Talk:Counter-Strike/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Suggestion to Split

Counter-Strike is a series of several games. I believe it would be better if each game were given a separate article. Series of games usually have separate articles for each game on wikipedia. For instance Half-Life and Half-Life 2 have separate articles. This would allow proper infoboxes for each game. We could also add Counter-Strike: Condition Zero to the Half-Life series and the disambiguation page. Major discussion on Counter-Strike culture as well as Counter-Strike equipment could be included in the disambiguation game. Gameplay for each game could be detailed more specifically in separate articles. Perhaps we could include Counter Attack in the disambiguation page. -- Dukiebbtwin 03:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... sounds good to me. --Yar Kramer 03:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What is so different about game play in the different versions of Counter-Strike? I mean, sure the graphics and engine in CS:S are better, but it is the same game. Since HL & HL2 have single-player "campaigns" or stories, I can understand them being separate. To someone who doesn't play any of the versions, why would they need to know what was different in each? (Keep in mind how much information would be duplicated in every article.) --Habap 13:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Condition Zero already has it’s own article and deservedly so considering it’s single player modes and other changes but I agree with Habap that a CS: Source article would just duplicate a lot of the CS content due to it being a recreation of the game on the new engine. Also, I don’t think a disambiguation page is needed, for every other series, the series name either redirects to an article on the original game/movie/whatever or an article about the series as a whole. "Counter-Strike" should remain an article on 1.X with a section on source in my opinion. The infobox for source could be added to its section couldn’t it?

There does seem to be a lack of organisation for the articles about the series though, Counter-Strike already has its own category but little to link together the articles within it. A Counter-Strike box at the bottom of the page instead of a Half-Life one might be a start. Finally I agree that culture (including the competition and legacy sections) should be split off into a separate article in the same way as the equipment and map information has been split off to reduce the size of the current article. — FlooK 18:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the direction of the article. I will leave this up for discussion for a week to see what people have to say before any major changes are made. Counter-Strike and Counter-Strike: Source will remain in the same article. Counter-Strike: Condition Zero will also remain in it's article. I would like to keep Gameplay, History, CS: Source in this article. Official CS: maps can be moved under the map section which points to the more general Counter-Strike maps article. I would really like to move Culture to a separate article. I would imagine that this could be expanded by someone knowledgeable in CS culture (the history of cs culture especially). I can also see professional CS gaming put in a separate article - also seems like this could be expanded (could have a list of CPL & CAL winners, etc). Then I would include a brief Counter-Strike footer to link the articles dealing with counter-strike. I plan on writing brief articles with screenshots from each of the official maps as well. Could also include a listing of weapons for the game! Could be a nice project. It would be nice to get this up to featured article status since cs is such an interesting part of internet culture. Dukiebbtwin 07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, though the CPL winners already appear in that article. I'm not sure that CAL winners are or should be recorded there. Maybe there should be a Counter-Strike box on every CS page listing all of the articles. --Habap 16:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be split, specificaly the CS Culture and Professional CS artciles, which each are long enough to merit their own articles - each of the current sections of the article could be paraphrased into two or three paragraphs, with Main Article: Article and stuff. Heck, that woukd bring it to 6 or 7 articles; someone could even make a CS template listing them. --gakon⁵ (talk)

Sounds good. I agree that CAL probably don‘t warrant a mention, there are far too many amateur leagues out there. Also, I think the professional CS article should be called something a little less specific like “Competitive Counter-Strike” or “Counter-Strike in E-Sports” since the professional and amateur scenes are very closely linked. -FlooK 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should focus more on the commercial aspects of the series? If the weapons, gameplay, etc. were moved to a separate folder, they could be expanded upon, and this article could give an overview of the series' financial success, as well as elaborate on criticisms of the series and development of the game? It is my view that as is, the article is entirely too long and disorganized, going from gameplay to graphical specifications back to gameplay, to history. There is nothing about whether the game was even a success. I suggest this become the series article, and the ingame sections be moved to the CS or CS:S respectively. Android 93 08:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a general cleanup of the article is needed, so that the sections are organized and compiled as you have said. However, I believe that only the CS Culture deserves its own article as it is a very big and well-known entity that is constantly discussed. Perhaps we should put in this current article about the commercial statistics such as units sold, average number of players/servers etc. that summarizes it's success. --Film11 14:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a massive... thing to happen to this article. Like, splitting up this article into several pages, and providing self-sustaining descriptions of each topic, along with the Template:Details message slapped on to each section. The way I see it, these are the sections that need to be covered:

