6rays 最近的评测

Let's show them who we are.


After having been under development for over a decade, Counter Strike: Global Offensive provides a platform for competition like no other. With grenades and an extensive ensemble of weaponry, the game makes it quite easy for a player to immerse themselves in ruthless, tactical and competitive play. After all, that’s what Counter-Strike is in a nutshell: a tactical multiplayer first person shooter.


Counter-Strike has a simple premise; minutes to learn but a lifetime to master. There are two teams. One team is known as the terrorists, and the other as the counter-terrorists. The terrorists have two main objectives. One is to plant their bomb in one of two bombsites, defend it from defusal, and ensure that the bomb detonates. Their secondary objective is to eliminate all opposing players. If either objective is achieved, they win the round. At this point, it’s worth mentioning that Counter-Strike is played in rounds, which can be thought of as points. The best of 30 rounds wins the game. Now, back to the counter-terrorists. Counter-terrorists can also win rounds by eliminating all opposing players; although their primary goal is to defend the bombsites and retake a bombsite when captured. They do this to ensure that the bomb is not planted, yet when it is, their main objective is then to defuse the bomb as fast as possible. Both teams are put under various time strains. The terrorists having to plant before 2 minutes pass, and the counter-terrorists having 45 seconds to defuse once the bomb has been planted.

Eliminating and protecting bombsites isn’t easy with your bare fists. As was mentioned, Counter-Strike is a first person shooter, with a widespread repertoire of guns to prove it. At the beginning of the round, teams (5 versus 5) have to purchase these guns with money earned from eliminating other players and winning rounds. (Don’t worry, you still get some money for losing.) This is the second element and level to the game: managing money along with managing your team's economy. Counter-Strike is just as much about hitting headshots as it is about working with numbers. It’s a tactical first person shooter for a reason.

Yet, don't be fooled by the simplicity of the premise. There's always something to learn.


Along with memorizing the common vocabulary of the game -- called “call-outs” -- and mastering distinct spray patterns, new players will have a lot to learn. Consider this your warning. They have to learn the characteristics and nuisances of each firearm. They have to learn how to dance around grenades as well as deal damage with them. They have to learn how to manage an economy or negotiate with differing, conflicting personas (sometimes both at the same time!). There’s always some skill to work on, even for me, a thousand hours in. And that in essence, is the strength of Counter-Strike. The capacity for skill. However, this strength is also Counter-Strike's downfall. Counter-Strike is unforgiving in it’s bombardment of new players with new information. The same reason why Counter-Strike is a such great game is also why it’s so unforgiving to new-comers: its capacity for skill.

Intimidated? No worries! There are more gamemodes for the lighter hearted, as well as an impressive, bubbling community. With a casual gamemode to counter Counter-Strike’s natural competitive nature, comes a host of other ways to hone your skills: Arms Race, Deathmatch and Demolition. While all have their own valuable qualities, they are nothing compared to the favored gamemode: Competitive. Competitive being the most serious gamemode, having direct impact on your rank. Your rank being a rough interpretation of your skill, which you rank up and derank down depending on your performance. With there being 18 ranks, there’s always something to work towards. And as you hone your skills, you can rise the ladder of ranks, gaining the respect of your fellow comrades.

So far I’ve been highlighting how Counter-Strike is a skill-based game with an intimidating learning curve for new-comers. While all of that is true, it’s also important to remember Counter-Strike is also a team-based game, involving an unprecedented amount of coordination and communication. You are playing alongside people. You are a team. Steam may ask for $15 to purchase this game, but there are more expenses. You have to have a decent microphone in order to give critical information to your teammates about the whereabouts of your opponents. You need to be able to converse about strategy with strangers. The game asks for good communication just as much as it asks for good aim. Never let ego tell you otherwise. This is what makes Counter-Strike revolutionary in its premise. Never before has a video game had the platform for this amount of communication and coordination to be exchanged. CS teaches good aim just as much as it teaches how to negotiate with conflicting personalities.

Counter-Strike’s appeal doesn’t stop in the client. The community has branched off in a number of ways. Coming back to Counter-Strike’s capacity for skill, there is a professional scene for the serious CS players. You can spectate them to learn from the best, or bet on them to show you know who’s best. You win virtual cosmetic gun “skins” in return. Ahh yes, Counter-Strike has firearm cosmetics. Some players focus on collecting an extensive repertoire of weapon finishes (valued with real money), rather than focus on the competitive aspect. There are rare weapon finishes, as well as common ones. All of which are found in cases which you unlock with keys, priced at $2.50. Just another way Counter-Strike engages a whole other community of players.


Before you buy the game (which you should nonetheless), I have to equip you with a few concerns. Due to the extensive nature of Counter-Strike’s community, there are toxic players in the mix. Being anonymous doesn’t bring out the best in human nature as we all know. The toxic and the trolls are the same players who wish to be heard and felt more than anyone. But don’t let these players deter you from purchasing an amazing experience. I assure you the toxic players are only a fraction of the community. At times it can feel they are much more than a fraction, depending on your temperament. But that’s just another skill to hone in Counter-Strike: keeping cool and collected. I’d argue there is a quiet majority of players who have respectable values and morals, but who aren’t willing to tamper with toxic player's twisted ego. They just tend to keep quiet. Don’t let a personal anecdote ruin the how much Counter-Strike GO has to offer.

