Post by swfwebmaster on Apr 19, 2012 11:26:55 GMT 1
Steam Forum
OOgle
15 APR 2012
I started with Counter-Strike:Source on-and-off with the release of Half-Life 2.
1) I've only logged a few hours in 1.6
2) I've never played a 5v5 in my life; I like full servers, and occasionally, deathmatch
3) With 8 years of opportunity, the only thing I've learned is you should crouch and tap if the target is far away
The jist of this statement is that counter-strike global offensive should be a counter-strike game, so what does that mean? And just what does this have to do with prioritizing requirements from the game's professional players and community?
There's two dimensions that a piece of media can penetrate an audience - we're going to call them popularity and resonance. Popularity is the size of your audience, the number of patrons. Resonance is just how deeply your media offers satisfaction to any one patron. You need both of these qualities to produce a successful product with any longevity, the trick is that they are typically zero-sum. It's almost a miracle to behold something that is both popular and makes a fanatic out of anyone. Individuals have different tastes, and what might resonate very strongly with one target group will usually repel another. Call your friends up and ask if they want to watch Lord of The Rings and Gilmore Girls back to back with you.
One of the better examples, and how just this works in returning a profit, are the first two Star Wars films. Episode IV: A New Hope had enormous amounts of both popularity and resonance. Not only did it attract people who you couldn't describe as science fiction fans, but many of those same people paid to see it twice. In comparison, although not exactly a disappointment, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back would ultimately perform worse at the box office when adjusted for inflation. However, today it enjoys the general consensus from the franchise's core audience as being the best Star Wars film, despite having less popularity with the general population.
As a product, did The Empire Strikes Back tip the scale too far in favor of resonance, crippling its popularity and ultimately diminishing its success? It would seem so, but the story did not end there. Here's where the money flows from resonance: instead of trying to sell one product to as many patrons as possible, your strategy can be to re-sell multiple products to a smaller, yet loyal, group of patrons so long as you can maintain their satisfaction. A large portion of the audience that returned for ESB would stick around for ROTJ, spend indescribable amounts on toys and merchandise, and unfortunately torture themselves with the prequel trilogy. How successful would would Star Wars have been if they didn't cater to the core audience? How many times will a broad audience pay for something that's watered down to appeal to everyone?
Core audience: this is the portion of the audience with the highest resonance. The more CS:GO appeals to this target group, the closer it becomes to being a Counter-Strike game. Like most media, the core audience of Counter-Strike does not include of the majority of patrons; it's the people who resonated with almost every nook and cranny of the original game, even its deepest flaws - bad news: it's the pros.
This sounds like a complete disaster until you realize that the original Counter-Strike was both an excellent medium for competitive play and once the #1 online action game in the world. Can we have that again? Well, absolutely not - FPS has out-evolved fashion in the past 10 years, despite being seemingly stuck in the state it is now. I can't expect today's mainstream to regress a decade, especially to something that's already been played to death and back. Living in the present, CS:GO has to choose between being popular with the general population and being a Counter-Strike game that continues to hit that resonance.
So whats my case against popularity? I don't have one. Popularity is just as legitimate as resonance in art and profit, but there's a dirty trick going around that's been almost inescapable. Do you know a franchise that once resonated very strongly with you, but in later installments forfeited that resonance in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience? Did you become a battered wife, buying the next release no matter how many times you were disappointed, hoping that what you loved would come back? Publishers need not cater to patrons who they know will continue to buy the game no matter what changes are made. They can take you for granted, and disenfranchise you as many times as you can be fooled. As long as you are secured as a consumer, it's only rational that they focus their efforts on luring more customers by appealing to the mainstream, usually at the expense of the original audience. The only way to ward off this process is to voice your grievances and don't pay for something you don't want to see more of; Turn it into a choice they have to make.
I don't have a problem with businesses earning money. I do have a problem with IPs being ruined by failed popularization for a quick cash-in that damages the industry for both producers and consumers. The problem with the strategy is that most games get wound into this limbo of not being faithful enough to satisfy the core audience, and not entering far enough into mainstream appeal to satisfy the new audience - essentially creating a game for no one. What would have become of The Empire Strikes Back if production decided that not enough females bought tickets for A New Hope?
If you designed CS:GO to resonate with me, it wouldn't be Counter-Strike anymore. You know whats a better way to achieve that? Make a new game with a new name, absolve it of preconceptions and creative death, don't disappoint anyone, and don't exploit loyalty. Labels and their meanings should be protected - it's name is Counter-Strike, and it should be Counter-Strike. New additions are great, changes are great, cuts are great, so long as they serve to satisfy the core audience. I, and most people who will play CS:GO, won't belong to this group, but we will still buy and enjoy the game. It can't be perfect for everyone, but it should be close to perfect for whom it matters most.
OOgle
15 APR 2012
I started with Counter-Strike:Source on-and-off with the release of Half-Life 2.
1) I've only logged a few hours in 1.6
2) I've never played a 5v5 in my life; I like full servers, and occasionally, deathmatch
3) With 8 years of opportunity, the only thing I've learned is you should crouch and tap if the target is far away
The jist of this statement is that counter-strike global offensive should be a counter-strike game, so what does that mean? And just what does this have to do with prioritizing requirements from the game's professional players and community?
There's two dimensions that a piece of media can penetrate an audience - we're going to call them popularity and resonance. Popularity is the size of your audience, the number of patrons. Resonance is just how deeply your media offers satisfaction to any one patron. You need both of these qualities to produce a successful product with any longevity, the trick is that they are typically zero-sum. It's almost a miracle to behold something that is both popular and makes a fanatic out of anyone. Individuals have different tastes, and what might resonate very strongly with one target group will usually repel another. Call your friends up and ask if they want to watch Lord of The Rings and Gilmore Girls back to back with you.
One of the better examples, and how just this works in returning a profit, are the first two Star Wars films. Episode IV: A New Hope had enormous amounts of both popularity and resonance. Not only did it attract people who you couldn't describe as science fiction fans, but many of those same people paid to see it twice. In comparison, although not exactly a disappointment, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back would ultimately perform worse at the box office when adjusted for inflation. However, today it enjoys the general consensus from the franchise's core audience as being the best Star Wars film, despite having less popularity with the general population.
As a product, did The Empire Strikes Back tip the scale too far in favor of resonance, crippling its popularity and ultimately diminishing its success? It would seem so, but the story did not end there. Here's where the money flows from resonance: instead of trying to sell one product to as many patrons as possible, your strategy can be to re-sell multiple products to a smaller, yet loyal, group of patrons so long as you can maintain their satisfaction. A large portion of the audience that returned for ESB would stick around for ROTJ, spend indescribable amounts on toys and merchandise, and unfortunately torture themselves with the prequel trilogy. How successful would would Star Wars have been if they didn't cater to the core audience? How many times will a broad audience pay for something that's watered down to appeal to everyone?
Core audience: this is the portion of the audience with the highest resonance. The more CS:GO appeals to this target group, the closer it becomes to being a Counter-Strike game. Like most media, the core audience of Counter-Strike does not include of the majority of patrons; it's the people who resonated with almost every nook and cranny of the original game, even its deepest flaws - bad news: it's the pros.
This sounds like a complete disaster until you realize that the original Counter-Strike was both an excellent medium for competitive play and once the #1 online action game in the world. Can we have that again? Well, absolutely not - FPS has out-evolved fashion in the past 10 years, despite being seemingly stuck in the state it is now. I can't expect today's mainstream to regress a decade, especially to something that's already been played to death and back. Living in the present, CS:GO has to choose between being popular with the general population and being a Counter-Strike game that continues to hit that resonance.
So whats my case against popularity? I don't have one. Popularity is just as legitimate as resonance in art and profit, but there's a dirty trick going around that's been almost inescapable. Do you know a franchise that once resonated very strongly with you, but in later installments forfeited that resonance in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience? Did you become a battered wife, buying the next release no matter how many times you were disappointed, hoping that what you loved would come back? Publishers need not cater to patrons who they know will continue to buy the game no matter what changes are made. They can take you for granted, and disenfranchise you as many times as you can be fooled. As long as you are secured as a consumer, it's only rational that they focus their efforts on luring more customers by appealing to the mainstream, usually at the expense of the original audience. The only way to ward off this process is to voice your grievances and don't pay for something you don't want to see more of; Turn it into a choice they have to make.
I don't have a problem with businesses earning money. I do have a problem with IPs being ruined by failed popularization for a quick cash-in that damages the industry for both producers and consumers. The problem with the strategy is that most games get wound into this limbo of not being faithful enough to satisfy the core audience, and not entering far enough into mainstream appeal to satisfy the new audience - essentially creating a game for no one. What would have become of The Empire Strikes Back if production decided that not enough females bought tickets for A New Hope?
If you designed CS:GO to resonate with me, it wouldn't be Counter-Strike anymore. You know whats a better way to achieve that? Make a new game with a new name, absolve it of preconceptions and creative death, don't disappoint anyone, and don't exploit loyalty. Labels and their meanings should be protected - it's name is Counter-Strike, and it should be Counter-Strike. New additions are great, changes are great, cuts are great, so long as they serve to satisfy the core audience. I, and most people who will play CS:GO, won't belong to this group, but we will still buy and enjoy the game. It can't be perfect for everyone, but it should be close to perfect for whom it matters most.
(side note: I got this collection for 1€, got it to get the first one, haven't installed yet) 
