Here's an example of one reason that the design of the game of CS results in a different community than HoN, as opposed to vice versa.
In Counter-Strike each team has a lot of players, decreasing the significance of any individual player. One really good player can lift the whole team up, but a bad player has a very hard time dragging the team down. The worst they can do is die immediately, which doesn't really hurt you team that much. Players are only kicked if they are engaging in annoying meta-behavior such as team killing, spamming voice chat, being AFK, etc. Kicking them doesn't really affect whether or not you will win.
In HoN/DotA a team only has a few players. Each player is extremely important. Because it is a game of micro-management, a few mis-clicks early on can cost the entire team a great deal. If they remain in the game, they will take valuable resources away from the skilled players, and it actually greatly improves the chances of winning if they are kicked. Thus, anyone who is not on the same skill level as his teammates will be kicked almost immediately in any game, and other players will become angry with them. Also, the game offers a meta-scoring mechanism giving a numerical score to player's skill levels. Thus, people will kick you before you even start a game. Whereas in Counter-Strike you are only scored on your performance in the current game.
But no amount of good players make HoN a good game.
I never said it did. I'm in full agreement that HoN is a flawed game from the get go.
Meanwhile, other small games (NS) have tiny communities and yet still afford good games and good players regularly. Also, cheating is almost impossible in CS, and as such, you can have a good game even if everyone else on the server is a shitcock.
There is a reason why you guys only play on G4B2S or BadClan. You want to play with a good group of people. You are self-selecting servers which is no different fundamentally than joining a "clan" or a community.
I would argue that CS is so enduringly popular because it's fundamentally one of the best multiplayer FPSs ever made.
I'm curious to see just how many players still play CS. While looking at the server browser is impressive, I've had numerous experiences where I've joined a server reporting that it's almost full only to find out it's full of bots.
There is a reason why you guys only play on G4B2S or BadClan. You want to play with a good group of people. You are self-selecting servers which is no different fundamentally than joining a "clan" or a community.
The reason you play on G4B2s or is because every other server is empty, full of bots, heavily modded, or worse. They are the only servers that have real people playing, without cheating, without mods, and without too many mods that change the game drastically.
I'm curious to see just how many players still play CS. While looking at the server browser is impressive, I've had numerous experiences where I've joined a server reporting that it's almost full only to find out it's full of bots.
According to Steam, CounterStrike Source is the most played game in the system almost every single day. CounterStrike 1.6 is the second most played game. There are thousands of low-ping servers with people in them in my list.
Today, the stats are as such:
Current Peak Game
66,337 70,438 Counter-Strike: Source 64,589 68,210 Counter-Strike 60,452 63,539 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer 30,174 38,145 Fallout New Vegas 23,991 27,887 Sid Meier's Civilization V 17,713 19,386 Team Fortress 2 13,396 16,019 Left 4 Dead 2 12,188 14,641 Football Manager 2010 7,572 9,078 Football Manager 2011 Demo 6,429 6,870 Condition Zero
The bot server players don't count as steam players (those games show up as the server "playing" the dedicated server if they show up at all, and those players don't exist). They're entirely absent from the stats. Those servers exist mostly for clan crap. You can also specifically exclude servers with bots via a filter. I filter for < 50 ping, no bots, not empty, not password protected, not full.
Which could be a selection mechanism by itself. Without more people, it's impossible to make any knowledgeable statement about it.
Self-selection is fine. But even if you don't select, so long as the server isn't botted (nonstandard), empty, or modded (nonstandard), the game is fundamentally sound.
According to Steam, CounterStrike Source is the most played game in the system almost every single day. CounterStrike 1.6 is the second most played game. There are thousands of low-ping servers with people in them in my list.
Notice how close MW2 is to CS and CS:Source. With Xbox and PS3 players included in results, CS would be extremely low on the charts.
Notice how close MW2 is to CS and CS:Source. With Xbox and PS3 players included in results, CS would be extremely low on the charts.
For now. How well will MW2 fare a decade from now?
My point is simply that CS is an ANCIENT game. Despite that, it's extremely widely played. Among PC gamers, it's one of the most popular games in the world. It's a massive community.
Notice how close MW2 is to CS and CS:Source. With Xbox and PS3 players included in results, CS would be extremely low on the charts.
It is true that the MW2 including the console players would be #1. Also, we have no numbers for Halo, but I can safely assume that all Halos combined will be #2. Counter-Strike is definitely #3.
