I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. Shooting threw walls and other aspects of the game is defiantly different between these two versions. Go watch some old eoLithic videos to truly understand what teamwork can do when you can shoot through paper thin walls.
2. Yes. TF2 mostly...with some battlefield sprinkled in there.
3. CS has its roots in competitive play. It has been regarded as the most skill/teamwork based FPS for a long time. I think people love it still because they are familiar with it.
4. Probably. Not sure if it will succeed though!
CS has always been one of my favorite games to watch. The teamwork and dedication it takes to become the best is very inspiring. I see this through rose colored glasses though...since it was one of my first glimpses into competitive E-sports. (this and quake 3 ^^)
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. I do not play 1.6 for those reasons, whilst graphics are among the least important things for me in a game, if I have a choice between pixellation and smooth nice graphics I know what I will go for. Also I started my CS life on Condition Zero, which is kind of inbetween the 1.6 and CS:S quality, was so happy when Source came along.
2. I play me some CoD4 every now and then, a lot of TF2 (as well as Crysis, Killing Floor and more). I would say I like CoD4 most as a true fps game, TF2 is purely for the lulz and relaxation due to the totally non serious nature of the game. CS:S is less serious and more fun for me, also I think is better suited to me. I don't really know how to say it but the player skins feel more rounded compared to the flatness of CoD, it's easier to be accurate and such. Maybe it's just because I played Condition Zero a hell of a lot when I was younger.
3. I haven't played Halo but I was under the impression it had kind of taken over the competitive fps scene, that said these days I really only play CS:S deathmatch or Warcraft Server as opposed to the competitive normal modes. I agree CS defusal/rescue/VIP modes do require more teamwork than many other fps games though, so perhaps that is the reason.
4. I don't think they need to at the moment, CS:S is fine imo, that said if they can take it in a new direction and enhance it in a somewhat unique way then sure, I'm all for it.
i played cs:s when it came out and competitively but it never compared to 1.6 which i still play. Shooting through walls and team play are hard to beat.
The only other fps I consider decent are battlefield & planetside. Nothing else compares to the skill level needed in cs 1.6.
personally I find all the other games to cater to casual players. example, spawn times on cod/halo.
I have only played the updated cs:s a few times but god is it horrific. They need a new counterstrike but who knows if they can pull it off.
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. I stuck with CS 1.6 over CSS just out of habit. Guns, maps, and graphics of CS 1.6 just felt more comfortable.
2. I play a bit of Halo. CoD campaign only. A bit of TF2 now and then. They're great games to take a step back from competitiveness and just shoot shit.
3. No other FPS is balanced for high level play, they don't encourage teamwork as much, and individual skill is lower as well. Halo is okay, but I don't like XBOX controller
4. I'm not sure if CS 1.6 and CSS are missing anything. They're fairly complete competitive FPS games, even their graphics are perfectly fine. Right now there is a split community between CSS and CS 1.6, and also a huge casual FPS community for CoD. If Valve makes a new FPS that could bring together all the old FPS communities, it could make FPS an esport.
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. played both, so can't really answer that question... 2. i play or played (or at least tried) pretty much every more or less famous fps that is out there - halo, battlefield, ut, cod, quake, hldm, tf, shattered horizon, bc, and so many more...i played also some competitive and semicompetitive and yeah, i prefer other fps over cs/css nowadays for quite a lot of different reasons 3. i don't really know how you messure the popularity of competitive games...but i can tell you that neither cs/css is the lonesome king of competitive fps nor is the reason why it is one of the games that is played by a wider audience, that other fps "lack of strategy and teamwork" - so sorry if idon't answer that question correctly but i think the question is wrong 4. i can guarantee you, that valve is working on a new fps to at least keep their community. so, answer to this is - yes
1. I played cs 1.6 competitively for years and even though I have source and play it occasionally in pubs I could never really play it competitively because it just feels like an inferior game. The mechanics and the feel of the game just felt like a dumbed down more randomized version of 1.6. It's hard to describe all the differences without typing a whole essay so ill just give you a link to this ss which sums it up pretty well. + Show Spoiler +
http://img833.imageshack.us/i/sourceisbad.jpg/
2. I've played other fps games but only casually, actually just recently bought Black Ops and I'm having fun pubbing in it but again wouldn't want to play it competitively, the gameplay is just too cluttered compared to 1.6.
3. Most of those other games are made with too much extra junk and realism and randomness to really work competitively, and on top of that when they release a new game every 6 months it makes it hard to have a scene build up before everyone switches to the next thing.
