. The feeling you get as a winning team that keeps winning is one of pride and accomplishment. The losing team keeps getting closer and closer, testing out new strategies, until at some point they break the tide and the game typically begins to flow their way.

It's a decidedly different game model, and it's one that too many people criticize without really understanding it.

"That just makes it a bigger egg. I believe that my argument is that the transforming game industry is the chicken, and that the games that it brings forth are eggs. (In Tom's argument, Valve is the chicken, I believe. So, CS is still an egg.)"

Well, if you want to go down that logical dead-end alley, I'll point out that there are mods for counter-strike. A mod for a commercial game that was a mod for another commercial game? Oh no, I've gone crosseyed again. And there's your chicken, by the way.

Valve may have gotten lucky because Gooseman picked their mod platform, but CS would have been equally huge on the UT or Q3 engines. There's certainly no shortage of mods on either platform, and both companies bend over backwards to help mod makers. Just like Valve. The difference is they haven't gotten lucky

With all these chickens pumping out eggs, how remarkable that nobody else has managed to produce another golden egg, eh?

"Yeah, what's your point? Or, more accurately, how does that factor into the current discussion? "

I said that for multiplayer games, the only metric that matters is popularity, and Steve made the comment "there's no way to measure the popularity of a mod". A singleplayer game could be played by one person, and as long as that one guy had fun, mission accomplished. But not so for multiplayer games-- the quality of the experience is directly proportional to the number and quality of players. (and servers, but that's tangential)

Counting players is the easy, correct metric for objectively measuring popularity of online games.

"I'm just trying to say that, for crying out loud, it's just not right to criticize someone for not agreeing with you."

Allow me to answer this with a quote from one of my favorite authors: "You seem to have trouble understanding what I'm writing, so let me distill it: You are wrong."

I just posted news that counter-strike has permanently unseated Quake 3 as the game of choice in all competitive tournaments. And yet you'd somehow take Tom's position, there's no evidence of a transformation in the multiplayer FPS genre brought on by CS?

Shrug.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Man, you guys really know how to feed the trolls. :) It's painfully apparent that wumpus is one of those breeds of posters more interested in attention than discourse.

For the record, I've *never* said I don't play online. I've played online plenty. When I wrote the mods articles, I searched high and low and sometimes in vain for servers running obscure mods. I've played CS online. I've played Outlaws over a modem. I had a hell of a time finding people playing Infiltration on the original Unreal. I hop into the occasional Sacrifice game the way some people play Solitaire. I still play online when I'm reviewing a game.

Okay, wumpus, here's where you can either apologize for your limp and repeated attempts to discredit me or you can call me a liar.

-Tominator, TommyBoy, Tom242, {AKC}Chickster, T03, Tom-o-hawk, TheTom

"So what? I disagree with that rating. He's on crack. Fine. But if he made his case well, I respect his opinion even though I don't share it."

And this says it all. It's perfectly valid to have all kinds of people review all kinds of games. All I ask is that they argue their points well.

Tom tends to be a bit controversial at times and will often wade upstream, but so what? I'm intrigued to read the 4/10 review of Deus Ex when everyone else is laving it with praise. As long as he writes well and presents evidence, I'm happy to read and agree or disagree.

And finally, you don't have to play Counter-Strike for 150 hours to have an opinion about it. That's ludicrous.

I'll call you a liar. Liar. =)

And really, I can't think of any real influence that Outlaws had. You could argue that the "having to reload your weapons" thing was influential, but several games were in the works that already sported that feature when Outlaws came out. And I keep hoping that some game (another shooter, not just the uber-real tactical games like SWAT 3 and Rogue Spear) will incorporate quasi-realistic super-lethal weapon damage, but none really have. The level design and scripting in Outlaws was rather clever, but we'd already seen that sort of thing in Duke 3D and Dark Forces.

So exactly which games did Outlaws influence, and how? I honestly can't think of any.

My apologies, Tom, for misquoting you.

"I just posted news that counter-strike has permanently unseated Quake 3 as the game of choice in all competitive tournaments. And yet you'd somehow take Tom's position, there's no evidence of a transformation in the multiplayer FPS genre brought on by CS?"

Again, I have never intended to take sides, merely to play the devil's advocate, as you seem to feel that your opinion is gospel and everyone else is stupid. I don't necessarily agree with you, I don't necessarily agree with Tom. Really, I could care less, I just thought it awfully bold of you to come in here spouting off that your idea is hard-and-fast truth and anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid.

My other objection was in the fact that you, after already discussing this once to death, would begin another post with no intention other than to attempt to publicly humiliate Tom. And on his own website, no less.

So I quit. It was fun for awhile, but it's not any more. No hard feelings for anyone, I hope. But I have better things to do than argue for the sake of arguing.

Outlaws was the first one to have reloading.
Outlaws was the first one to have fatigue.
Outlaws was the first one to have real lethality to gunfire (as an option).

That last one especially is what made me buy the game... even moreso than the Western theme (which I'm also a sucker for).

Now, did any of those "firsts" actually "influence" future games that incorporated them? Arguable. We'd probably have to ask the Rainbow Six crew or the team at Zombie who made Special Ops.

~Andrew

"This tells you nothing other then, duh, Counter-strike is incredibly popular. You originally said: "There simply aren't any other mods of any significant popularity to _take_ its place." "

Er, no, it tells me that there aren't any other mods that even come close to counter-strike's popularity. I was looking at the OTHER numbers, not the cs number. It's a one horse race, is my point. Compare to the Q3 and UT numbers which have always been roughly equal, for example. I'm sorry, I like numbers, I like facts, I like links that point to references that support my arguments.

"I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Counter-strike hadn't existed, or it suddenly went away, what would all of those people now playing Counter-strike move on to? Who knows? That's a pointless argument."

Well, personally, I'd be screwed because I despise TFC and its goofy fantasy rules. Probably I'd move to SWAT3. If Sierra had done the right thing with SWAT3 elite (made server code available, better networking ameneties, etc) they coulda been a contender.

And again, look at the numbers. TFC *never* reached the popular heights that CS did, and it was far and away the most popular online game prior to the advent of CS. There's some magic in the gameplay formula, as I keep trying to tell you guys.

"No, Counter-Strike's major contribution was the concept that a decidedly *unbalanced* multiplayer game world can be not only succcessful but fun."

Actually... no. Remember the highly unbalanced "escape" maps in counter-strike? The ones where the terrs start with no weapons and have to find their way off the map? That's why they're not included any more. Imbalance is most decidedly not fun. And I can personally vouch for that.

Besides, you get enough cash per round for everyone to have at least the MP5 95% of the time. That's not really "unbalanced". Escape was unbalanced, and now it's long gone..

To me, the most shocking thing is how entertaining it is to be dead. Never in a million years would I have thought it could be fun to play a game where you can be dead for almost 3 whole minutes! That's nothing short of a minor friggin' miracle. Somehow, it is almost as rewarding to watch your team's progress as a ghost as it is to participate. You're right about that-- you definitely get invested in the team as a whole. It's so subtle, too. Nothing stops you from playing the game like rambo, yet you ever-so-gently keep getting nudged into teamplay. Soon you're implicitly grouping with people you've never met before, then you're providing them with cover fire and flashbangs.. and before you know it, you're in a full-blown teamplay environment.

"I'd call Outlaws influential but that wasn't completely evident at the time it came out. "

*cough* It was if you understood the value of solid, innovative gameplay over graphics. I remember just being blown away by that game.

wumpus http://www.gambasement.com

"Again, I have never intended to take sides, merely to play the devil's advocate, as you seem to feel that your opinion is gospel and everyone else is stupid. I don't necessarily agree with you, I don't necessarily agree with Tom. Really, I could care less, I just thought it awfully bold of you to come in here spouting off that your idea is hard-and-fast truth and anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid."

Where have I said that anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid? Or that what I say is truth? You have this backwards. Tom was the one who told me "You are wrong." I only parroted that to you to point out how absurd such a statement really is.

Just because I choose to present my position on an issue-- in this case, that counter-strike is transforming multiplayer FPS games (see first post in this thread)-- doesn't mean
I "have to be right". It just means that I have strong feelings on the topic, and I believe I have a strong supporting evidence that corroborates my position. Imagine yourself in a court of law, and I'm the lawyer presenting the case. I don't have to be right-- the readers are the judge of what they think is right, just like a jury panel-- but I _do_ have to present my case. And I believe in what I am presenting, sometimes passionately. I think you're confusing these things.

"And finally, you don't have to play Counter-Strike for 150 hours to have an opinion about it. That's ludicrous. "

Actually, my point was more along these lines: it's hard to trust the opinions of someone who writes about online mods yet doesn't even have a consistent handle. Mostly because that implies a sort of dilettante. That is, Someone who dabbles enough to write a review but doesn't really PARTICIPATE.

Do you really think the average GameCenter (may it RIP) reader gave a rats ass about mods? Never mind downloading them, installing them, getting them configured, and finding a server? Please. The type of person who tries a mod is not your average GameCenter reader. They're online guys who have handles. Except for Tominator, I guess.

"My other objection was in the fact that you, after already discussing this once to death, would begin another post with no intention other than to attempt to publicly humiliate Tom. And on his own website, no less."

Well, if I wasn't posting this stuff, the forums would be practically dead. And you know it. Controversy is good for discussion; sycophants slapping each other heartily on the back for having the same opinion is not.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>And again, look at the numbers. TFC *never* reached the popular heights that CS did, and it was far and away the most popular online game prior to the advent of CS.

Do you have those numbers? I'm just curious.

And what about Capture the Flag? That was originally a Mod, and it was adopted into... well, practically every multiplayer game in existence. By that metric, I'd argue it's the most influential and important Mod ever created...

>>There's some magic in the gameplay formula, as I keep trying to tell you guys.

Yeah, it's great, but honestly, it's probably as popular as it is at least in part because nothing has come along compelling enough to make people switch. People aren't that loyal for very long, and if tomorrow, say, Valve released Team Fortress 2 and it was good, I think Counter-strike would quickly start to go down in popularity.

"Well, if I wasn't posting this stuff, the forums would be practically dead."

Unfortunately, I must concede that things have been a little quiet on the Q23 front...

I'm glad you feel strongly on the topic. And, sure, controversy is good for discussion. I could care less, so I'll shut up now.

"Actually... no. Remember the highly unbalanced "escape" maps in counter-strike? The ones where the terrs start with no weapons and have to find their way off the map? That's why they're not included any more. Imbalance is most decidedly not fun. And I can personally vouch for that. "

Like you said, those maps were *highly* unbalanced - moreso than the standard maps by a hefty margin. Unbalanced can be fun - highly unbalanced can be annoying to many people.

For the record, I really liked the escape maps. But I was in the minority. People hated having to fight each other for weapons. People hated having to sneak around the other team. (Most people, anyway.) And the escape maps that were made didn't have enough *oomph* in them. And in CS, you like to be able to kill a guy if you run in to him, not have to run away. That's my take on why Escape failed - it wasn't because it was strictly unbalanced.

And now, some companies, like Barking Dog with Global Operations, are trying to improve upon CS by making it more balanced. And in the process, they're going to suck away all the fun. IMO.

"It's hard to trust the opinions of someone who writes about online mods yet doesn't even have a consistent handle."

LOL! Okay, I promise to play under the handle of "AssWumpus" from now on so you can track my stats.

BTW, if you're just being an ass to keep traffic up for the message board, don't bother on our account. I think we'd all prefer a quiet message board to your obsession with the fact that Tom Chick didn't pick Counter-Strike as Best. Game. Ever.

-Tom

"I grasp the concept. You're very clever. So, how's that working out for you? Being clever?"

Real good. But you'll never be my single-serving friend.

Amanpour

I'll get you Chick! And your little dog Xtien too!

(shakes fist in general direction of LA)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I think the whole concept of whether counterstrike is revolutionary or not is just plain....well...gay. If it was so great, y'all would be playing it instead of hanging out here.


http://www.gotapex.com

"If it was so great, y'all would be playing it instead of hanging out here."