Gameplay

General gameplay info, map types

History of CS
CS: Source
Weapons
Culture
Cheating
Pro CS (E-Sports, etc)

So, that's a list of headers with which to split up the article (in the order they currently are in right now). One thing I'd like to point out is that currently, the Gameplay section covers the major map types, but the main map types article is linked to farther down the page. In the above list, items in bold either have their own child pages to the main CS one, or probably need one due to their size. In particular, I'm thinking of an article dedicated to Professional CS, CS in E-Sports, whatever you wanna call it; this is probably the section that needs trimming down the most. According to Wikipedia:Summary Style, each section should have at least a paragraph's worth of info, in addition to a link to the main child page; thus allowing readers to delve deeper into the various topics regarding CS. This will decrease the filesize, which will most certainly be a good thing.

Finally, although this may seem unneeded to some, we could make a template to tie all of the CS articles together, which by my count would be about seven or eight articles. I made one on my templates page... which doesn't look too good, but it gives you an idea of what it could look like. If anyone else is up for it, we could push this article to featured status, and considering this article's wealth of detail on various subjects, and just how popular this game is in general, I don't see why we couldn't, or why not. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

'Be bold', said the wikipedia rule, and so bold the user was... Well, after work. Someone needs to split it, might as well be me :) -Cylik 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. I think it looks better now, if anyone disagrees of course they are free to change it around :). I do think that if History was elaborated on it could be put in a seperate page, and the 'bugs' mentioned at the bottom of this talk page might make a nice page as well. Maybe some day...

I reckon Condition Zero and CS:Source should be split, as CZ was a standalone game in its own right and CS:S was a total overhaul, again separate from the original. --Poorsod 21:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and considered doing that earlier, but I don't feel comfortable doing that myself. I haven't played either game personally. --Cylik 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Weapons

Why detail the weapons here when the Counter-Strike equipment 'article' desperately needs attention? --Mrwojo 18:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's also a discrepancy regarding the FN Five-SeveN: the main Counter-Strike article states "has a fast firing rate but is pathetically inaccurate"' while the equipment article says "Advantages of this gun include its high accuracy". So which is it?--Nick R 15:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've now transferred the information in the main CS article over to the CS equipment article, which is much better written. --Nick R 10:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Gameplay

Why on earth was the "Gameplay" section deleted?

How can you dare include all these maps but go without an explanation of CS's gameplay??

"Gameplay" was deleted on 23:36, 6 Dec 2004 and the explanation given for that deletion was "Fuck". I'll usher it again.

the five seven is actually really accurate, especially while moving. The gun's main weakness is exactly that, its weak.

Vandalism

All the vandalism on this article is annoying. This speaks volumes about CS players does it not? BonzoESC 17:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BonzoESC, considering that there are atleased a million people who play CS, and that probably not even 10% of them know about Wikipedia, it really dosent say anything about the volume of CS players.

Considering that the page has already been vandalized at least 8 times in June 2005 and probably 14 times in May 2005, sometimes 2 or 3 times in a day, it does strike me as an activity that at least accomodates juvenile immaturity. The vandalism is probably performed by a small percentage of the CS players who visit Wikipedia. I would speculate that the number of CS players who've heard of Wikipedia is considerably smaller than 10%, but is actually a cross-section of those who play. So, the juvenile vandalism is probably indicative of what would be done if 100% of CS players would do. That is, a small percentage would vandalize the pages, increasing the amount of vandalism here exponentially. Imagine if 1% of the "at least a million" vandalized it once a year - that's 27 times a day, or once an hour. It doesn't take a large percentage to ruin it for everyone. --Habap 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was referring to that fact as 'speaking volumes', or giving off a realistic picture of how the Counter-Strike community interacts with its surroundings. You thought he said it spoke of volume, or the sheer mass of people that participate in the counter-strike/wikimmunity.

