For over a decade, the Counter Strike series has enjoyed largely unrivalled success within the FPS genre. Coupled with worldwide recognition, an impressive feat by any standards, the notable support for the Counter Strike brand is even more impressive when you consider that it began life as a mod for Valve’s hugely popular survival shooter, Half Life, way back in 1999.

Counter Strike: Source, the most popular title within the series, is still played by thousands today. Yet for a game first released in 2004, it’s beginning to show its age. As such, mass speculation regarding the next version of Counter Strike has flooded internet forums and discussion rooms in recent years.

Speculate no more, though, for Valve has recently responded by announcing the launch of Counter Strike: Global Offensive, the spiritual sequel to Counter Strike Source, scheduled for an early 2012 release.

From the video below, it looks like in-game graphics received the most attention. However, Valve has promised new maps, new weapons, and the much-anticipated official support for matchmaking and leaderboards.

Interestingly enough, Global Offensive is also pitched for multi-platform support, with the game due for release on Xbox Live, the Playstation Network and of course Steam (for both Windows and Mac). Yet quite how this will work for competitive play remains uncertain, as it has long been suggested that PC gamers have the ‘edge’ in multi-platform situations, e.g. Shadowrun.

Valve has featured in gaming news recently regarding their not yet released free-to-play League of Legends competitor, DOTA 2. A few weeks back, Team Fortress 2 was also made free-to-play via Steam, raising questions about whether Global Offensive will follow suit.

.

OnLive has the potential to change the way that we interact with Games; doing away with the physical purchase of the latest titles from shops, eradicating the need to wait on the mail-man, and eliminating the need for disks which we have the potential lose. This is what we all want, but is it want we need right now? A number of rather large and influential Games Publishers have already signed up to the service, so the backing is there, but is it practical in 2010?

.

OnLive is launching across America on the 17th June 2010 for both Mac and PC, costing the average user $14.95 per month for the basic use of the service, i.e. no gaming fun, just the ability to play games through OnLive, or to watch others via live streams. The ‘purchasing’ or ‘renting’ of Games from the service will then cost extra, a further cost which is apparently a necessary offset due to the licensing demands of the various titles available. Upon release, OnLive will only be available to users within America, however if the service is successful there is no doubt that OnLive will gradually expand to cover the globe. The concept behind OnLive is very simple, you subscribe to their service and then you play games which are – for all intents and purposes – ‘their games’, made available to you on license through the Internet, effectively doing away with the need for expensive hardware or high-end computer systems on your end. Theoretically, the only requirement  is a high-speed Internet connection, as all that hard work is performed via the OnLive servers, and then streamed directly to you. Sounds brilliant, right? Well yeah, it’s almost is! However, there’s a couple of problems with this delivery model.

.

From a developing point of view, OnLive most certainly does seem to be the future, but this new development comes with a caveat. Is the Internet infrastructure that is currently in place, capable of dealing with such a high load? When PC Hardware is out of the picture, and the user is effectively playing the Game via their Internet connection, lag becomes a far greater concern, and OnLive will need to tackle this head-on or risk being branded a dead-end venture.

.

More importantly for you guys trying to play these games through your Internet connection, think back to how you currently play games online now. Lag is a big problem, but at least your inputs are still queued up on your system. With OnLive, all the inputs from the simple, such as moving the camera, to the more complex, like firing a weapon, will need to be sent to the server before they can be executed, which could pretty much render a game unplayable if the Internet connection between the two isn’t up to scratch. From a users point-of-view, background Internet usage such as downloading or others sharing the Internet connection could have an adverse affect on your ability to play the games you’ve paid for.

.

As I’ve already suggested, if the OnLive servers cannot deal with the incredible demand needed in order to stream HD quality games to a multitude of users at the same time, then there’s gonna be quite a few unhappy customers out there. As a result, the first month or so OnLive could very well hold the key to its rapid growth or its shocking demise.

.

The final problem I’m going to associate with OnLive in this article is regarding your ownership of the Games you’ve paid for. As things currently stand, when you’ve bought a game for your Xbox 360, PS3, Wii or PC you physically own it, paying for a physical copy entitles you to take a backup for yourself, and continue to use the product months, or years, down the line. When you purchase titles via OnLive instead, you’re not in physical control of what you’ve bought. This isn’t a problem if OnLive remains as a viable medium on which to play the latest titles, but if OnLive does tank completely, and the service ceases to exist, then your purchase goes with it. It’s for this reason alone that I personally don’t think that OnLive will be a big threat to the current methods of obtaining your games.