CS is getting a little old. I'm in a clan that was originally formed around CS, about 18 months ago. These days, the IRC channel and Day of Defeat see a lot more use than CS. In fact, two of our four private servers don't run CS anymore. Mostly, I think people are killing time until Tribes 2 comes out.

Hey wumpus, you never did address the question of whether Zoid's original Capture the Flag was, in fact, the most significant mod ever created. It pre-dates Counter-Strike by many years, and its influence is obvious since practically every game released since has a variant of it.

Also, is Counter-Strike really "the most popular online FPS game in recorded history." There's no question it currently has the most players, but overall have there been more Counter-Strike games played then, well, Quake or Quake II? Or even Unreal/Unreal Tournament? That is something I would find awfully hard to believe.

Persaonally i'm just glad that Infiltration isn't as popular as CS. In fact the worst nightmare that people on the message boards would be if hordes of CS players came to INF. Instead of realistic infantry combat we would have servers full with I337 nerds. So IMO CS works excellently as a filter/1st stop for those kids. That way the more hardcore mods can stay free from them.

Marcus

"I think the whole concept of whether counterstrike is revolutionary or not is just plain....well...gay. If it was so great, y'all would be playing it instead of hanging out here."

Actually talking about the game does make me want to play it.. sometimes I go play just to spite Tom. Take that, Chick!

"Hey wumpus, you never did address the question of whether Zoid's original Capture the Flag was, in fact, the most significant mod ever created. It pre-dates Counter-Strike by many years, and its influence is obvious since practically every game released since has a variant of it."

Gamespy stats, 12/29/1999

http://www.evilavatar.com/redirected.asp?fromurl=http%3A//www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/M1662/default.htm

Half-Life: 745 servers, 2992 players
Unreal Tournament: 806 servers, 1828 players
Rogue Spear: 316 servers, 1335 players
Starsiege TRIBES: 348 servers, 1050 players
Quake III Arena: 747 servers, 1036 players
Quake II: 898 servers, 850 players
Quakeworld: 316 servers, 289 players

Gamespy stats, 3/17/2001

http://www.gamespy.com/stats/

Half-Life: 9093 servers, 33946 players
Quake III Arena: 2734 servers, 3315 players
Unreal Tournament: 2579 servers, 3057 players
Starsiege TRIBES: 774 servers, 854 players
Quake II: 846 servers, 757 players
Rogue Spear: 100 servers, 461 players
Quakeworld: (fell off the list)

It's hard to find comprehensive statistics the further back you go. But I think my point proves itself. No online FPS has *EVER* been this popular. Nothing comes even remotely close. The closest analog is EverQuest, and we know what effect that game has had on its respective genre.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I found the thread I was looking for on shacknews. Search the 'shack for "multiplayer watch".

Dec 9, 1999

2151 servers 9071 players Half-Life
678 servers 2991 players TRIBES
2314 servers 2880 players Quake2
725 servers 2122 players Unreal T.
761 servers 1687 players Quake3
672 servers 1067 players Q1 & QW

12/10/99 (from http://www.lalley.net/wqlfden/archive.htm)

Half Life 1915 servers, 6223 players
Quake II 2243 servers, 2402 players
Unreal Tournament 675 servers, 1665 players
Starsiege TRIBES 608 servers, 1276 players
Quake 3: Arena 952 servers, 1146 players

Jan 9, 2000

1864 servers 12155 players Half-Life
1201 servers 4006 players Unreal T.
1732 servers 3994 players Quake3
2063 servers 3079 players Quake2
933 servers 1612 players QW / Q1

(Unfortunately Steve didn't do any from jan-oct)

Oct 23, 2000

Half-Life 5201 s 20116 p
Quake3 4886 s 4521 p
UnrealTourney 5425 s 4487 p
Quake2 1967 s 1532 p

Feb 28, 2001

Half-Life 41,402
Unreal Tournament 4,841
Quake3 + TeamArena 4,308
Rogue Spear / Rainbow Six 3,990
TRIBES 1,272
Quake2 1,053

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Honestly, I do think wumpus is right that Counter-Strike is the most played online FPS game. The number of people playing daily is enormous. It dwarfs even the massive multiplayer games at times I would imagine. The numbers prove that this is the biggest FPS online game probably ever.

That doesn't mean I agree with his Tom Chick vendetta here though. :)

--Dave

Wumpus,
I've sort of just briefly waded through your posts (they are often hard to distill, you're all over the place) and I noticed that you keep harping on CS's overall popularity as a major signal to how important or "revolutionary" the game is.

Is that right?

"But I think my point proves itself. No online FPS has *EVER* been this popular. Nothing comes even remotely close. The closest analog is EverQuest, and we know what effect that game has had on its respective genre."

Sure, EQ's effect was picking up where UO left off and running with it. It effectively doubled UO sub rates, but did so as UO was aging. It's very possible the next UO (whatever they've renamed it today) will do the same- and leave the aging EQ in the dust. That makes EQ an evolution at best - a "popular" game at worst, but hardly an Earth-shatteringly influential game.

I mean, if I'm understanding your point here, wouldn't the fact that N'Synch holds the highest single weekend sales record and Garth Brooks the "most career albums sold" records, wouldn't that make those two banalities "revolutionary"?

Popularity tends to be an indicator of mediocrity... to my experience.

~Andrew

wupmus wrote:

"But I think my point proves itself."

Since your point proves itself, shouldn't you just move along? How superfluous. Someone shrilly arguing for a point that "proves itself".

-Tom

Jeez!
Wumpus may be the Troll...
But Tom wins the pettiness game.
Come on Tom, put forth an argument of substance like Bauman and others are doing, or just ignore him.

Hey! "Tom Petty!" LOL!

;-)
~Andrew

"And your little dog..."

I prefer you spell it "dawg" if you're gonna mention it at all.

Amanpour

"Come on Tom, put forth an argument of substance like Bauman and others are doing, or just ignore him."

Bub,

Before you jump in to rabble rouse, you might want to acquaint yourself with the situation. Wumpus clearly isn't interested in substance, so I generally ignore him. But gems like "my point proves itself" are too good to pass up.

-Tom

Bah, I'm not trying to rabble any rouses that might be nearby. My rabble rousing days ended in college... and they ended embarrassingly I might add. I simply disagree with your belief that ---

"But gems like 'my point proves itself' are too good to pass up."

--- Is worth mockery. Mocking such a silly turn of phrase yet ignoring the rest of his clumsy argument makes you look petulant and petty. I mean, we all inwardly mocked that line without your cunning help! So either find something less obvious to mock in his argument, counter the full argument, or remain silent and let him self destruct.

Thank you,

Yours,
~Andrew

FWIW, there was a time the CS discussion with wumpus was actually legit. It died on the vine when it came down to his inexplicable objections that I didn't choose it for game of the year. Nevermind that this puts me in company with, oh, say, *everyone* else in the business.

You'll also note that wumpus has never once answered the question about what's revolutionary, unique, or unprecedented in CS. All that leaves us with are points that prove themselves, because wumpus certainly isn't up to the task.

So how about if we move on and make fun of the way you keep hitting the tilde key as if it were a dash?

~Tom

"You'll also note that wumpus has never once answered the question about what's revolutionary, unique, or unprecedented in CS. All that leaves us with are points that prove themselves, because wumpus certainly isn't up to the task."

Absolutely!

Which is pretty much why I found your dig so petty Tom. There are richer veins to mine in Wumpus' messages.

Yeah, now that you mention it, it is hilarious that I use a 'tilde' before my name isn't it? Man, whoo, thanks for bringing it up Tom.

If it must be known, I consider the 'tilde' to be the "wild card" of the keyboard. I'd use a dash, but a dash killed my parents. Anyway, since it offends your delicate nature I'll try and refrain in the future.

%Andrew

PS: This is clever &rew!

If you want to award game-of-the-year to a game based on popularity and innovation, then The Sims wins hands down, except I can't remember if it was released in 2000 or 1999. Of course, CS came out in '99, so I guess we can award it to The Sims regardless. :)

I'm not convinced CS is even the most popular online game. EverQuest has had 89,000 users logged on simultaneously. Has CS ever come close to that?

The Sims was released in early February last year.
And I believe Hearts or Bridge is the real "most popular" online game. ;)
Also, since CS requires HL... isn't it merely the "add-on" of the year?

@Andrew

>>Also, since CS requires HL... isn't it merely the "add-on" of the year?

The standalone version available for sale in stores doesn't require Half-Life, though it's actually the Half-Life executable minus all of its levels...

>>And I believe Hearts or Bridge is the real "most popular" online game. ;)

Definitely, though Bejeweled at zone.com rules..

"I mean, if I'm understanding your point here, wouldn't the fact that N'Synch holds the highest single weekend sales record and Garth Brooks the "most career albums sold" records, wouldn't that make those two banalities "revolutionary"?"

Key difference-- it takes only one person to listen to and enjoy a Garth Brooks album. But try playing counter-strike or everquest with one person. Heck, try playing it with a couple thousand people spread across a thousand servers, all over the country. You need a large player base to have any hope of a having fun in multiplayer games. It's about the other people.

Hence, popularity is very important. Multiplayer games aren't albums.

"You'll also note that wumpus has never once answered the question about what's revolutionary, unique, or unprecedented in CS. All that leaves us with are points that prove themselves, because wumpus certainly isn't up to the task."

Actually I have, you just don't agree with any of my points, Tom. Let me answer you rhetorically-- let's assume what you say is true. Let's assume there _is_ nothing unique, revolutionary, or unprecedented in CS.

Then why is it so popular? Because as I pointed out with actual player stats, there aren't any mods that are even remotely in the same league. It's not as if we have mods A, B, and C all putting up great player numbers. We don't. There's CS, TFC (at about 1/10th the players), and that's about it. Literally. It's a one horse race.

Shoot, if it's so derivative, what is it derivative _of_, Tom? Because one would expect the derivatives to be similarly popular. Can you point out any other multiplayer game that's similar to CS (and predates its popularity, not one of the knockoff clones), and enjoys a comparable level of players?

"What's unique and unprecedented about CS?"

Q3 and UT are really just the same old deathmatch regurgitated in a different way. UT regurgitated it in a slightly more thoughtful way, but hell-- if you want to talk about games without any "revolutionary, unique, or unprecedented" gameplay you need look no further than Q3, and that darling of critics, UT.

I don't think you can put your finger on any 'single' feature that makes CS what it is. There's magic in the formula that no other online FPS game has yet captured: the money system; severe-but-not-absolute weapon lethality; realistic weapons and levels; various level objectives; permanent, round-level deaths; and most of all, the subtle but effective feedback cycle in the game that encourages actual teamplay.

I spend a lot of time playing FPS games online. And I had given up all hope on online FPS games until counter-strike. TFC just didn't do it for me. I was briefly infatuated with the innovative "bagman" teamplay mode in Kingpin, but other than that I was completely bored with online play. Though I didn't know it at the time, CS is exactly what I hoped TF2 would be. It's so much deeper.

Since my opinion doesn't convince Tom, I'm going to quote some developers. (from http://www.shugashack.com/extras/e_counterstrike/page3.x )

---

CliffyB of Epic Games

Counterstrike has a Death Penalty. You die, you're out. It's like when I used to play dodgeball as a kid - knocking someone out of the game was that much more satisfying because I knew they were OUT for the duration of the game. My own status in the game then became that much more of a concern, because if I got hit then I'd have to watch from the sidelines, helplessly. Just...one...more...game...

It's also one of the few titles that, when you go online, people consistently play as a team. Folks who have never played together before in other first person action titles tend to stick together in CS. The lethality of the weaponry and the slower pace really contribute to this feel.

---

Pat Hook of Mumbo Jumbo

The team aspects are accessible in multiple levels. For organized clan matches you obviously have everyone working together, but what about those games just filled with random people? Often times you'll find one or two other people that have a similar play style as yourself, and almost automatically players will start coming around corners together, covering each other, or split to find the bomb when they see the bomb planted message. Small groups whose members play off of each other almost always do better and thus teamwork is rewarded.

---

So the short answer to "what's revolutionary, innovative, or unique" about CS: it's the first online FPS that actually delivers deep teamplay-- with a bunch of random internet players.

And that's because of all the factors I listed above. Simply slapping a flag and two capture points in your FPS game doesn't mean you automatically have a teamplay environment. Simply creating a "realistic shooter" doesn't mean you automatically have a teamplay environment.

And doesn't it follow logically that the best teamplay FPS yet made delivers larger player numbers than any other game or mod in recorded history?

Of course it does.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"FWIW, there was a time the CS discussion with wumpus was actually legit. It died on the vine when it came down to his inexplicable objections that I didn't choose it for game of the year. Nevermind that this puts me in company with, oh, say, *everyone* else in the business."

Ancient history. This has long since ceased being about that, Tom. At the time I was suprised such a significant event would be not be mentioned, even in passing, in your end of year awards. Especially for a guy who wrote "it's a mod, mod, mod, mod, mod, mod" world for GameCenter. I'm surprised no longer.

There's a riot goin' on..

-- Quote from Canon of Tom Chick

Wumpus, you seem to have trouble understanding what I'm writing, so let me distill it: You're singing Counter-Strike's praises as something that is "transforming the industry". You are wrong.

-- End Quote from Canon of Tom Chick

And to Mark-- how many times do I have to say it? Of course I'm only talking about the FPS genre.

To me, what's most interesting about CS is that it did all this completely by accident. Contrast with a game like TFC, or any formal commercial FPS.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Definitely, though Bejeweled at zone.com rules.."

Don't get me started on Bejeweled. That game is like electronic crack. I wish someone would make a Palm OS version--it would make a great Palm game.

"Shoot, if it's so derivative, what is it derivative _of_, Tom? Because one would expect the derivatives to be similarly popular. Can you point out any other multiplayer game that's similar to CS (and predates its popularity, not one of the knockoff clones), and enjoys a comparable level of players?"

Why does the number of players have anything to do with it being derivative or not? Popularity is just popularity. With online games like this, sometimes it's just a matter of achieving critical mass. Someone wants to play a CTF mod but there's not an open game so he jumps in a CS game.

"And to Mark-- how many times do I have to say it? Of course I'm only talking about the FPS genre."

Then what was this whole campaign for it being game of the year? Was it just for it being the FPS game of the year? Mod of the year? Online FPS mod of the year?

Tom, this is admittedly VERY petty of me to point out but you once said: "Lord help me if I ever use other people's opinions to justify my own"
It was during that Shadow Watch argument when I pointed out that 90% of reviewers agreed with me. You made that remark dismissively, because you didn't want to have to justify your love of Shadow Watch to me.

So I have to take issue with you saying this as a dodge:
"Nevermind that this puts me in company with, oh, say, *everyone* else in the business."


Petty, I know. My apologies.

--------------------------------------------------
Wumpus,
You've certainly made a case about CS. Maybe it's because I haven't seen the whole discussion... but, why does Tom Chick have to love it publically in his "end of the year awards"? All "Award" columns are completely biased judgement calls.

"You're singing Counter-Strike's praises as something that is 'transforming the industry'. You are wrong."

If this is truly what this argument is about, you've pretty much convinced me. For what that's worth. I think you've given enough evidence to prove that CS is (possibly, potentially) transforming the industry.

But I don't think it's going to be the "most influential". I was impressed with what Bauman pointed regarding about Zoid's CTF. When Counterstrike concepts start appearing in every FPS release in the future your argument about it's "influence" will be that much stronger.

^Andrew

Bauman: "Definitely, though Bejeweled at zone.com rules.."

Felderin: "Don't get me started on Bejeweled. That game is like electronic crack."

Maybe I'll check it out. It better not have anything to do with Barbie or My Pretty Pony. A an aside: My wife got her mom "The Bedazzler" last year for Christmas as a gag gift...

"Why does the number of players have anything to do with it being derivative or not? Popularity is just popularity. With online games like this, sometimes it's just a matter of achieving critical mass. Someone wants to play a CTF mod but there's not an open game so he jumps in a CS game. "

Q3 and UT are virtually identical (from a gameplay perpsective), and have historically produced almost identical player numbers. Check out the data posted above. It's a fact.

"Then what was this whole campaign for it being game of the year? Was it just for it being the FPS game of the year? Mod of the year? Online FPS mod of the year?"

There are three concepts here.

First, I was *originally* shocked that Tom Chick, a "mod, mod, mod, mod, mod, mod, mod" kind of guy (see GameCenter article), would list his game of the year preferences without making any kind of reference to the CS phenomenon-- easily the biggest event of 2000 for the FPS genre, and unquestionably the biggest FPS mod of all time.

Second, CS is *my* GOTY 2000. But I love online FPS play more than *cough* some people. I don't require that everyone share my preference. But if you're a fan of the FPS genre (or mods), CS is very hard to ignore.

Third, this discussion is now about the following statement:

---
Wumpus, you seem to have trouble understanding what I'm writing, so let me distill it: You're singing Counter-Strike's praises as something that is "transforming the industry". You are wrong.
---

Eg, how influential is CS within the FPS industry? You know my answer to that: very. The first post in this thread is concrete evidence of the CS influence on the FPS industry.

Tom's position is that this is purely Valve's influence. To that I say, have you played Valve's Ricochet mod recently, Tom?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"For what that's worth. I think you've given enough evidence to prove that CS is (possibly, potentially) transforming the industry."

To impress me I'll have to see dozens of CS-like games in development, just like the dozens of RTS games that were spawned by the industry-transforming success of C&C and War 2 and the dozens of MMORPGs that were spawned by the industry-transforming success of UO and EQ.

Show me that kind of trend, and I'll be convinced. Until then CS is just a really popular mod.

