On January 06 2010 00:59 GosI[Terran] wrote: its faster than CS u die alot mroe easier than CS and snipe requires much more skill than in CS thats basically all diference
How do you die faster in SA than in CS? You get shot in the head...you die with 1 bullet. Also explain how sniping requires MUCH more skill than in cs? Have you played CS at a high level? Using the AWP in 1.6 is extremely hard when going against top players.
If you are gonna argue at least provide statements that back up the garbage you just posted.
The main reason why I dislike SA is because you can accurately shoot while running. It barely takes off your accuracy, something that CS preserves, and that's why I like it better.
i played this game back in 2007. it was full of glitchers and people who somehow managed to get beneath the map or inside the walls to make themselves invulnerable.
Starsiege Tribes, hardest FPS in my opinion. Fucking miss that game so much (it pretty much defined team play that you'd see in UT later on, vehicles and all). So ahead of its time to. To much of a learning curve to get new people introduced so it was killed by its own difficulty, that and the 3rd iteration of it was poorly done slop.
Also, it came out same year as SC; that makes it automatically awesome.
On January 06 2010 01:26 Piy wrote: Both games are good people. The physics are very different in each and the skill sets required are moderately different.
People saying they played SA and thought it sucked compared to 1.6 are probably just unused to the different mechanics. And the people comparing it to MW2...that game is lol bad competetively.
read my nickname, I know about games, my best friend is a video game designer, MW2 is the best fps of 2009.
Your nickname and your best friend being a game designer hardly qualifies for knowledge of games. Also, he said competetively, which means it could still very well be the best fps of 2009.
I agree. MW2 single player was insanely sick but multiplayer is way too ez and i dont see the game going anywhere great competitively.
On January 06 2010 01:26 Piy wrote: Both games are good people. The physics are very different in each and the skill sets required are moderately different.
People saying they played SA and thought it sucked compared to 1.6 are probably just unused to the different mechanics. And the people comparing it to MW2...that game is lol bad competetively.
read my nickname, I know about games, my best friend is a video game designer, MW2 is the best fps of 2009.
Your nickname and your best friend being a game designer hardly qualifies for knowledge of games. Also, he said competetively, which means it could still very well be the best fps of 2009.
On January 06 2010 09:41 Kenpachi wrote: rofl how the fuck do you die faster in some other game that isnt CS CS is like auto death
Try OPF, ARMA(2). I've watched some SA and it just bores me to hell. I'm still sad that CS 1.6 is so much better then Source but I guess thats partialy due too nostalgia-goggles from my side. :/
On January 06 2010 09:41 Kenpachi wrote: rofl how the fuck do you die faster in some other game that isnt CS CS is like auto death
I've watched some SA and it just bores me to hell. I'm still sad that CS 1.6 is so much better then Source but I guess thats partialy due too nostalgia-goggles from my side. :/
No no no. Cs 1.6 IS better than source. Just less pretty.
On January 06 2010 09:41 Kenpachi wrote: rofl how the fuck do you die faster in some other game that isnt CS CS is like auto death
I've watched some SA and it just bores me to hell. I'm still sad that CS 1.6 is so much better then Source but I guess thats partialy due too nostalgia-goggles from my side. :/
No no no. Cs 1.6 IS better than source. Just less pretty.
On January 06 2010 09:07 Amarxist wrote: Starsiege Tribes, hardest FPS in my opinion. Fucking miss that game so much (it pretty much defined team play that you'd see in UT later on, vehicles and all). So ahead of its time to. To much of a learning curve to get new people introduced so it was killed by its own difficulty, that and the 3rd iteration of it was poorly done slop.
Also, it came out same year as SC; that makes it automatically awesome.
Isn't it that game where people could practically fly and stuff? I think I saw an old youtube video about it. Seemed really interesting.
On January 06 2010 02:24 ffswowsucks wrote: guys saying that MW2 isnt competitive, did u actually set up a clanmatch 5v5 like they do in CS tourneys or u just play online TDM alone in ur room. Cause its a big difference to play on LAN 5v5 than play online alone.
Any fps with auto-aim like MW2 wont go far competively, for the console atleast. However for the PC, i still dont see it becoming as popular as CS is.
On January 06 2010 09:07 Amarxist wrote: Starsiege Tribes, hardest FPS in my opinion. Fucking miss that game so much (it pretty much defined team play that you'd see in UT later on, vehicles and all). So ahead of its time to. To much of a learning curve to get new people introduced so it was killed by its own difficulty, that and the 3rd iteration of it was poorly done slop.
Also, it came out same year as SC; that makes it automatically awesome.
Isn't it that game where people could practically fly and stuff? I think I saw an old youtube video about it. Seemed really interesting.
edit:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8n_lrVtcj0
Ahh i loved Tribes and it was indeed hard. Too bad it didnt pick up as much as i hoped.
EPT