No, actually, I do think he meant to say "it doesnt say anything about the" vast majority of CS players. I do think (as you seem to) that it actually does "speak volumes" about them. --Habap 23:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I do find that the vast majority of CS players are very idiotic. The Crazy Idiot 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but complaining about the vandalism on the talk page isn't of any use, in fact, if they are smart enough to find it, they will be encouraged. Cheaters in CS, btw, also thrive off this frustration. -Yoink23 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture

Can someone please clean up the culture section? Not only are there numerous spelling errors, the whole thing doesn't follow cohesively.

The Culture section is mostly about cheating. I suspect there must be more to CS culture than cheating. (I am so lousy at CS that I wouldn't know if everyone was cheating since I would die endlessly either way!) The comment at the end strikes me as very POV: "Hacking aside, Counterstrike is still regarded as an acceptable replacement for one's social life." Now, if it were changed to say that CS players find it an acceptable replacement for a social life, it might be less POV. Good article, regardless. --Habap 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Habap 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, there's tones of POV when the author refers to cheating in that section. Tons. It's like too much mayonaisse ruining an otherwise delicious submarine sammich.

Recently a user using anonymous IPs (63.165.157.x) has made additions to culture. The first few additions I reverted because they seemed spiteful and not appropriate on wikipedia; however, this last one--though I would consider it a bit biased--could be an improvement.

It definitely needs reworking though, but I'm still tempted to just revert it. So I'm bringing it into a discussion; should 63.165.157.107's edits be incorporated or purged? --Cylik 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the most recent edit he made to be a vast improvement in readability and a minor improvement in NPOV-ishness. --Habap 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian Phrase

I have no idea what language a gyilkos amazon-galambok vérbosszúja is in, let alone what language, so I am removing it from the first line. --Habap 21:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I have no idea what language a gyilkos amazon-galambok vérbosszúja is in, let alone what language, so I am removing it from the first line."

I can tell You that. It's Hungarian, and it means 'the bloody revenge of the killer amazon-pigeons'. Consequently: nearly nothing. I know this only because I am Hungarian... Pure luck? I would not say so.

A short article have been recently put to Counter-Strike.hu, our CS community webpage by the way of the 6th anniversary of CS. This little article refers to the explaning article of Wikipedia and since it is editable, someone - as it was truly predictable - has changed it.

Anyway, it is now restored and everything's OK.

Thanks for the clarification! --Habap 16:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FY Maps

fy_ maps: Although Wikipedia:Profanity suggests that swearing be avoided, the mapper behind the original fy_iceworld has in fact stated that it stands for "fuck you" in this thread in Something Awful archives. BonzoESC 23:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had always understood the fy to stand for "fuck you", which the Counterstrike maps article seems to contradict. Without an awful account, you can't access their forums. - Hahnchen 14:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

how about?

a wiki guide section for playing counter strike, where people give tips for each weapon/map/team/genereal etc etc.....

While such a site would be interesting, since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it wouldn't really fit. --Habap 22:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

make it a wikibook, or something and link to it.... the wikimedia thing doesn't really want to limit itself.....

Starting a separate counterstrike wiki would be a great place to do this, I however, do not have the time to do one. - Hahnchen 22:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Culture section...

The culture section is written very poorly as are a few other parts of this article. Could somebody knowledgeable in these sorts of things please clean it up?

CS 1.6 release date wrong?