Toxicity isn’t the only concern you should carry unfortunately. Again, because Counter-Strike is a skill-based game, hackers have been known to be prevalent. In recent events Valve has banished a lot of offenders, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t lurking and toggling. Just remember when you ‘accept’ to a game, you are accepting to any possible hackers or toxic players that come with it. But again, don't let these concerns ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.


Having consistently played this game on daily basis for a year now, I could keep writing till my fingers bruised themselves bloody. But the fact of the matter is this. $15 is a miniscule amount to pay for a game that offers this level of competition, capacity of skill, team-based coordination and well, fun. Don't wait to buy one of the best games on Steam for your buck.

Brilliant and beautifully executed. 10/10.

In The Stanley Parable, the player takes on the role of a man simply named Stanley. Stanley’s job is just as simple as his name: an average everyday office worker. The only thing that sounds more boring than Stanley’s job and name, are his job requirements: press certain buttons as directed by a computer monitor. But don’t let this boring premise deter you from this game, it’s brilliant beyond measure.

Despite sounding mindless, Stanley has a passion for his boring office job. Such a mindless passion, that when the orders stop coming in for him to press buttons from the monitor, he waits an entire hour beginning to question the lack of instruction. It’s this lack of instruction that causes Stanley to become self aware for the first time in his career (and possibly his life), and drives the beginning of the game. It also helps him notice other strange occurrences around the office and makes him ask questions. Where did my co-workers go? Did I miss a memo? Stanley finally has to make his own choices. He has to speak up. He has to think on his own. Where to I walk? What do I interact with? Stanley had been shielded from independent thinking his entire life it appears, all thanks to a computer monitor always telling him what to do. The choices and the independent thinking are where the finally player comes in, and where the excitement of the game is found. Or more accurately, the lack of choice is where the amusement is found. Mwahahahah. Ahem, carrying on.


Choices (and the lack of) are undoubtedly the cause of entertainment and humor in this game, but it’s the way these choices go hand-in-hand with the witty commentary that makes this game truly amusing. Wait, commentary? What commentary? I think it's a point of emphasis that I mention this a narration-driven game. When Stanley finally gains awareness, a narrator begins to narrate Stanley’s story audibly, remarking his thoughts and actions. The narrator is the one who woke up Stanley from his mindless slumber in the first place. He decides of what happens in the story just as much as the player does. Scratch that-- the narrator is an all powerful omnipotent being who limits the player in every thinkable way possible. That’s the point of the game in a nutshell.

The thrill of the game is toying with the soothing narrator, who comments on every action and choice the player makes, or for that matter, refuses to make. The narrator not only makes comments, but directs and eventually commands Stanley to go down certain passageways and up certain staircases. He wants to control Stanley as much as you yearn to rebel against him. The true amusement is resisting and compromising with the narrator when he directs you to go down a hallway or through a door. In essence, that is the idea of the game. The struggle for control between the narrator of you and you-- No, not this door, I’ll go through this hallway instead. The narrator’s frustration and responses with his own character is hilarious and the most thought out part of this game.

The game has very little visual feedback and reinforcement, which can be it’s downfall and it’s strength depending on the person. In most cases, I’d call it a strength. The player can only interact with a handful of objects, which are limited to doors, computers and buttons. This is what makes The Stanley Parable a breath of fresh air. For the first time in my gaming experience, a game relies on the majority of it’s feedback being audible instead of visual. That’s a strikingly new concept despite how simple it is to implement and carry out.

If you like the Portal franchise or puzzle games like Antichamber, The Stanley Parable is comparable to a good mix of both, while still maintaining it’s own personality as a video game. The witty commentary and it’s amusement that comes with it draws an easy parallel between Portal and The Stanley Parable. If you like GLaDOS’s company, the game will do a excellent job of keeping you entertained. This game best caters to those who are willing to question everything in the room, and have an eye for patterns and details. The game has a total of 18 different endings depending on how you and the narrator get along, and how well you can think for yourself despite having limited alternatives to what the narrator says.


So what is this game lacking? Choice. Despite the fact lack of choice is one of the key features of the game, it’s nonetheless a bit too limited. The vast majority of doors go unlocked and sometimes the player feels very forced into complying with the narrator. Of course, it’s worth noting the game itself is a analysis on the state of choice in video games. In video games as a medium, we are often more limited with our choices than we care to admit. The Stanley Parable makes light of this. We tend to accept the premise prematurely often too much. We blindly accept the number of choices that are presented, are the number of choices there are. Even with that being the case, the game needs more endings. 18 endings is great, but I feel there is a perfect threshold for this game to capture so it can still make it’s point about the lack of choice, and have more choice. Perhaps I’m sour I’ve completed the game and found all the endings, but hey, who wouldn’t want to rebel against an omnipotent soothing narrator a little more?


Currently, The Stanley Parable goes for a decent $15 on Steam. At best, it will give you 7 hours of gameplay if you’re sure to analyze every detail. For the average player however, 3 hours is what’s expected. Due to the nature of the game, it’s a rainy day experience. And while it has brilliant commentary and thought-provoking critique on the nature of choice in video games, $15 is a bit much for a day’s worth of entertainment. I’d strongly recommend waiting for a sale, but if you love Portal and soothing voices, I can empathize if you can’t.