Backhand of Justice

Over a decade after its release, Counter-Strike remains one of the most popular online shooters. CS added more genre defining tropes to the FPS genre as we know it today than nearly any other game. Outside of Modern Warfare’s progression system that has become genre standard, CS did it all.

Whether referring to unforgiving damage, weapon selection, objective based gameplay, differentiated teams or timed respawns, CS represented a huge leap forward in game design. It was such an improvement that despite huge imbalances and buggy gameplay on release, early adopters universally saw its potential.

Think of it this way: how many of you know de_dust better than you know your own neighborhood? Probably more than you might think.

Unforgiving

Forget buying guns, or mission types, the biggest differentiator in Counter-Strike is the unforgiving damage. Sure, License to Kill mode in Goldeneye was even more hardcore, but that was a single game mode. Popular shooters before CS such as Quake III or UT all had traditional (unrealistic) damage systems where a character could take many hits before death.

Not only did CS have a system that resulted in 2 or 3 hit kills with most guns, but it punished you for merely being hit. Most games had shied away from accelerated disadvantaging of players as they were hurt, as would likely happen in real life; CS went halfway there. While there were no permanent handicaps from being injured, temporary movement was significantly reduced after being shot decreasing your chances of escape.

In addition, CS was the first game to really bring bullet penetration to the forefront. No longer were walls and crates perfect cover. The more powerful the weapon, the better it was at shooting through objects. This also increased accusations of people being ‘wallhack whores’ 300% (by my calculation).

Counter-Strike: directed by Michael Bay

Choose wisely

Like health packs and final bosses that suck, first person shooters had certain conventions until CS. One of the most basic is that guns were picked up off the ground, and finding the fastest path to the best guns in a map was 90% of mastering map strategy. CS offered a completely different system, in which the only guns found on the map were those dropped by slain teammates or foes. Instead of finding guns, you purchased them at the start. While today’s shooters all have preset loadouts in which you choose your weapon setup beforehand, receiving guns at the start of a round was a revolutionary concept.

Critics suggested that it was unfair as the winners received more money and could purchase better weapons, thereby increasing the likelihood that they continued to win. Online FPS had always relied on a model of equality in which giving players additional health or weapons was taboo as it was expected to remove ‘skill’ from the equation. CS did exactly these two things, allowing wealthier players to start with superior weaponry and body armor.

While CS broke the mold, what made it so strategically interesting is that weapons didn’t reset from round to round. Even if you were on the losing team you could save your cash for a few rounds to purchase a top tier weapon. You could also pick up a great gun for free from a fallen enemy on the wealthier team. Cash management was a tactical consideration and when a well equipped enemy killed you because you decided to save some cash, you could be confident the next round if you met again you’d have the upper hand.

He's behind me, isn't he? No no, don't tell me. I'm not even going to look ...

Asymmetrical Competition

Team based shooters such as the ever present Team Fortress games started with a simple principle: teams were equal. In CS teams didn’t just look different, they played differently. Each team had separate weapon choices.

These weren’t traditional RTS-esque ‘differences’ where there was a different skin but the weapon functioned identically. These were entirely different weapons, with different handling and damage. While it’s a testament to Cliffe and Gooseman’s balancing abilities that the weapons were for the most part fair, this was a huge risk and one that could have gone wrong in so many ways.

Objectives?

Online shooter game types used to take two forms: deathmatch and capture the flag. Counter-Strike’s introduction of the bomb and hostage (and the forgotten escape mode) game types added much needed sophistication into online play. While it wasn’t quite enough to get players to focus on the objectives over their kill to death ratio, it did introduce the ability to steal wins.

While a single terrorist with the bomb probably cannot eliminate 5 or 6 surviving members of the CT team, he can still steal a victory given multiple bomb locations. The diversity was a breath of fresh air.

Ahh, de_dust ... home again

Instant respawn?

Deathmatch is simple. If you can kill a few guys before you die, who cares about the consequences? The downside to death is that you appear somewhere else on the map, and maybe you have to find a good weapon again. In CS, the penalty is much greater: a couple minutes of your time. If you die, you have to watch until the end of the round which could potentially be 3-5 minutes.

Boredom was proven to be the biggest deterrent to foolish behavior, and the round system in conjunction with the realistic bullet damage did a lot towards promoting a tactical, careful approach to the game rather than a standard deathmatch ‘spray and pray’ approach.

Counter-Strike was not without flaws: the original had many bugs and balance issues. Hostage pathfinding was terrible. Sniper rifles had flawless accuracy while in motion and jumping and some of the original maps were questionable at best in quality. That being said, it wasn’t just anther crappy mod sent out to die because no amount of flaws could completely obscure its promise.

CS might have been superseded by Call of Duty in player base, but they’re just playing an updated version of Counter-Strike. May they take all the aimbot whores and leave us with the remainder.