"If this is truly what this argument is about, you've pretty much convinced me. For what that's worth. I think you've given enough evidence to prove that CS is (possibly, potentially) transforming the industry."

Every FPS fan I know fell in love with counterstrike. Many of us have been playing it for over a year already, and many (though not all) still are. Regardless, the popularity of CS is, if anything, increasing.

The periodic releases of new maps and new gameplay changes do wonders to keep interest up. Have you guys seen the new higher-res player textures in 1.1? This version also has the best new maps (IMO) of any CS release. At least four of them are outstanding.

Mainlining the spontaneous teamplay dynamic in CS is damn near digital crack.. and that teamplay dynamic is the future of online FPS games. Hell, if I had my way, these guys would get the friggin' nobel prize for FPS gaming.

I'm sure it was completely accidental-- but accidental brilliance is still brillance. I doubt anything will unseat CS until TF2 is released. God knows when that will be. :P

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"To impress me I'll have to see dozens of CS-like games in development, just like the dozens of RTS games that were spawned by the industry-transforming success of C&C and War 2 and the dozens of MMORPGs that were spawned by the industry-transforming success of UO and EQ. "

Well I think Bub had a more specific point.. we will start to see more FPS games with *elements* of CS in their multiplayer modes-- eg, round-long deaths, money systems, mission objectives, etcetera. Just like we saw many FPS games include CTF as a multiplayer mode. But bear in mind that not all FPS games include CTF out of the box, even today.

And I think it's still a little early considering the lead time for development; this was a year 2000 trend.

Some early indicators of CS's influence.. first, there are at least a dozen CS like mods already out there. As for full games, Barking Dog's next game is essentially counter-strike using the lithtech engine.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Some early indicators of CS's influence.. first, there are at least a dozen CS like mods already out there. As for full games, Barking Dog's next game is essentially counter-strike using the lithtech engine."

One commercial game in development is at best a modest impact on the gaming world. I'm still unconvinced that CS is anything more than a popular mod. To me it seems like a mod aimed at a niche market -- FPS fans who like multiplayer games. It's probably fair to say that it's had a big impact on that narrow demographic, but I don't see it doing much beyond those confines.

"Every FPS fan I know fell in love with counterstrike."

Every FPS fan I know plays golf and hunts.

"Many of us have been playing it for over a year already, and many (though not all) still are. Regardless, the popularity of CS is, if anything, increasing."

Ok, so it's Game of the Year for you and your friends... you do realize that most FPS fans aren't online players right? Those numbers you quoted pale before the number of people who just want to play a single player FPS.

Also, why does the fact that Tom wrote a Gamecenter article on Mods make him an expert? That wasn't an in depth article (I did a couple like it), I could be wrong, but I think his assignment was to find 10 good mods, play then and then write about them - briefly. Gamecenter served the casual CNet market (most visitors were "unique"), it just wasn't positioned to serve the hardcore.

Given that, I think Tom did a fine job with his article. He appealed and wrote for many people, not just your friends and "most people you know".

()Andrew

"To me it seems like a mod aimed at a niche market -- FPS fans who like multiplayer games. It's probably fair to say that it's had a big impact on that narrow demographic, but I don't see it doing much beyond those confines."

The main difference is money. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until Blizzard, Valve et al start charging (x) dollars per month to keep a CD key valid for online play. CS is delivering the players in spades, but nothing speaks louder than cold hard cash.

And as long as they continue to deliver new content for the games, this monthly fee model is completely fine by me. Heck, I look forward to it.

"Also, why does the fact that Tom wrote a Gamecenter article on Mods make him an expert?"

Writing an article implies a certain level of interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. Furthermore, most of the notable GC FPS reviews were Tom's (go look 'em up). FPS games and mods are his area of expertise, or at least someone at GC thought so.

"Gamecenter served the casual CNet market (most visitors were "unique"), it just wasn't positioned to serve the hardcore."

I agree. This was a really, really inappropriate article for GameCenter. Hell, running a regular PC game can be a pain in the ass, much less jumping through all the extra flaming hoops it takes to get a mod installed and running. Far beyind the scope of the GC audience.

I touched on this earlier. I summarized it as "if you don't have a consistent online handle", which is my catchphrase for casual gamers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course-- red 5 standing by!

"Ok, so it's Game of the Year for you and your friends... you do realize that most FPS fans aren't online players right? Those numbers you quoted pale before the number of people who just want to play a single player FPS."

Well, that's true of most games. I finished Diablo II and never once touched Battle.net; I bet the overall "click through" of Diablo II was pretty low. I'm sure if you compared absolute StarCraft and D2 sales to battle.net accounts you'd arrive at the same conclusion. This is nothing new.

"Given that, I think Tom did a fine job with his article. He appealed and wrote for many people, not just your friends and "most people you know"."

Actually I wasn't criticizing his article; all of Tom's work is top notch. The only reason I brought it up was to show that Tom does indeed have a background in this sort of stuff-- which should preclude him from making goofy ass statements like

---
Wumpus, you seem to have trouble understanding what I'm writing, so let me distill it: You're singing Counter-Strike's praises as something that is "transforming the industry". You are wrong.
---

And this, for a game that has (probably permanently) unseated Quake as the undisputed pinnacle of online FPS gameplay. Hell, not even UT, with all the saccharine critical prose surrounding it, could do that. Nor could TFC, even though Valve brought that project entirely in-house and promoted it as one of their own.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>would list his game of the year preferences without making any kind of reference to the CS phenomenon-- easily the biggest event of 2000 for the FPS genre, and unquestionably the biggest FPS mod of all time.

But it's not a complete game. If it had a solo game at all, then we could talk. I'd have a hard time giving as one-dimensional a product, however good it may be, any consideration for "Game of the Year."

I have somewhat of a solo play bias, but outside of the massively multiplayer games, games like Counter-Strike, the original Tribes, and to some extent Quake III and Unreal Tournament, are undeniably good at what they do but not as good as a game with a detailed solo game as well as multiplayer, or even exclusive solo play. Had Counter-Strike included bot play, it might have had a better case as "Game of the Year."