The Blur Beta went live last night at 10:00pm GMT, and is already demonstrating Blur to be a rather interesting game. Albeit a little repetitive, it would be unreasonable to judge this book by it’s rather flashy and colourful cover, as we’ve only been treated to a single racetrack at this moment in time. However, if things don’t improve by release, Blur‘s repetitive nature could be seen to be its downfall. After spending a little time with the game thus far, I can already begin to see why it’s not gained as much hype as you would normally expect – simply put, Blur is Mario Kart after being fused with Need for Speed. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a pretty winning combination, but it’s nothing spectacularly original, and it’s for this reason that some gamers might very well switch off at this point.

.

Innovative? I think not. Fun? Hell yeah!

.

From a visual perspective, Blur is rather spectacular. The game has borrowed heavily from the Need For Speed design gallery, which is particularly prevalent from the inner city tracks, flawlessly recreated and well-lit, whilst car damage is demonstrated rather effectively from bent bumpers, to lost spoilers and even extending to heavily smoking engines; once the damage gets critical. Furthermore, the interaction between cars and the hectic pace of the game is only improved by the fact that Blur looks so darn great. Clearly designed to be as asthetically pleasing as possible, Blur is a visual feast for the eyes. Heck, even the box art looks nice!

With regards to the game play though, Blur appears to fall a little short. It’s not quite Mario Kart, it’s not quite Need for Speed, and it’s not quite Burnout (another critically-acclaimed title Blur appears to have borrowed heavily from) which leaves me wondering what gaming-market Blur is hoping to deploy into – it’s a little hazy at best. Furthermore, how on earth do you define a gaming hybrid such as this one? The weapons system is quite evidently taken from Mario Kart, and whilst this works rather well, it’s nothing new. Evidently the arsenal of weapons has been adapted slightly to appeal to the more mature gaming audience, but the basic premise remains very much the same. Moreover, The car design and handling is almost a direct port of Need for Speed, as even tuned cars with the highest of stats will handle a corner like a 18 wheeler. Oh, and while we’re at it, the gravity defying jumps and constant carnage look like they would be more at home within the Burnout series.

Before I continue though, I think it’s only fair to point out that I’m actually quite a fan of this game, I’m just a little disappointed thus far that Blur hasn’t managed to break away from the other games that it’s so evidently built upon. Despite it’s borrowing from other critically acclaimed titles though, Blur really is a lot of fun. And it’s easy to pick up and play for the first time too. Within 5 minutes of starting up the game, I had already won my first race. Now whilst I’ll admit that the majority of the win must be given to pot luck and my constant gunning for speed boosts, it did make me feel right at home straight away. It dawned on me after my first win though, that Blur doesn’t reward you for stealing pole position…

It wasn’t until after my win, that I discovered that there’s a great deal more to this game than cruising your way into 1st place. In fact, unlike the Burnout series, coming first isn’t really a deal breaker for when the smoke finally settles. You can obtain a great deal more points by maintaining a position within the middle of the pack, with the destruction and wreckage of other players as your end goal. Blur is clearly designed as a fast paced racer, but the meat of the game (and the point at which it stands away from the crowd) can be found by using the various powerups to destroy your opponents. Don’t get me wrong, it’s always a buzz to come first, but it’s even more of a thrill to slam an opponent into a wall, rendering their car a useless crumpled mess of debris, thus allowing you to claw your way up the grid, opponent by opponent. It’s even more fun when you know the person your racing against too.

The absence of other road users on the tracks is something that I hope is changed by the time Blur is released in mid May, as although there is a great deal going on at any one time, the tracks are so immersive and well designed that it just seems unrealistic that there wouldn’t be motorists on the road who could get caught up in all the frantic racing.

Most PC gamers will happily agree (or at the very least, accept) that Counter Strike, and too Counter Strike:Source, are two of the best, all round, actively played FPS titles in the history of PC gaming. You’ve got to question though, is the series beginning to show it’s age?

From a graphical perspective, the original gaming phenomenon of CounterStrike 1.6 is dead in the water. Yup, those graphics looked a little dated even when they first arrived, and now in 2010, considering the series has by now spanned two decades, gamers need just that little bit more. Most of those ‘hardcore game buff’ types will scream at you until they’re blue in the face that to real gamers, “graphics don’t matter!”, but we all know deep down on some level that they do. Pretty things are.. Well they’re pretty, and pretty is good. There’s a reason we don’t play Half Life 1 anymore, and it’s not just because Half Life 2 is most definitely better. Who wants to play with an ageing dog, when there’s a two week old puppy bounding about? I know it’s a poor analogy, but I also know I’m right.

As time has shown us, natural progression to a new gaming engine coupled with incredible popularity led to the development of CounterStrike Source (CSS) which, as I mentioned previously, is one of the most actively played titles on PC today. It might surprise some readers to discover that CSS is in fact now approaching 6 years of age, and I’m sure the majority would agree that although game graphics have developed significantly over time, CSS “don’t look half bad!”, all things considered.

Perhaps it is for this reason alone that VALVe (the development team behind the CounterStrike series) are reluctant to release a sequel. The fact that CSS, and to a lesser degree Counter Strike 1.6, still have such an avid following could go some way to show that a sequel isn’t needed. Alternatively, perhaps the fact that a newer, more improved source engine has not yet been released could be the primary factor. If VALVe ever get round to producing a Half Life 3, this could indeed bring with it a Counter Strike: What-Have-You.

It’s also important to note that CSS was never intended to be released as a stand alone game, a potential explanation behind the lack of new content. Counter-Strike Source was originally intended to be bundled with Half Life 2, providing gamers of the time with not only a fantastic multiplayer element found in CSS, but also the episodic continuation continuation of the Half Life story, all for one price. Either way, due to it’s popularity and success, CounterStrike Source is now available as a stand alone title, purchasable from the Steam Network for under £10 – Bargain. With regards to its roots, I’m not sure whether it’s to do with rising piracy rates within the gaming community, or whether game developers just aren’t the generous types these days, but what was once a common occurance of smaller sub-games bundled within purchases has dwindled rather spectacularly over the past few years. In 2010, you should consider yourself lucky to even grab yourself a free code for some DLC bundled with your game.

Although we are yet to be treated to fourth CounterStrike installment, there have been numerous attempts by third-parties to cash in on the gaming-phenomenon. There have been literally dozens of attempts to copy the winning game play of CounterStrike, in fact, some third-party developers have downright stolen the maps ! Not mentioning any names; ‘Cross Fire’.

Is there a future for the series, or has the overwhelming success of the Call of Duty series finished off CounterStrike for good? Honestly, I’m not sure. I guess only time will tell.

The concept of a ‘lets play’ is essentially where a hardcore gamer records their experience of a game, whilst jabbering away like a madman; providing a sort of game-orientated-commentary alongside the visual treat of new gameplay footage. I’ve found someone who is not only quite amusing, but also appears to have both the time and the money to play just about any game he wants. Jealous much?

Not only that, but this guy also appears to have a blindingly fast internet connection, and also gives the impression that he does everything right the first time, resulting in limited editing necessary post recording, and rather quick uploading of his videos. He also covers a wide variety of games, from the latest releases to old forgotten classics, working alongside a requests system, allowing his viewers to shape the course of his lets play videos. I’ve provided a couple of his YouTube account stats below for those who aren’t quite convinced yet;

In case you haven’t clicked on one of those links yet, the YouTube user in question is in fact one ‘Arm4g3dd0nX‘, who has been shamelessly plugged no end in this article. What can I say, I’m a big fan of his work! I’ve also attached the first real episode of his Fear 2 playthrough as I remember this lets play in particular to have been quite impressive.

-

Minimum System Requirements:

Processor - Intel Pentium IV or equivalent (1.2GHz+)
Operating System - Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7
Memory - 512MB Ram
Video Card - ATI Radeon 7200 or NVIDIA GeForce 2 equivalent
Hard Drive Space - 15GB free

Recommended System Requirements:

Processor - Intel Pentium D or equivalent (2.0GHz+)
Operating System - Windows XP , Windows Vista, Windows 7
Memory - 2048MB Ram
Video Card - ATI Radeon X1600 or NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT equivalent
Hard Drive Space - 15GB free

The full specsheet can be viewed here. Mac users at present are out of luck, sorry. I guess Windows wins this one.