As far as I can tell the Steam Beta 2.0 was pre-released to the press on Tuesday January 7th 2003, this included Counter-Strike 1.6. Then this version leaked prior to the scheduled January 16th release and the Steam services overloaded on that exact day. Which can be concluded from the following Gamespot news post. On January the 17th Planet Half-Life clarified their reporting of this issue with the following post (dated January the 17th, 2003. In which they state:

Yesterday, the Steam 2.0 client was supposed to be released to the public at 3:00pm. It was, in fact, briefly available from the official Steam site. But well before the scheduled 3:00pm release, some smaller, less scrupulous gaming sites leaked the Steam 2.0 client from the press preview.

Even before the official, widespread release, Steam was already completely overloaded. Valve suspended the public release of the Steam 2.0 client to prevent further problems.

From another Planet Half-Life post, this one, I can conclude that the Steam 2.0 Beta was not released to the public untill Friday July the 11th, 2003. However, in another post by PHL it states that Counter-Strike 1.6B was released on June the 9th.

I personally cannot find any postings, and/or information backing up the release date of 15 September 2003 which is currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article. So I would like to know if anybody has any clue to what the precise release date of CS 1.6 is?

Here are the links mentioned above:

Bunnyhopping

The bunnyhopping link points at the Quake page, where that section has been excised. We are thus left to ponder quite what this practice may be. Weeble 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Since the term has become more general than to refer to the strafe jumping in Quake I've created a stub article to deal with this for now --FlooK 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

needs a disambiguation header

It really needs a disambiguation header, I would add one in, but it's locked. Can a sysop add this in, please?

This article is about the computer game Counter-Strike. For information on the military tactic used in defense, see counter-attack.

Natalinasmpf 02:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am perplexed that someone went and changed this to a disambiguation page with no discussion, especially when the military tactic is not even referred to in it's article as a "counter strike", let alone "Counter-Strike". Strikes me as being a bit too bold. --Habap 16:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that people could get them mixed up enough to warrant the disambiguation header that already existed but not to change the entire article to a disambiguation page. While wikipedia policy does encourage bold edits where they are obviously needed, it also encourages discussion before making controversial edits and this case belongs to the latter than the former in my opinion. -FlooK 17:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - definitely a suprise to me. I was assuming we would keep Counter-Strike as the main page and then link off of it from there (to other Counter-Strike articles) with all the article linked together with a template. Especially since there was no discussion and agreement to make a disambiguation page. I just wanted to split some pieces and make a more cohesive and directed article. Any desire to revert it back (I have no idea how to go about that) Dukiebbtwin 21:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO it should be reverted back; Counter-Strike for the game, Counter-strike for the tactic. It's not even a big deal if they come to the game article looking for the tactic, the disambig header is right there. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

a question of doubt

if anybody can tell me... how do we create a game on CS n can people download this game simply from the internet coz i tried downloadin it from the internet, n it came as a file but when i clicked on it i didn't get the required results... or on the other hand should i jus buy a CD from a gaming shop or somethin n then install it? daredbull.==

You need Steam to play CS and other Valve Software games now. You download it through the Steam client, either by paying for it or by entering the CD-Key from a retail version of Half Life or Counter-Strike. --FlooK 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Erfurt massacre

I wonder why the Erfurt massacre is not included in the article. It has generated a lot of controversy after it emerged that Robert Steinhäuser, the killer, was fascinated by Counter-Strike. After that the German Bpjs checked if the game was suitable for youngers under 18 and declared it so on the grounds that you don't necessarily have to kill people to win a round. The controversy has inflamed to the extent that politicians like Schröder, the Chancellor of Germany, and his opposition have expressed views on the issue. Searching for Counterstrike in connection with Erfurt shows you 41.500 hits with Google.NightBeAsT 15:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

One possible reason is that all of the articles in English linking the two are from Larouche Publications. If there were more than one source linking the two events, it's far more likely that it would appear here. It would be like accepting anti-Bush information that is only published on Democratic websites or anti-Clinton information that is only published on Republican websites. If there is only a single, hostile source, it's less likely to be considered valid than if many outlets controlled by many different organizations agree on these things.

