… CS2 doesn’t have destructible environments, it doesn’t have vehicles, it doesn’t have any innovation at all other than being more like a slot machine than the last Counter Strike which was basically the same as the Counter Strike before it.
Honestly, I think that’s part of why it has lasted so long. None of what you listed are necessarily better. They’re just flashy. They would ruin the design of the game though. CS could have vehicles, and some custom maps did, but it doesn’t work to improve the game so it never became a part of the primary game.
The need to always do something flashy and new I think is a reason why so many modern FPSs suck. They don’t understand their game and ruin it with features that don’t improve it.
I say all this while my primary game for ~2 years is The Finals. It’s easily the most innovative shooter I’ve played in a decade or more. It has the best destruction I’ve seen in a game ever. However, they understood how it work with their game. They didn’t just do it to advertise it as a feature without it adding anything. It actively combines with the other parts of the game to make one cohesive thing.
horse@feddit.org 14 hours ago
Ignoring all the monetisation, which is basically a pipeline into gambling addiction for kids.
Counter-Strike players largely don’t want major change. The reason people play it is because it hasn’t changed much in the last 30 years or so that it’s been a thing. I barely switch on my PC anymore these days, so my information is largely dated, but Valve does add things from time to time, besides skins: new guns and maps, minor alterations to the mechanics and ruleset, new game modes (most of which didn’t survive the transition to CS2 unfortunately), seasonal events, etc.
Bigger changes like vehicles and destruction would turn the game into something else entirely and even if they were only available in a side mode, I reckon Valve has numbers showing that not enough people would care enough to actually play it (like the Battle Royal mode, which I’m still salty they removed).
You could argue that Valve is doing the bare minimum to keep the game alive and generating revenue from the gambling mechanics and I’d probably agree, but also I don’t think the game needs to change at a faster pace.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 hours ago
This all falls prey to the self fulfilling prophecy of only listening to your toxic competitive though.
Call Of Duty has a DIZZYING number of fun modes but it still has competitive Search & Destroy lobbies too, the only conflict here is in an actively hostile competitive scene treating any change even if it doesn’t effect the competitive modes as a threat to be dogpiled on.
Also, I refuse to ignore this in any conversation about Counter Strike, it is fucked up.