Valve: Modern Shooters "Pander" to Casual Gamers

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Valve "Other games pander to casuals"
Other Company "Hardcore gamers are full of shit"

Who gets the backlash? Why Valve for using such a loaded word as pander.

Those sneaky Valve people, not saying what they really mean and daring to try and innovate.

Here's an idea: Valve could literally print money by doing CoD better AND by re-doing CS:S, but they're just going for the latter. IF they are money grabbing bastards, they'd do better doing both.

But they're not.

Want to hazard a guess why?

 

[theonecookie]

Valve "Other games pander to casuals"
Other Company "Hardcore gamers are full of shit"

Who gets the backlash? Why Valve for using such a loaded word as pander.

Those sneaky Valve people, not saying what they really mean and daring to try and innovate.

Here's an idea: Valve could literally print money by doing CoD better AND by re-doing CS:S, but they're just going for the latter. IF they are money grabbing bastards, they'd do better doing both.

But they're not.

Want to hazard a guess why?

Because they are dependent on their zealot fanbase and if they sold out like that nobody would buy their games also trying to compete with COD or battlefield at this point if just silly and i don't think valve could handle it seeing as they only have one good game to their name and a bunch of mods for it that they bought of other people

 

[rohansoldier]

Perhaps companies could do better at catering for all areas of the market by making options such as iron sights (what are these anyway? not familiar with the term) and aim assist optional in the gameplay menu?

If you feel you need the extra help, use them. If not, don't. Although most games come with difficulty options now so surely this helps with learning curves to some extent?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Because they are dependent on their zealot fanbase and if they sold out like that nobody would buy their games also trying to compete with COD or battlefield at this point if just silly and i don't think valve could handle it seeing as they only have one good game to their name and a bunch of mods for it that they bought of other people

Here, "',,.A,,s,IV.Simho.A'vef."

They seem to have fallen from your post.

 

[DTWolfwood]

CS:1.6 community are already looking to this as the game to switch to. Cause we all know how much they need a new game lol

In related news CS:S still at war with CS:1.6

 

[Merlark]

All sounds good to me, I am...happy, i think...that more people are getting into gaming but games can be fun and competitive. I mean everyone has that guy in the group, or girl I suppose. they like to play, they are good people. but they suck, they get frustrated, they don't get better by observation and practice...(really should be a study about that, you would think observational learning would just be an instinct in human beings or something.)

You try to give em pointers and couch em up but they don't really want to spend the time for the satisfaction.

Its good that they are playing and trying out the game, only its a bummer that its not their cup of tea.

I'm okay with that, I think with the original counter strike showing that there is a large community out there that likes difficult to master games. is alright with guns that have recoil to them and learning where to shoot and not just how to shoot. a game where tactics can win a game and skill for the split second means the difference between winning and losing.

still though if your willing to make a middle ground and just say, play this mode if your stupid an a pussy but play THIS mode if you want to have real fun...seems a bit odd. like why bother? you want them to play the game your way, thats cool. why make it an option to play it the way you don't want to?

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Well, it still probably won't be very enjoyable if they keep the general gameplay where you get more wins through reflex, muscle memory and maybe some spreadsheet combos in competitive play - and it'll always be that way if actual combat only lasts for a few seconds at most and usually the one that ambushes wins.

 

[Skeleon]

Wait, they think iron sights make games easier? The way I see it and in the games I've played, shooting from the hip was completely useless and inaccurate, meaning you had to take the risk of slowing down and aiming along your iron sights for a chance to hit at all at medium to long range. I dunno, shooting accurately at enemies mid-run sounds actually way easier, along the lines of Painkiller or something. Don't get me wrong, Painkiller was difficult because of other factors, but aiming accurately was never one of them. The player character always shot exactly where the cross hairs pointed.

 

[Staskala]

I find it humorous that they can call out every other shooter out there, when they never quite got the balance issues fixed in CS:S.

Want to shoot more accurately? Fuck actually aiming down your sights! Crab walkin' like a mofo is the way to go!

... seriously Valve?

I find it more humorous that "dumbing down a game to appeal to the masses" perfectly describes what they did with CS:S when compared to 1.6.
Not that CS was ever really "hardcore" to begin with. Oh well, just the usual promotion bullshit.

 

[Solo-Wing]

No iron sight?
Ok. Screw Battlefield 3 and CoD. I am saving up for this game.

 

[Firstmark_Bannor]

I read that and hear "Valve knows their game won't sell or stand out - decides to make bullshit comment about modern shooters so nostalgic idiots will defend it aqgainst all criticism and buy it en masse"

Tell me I'm wrong.

Your wrong.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Ah valve, they hit the nail right on the head.
and now that i think of it, the best shooter (in my opinion) dont use iron sights.
Halo has none, valve games dont, i geuss battlefield does but i rarely use them.

And they do restrict the gamers movements by a massive amount (even though in real life most trained soldiers....or anybody, can do a fast 180 turn while aiming down the sights.)

I read that and hear "Valve knows their game won't sell or stand out - decides to make bullshit comment about modern shooters so nostalgic idiots will defend it aqgainst all criticism and buy it en masse"

Tell me I'm wrong.

I'll let Dr. Cox do that:

 

[UNHchabo]

If a game adds iron sights, what we lose is gameplay speed. As you said, you can choose to shoot from the hip, but that means you lose accuracy in every game I've seen that gives you the choice.

I don't want that from Counter-strike; we already have plenty of games that give you the choice between shooting accurately and moving quickly. Why can't Counter-strike be the one exception that lets you do both?

Gameplay speed? After the first 10 seconds of a CS or CSS match, it's all turtle mode from there.

Everyone rushes around in the beginning, but then they start to walk to avoid making noise, and to increase their accuracy. What does it matter if you're walking slowly while using iron sights? You're walking slowly anyway. And they'd both increase accuracy.

It's just a different view that accomplishes the exact same thing.

Maybe I just play with a different group of people, but I haven't seen a camper in CS in years.

 

[Denizen]

This could retroactively be the same thing said for all counterstrike games. I got into cs 1.6 and css while my generation was doing lan games for halo and what made me more attached to the counterstrike games was the amount of control given to the player and how far you go makes you succeed or fail in any given moment. Needless to say I have more respect for the counterstrike games for being what it is, an undisputed game of skill and dedication.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Oh thank fuck... Valve is going to deliver a wartime shooter. Hopefully they deliver a better A.I. I remember how stupidly easy Modern Warfare and a couple of Call of Duty shooters were because i was trained by Brothers in Arms to flank positions and enemies rarely watched their flanks or even moved from the same spot of cover until i threw a grenade. And the fact that Modern Warfare let me shoot through enemy cover a lot of the time and had friendlies who were impossible to kill and who psychically detected enemies... i really hope Valve delivers on their promise. I need a bit of excitement.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Everything Valve and IW say about their new shooters is no longer relevant to me. You know why?

1: Because every CoD after MW has been shite, and will likely continue to be so. And because Counter-Strike was never that fun (particularly with the retarded settings most people have too.......fucking "surfing" maps outnumber normal servers most times).

2: Because DICE is giving me these:

Spoiler

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Good to hear. While iron-sights are great for realistic shooters like OF, ArmA and RO, not every shooter needs 'em. I'm looking at you, DNF and Bulletstorm. The RMB can have so many other creative uses.

Duke Nukem Forever has iron sights? Well technically they do but its just the gun zoomed in.

OT: After my experiences with Source, I will probably never touch the new hardcore modes. I'll probably be playing in with the kids at creative mode, meanwhile all the men go to fight in the hardcore modes. God i'm bad at Counter Strike.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Oh thank fuck... Valve is going to deliver a wartime shooter. Hopefully they deliver a better A.I. I remember how stupidly easy Modern Warfare and a couple of Call of Duty shooters were because i was trained by Brothers in Arms to flank positions and enemies rarely watched their flanks or even moved from the same spot of cover until i threw a grenade. And the fact that Modern Warfare let me shoot through enemy cover a lot of the time and had friendlies who were impossible to kill and who psychically detected enemies... i really hope Valve delivers on their promise. I need a bit of excitement.

Counter Strike is a multiplayer only game you know. The only thing you could really call A.I is the bots, but they cant do any of the stuff that you said. There basically programed to what people in multiplayer would do.

 

[weirdee]

blah blah nickel for every game in which i had to guess where my gun was pointing because i am not provided an analogue for the physical presence of holding an actual gun, richer than bill gates, end up putting a piece of tape on the screen to act as crosshairs, etc.

I'm tired of explaining why "realism" in shooting games is not necessarily the best option.