Even the article on the Erfurt massacre here on Wikipedia doesn't mention that he played Counter-Strike, let alone link that with the massacre. Perhaps you should start by including information in that article. --Habap 15:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I ran a search and came up with two mainstream news articles on the first page. CNN mentions the game in an article about the massacre and the BBC have an article specifically about possible CS links. There probably should be some mention of controversy in this article since (although arguably only a result of the games huge popularity) it has been linked to a number of violent events. A wikipedia search shows that there is already an article about video game controversy, perhaps the best way to deal with this kind of thing is to just write a short paragraph linking to that article. —FlooK 16:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Professional team changes

Today an anon made changes to the short list of teams that have come out of CAL. I don't know if it's vandalism, self-promotion or real information. Perhaps we should only list teams which have pages on Wikipedia? Or those that have won CPL tournaments? Or none at all? --Habap 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I made some minor corrections and put in the CPL logo. A section that long should not be pictureless! --Pantaloons 19:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be REVERTED

Firstly, Sepand did not move the article using the move tool. Instead, he's just copy and pasted it over. Some admin will probably have to sort it out.

Secondly, is there a need for a disambiguation page at all? There are 2 articles which counter-strike may refer to. Now, to access any article when searching for Counter-Strike, we need 2 clicks.

Thirdly, who looks for the tactic with the spelling Counter-Strike, this is insane. They probably wouldn't bother with either the capitalisation or the dash.

Finally, you don't make changes to big articles like this without any sort of consensus in the talk pages, which are now no longer linked from the main article.

Hahnchen 23:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree - I've reverted the changes. The new article he created now redirects back to this one. -- Chuq 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I just did it cause it was a candidate for split. You are true and from now I will use the move tool. Sepand

The split refers to splitting the article in to separate sections such as Gameplay of Counter-Strike or Counter-Strike maps (just as examples) - not the moving of the article to a different name. Again, whatever the plan, it's probably best to discuss it here first. -- Chuq 09:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the move was, as noted above, complete surprise to many. The split discussion had nothing to do with counter-attacks. So, while being bold is encouraged, it would be suggested that you read the discussion first (then you would have seen the details about the split proposal). I personally don't think anyone would look for counter-attack information using "Counter-Strike", the disambiguation makes me scratch my head anyway. --Habap 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Meh, counterstrike is almost always used to refer to this game. Amren ^(talk) 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Just reverted it then, could be classed as vandalism before. 203.122.192.233 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

There are way too many links in the article, and most of them don't belong. I vote for pouring a little chlorine into the link pool to remove some of the spammy ones...

The guiding pages: WP:NOT and When should I link externally.

These ones definitely need to stay:

This one should probably stay:

Steam

These ones though all look to be link spam. A nice, comprehensive list really.

Counter-Strike-DL — The definitive source for Counter-Strike skins, maps, and news.
HLForums.com — A popular Half-Life and Counter Strike community site.
CS-Nation — A popular Counter-Strike News site
FPSBANANA CSBanana — A popular First-Person Shooter customization website.
The Cyberathlete Ameteur League
The Cyberathlete Professional League
Online Gaming League — An amateur league for new clans.
FPSBANANA Gaming Ladder — The biggest gaming ladder for new clans.
GotFrag? — Coverage of Counter-Strike related events in the world of electronic sports
eSportSA — One of South Africa's electronic sports community sites.
CS_ITALY Map Strategies
Whisper's Very Basic Counter-Strike War Strategy Guide
HLDS 101 — How to create your Counter-Strike server
FPSBANANA — The biggest custom maps and skins database on the internet for any First-Person Shooter game.
17Buddies — More than 10000 maps for Hl1, HL² and Mods)
Camperstrike — A Macromedia Flash game which parodies Counter-Strike
Counter-Strike at MobyGames
Bosskey.net - Counter-Strike resources
Counter-Strike 2D : A 2D clone of the most famous multiplayer game ever

Granted, perhaps I'd be hacking away at a little too much. I won't deny taking a few of the guidelines to the extreme; usually I consider a link to be unnecessary if it's not an authoritative reference for the article or adding any sort of encyclopedic value. But there are definitely too many links right now, and some of them should go. Comments? Recommendations? Suggestions on what to keep and what to purge? --Cylik 15:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost three weeks now, does no one care about the links section? If not I guess I should go ahead and remove the superfluous links. --Cylik 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of those can be moved to specific map pages, there are some duplicates there as well.

