PDA

View Full Version : Crossfire - free FPS



CheesyRobMan
1st-March-2009, 11:20 PM
Anyone who likes Counter-Strike will probably like this:

Crossfire (http://crossfire.subagames.com/index.aspx?from=)

It's a (as far as I can tell) totally free FPS, very much in the Counter-Strike vein but you respawn when you die, so you can afford to be a bit sillier :)

Steven666
1st-March-2009, 11:26 PM
So not much skill required then?

You should only get one life...

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-March-2009, 09:40 AM
So not much skill required then?

You should only get one life...
indeed - thats why CounterStrike is such a great game :)

robd
2nd-March-2009, 06:54 PM
So not much skill required then?

You should only get one life...

Respawning or the lack of in a FPS says absolutely nothing about the skill level.

And Counter Strike does have respawns, they are just not on a per-round basis.

Steven666
2nd-March-2009, 07:35 PM
Respawning or the lack of in a FPS says absolutely nothing about the skill level.

And Counter Strike does have respawns, they are just not on a per-round basis.

Hmm, how long have been playing games?

robd
2nd-March-2009, 09:41 PM
Hmm, how long have been playing games?

Hmm, longer than you spend proofreading your posts, that much is certain.

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-March-2009, 10:32 PM
Respawning or the lack of in a FPS says absolutely nothing about the skill level.

Actually, yes it does. It encourages a whole different skill set and reasonable team play. As an online fps player since Quakeworld came out, I've seen the difference counterstrike has made.



And Counter Strike does have respawns, they are just not on a per-round basis.

Stating the obvious? You do not respawn when you die, which was surely the point made - in other words, the penalty for death is: GAME OVER.

robd
2nd-March-2009, 10:51 PM
Actually, yes it does. It encourages a whole different skill set and reasonable team play. As an online fps player since Quakeworld came out, I've seen the difference counterstrike has made.

But S666's comment was about the game not requiring much skill rather than requiring a different skill set and approach. Defender always used to be held up as the benchmark for videogames requiring skill to succeed in and that always allowed more than one life. I agree entirely that a 'no respawn' game should make players think more tactically, rush less and camp more but the skill involved in acquiring targets and taking them down without being killed yourself is, I would say, no different to that of the same game with unlimited respawns. The scoring system, as much, as the respawn policy tends to determine a player's approach to a game. COD4 (and 5) on PC is fundamentally flawed IMO because the TDM scoring for individuals is simply based on number of kills rather than k/d ratio. A player with 30 kills and 35 deaths has actually contributed negatively to the team total but would still end up higher on the scoreboard than a player with 29 kills and 0 deaths.



Stating the obvious? You do not respawn when you die, which was surely the point made - in other words, the penalty for death is: GAME OVER.

Well, actually it is Round Over which is very different given the pretty short timespan of most rounds in CS. My experience of CS is clearly lesser than yours but I still think it's a prime example of a 'twitch' shooter and most people are happy to risk sitting out the round in order to rush the chokepoints on the map and gain the advantage.

Ultimately these are videogames and a balance has to be struck. If we took the respawn thing literally and released a game that allowed one life before you had to buy a new copy how many people do you think would go for that?

Dreadful Scathe
3rd-March-2009, 12:19 AM
But S666's comment was about the game not requiring much skill rather than requiring a different skill set and approach.

Well he was vague, as usual :)


Defender always used to be held up as the benchmark for videogames requiring skill to succeed in and that always allowed more than one life. I agree entirely that a 'no respawn' game should make players think more tactically, rush less and camp more but the skill involved in acquiring targets and taking them down without being killed yourself is, I would say, no different to that of the same game with unlimited respawns.

Not entirely, you think nothing of laying down your life in games where you respawn knowing that you can respawn in time to be useful (e.g. CTF games - you'd be better off dead and respawning to defend an incoming flag-bearer sometimes)- in games like CS, especially when there are only a few left, your strategy changes. In the main though, you're right - weapons permitting e.g. compare Unreal Tournaments weapons to Counterstrikes)


The scoring system, as much, as the respawn policy tends to determine a player's approach to a game. COD4 (and 5) on PC is fundamentally flawed IMO because the TDM scoring for individuals is simply based on number of kills rather than k/d ratio. A player with 30 kills and 35 deaths has actually contributed negatively to the team total but would still end up higher on the scoreboard than a player with 29 kills and 0 deaths.

Early counterstrike had a scoreboard that didn't show kills at all, a much better system as kills tend to be the focal point (luckily not on every CS server) when counterstrike is all about the mission (kill the other team or hostages/bomb/escape/protect vip (the last two rarer and rarer). Personally I always liked escape maps, often a great team spirit.


Well, actually it is Round Over which is very different given the pretty short timespan of most rounds in CS. My experience of CS is clearly lesser than yours but I still think it's a prime example of a 'twitch' shooter and most people are happy to risk sitting out the round in order to rush the chokepoints on the map and gain the advantage.

Oh they do (although chokepoints in CS are always attackable from at least 2 directions quite quickly) but mainly on public servers and they are pwned by the better players (although often the better players ARE the rushers :) what else can you do on a weak public server :)). In Clan gaming though, the only rushing is to the first point where the other team can conceivably get to at the same time - then its far more tactical.


Ultimately these are videogames and a balance has to be struck. If we took the respawn thing literally and released a game that allowed one life before you had to buy a new copy how many people do you think would go for that?

That'd be silly :). But there is a market for games like Operation Flashpoint and ArmA that go for ,what in gaming terms is "ultra realism" - there will be many occasions where you die without seeing who killed you (until the death-cam shows you of course) and getting hit is something that really restricts you.

BobbyA
3rd-March-2009, 11:00 AM
Urban Terror was a great lil FPS I used to play when I was at uni. Best of all it's now free and playable on PC Linux and Mac:

http://urbanterror.net/

robd
3rd-March-2009, 01:17 PM
That'd be silly :). But there is a market for games like Operation Flashpoint and ArmA that go for ,what in gaming terms is "ultra realism" - there will be many occasions where you die without seeing who killed you (until the death-cam shows you of course) and getting hit is something that really restricts you.

I play Arma from time to time and like it a lot. It's similar to the original Ghost Recon in some ways and, yes, can be bloody hard. There seem to be a lot of bugs in Arma though and it can be pretty dispiriting to spend 30 mins getting to a good position for launching an assault only for a jovial if buffoon-like team mate then hits the wrong key and takes a knee alerting the enemy to your position and the certainty of your death :mad:

There are some servers out there for COD 4 and 5 now which are attempting to make it less run and gun (no killcam, lower ability to take damage, etc) and these are interesting to play on.

Steven666
3rd-March-2009, 02:15 PM
But S666's comment was about the game not requiring much skill rather than requiring a different skill set and approach.

Respawning.Having infinate lives just encourages a trial and error type approach rather than a skill approach. For me this considerably reduces any skill involved, even though the actual skill level required remains unchanged.

I've played enough games in enough genres to know.


Ultimately these are videogames and a balance has to be struck. If we took the respawn thing literally and released a game that allowed one life before you had to buy a new copy how many people do you think would go for that?

Not buy a new copy, just start back at the beginning.

But unfortunately you're right. Darn casual gamers...grrrrrrrrr... :banghead:


Well he was vague, as usual :)

Of course. I wouldn't have it any other way. :nice: