CS2 feels like a downgrade from CSGO in a lot of ways, but CSGO at launch and CSGO at end of life were two completely different games, the same is probably true for CS2. Long term support is what keeps games going.
No peaking, iron sites, head turn, geometry grappling. CS is very much nostalgia mechanics. They started the competitive shooter genre, and they’re still here.
Actually this maybe should have been named Counter-Strike 3. 1 was the original based on HL1, 2 is the Source version, and this should be 3. CS:GO is a variant of Source version with different gaming modes. I wonder if a GO version of this new CS will appear.
Would anything drastic need to be done to a map to just load it up in CS2? I would assume the file format is at least the same and they’re built using Hammer.
I love it. I do wish they had opened up mods and community servers before launch but the core game plays and looks so good. Most of the missing modes were never core to the game, hopefully they add some of them back after reworking them later (DZ?). It runs even better than GO did on Linux too.
They're right that retail prices of AAA games are too low to make a profit. Which is why they've turned to microtransactions and dlc. However, the price of such games is too high, which means the budgets and profit expectations are too high. With the quality of games coming out lately, even $60 is too high. I can't imagine spending $70 or even $80 on a game.
To be fair to Capcom, I think that an ideal world for them would be not having to compete against games whose expectations and ideations are out-of-wack with the price point and requires huge sales numbers to even be profitable.
For example, SF6 has a full single player mode that exceeds any of the output of previous games. While the quality of this single player mode is sub-par, it's still very ambitious compared to their old method of releasing fighting games (Arcade mode and Versus mode, with some mini games -- that's all!) and it finds itself having to compete with other 60 dollar titles whose scope is often outlandish while knowing full well that a fighting game can never move FPS game figures, for example.
The 60 dollar game made a lot more sense in the era of the PS2 where games were often linear experiences, sometimes lightly to heavily cinematic. A game that was made like MGS2 could be sold today for 60 dollars and it would have a very hard time competing against huge blockbusters like Starfield, with some probably scoffing at the idea of paying 60 dollars for that experience. (See Armored Core 6 -- a good example of this that actually happened.)
They should just get rid of the expectations of sales numbers like what current AAA get. If we want better games, less people will buy them, because a good game isn't for everyone.
Or… maybe development costs have just gotten stupidly high? There are a lot of great indie games for a few bucks that pack a heck of a lot more fun and experimentation than a lot of the cookie cutters garbage coming out of a lot of big studios lately. I’m honestly sick of every facet of my life trying to bleed me dry of any spare cent I get.
I just recently played Hrot, and it has been one of my favorite shooters to come out as of late. A game made by a Czech dude in a custom engine that he wrote for $16.00. I’ll play four separate games like that before I spend $70.00 for many competing AAA games out there. Not that high budget games shouldn’t have a place, but sometimes less can be more.
I actually agree with him, and I am not an employee of the gaming industry. In the mid 90s N64 carts were freaking $79.99 at one point early on! I realize part of this is because the carts were expensive, but even CD based games were not THAT far behind at $49.99 or $59.99 as I recall. I realize they don’t have the same physical distribution costs, but game prices really have not kept up with inflation. Growing up it was a big freaking deal to get a new NES game you damn well better learn to love it, like it or not haha. Now… games are generally much more affordable for the average family, plus if you just wait a bit and don’t buy on release (barring Nintendo 1st party titles) they are way cheaper!
Or, hear me out, we cut out the most expensive part of game development.
Upper management. They cost the most, contribute the least (if anything), and can be replaced by someone who not only take 25% of what some of these CEOs make, but do a better job.
I’ve never understood why people defend this mentality. Ballooning development costs? Last I checked half of the triple A games that get released spent just as much on marketing as fucking development. Not to mention Video Game revenue has been increasing year on year.
Also fuck these people because how often does this shit release with extra “monetisation” like on top of trying to make games more expensive they also throw in tons of microtransactions, loot boxes and battle passes, platform exclusive content, pre-order exclusive content etc.
ign.com
Najnowsze