I think that CS2D should stay as it is a popular spin on the original game. In fact, I think it might deserve it's own article. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Strike: Source - good or bad

Can someone tidy up the CS:S section?

In some places, CS:S is described as being wonderful and every home should have it. In others, it's a buggy pile of poo that no-one worth playing with is playing.

I can see there may be a controversy about which is right, but the current section is just a mess when it comes to this issue.

Lovingboth 11:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Linking Changes

Links are not needed for maps that do not have their own articles...

Separate page for CS:S?

I have just added headings and a few paragraphs to the already busy CS:S section and i think that it's size within the article necessitates it's own page like CS:Condition Zero.

Information in the article that applies to CS as a whole can be expanded in each CS game's page (eg: official maps).

Anyone care to comment/support my action on this?

Concur. Keep the basics here and put Source info on its own page. --Habap 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actioned above suggestion. New CS:S page set up. Please visit as needs basic attention. Any changes will be postive! Thanks all. Monchberter 23:15 GMT 19/12/2005

Player Models

I've added a player models section for people who want more info on who exactly CS represents as fighting in the actual game. Clean up work needed and possibly a future separate player model page can be set up with more info on the popularity of certain character models (eg: elite crew in 1.6).

Monchberter GMT 21.21 20/12/2005

Polarised opinions section

I've removed the "polarised opinions" section. It's been deleted before, but always reverted back, so I'll give some reasons for it:

It generally needed extensive cleanup. Lines such as "As you can see, a totally realistic round of Counter-Strike rarely happens, yet the gameplay is limited by it." don't belong in the article.
It was non-NPOV. When reading the section, I got the overall impression that the author considered themself some kind of master player, scoffing at the complaints of newbies: "Novice players often voice their discontent with the game. This makes veterans short tempered." and "being the unfortunate victim of having unskilled teammates"
It was inappropriately placed. Does it really need to be that prominent? If anything, it should be a subsection somewhere else in the article (perhaps under Legacy of Counter-Strike) or as a section within Counter-Strike culture. (The bit about CS players becoming aggressive in real-life is mentioned there. Nothing about addiction, though; that's something to add to that.)
Yes, it might be appropriate to briefly mention some of the common criticisms of Counter-Strike (such as the wait time between rounds; the predictable recoil patterns; the dated nature of the engine and game mechanics), but you'll find similar arguments among players of any game - those who consider such things problems, and those who think they only add to the game. I don't think they're notable enough. (Issues such as private servers being better than public ones are common to loads of online games.)
I really don't think much can be gained by rewriting that section - it would require a lot of removal of text, and to be honest I think it would be easier to just start it all from scratch, if at all.

The only really useful and notable content I can see there is the example of the limitations of the hitboxes, which with a bit of cleanup could be incorporated into the Legacy of Counter-Strike section alongside the part about the GoldSrc engine, but that's about it.

So, yeah, that's why I've removed it. Though I expect someone will now go and put it back... :)

Here's the text, if anyone wants to refer to it. --Nick R^Talk 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

==Polarized Opinions==

While Counter-Strike certainly has a broad audience in which it gains popularity, it is also one of the most hated first person shooters commonly played. This is for two reasons: gameplay can be unfair, and gameplay can be addictive. These two combined often result in fits of rage, from swearing to computers breaking, as some players hate playing but don't want to stop. This is made worse by many passive elements of Counter-Strike, such as the long wait some players have to endure before the next game begins (if they die early in a round), or being the unfortunate victim of having unskilled teammates.

