211–220 of 337 posts
I sunk many hours of my life into this beautiful, beautiful game (starting at the tail end of 1.5, however!) and sometimes tune in to watch CS:GO competitive matches. I know Valorant is apparently stepping up as a spiritual successor to Counter-Strike, but I just love this game for it's emphasis on pure skill, and I really am surprised few other games have come as close as 1.6 to perfecting a team-based FPS that land…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pavlov IMO is the spiritual successor
Seems to be a VR game, so unless VR suddenly gets a lot cheaper and a lot better, Pavlov will never replace CS. Looking at the first few seconds of the first video on Steam for Pavlov ( https://store.steampowered.com/app/555160/Pavlov_VR/ ) shows a very low-skilled encounter as well. If they are trying to attract CS players, they need to show it's a game that shows skills, not like that.
That might be the difference between having to actually aim your gun with hands in front of you, and flicking your reticle to a location with a mouse.
> unless VR suddenly gets a lot cheaper and a lot better, Pavlov will never replace CS.
Not that I think it will ever replace CS, but I think you can side-load Pavlov onto a Quest, and that's not necessarily a high cost of entry depending on what you compare it to. For a casual player, that's probably a lot of money. For people more serious about gaming, that might be equivalent to a few optional upgrades to their mouse and keyboard.
Interesting to me is that it opens up some interesting competitive options, where you could ensure people are all on equivalent equipment, if for example you have a Quest tournament.
It's hard to figure out which server I'd want to play when they don't show pings in the server browser
Pings are more complicated in this setup. A low ping to a server won't help too much if you have high ping to the online client itself. Are there different clients in different locations so you can select a low-ping client?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say it’s still fundamentally different from overwatch in that players who prefer CS-style may not like Overwatch but would like Valorant. Overwatch is much more abilities-heavy while Valorant is still more aiming heavy.
I think CS will keep its popularity. Only players who can't cut it at a high level in CS are bailing to Valorant.
I love how people like to make browser versions of everything. From chat apps to email clients to games. But they all end up consuming 10x the memory but are still 10x slower than their native counterparts !
Seems a bit unfair to only acknowledge one side of the trade-offs. Obviously native apps win the perf side. How about being able to play with your friends after just handing them a link? Native 1.6 doesn't even run on my computer at all. I think browser ports are the only hope that old games have at coming back. The other month I played Nox's quest mode with my friend on a browser emscripten port (plus a lot of custo…
When I was a kid I heard about a group of hippies that would have parties deep into the desert, far from roads or civilization. They had a "list", and if you were on it you'd get invited to the parties. Long story short, I figured out how to get on the list and one of the coolest things about those parties was how much effort everyone who attended went through to get there, both in however they managed to get invited and how much of a potential ordeal the journey was just to show up. The friends I made there put me on my current life course and now I'm surrounded by great people and a good tribe, which is really hard to find once you finish university. All because I put in the effort to get on the list and attend.
Sure, not making things super easy creates slightly less inclusive communities and they are definitely smaller, but they're longer lasting, have some shared plight to bond around, and are generally of much higher quality. Allowing any old yokel easy access kills community because there are too many tourists
I sunk many hours of my life into this beautiful, beautiful game (starting at the tail end of 1.5, however!) and sometimes tune in to watch CS:GO competitive matches. I know Valorant is apparently stepping up as a spiritual successor to Counter-Strike, but I just love this game for it's emphasis on pure skill, and I really am surprised few other games have come as close as 1.6 to perfecting a team-based FPS that land…
While plenty of people will likely move over to Valorant, as someone who's played a bit I think there is still a distinct difference between the two games. The main thing shared between the two is the feel while shooting. It's hard to explain, but you feel the "weight" of the gun and it's rate of fire really well and it's satisfying when you land shots. But, the abilities, while not overly broken, does change the fee…
This is actually nice! If only CTRL+W didn't kill the tabs... We still got a long way to achieve the glorious web everything but progress is progress and I'll give them that.
I sunk many hours of my life into this beautiful, beautiful game (starting at the tail end of 1.5, however!) and sometimes tune in to watch CS:GO competitive matches. I know Valorant is apparently stepping up as a spiritual successor to Counter-Strike, but I just love this game for it's emphasis on pure skill, and I really am surprised few other games have come as close as 1.6 to perfecting a team-based FPS that land…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know no-one is forcing you to play CS in your browser, right? Why is it so offensive to you that this exists and someone else is finding joy in playing it? Why does HN love to rag on web technologies so much?
I simply stated that downloading dozens of gigabytes from a link is far from ideal. You also lose performance, features, community, and everything a place like Steam gives you. > Why does HN love to rag on web technologies so much? HN is quite pro-web and there are dozens of startups based on the web. Nevertheless, my counter is: why does "the web" try to recreate existing technologies and operating systems?