Oswald Rant: Drawing Comparisons
When Counter-Strike went retail, thanks in part to the success of this mod and the interest from Valve, a new precedence was set in the modding community. The development bar was raised. Is this new level unattainable for any other mod? Will Counter-Strike only be topped by the sequel from Barking Dog Studios?
Looking and playing many of the other popular mods, such as FireArms, Day of Defeat, Strike Force, Infiltration and Urban Terror, just to name a few, will any of these ever come close in terms of success and popularity of Counter-Strike?
Many of the popular mods of today are mentioned in the same breath and compared to Counter-Strike. While it is obvious to see these mods share a common thread. They are realism based. But can you fairly compare Counter-Strike, which is now a Version 1.0 and on the retail shelves with that of a mod still developing a beta version of their mod?
When drawing comparisons it is fair to compare features that are similar in nature, such as models or weapons and to some degree game play. To compare a finished version of a mod to one still in beta development and conclude with, “This mod is not as good as Counter-Strike” or “I was a bit letdown with this mod after seeing all the screen shots and hype before its release.” Is this fair? Of course not, but neither is life. So suck is up!
I have read countless forum threads addressing the following topic: ‘CS vs. [insert mod here].’ Instead of drawing upon facts, the threads usually deteriorate into nothing but opinions [you know what they say about opinions] and pointless flamings of community gamers. Mods can coexist, even if they are developed using the same engine. Half-Life is a prime example and has some of the most popular mods, form Counter-Strike to FireArms, to Day of Defeat. To fairly review or compare mods, why not base the findings on a previous version of the mod?
Instead of saying, “This mod has some good weapons, yet the skins are not as detailed and authentic as the ones for Counter-Strike.” Huh? Why even go there?
A comparison of mods does nothing but belittle their effort and hard work of that development team. Comparisons hold little value when reviewing a mod, especially when the focus is directed at pointing out flaws in the mod being reviewed with that of a mod like Counter-Strike.
A good, well read review contains some opinions, but should be based on the mod’s features. “This mod has made great progress, increasing the detail and realism of the current weapons.” Pointing out flaws can be beneficial for both the community and the development team. Even better is discussing the changes, improvement and modifications from a previous beta version.
This topic is somewhat tainted and sensitive issue for Silicon Ice Development, as they continue to draw comparisons to Counter-Strike. Fair? Not really, but that is life. If anything its flattering to be mentioned with Counter-Strike. I will even tend to agree with some of these reviews, as along as the mod is not considered a “CS clone.”
In conclusion, just shoot straight, state the facts, point out the positive and negative aspects, and commend the development team on features that are well implemented. Reviews can be very helpful, not only for the mod, but to build support and confidence for the development team and their respective mod.