Counter-Strike prides itself on its realism. One element of realism is the fact that while firing a gun repeatedly your aim will increasingly become more erratic. Players do not expect to miss 30 times in a row while their opponent is standing mere feet away. Experts have learned to offset these problems by shooting a few rounds and pausing rather than continually firing an automatic weapon. In other ways, however, Counter-Strike lacks the realism of more modern games such as Battlefield:1942. It is impossible, for instance, for a player to see his own legs. Additionally, bullets fired by a person originate from the centroid of that person, not the barrel, so it is possible to fire a long-barreled rifle through someone's head at point blank range without hurting them. Also, the game's hit-boxes (areas where being shot at hurt the player, independent on the skin used) are sometimes considered faulty, meaning that a player can often shoot an enemy in the chest or abdomen and score a "headshot", or even not hit a visible spot on the enemy but still score a hit (although this is mostly credited as "lag" produced by the games latency/ping).

As you can see, a totally realistic round of Counter-Strike rarely happens, yet the gameplay is limited by it.

Novice players often voice their discontent with the game. This makes veterans short tempered. Players become self centered, which hurts the team and removes most of the fun from the game. Some players turn to cheating because of their discontent, which in turn makes the game worse for everyone.

Although Counter-Strike has one of the worst reputations for cheating in the online-game industry, fair gameplay is abundant on private servers, and also on the more reputable public servers. For example on some public servers, a player can pay $10 to become an "administrator." Administrators commonly play on their own servers and thus help to eliminate cheating. By playing on servers that are consistently staffed, one can usually have a positive gaming experience.

--- Agreed Nick. I reckon that the page is inching towards defining 'counter-strike' more as a series of games and how to play them, rather than referring to the original Counter-Strike (1.6 etc). Perhaps the original CS needs it's own page too where 'historic' complaints about the engine, etc can be put in more context along with a good version history. maybe this page should be for the mechanics of the actual game? Monchberter 01:00 GMT 21/12/2005

Stats

Has anyone got info on how accurate or up to date the stats on plyer minutes and online percentage of players are? I reckon the figures quoted must be at least a year old. Anyone care to update?? Monchberter 15:47 GMT 23rd December 2005

Difficulty?

Anyone care to comment on whether a mention should be made to CS's 'newb unfriendly' status due to it's sheer uncompromising gameplay? If anyone remembers actually getting into CS, having never played a tactical shooter before is a long hard road lined with mocking and l337 players shouting 'n00b!' Anyone care to mention about CS's intrinsic difficulty for newer players??

Monchberter GMT 16.37 UK

Perhaps this could go into the Counter-Strike culture article. I don't think it's a characteristic of the game, but rather of the culture surrounding the game. Most complex games are equally difficult to learn. Maybe the time waiting for the next round inspires the mockery? It's no more intrinsically difficult than Day of Defeat, which doesn't have the same reputation and has rapid respawns. --Habap 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The game isn't difficult for new players. People do mock the new players, but they can improve withut doubt.--AquaFox 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"L33t Krew"

Really "L33t Krew"?? --Yar Kramer 01:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, really. I think they named it this because they saw the popularity of l33t with their gamers.--AquaFox 13:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It used to be 1337 Krew in the older versions... —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Barking Dog Studios

Could someone find out how Barking Dog Studios helped in CS development? They helped during some betas, it's why you can see "pop dog" signs with the game. - Hahnchen 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fix appearance of CS wiki page?

For some reason the Counter-Strike page is displaying incorrectly under Mozilla Firefox. I've compared several different versions of the page, and I can't find what might be causing the issue...--BLaCkDeAtH

Could you be more specific? I am using Mozilla and having no problem. --Habap 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears fine today, in Mozilla. What was happening, was that the Wikipedia logo (that whole left bar and the top bar that shows your logged-in info) was appearing down in the actual article. Screwy. --BLaCkDeAtH 14:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a CSS problem. Check your monobook.css file to make sure it's normal. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

'Excessive' cheating

This is getting annoying real quick. Would people please stop adding 'excessive cheating' into Counter-STrike culture? —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the same IP continually. Warn and seek out an admin if it continues. --Habap 12:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives