CS:CZ v1.2 next week

Red_Thunder · May 29, 2004, 12:34:23 PM

What was you saying Smilo ?

<_<

Hmmm

smilodon · May 29, 2004, 01:54:50 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Red_Thunder@May 29 2004, 12:34 PM
What was you saying Smilo ?

<_<

Hmmm

Eh?

========================================================

I still don't see how CZ is a transition to CS2. It still uses the original HL engine and so will be as obsolete as CS when CS2 finally comes out. So what's the point of it in the CS multiplayer evolution? Nothing. Talking hostages and advanced AI would have worked just as well in CS as in CZ. I still say that it's only role was to raise some cash for Valve.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. Valve release a new game and make some profit. Again my gripe is that they chose to make/commision such a really, really bad game. And my worry is that they will drop CS before CS2 is released, therefore forcing me to buy CZ if I want to continue playing. I begrudge having to rebuy a game I already own. Valve would in effect have taken a game and buy manipulation of Steam they would be able to force everyone to buy it all over again. That's not ethical at all.

So as long as CS2 comes out before CS bites the dust then I think we'll all be happy.

Maus · May 29, 2004, 05:24:35 PM

But smilo, as has already been suggested surely everyone will want to be playing CS:Source when it comes out. Now, I might begrudge Valve wanting to make me switch to CZ simply because CZ adds so little, but I would very happily pay for CS:Source. It is that game we'll all be playing while waiting for CS2 to arrive.

(however, in the meantime CZ seems like a waste of money, unless Valve let CZ owners get CS:Source at a discounted price later on, which isn't outside the realms of possibility)

smilodon · May 29, 2004, 07:11:45 PM

And I agree with you. By CS 2 I mean CS running on the new Source engine. Even if they don't add much in the way of additional gameplay features I'd still be happy to pay just for the graphics. Source looks like a great piece of software and I have no problem paying for it.

Gone_Away · May 30, 2004, 08:14:48 PM

That's right Smilo.. Live in the past.

It's funny how you moan so much yet I rarely see you playing CS? Maybe I'm thick and I'll happily apologize in this thread but do you play under a different tag?

In any case, while you're still moaning about CS:CZ and playing CS 1.6, most of us prefer to move on and embrace the future.

smilodon · May 30, 2004, 11:38:09 PM

How often you do or do not see me playing CS has sod all to do with how good CZ is. If you're going to make a point try to keep it relevant to the subject. If you want to have a nasty dig at me try using a PM.

I'll try to may my point once more using little words.

Demo's of Counter-Strike running under the Source engine are already out there, so it seems fair to assume that Valve intend to move CS over to their new engine. They have in fact said as much. So it shouldn't be too long before a retail/Steam version is available for download. As and when it is available I will happily be at the front of the queue ready to buy it. I'll spend my money and let Valve reap the rewards of their labours and help them invest in future developements. That's the future and I'm happy to be part of it.

Then there's CZ. It seems clear to me, and feel free to correct me on this one, that seeing as CZ is based on the original Half-Life engine it will be as obsolete as CS 1.6 when we all move over to the new Source powered CS (or CS2 as it is becoming known as). Therefore it's lifespan as a multiplayer game is limited and it has no long term future. Unless a person wanted to 'live in the past' and play it while we're all playing CS2 that is.

So it can only really be judged as a single player game, having no future as a multiplayer game. And as a single player game (and yes I have played it) it stinks.

Valve may well need additional funds to help them bring CS2, HL2 and whatever else they have in the pipline to market. But if they want me to help them fund their plans then they should produce a game worth buying rather than the grubby piece of crap they offered up to potential gamers.

OldBloke · May 30, 2004, 11:38:50 PM

I think you missed off a couple of smilies there Ninja.

ChimpBoy · May 31, 2004, 04:29:09 AM

Smilo - I think the point is that Valve released a crap game. So what? Hundreds of titles are brought out every year that are poor quality yet people buy them. The delivery and publishing system were new. Again, so what? It's a new business model that has positive implications for small software companies. So they made a lot of money off a lot of people like us. And again, so what?

No one was suckered into buying CZ; no one had a gun to their head; no one bought it without having the opportunity to read a review beforehand which said it was dire.

Hate Valve all you want for releasing CZ, but perhaps all this anger and frustration over buying something that had flashing warning signs all over it for several years should look a little closer to home, accept they made a mistake, and then move on

So you'll be first in queue for CS:Source? Swell, but what if that turns out to be dire as well? More Valve bashing? They wouldn't be the first software house to churn out poor title after poor title. Personally I think that if anyone bought CZ and was disappointed they should accept they made a mistake / got suckered by marketing and hype, move on and grow

Here endeth the sermon.

smilodon · May 31, 2004, 12:29:30 PM

QuoteSmilo - I think the point is that Valve released a crap game. So what? Hundreds of titles are brought out every year that are poor quality yet people buy them. The delivery and publishing system were new. Again, so what? It's a new business model that has positive implications for small software companies. So they made a lot of money off a lot of people like us. And again, so what?

So nothing. Companies release games and we buy them. Some are good and some are crap. And sometimes we write our thoughts about those games in this forum. We don't usually get critisised for doing so. "It's a game but it aint CS" is full of them. When a company releases a game we like then we sing it's praises and when we think it's bad we have a dig if we feel so inclined. We do it with films, CS maps and even bits of PC hardware. What am I doing different that requires people to have a pop?

QuoteNo one was suckered into buying CZ; no one had a gun to their head; no one bought it without having the opportunity to read a review beforehand which said it was dire.

Hate Valve all you want for releasing CZ, but perhaps all this anger and frustration over buying something that had flashing warning signs all over it for several years should look a little closer to home, accept they made a mistake, and then move on

I'm afraid I didn't buy CZ. I spent a jolly Saturday afternoon playing it on a mates PC. About three hours on the single player game and 45 minutes online. So I'm not angry or frustrated about anything.

Quote
So you'll be first in queue for CS:Source? Swell, but what if that turns out to be dire as well? More Valve bashing? They wouldn't be the first software house to churn out poor title after poor title. Personally I think that if anyone bought CZ and was disappointed they should accept they made a mistake / got suckered by marketing and hype, move on and grow Here endeth the sermon.

YES. If developers bring out crap games we have a long and illustrious history on this forum of saying so. When Valve released Steam, sadly for everyone including Valve, it had some serious initial problems. And we ALL (more or less) were pretty vocal in just what we thought of Valve. EA games released BF Vietnam and plenty of us thought it was rubbish and were free to say so. HL2 looks like being a belter and even if it isn't I can accept that Valve invested a huge amount of time and money in it.

So in conclusion I don't accept I bash Valve for the hell of it. If a company produces a good product they get praise and if they produce a bad one we are freee to give them critisism. I'm struggling to see why this game isn't allowed the bashing other games get.

This thread was 'originally' about the CZ 1.2 upgrade. It actually does appear to improve the game a little. It would have been nice if Turtle Rock had added a few more features like this one. I'd have liked to have seen more realistic wounding. Where a leg shot slows you down and an arm shot reduces your firing accuracy. Then a body shot would mean you leeched health down to about 20% as the game progressed, making you more vunerable to further hits. This could have upped the realsim and added new game play features. However I still think the idea of making the scoring like 'Tony Hawkes pro-Scater', while novel, didn't really work. They should have stuck with the original plan and made a Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six style game with a linked mission structure. Each mission would have been part of an overall campaign much like Splinter Cell etc.

the sad irony is that it seems my Brother has an unopened copy of CZ that he's even less interested in playing than I am. It seems he's going to give the thing to me. So, as I'm soon to be in possession of a free copy of CZ do I stick to my principles and throw it in the bin or do I become the complete hypocrite and load it up

Here 'oh so very much' endeth the sermon.

Benny · May 31, 2004, 01:44:19 PM

Definitely the latter

Zok · May 31, 2004, 02:19:32 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@May 31 2004, 11:29 AM
or do I become the complete hypocrite and load it up

I did

Anonymous · May 31, 2004, 02:37:45 PM

I would like to see this forum come back in line with what it is here for; namely, to discuss CS:CZ whether good or bad. The function of a game forum is to criticise or condem game or to offer help to people who might be having issues with said game. it is not to have a go at the other people.

/RANT ON
Everybody in this forum is entitled to an opinion and they should not be criticised for having one. If you disagree with a persons viewpoint feel free to disgree without making it personal or having a dig. If you cannot do that then I suggest you go to the COFR forums where you will find plenty like minded people.
/RANT OFF

Doorman · May 31, 2004, 02:52:41 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Zok+May 31 2004, 01:19 PM-->