But from my perspective, I think it took considerably more skill to put together No One Lives Forever then Counter-Strike.

>>Eg, how influential is CS within the FPS industry? You know my answer to that: very.

We won't be able to accurately judge its influence for a few years.

But I'd still contend that Zoid's Capture the Flag was the most emulated and influential mod created up to this point. Counter-Strike may replace it over time, but I suspect it won't have as big an impact because it's more difficult to apply its style of gameplay to all games.

>>Tom's position is that this is purely Valve's influence.

Would Counter-Strike be as popular if Valve and Barking Dog hadn't done considerable work on the game? That's impossible to say, but it did suddenly increase in popularity once those guys started helping and giving it some resources.

Which brings me to this point: Counter-Strike isn't a mod, in the traditional sense. It's a commercial product. To call it a pure mod is an insult to all the folks out there doing it without funding and who are unable to draw a salary to work on it full-time.

Counter-Strike is an undeniably entertaining, multiplayer-only commercial product that happened to start life as a mod and received a ton of public testing.

>>And this, for a game that has (probably permanently) unseated Quake as the undisputed pinnacle of online FPS gameplay.

Undisputed? Wow, then no one needs to continue this discussion.

You know, there's probably as many people playing other FPS games (mods too) then are currently playing Counter-Strike, so to say it's undisputed is probably disputable.

By the way, I still enjoy SWAT 3 online more then Counter-Strke, and my girlfriend swears by Rogue Spear (being ex-military, she digs the real-world stuff). So I guess there's some dispute, at least from us. Damn.

>>Hell, not even UT, with all the saccharine critical prose surrounding it, could do that.

If Unreal Tournament sold as many copies as Half-Life, and had been released three years ago, we may have a different tale to tell.

"Those numbers you quoted pale before the number of people who just want to play a single player FPS."

The above quote is what keeps me from assigning as much importance as wumpus does to CS. How many millions of copies of Half-life were sold? 3 million? I'm probably low. At best, based on wumpus' numbers, the most online Half-life players simultaneously is 41,200 (and remember that says "Half-life," so it is sucking in all of the mods, including TFC and Day of Defeat).

I'm pulling these numbers out of my hat (that's a euphemism for "ass"), so there may be more accurate numbers out there. Let's be generous and say that at the time those numbers were generated, only 1/8 of regular CS players were online. That would give us about 330,000 total regular CS players. So, best case scenario, only 11% of HL owners bother with CS. If we change the assumptions to be less favorable, that percentage easily drops to 5% or lower. Say half of regular CS players are online, and 5 million copies of HL exist; that's under 2%.

So, if the game is so darned revolutionary and great, how come less than 10% of the FPS shooter owners (who presumably would enjoy it) that could play it for free (can't beat the price), do? These are people that essentially own the game already, and STILL don't play it. My answer to that is that CS is a very, very, niche product. For example, I hazard a guess that lots of people DON'T like the round-long death. DoD has a very short respawn time (15 seconds is the longest I have seen), which is in direct contrast to CS, and is growing quickly in popularity.

wumpus, you are always careful to limit the field to "best multiplayer online FPS." Yep, I agree that CS is currently the biggest tadpole in that tiny little mudpuddle. However, that limitation artificially increases the perceived impact of CS. CS doesn't even register in the gaming ocean that contains behemoths like The Sims, Diablo, and mother Half-life.

I'm an old wargamer, so I'm used to niche games, but to the rest of the gaming world, CS is a revolution in a teacup. If you ask me, the greatest game ever is Squad Leader, but I don't expect too many folks to join me in that belief. There are a few, but we are decidedly small group, just like CS fans. In fact, go over to the Combat Mission forum (www.battlefront.com), and you will see a different bunch of dedicated players that think CM is the greatest online game ever, and CS doesn't even compare. Different worlds, but both pretty small.

Finally, I can't agree with this statement: "So the short answer to "what's revolutionary, innovative, or unique" about CS: it's the first online FPS that actually delivers deep teamplay-- with a bunch of random internet players."

What parallel universe do you play CS in? CS delivers teamplay, but surely not with random internet players. When I venture onto the public servers, I see shockingly little cooperation and teamplay. It is 90% cowards, glory hogs, and lone wolves. If I want the deep teamplay CS can offer, I must play with my clan.

This thread is becoming quite the Usenet clone. People didn't argue this much about the Apocrypha/Bible cut. "Gospel of Thomas." "No!" "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!"

"I'm an old wargamer, so I'm used to niche games, but to the rest of the gaming world, CS is a revolution in a teacup. If you ask me, the greatest game ever is Squad Leader, but I don't expect too many folks to join me in that belief."

I really hope that you don't mean the recent PC version... ;)


-Ben

"I'm an old wargamer, so I'm used to niche games, but to the rest of the gaming world, CS is a revolution in a teacup."

I'd pretty much have to agree. Is it the current king of the mod scene? Well, yeah. Doesn't take a genius to see that. But even as much as multiplayer gaming has grown, it's still a drop in the bucket next to the market for plain old vanilla single-player games.

Is CS influential? Since there aren't currently any games on the market that appear to have been influenced by it, I'd have to say "no, not currently."

Will it be influential in the future? Maybe. Who knows? But I'd imagine that publishers look at the figures and wonder how many of those players purchased the commercial version of the product, and how many of them are playing for free. And then they wonder how many of them would have purchased the product if there WERE no free version. And then they look at the sales figures for other online only FPS games such as, say, Tribes.

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

>

Yeah, and I'd be one of them. I think I've played more PBEM Combat Mission than any other multiplayer game... that includes Chess with real humans.

That was a nice encapsulation you just did there Supertanker.

*Andrew
PS: All compliments are off if you do mean the PC Squad Leader.

"PS: All compliments are off if you do mean the PC Squad Leader."

Oh, God, no! Whenever I say Squad Leader, I mean the cardboard version, of course. I'm pretending that the misnamed PC version doesn't exist.

"Will it be influential in the future? Maybe. Who knows?"
"And then they look at the sales figures for other online only FPS games such as, say, Tribes."

I think CS is being influential in its sphere, as there are plenty of mods and full-blown commercial games that are either copycats or are attempting to alter the formula a bit. However, I have a feeling that will bring about a crash, similar to flight sims, because the market for that kind of game is very small, but lots of products will try to split it anyway. Does Valve think that Team Fortress 2 will have sales anywhere near Half-life? It may do well, in the Q3 range, but I don't think it will hit the multi-millions like HL.

I've been following this thread for a while, but have hesitated to post my thoughts because I haven't played Counter-Strike. I have been allowing that fact to "disqualify" me from the discussion. Also, FPSs are not my primary or secondary game genre interest. However, I've read a couple of things that I'd like to throw in my $0.02 about. They will be mostly one-liners. Here goes.

wumpus: I'm paraphrasing you here, but somewhere in this thread you said something to the effect, "CS is hard to ignore." For me, this is not true, because I can't download a demo version of the standalone game, and I don't own Half-Life. I did get to play with CS a little bit on my brother-in-law's computer over Christmas, but I couldn't play online. So I ran around, writing things on the walls, admiring the different weapon types, liking how you could take the silencer on and off the pistol, etc. Obviously, the game didn't have its opportunity to grab me since I couldn't actually play it. Still, until I can get a demo of the stand-alone version, I can ignore it. Period.

wumpus: you also said something about (again paraphrasing), "CS unseated Quake as the best multiplayer FPS." I think that Quake unseated itself, or rather, you might say it shot itself in the foot, (pun very much intended) and CS has just happened to take its place.

wumpus: you said that (exact quote this time), "Q3 and UT are virtually identical (from a gameplay perpsective)." I have to disagree with you there. After playing both games' demos, I was much more impressed with UT than Q3. However, I had resolved not to buy an FPS again after buying Q2 and then not playing it much. When I bought my SB:Live X-Gamer, UT was just something that came with, but I've been surprised just how much I've enjoyed playing it. Now that Infiltration (2.85) works on my machine, I'll probably try playing it online soon.

Tom and Bub: I have to agree with Bub's assessment of what you should do in this thread Tom. that is: "either find something less obvious to mock in his argument, counter the full argument, or remain silent and let him self destruct," though to be honest, I don't think much of the first option.

I'm pretty sure someone said that CNet Gamecenter was for casual gamers only. I'd just like to say that it was my main source for game info and reviews, I'll miss it dearly, and I consider myself much more than a casual gamer (I read and post on this site after all.), though I hesitate to use the word "hardcore." Yeah, there probably are better sites out there, but I haven't been impressed by Gamespot, and I've yet to find a "replacement" for Gamecenter. (I haven't really had time to look though.) Any suggestions since I brought it up?

CS does sound like a good game, and the features like the money system and so on do sound cool, but I hesitate to call it revolutionary based on the arguments presented by wumpus. This is especially true after checking Merriam-Webster Online for the formal definition.

Anyway, wumpus, you don't need to bother poking holes in what I've said, because it really doesn't matter that much. However, I do think that you have made your point, be it made well, made poorly, right or wrong (depending on who you ask). How about letting it drop?

Hmm, I think that was more than $0.02... :)

"What parallel universe do you play CS in? CS delivers teamplay, but surely not with random internet players. When I venture onto the public servers, I see shockingly little cooperation and teamplay. It is 90% cowards, glory hogs, and lone wolves. If I want the deep teamplay CS can offer, I must play with my clan."

I always play on public servers, rarely with a clan. Good players simply work together because you win more often that way. That, to me, is the essence of the CS attraction. Random people playing together, which is echoed in the comments of CliffyB and Pat Hook above. So it isn't just me.

Also, I like to play at 4am or even 7am in the morning, and there are precious few "clan" members that do that.

"I'm pulling these numbers out of my hat (that's a euphemism for "ass"), so there may be more accurate numbers out there. Let's be generous and say that at the time those numbers were generated, only 1/8 of regular CS players were online. That would give us about 330,000 total regular CS players. So, best case scenario, only 11% of HL owners bother with CS. If we change the assumptions to be less favorable, that percentage easily drops to 5% or lower. Say half of regular CS players are online, and 5 million copies of HL exist; that's under 2%."

We can play the same game with Diablo and SC sales as I mentioned above. Divide total sales by battle.net accounts for each respective game. Please stop beating this dead horse guys. I know online is always a tiny fraction of total sales. We all know it. As Jesse Jackson said, the question.. is moot.

The larger point is that CS has expanded this "cult" genre to a formidable size. Just this sunday I checked on a whim and there were 51,000 half-life players on (only 7,000 were TFC).

No game-- not Quake, not Quake II, not UT-- has been able to expand online FPS gaming to such a wide audience. Look at the 1999 stats. Compare to today's stats. That is a big, friggin' HUGE, deal.

"you said that (exact quote this time), "Q3 and UT are virtually identical (from a gameplay perpsective)." I have to disagree with you there. After playing both games' demos, I was much more impressed with UT than Q3."

Oh yeah, everyone practically bends over backward trying to say nice things about UT. Yet, look at the stats I posted above: UT has _never_ delivered significantly more online players than Q3, despite the fact that it easily outsold Q3 and got much, much better word of mouth and critical praise.

"So, if the game is so darned revolutionary and great, how come less than 10% of the FPS shooter owners (who presumably would enjoy it) that could play it for free (can't beat the price), do? These are people that essentially own the game already, and STILL don't play it. My answer to that is that CS is a very, very, niche product."

See above comments. It may be niche but it's a niche that just got 15 times larger.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Aw man.
Mark Bussman ended this whole thing so well. This thread was all quiet and placid just living in our memories like a cute little bunny. You had to go and kill the bunny Wumpus.
Damn you.

~Tilde

Thank you Bub.

Actually, I think he hit the bunny with a silver Mercedes race car. LOL. :)

(If any of you actually know what I'm talking about without more elaboration, I think I will die from laughter.)