However, Valve claims that Counter-Strike is "...the world's #1 online action game..." Not sure exactly what #1 means, but I'll believe it.
Notice how close MW2 is to CS and CS:Source. With Xbox and PS3 players included in results, CS would be extremely low on the charts.
For now. How well will MW2 fare adecadefrom now?
My point is simply that CS is an ANCIENT game. Despite that, it's extremely widely played. Among PC gamers, it's one of the most popular games in the world. It's a massive community.
Perhaps better than one might think. Middle class Americans can afford to upgrade better systems that can play current generation games. However, I would argue that this isn't the case for the rest of the world. I wager that most players listed under CS statistics run relatively ancient computers, perhaps CS is the ONLY good game they can play. If they could play a better (EDIT: This is a loose use of the word better. Do not read into it as better in terms of mechanics, but the more colloquial term in terms of graphics, features, etc.) game, such as MW2, they would.
The problem with using peek number of players to show that a game is good or not is that there is no way to account for issues such as this without controls. I would love to see statistics that correlate the people who play CS these days to the computer's they run it on.
However, I would argue that this isn't the case for the rest of the world. I would wager that most players listed under CS statistics run relatively ancient computers, perhaps CS is the ONLY good game they can play.
I highly doubt there are many people who play CS only because they can't run a more modern game. There are zero modern games that directly compete with CS. Nothing has replicated its basic mechanics.
Name one. Stateless, realistic weapons, no ironsighting, within-game limited weapon selection, permanent death, objective-based, round-based, direct team combat? Short rounds? Minimal and limited objectives? Mouse and keyboard? User generated maps?
The problem with using peek number of players to show that a game is good or not is that there is no way to account for issues such as this without controls. I would love to see statistics that correlate the people who play CS these days to the computer's they run it on.
That's absolutely ludicrous. If this were the case, then why is Starcraft so dominant in South Korea? Don't try to tell me that the South Koreans won't play a different RTS because their computers suck. They have faster Internet and better computers than we do. Same goes for the Europeans. You think those thousands of people at the gigantic LAN parties don't have computers just as powerful as yours and mine? Please. Yet, they're playing Counter-Strike.
I will hypothesize the main reason you don't see MW2 having more popularity outside the US. First off, the game is very console-centric, yet consoles really only dominate in Japan and the US. PC gaming dominates everywhere else, especially Korea and Europe. Also, a game like MW2 is incredibly US-centric in its content. Most of these games with realistic war themes almost always focus on the US military as the good guys and terrorists, nazis, or communists as the bad guys. Nobody outside wants to play that shit. Meanwhile, Counter-Strike features the much more generic Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist. The only real player model with nationality is the GIGN Polizia. Europe FTW.
Name one. Stateless, realistic weapons, no ironsighting, within-game limited weapon selection, permanent death, objective-based, round-based, direct team combat? Short rounds? Minimal and limited objectives? Mouse and keyboard? User generated maps?
Realistic weapons meaning that the weapons actually somewhat resemble actual real guns. Ironsighting as a game mechanic doesn't make things more "realistic" it just makes it a pain in the ass to play. The fact is you can still put a tiny piece of tape in the middle of your monitor, and you've got a crosshair.
People play Counterstrike partly because many of them hate ironsights. They're not interested in that aspect of FPSing, as it feels silly and tacked on in the name of faux realism.
That's a design/flavor aspect. You two always go on about how you should analyze a game on it's fundamental math. Now you are just bitching about artwork. Can you spell hypocrite?
Even when I admit CS:S has it's strong points, it's not perfect game.
The biggest problem I have with it, is that it's not friendly for new players. If I go to play CS:S I spend about 10 to 15 minutes of every hour of playing, actually playing the game, rest is spend spectating as a dead man. CS:S is a game that works when all the players are close to same level, but new players get utterly impossible and fast tempo of the game means that they don't have time to build up skills to get better. How you learn to shoot enemies if you always die before barely seeing anyone?
But, we shouldn't judge the game based on that on possible player experience. Only thing that matters are the rules, right? Bullshit, I say. Games, at least computer and videogames (and roleplaying games) are all about what they give to the player, if there is a game that is perfect by the rules, but actually impossible for anyone to enjoy I refuse to call it a good game. Player is and should be a part of the game and player should be taken to consideration when judging a game.
Lastly, little example. Let's say that we have two games, Game A and Game OL. Both of the games have similar gameplay and level design is equally good in both games. But Game A has interesting narrative and story build around the gameplay while Game OL has nothing like that. Witch is better game, or are they both as good because the rules are very similar.
Yes, it makes the gamemore challenging. I guess CS players aren't interested in real challenges.
But it's not the challenge they're interested in. Memorizing viscerally the non-marked spot on the screen where an ironsight will aim is uninteresting to them, and is trivially overcome with tape.
But, we shouldn't judge the game based on that on possible player experience. Only thing that matters are the rules, right? Bullshit, I say. Games, at least computer and videogames (and roleplaying games) are all about what they give to the player, if there is a game that is perfect by the rules, but actually impossible for anyone to enjoy I refuse to call it a good game. Player is and should be a part of the game and player should be taken to consideration when judging a game.
Judging player experience is very different from judging other aspects of a game, something Scott is failing to articulate fully.
But it's not the challenge they're interested in. Memorizing viscerally the non-marked spot on the screen where an ironsight will aim is uninteresting to them, and is trivially overcome with tape.
Just FYI, most games with ironsights make your spread significantly less accurate when you're not using ironsights, and games like Red Orchestra make it so there is no fixed aim when you're firing from the hip.
Comments
In Counter-Strike each team has a lot of players, decreasing the significance of any individual player. One really good player can lift the whole team up, but a bad player has a very hard time dragging the team down. The worst they can do is die immediately, which doesn't really hurt you team that much. Players are only kicked if they are engaging in annoying meta-behavior such as team killing, spamming voice chat, being AFK, etc. Kicking them doesn't really affect whether or not you will win.
In HoN/DotA a team only has a few players. Each player is extremely important. Because it is a game of micro-management, a few mis-clicks early on can cost the entire team a great deal. If they remain in the game, they will take valuable resources away from the skilled players, and it actually greatly improves the chances of winning if they are kicked. Thus, anyone who is not on the same skill level as his teammates will be kicked almost immediately in any game, and other players will become angry with them. Also, the game offers a meta-scoring mechanism giving a numerical score to player's skill levels. Thus, people will kick you before you even start a game. Whereas in Counter-Strike you are only scored on your performance in the current game.
So, nearly 140k at this exact moment in time.
Today, the stats are as such: The bot server players don't count as steam players (those games show up as the server "playing" the dedicated server if they show up at all, and those players don't exist). They're entirely absent from the stats. Those servers exist mostly for clan crap. You can also specifically exclude servers with bots via a filter. I filter for < 50 ping, no bots, not empty, not password protected, not full.
My point is simply that CS is an ANCIENT game. Despite that, it's extremely widely played. Among PC gamers, it's one of the most popular games in the world. It's a massive community.
However, Valve claims that Counter-Strike is "...the world's #1 online action game..." Not sure exactly what #1 means, but I'll believe it.
The problem with using peek number of players to show that a game is good or not is that there is no way to account for issues such as this without controls. I would love to see statistics that correlate the people who play CS these days to the computer's they run it on.
I will hypothesize the main reason you don't see MW2 having more popularity outside the US. First off, the game is very console-centric, yet consoles really only dominate in Japan and the US. PC gaming dominates everywhere else, especially Korea and Europe. Also, a game like MW2 is incredibly US-centric in its content. Most of these games with realistic war themes almost always focus on the US military as the good guys and terrorists, nazis, or communists as the bad guys. Nobody outside wants to play that shit. Meanwhile, Counter-Strike features the much more generic Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist. The only real player model with nationality is the GIGN Polizia. Europe FTW.
The biggest problem I have with it, is that it's not friendly for new players. If I go to play CS:S I spend about 10 to 15 minutes of every hour of playing, actually playing the game, rest is spend spectating as a dead man. CS:S is a game that works when all the players are close to same level, but new players get utterly impossible and fast tempo of the game means that they don't have time to build up skills to get better. How you learn to shoot enemies if you always die before barely seeing anyone?
But, we shouldn't judge the game based on that on possible player experience. Only thing that matters are the rules, right? Bullshit, I say. Games, at least computer and videogames (and roleplaying games) are all about what they give to the player, if there is a game that is perfect by the rules, but actually impossible for anyone to enjoy I refuse to call it a good game. Player is and should be a part of the game and player should be taken to consideration when judging a game.
Lastly, little example. Let's say that we have two games, Game A and Game OL. Both of the games have similar gameplay and level design is equally good in both games. But Game A has interesting narrative and story build around the gameplay while Game OL has nothing like that. Witch is better game, or are they both as good because the rules are very similar.