Being both a Source player and a member of a community largely based around Counter-Strike: Source, it is hard not to notice the almost constant flow of communal negativity. As a community, we have made up our minds about the growth, function and life of Source.
 
Apparently, it is dead; I am not so convinced.

Counter-Strike: Source, to put it truthfully, is an online gaming phenomenon. When it was first released on January 7th 2004, it exploded off store shelves and into the PC’s of hundreds and thousands of whiny, lonely teenagers.

After its initial buying craze died down, it steadily grew till about 2006/2007, where it boomed again with the giant Championship Gaming Series (CGS) competition. Regrettably, CGS was made well before it’s time, and after the Series' demise, CS naturally slowed in its growth; however there is still a steady rise in its playing populace today.

As I write this, it’s interesting to note how difficult it is to research Source’s past. The fact is, CS:S doesn’t really have much of a history yet; There’s the CGS, and the individual scandals surrounding teams such as 3D and Craig “Torbull” Levine. There was that time Valve implemented a dynamic weapon buying system, which was devastating to the growth of the game and was promptly removed. There was some local news coverage in America over children leaving school to take up professional gaming and also a couple of murders that, suggested by Brazilian and American courts, were allegedly ‘inherently linked to games such as Counter-Strike: Source’.

I can count these events on just one of my hands, and that’s the way it should be. It’s only been six years, and that’s a very good six years. The only other FPS games that attempt to play a part in competitive gaming history are brought to the fore not through smooth and dynamic game-play, nor through interesting design and format but through shiny graphics, advertising and use of the very same formula-of-success CS created years before.

Source’s ‘big daddy’, and still major competitor, “Counter-Strike 1.6”, is eleven as of this year (twelve, in some people’s beta-mod books). CS 1.6 is a game that has revolutionised what good first person shooters are. It dramatically changed the way we view ‘eSports’ and paved the way for not just a niche, but a culture of gamers who would one day find employment as well as enjoyment in an electronic world.

What does this mean for the “Source is dead” argument? Where does it stem from? And in that case, what the hell is the “Source is dead” argument?!

As far as I can tell, the “Source is dead” statement is given primarily as a bitter one liner, and after posting and browsing CS Community forums based overseas, it’s pretty much an Australia based assertion. It’s commonly chucked on the end of arrogant rage fests towards ‘newer’ community members, or at least that’s how it started. It stems from a disenchanted feeling towards not the game, nor its popularity, but rather our community surrounding it. Amongst other things, it has a twisted sense of pride attached to it, as if those who make the claim were part of Source in the ‘Glory Days’ or something equally pretentious, childish and clichéd.

Over the past week or so I have asked various community members on how they feel towards the statement “Source is dead”. It’s a pretty mixed bag of opinion, and more often than not, total disagreement from those who like to use the line every now and then. There seems to be a large emphasis on how often teams die and how long they remain in CEVO. Also, there is a strong sense that “All the good players are leaving or left.” No wonder; we keep telling them how shit they are, how shit everyone else is, and shit - how Source is dead!

I can’t think of a more confusing set of circumstances. An Australian Source player’s career is one of abuse, false bravado, insecurities and then some more abuse. We think nothing of the people we spend so many late nights with. They are faceless machines that react to our awe-inspiring internet-presence. This is consistently reinforced through the uncommonly severe banter and the other communal-destructive tendencies the ‘older’ members of the community foster and the younger members imitate.
Does anyone else see the implicit link between our attitude and the continued success of our community?

The other side of the argument is something more intrinsic to humanity I think.

We get older.

I’m not going to lie, Counter-Strike does not pull me the same way that it did when I was 13, and this is going to happen for everyone. The key to Counter-Strike’s success is that it doesn’t rely on the conventional computer game playing scenario. This is why, even at 20 years of age, I still find myself being drawn to the competitive and social nature of the sport of Counter-Strike. As players of CS, we appreciate the technical nature of the game; however this gradually deteriorates with proficiency and age. The social nature of the game is what keeps players playing for years, and without it, Source will die.

The fact we get older impacts CS in another way. While we get older and some of us leave, others who are younger join the ranks of Aus Sourcians (I made that term up). People who are 17 operate very differently to people who are 13, and it shows in the way we relate to each other online. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but obviously the amount of banter and abuse we give towards our younger and newer members is counter-productive. Likewise, the fact we are online and appear to be faceless entities does not give our newer and younger members permission to act like shit-flinging monkeys. When did banter become abuse? When did it shift from friendly competitive word-jousting between mates, to quasi-death threats between total strangers?

We whine and stamp our feet dejectedly at the “Death of Source” but in my opinion the only way Source will die is if you keep re-affirming its demise. The statistics testify that Source is not only surviving but is also full of life, growing and evolving still. It’s evolving in its game-play and complexity, growing in its recognition and community. In my opinion, Source will survive for as long as people want it to; what scares me is I think a lot of people agree with that statement, and are still happy to say “Source is dead”.

Written by pala for GotGames