I haven't played since a rather unproductive LAN in the fall of 2007, I only played with one group of guys off and on for five years and I was quite tired of them after they refused to practice for the event. I didn't expect to win, just.. would have been nice to make it out of the first round because our best player hadn't gone for a knife in a 1v1 with 10 seconds left on the bomb in the pistol round..
1) I dislike just about everything about CS:S, from the maps and mechanics such as shooting through walls as mentioned to the way the guns work. CS is very much a blank canvas with no pretense for realism, from patch to patch the complaints were always when anything didn't work exactly as expected.
2) Not really. I played CoD1 and CoD4, didn't care for either much. I thought TF2 was brilliantly designed, but I abhor capture the flag, pubbing and never felt the desire to get into scrimming it. I really loathe the direction FPS games are going, from perks and ranks to gimmicky abilities.
3) The blank canvas thing. CS is not forcing an ultra-realistic environment with tons of variables. The simplicity of the models and maps is its strength.
4) There doesn't seem to be much money in appealing to the hard core crowd in any genre, the money is in the casual, gimmicky stuff. Valve seems to be tweaking CS:S to be more like CoD and TF2, not more like CS.
As an aside, while I have adored CS 1.5 and 1.6 since the fall of 2002, I have never, ever understood its appeal outside of team play, the unmodified experience at any rate. There was never anything more painful to me than a server with default settings (5 minute rounds primarily) on the popular maps (cs_assault and de_dust).
1. I play CS 1.6 because I don't have a machine capable of running Source .
2. I've been trying Quake Live as well and I'm getting merked in that game. I prefer CS.
3. I dunno. I thought Quake had a big following too. My guess is that CS has the best foundation set for a competitive FPS, whereas most others have too many gimmicks or fundamental flaws to basic/advanced gameplay. Skill gaps are also very noticeable, which is important for a competitive FPS.
Also, for (important) differences between Source and 1.6, I highly recommend Jonathan Menard's videos; he breaks elements down pretty well. You can start here:
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. CS1.6 requires more skill, flashes smokes and nades are all part of strategy (eg; nades deal damage through walls, flashes only work if you see them and smokes are different to source in color and stuff). Also you can shoot through walls and there aren't as many details (such as in source there are trees and all sorts of stuff to make it real)
2. I play Quake Live, QL requires much more strategy than CS/CSS (excluding clan arena since it's too fast paced for CS), but it is a 1v1 Duel game where Quake Dominates the FPS genre as the most skillful FPS game.
3. Other FPS games aren't as successful probably because CS is the original FPS game that defined the fps genre with crosshairs and real military style gameplay.
4. Valve might not be working on it or might be, but it's called Tactical Intervention, being developed by the original CS developer.
1. I played since 1.3 but I do not play in a team (never looked for teams tbh) so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I prefer CS:S over 1.6 as there are more server for it where I am from and 5v5 scrims for cs 1.6 arent as active as cs:s on gotgames.com.au servers.
2. I never played HALO, I play BF2 and Bad Company 2 but I do not think that those games can be very competitive due to poor hit mechanics and jets/vehicles. I played MW 1 and 2. Do not like those games, specially black ops, it seems to be based solely on super-fast run around action with quick respawn timers and the whole run run run jump prone and shoot your opponents thing is a little offputting (at least for me). I also play TF2, its pretty fun and there are quiet alot of different teams competing.
3. I probably would have to say it is because that for its time in 2000s it was THE game to play (besides quake/ut), I used to spend my weekends at netcafes in Melbourne, there were about 40-60 PCs with speakers and EVERY SINGLE pc had counter-strike, I tell you, it is something to hear CS being played at full blast in a room with 40+ pc's.
1. I've played Counter-Strike since 1.3. While 1.6 came with some disappointment to the community, it eventually took over as the dominant version of the game. When there was talk about CS:S, the community was excited, but upon release, the game had more flaws and errors than anyone could care for. The largest complaint about 1.6 on release was hit boxes. CS:S likewise, had unbelievably terrible hit boxes. The whole feel of the game felt off, compared to the crisp clean feel of 1.6. Another major problem I have with CS:S is the fact that it split the gaming community. Professional CS players were forced to transition to the new version of the game or lose sponsors. Then, after literally years of disappointed pro-gamers playing CS:Source, they returned to play 1.6 competitively once more, however, the community scene was so dissolved compared to what it used to be. CS:S is built upon a glitchy environment that might seem pretty, but lacks the clean cut simplistic environment needed for professional play.
2. Yes, I play other FPS, including: Quake, TFC, TF2, COD4, L4D2, DoD, DoD:S. No, as far as competitive play goes for FPS, CS 1.6 will always be the pinnacle of FPS games. I have yet to play a FPS game that is as difficult or interesting as competitive CS is. It's actually very disappointing how easy it is for someone who's good at CS to be god like at any of these other terrible versions of FPS, especially the COD4 series. I play Black Ops for a week and top frag with 10:1 kd ratios like it's no bodies business. The skill cap between CS and other FPS is frightening.
3. Competitive CS is built off of teamwork, intelligence, strategy, and experience. Other FPS games have low skill caps, allowing players with far less skill to be able to participate on a closer level to the better players. Things like kill-streaks, ridiculous weapon add ons, etc. all push for a unbalanced type of game play. If you wanted to be great at CS, you needed to put in time/effort/practice. If you want to be good at other FPS (mostly referring to COD BO/MW2) simply set up the right "class" to play. One of the other important differences among CS and other FPS is the economy system. You're not simply given a weapon, you have to earn it. This concept makes for very very interesting strategies.
4. Valve had talked about making a new version of counter-strike, specifically to satisfy the competitive CS 1.6 players that were disappointed with CS:Source. They planned to call it Counter-Strike Online. The community became upset with waiting and tried to produce their own version, aka, CS Pro Mod. It failed miserably. The truth is, the longer Valve waits, the less likely this game is to ever come out, and second, the less chance it would be likely to succeed with the community. There was a new game being produced by the same person who created Counter-Strike called Tactical Intervention, but last I heard this game was in beta, and that was two years ago.
Final thoughts: I long for their to be another FPS that's on the same level as Counter-Strike, but I don't see it happening again. Right now, gaming companies are producing games that everyone has a chance to be somewhat good at, and they could really careless as far as the competitive scene is concerned. Lets take a peek at some of the more recent FPS games that fail to meet basic requirements for play:
They release MW2 without servers, letting hackers literally take over the entire online play. It was almost impossible to join a game and not see 1-2 players aimbotting/wall hacking. The absence of servers led to an inability to establish a community, and thus the game failed for the competitive scene.
Now Black Ops: PC gamers were promised servers, however, you can't group up and join a server as a party. Once again, crippling the ability for competitive players to establish some form of community. Some servers had special requirements, like barebone weapons, or no noob tube, etc. But the interface doesn't allow you to change classes while in an actual game. You must disconnect, fix your class, and reconnect, while hoping your slot hasn't been taken, and hoping you can still locate the server, because until the game was patched, you couldn't even join through friends.
Left4Dead2: Worst match making system in the history of games. It was unbelievably laggy. Nearly impossible to fill up an actual 8 man party. No servers. The software for functional/coherent microphone usage was hardly there. The sad part is, it's actually a great/fun game to play, if you can actually manage to form up a team, pray for decent latency, and somehow get the microphones to function properly.
TF2: My biggest problem with this game is that it manipulates users into purchasing items/weapons/hats... in order to be better then others, or look cooler. Since when did team oriented games became about who has the most actual money? It's a bit depressing to see that this game, from what I've heard from the majority of players, is basically about getting hats.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but you should never ask a counter strike player whether or not they prefer 1.6 or source. I've been playing CS for over 10 years, competitively for around 5, and there is never a definite answer for that question. Those who play 1.6 will argue that source has terrible hitboxes and is completely random and an easier version of the game. Those who play source will argue that 1.6 is stupid because you can shoot and grenade people through solid walls and is more about who can do more damage through a three foot thick stone wall rather than legitimately kill someone. Coming from a competitive standpoint, the question 1.6 or source hardly ever comes down to source has better graphics so I will play that game.
I personally play source, and I tend to not play any other FPS on the computer so it won't affect my muscle memory that is necessary in competitive play.
From what I've heard CS:S has stronger roots in NA then in Europe and Asia. The euro scene has been dominating the 1.6 scene for as long as i can remember but there are some good NA teams to. I've only played Source competitively but I prefer to watch 1.6. Even tho the grapichs are outdated it still produces the moste epic games.
1. CS:S was a joke on release. Buggy hit boxes, broken physics (getting killed by flying debris was retarded) and a lower skill cap (wall banging people is an art).
2. I played competitive Natural Selection (another half life mod sort of like a CS/SC hybrid) and TF1 UT Quake 3. All the new Halo/CoD games are garbage for competitive play compared to those classics. Seriously, any FPS specifically designed around having a joystick as your primary means of aiming is retarded.
3. CS came out at a time when Lans were popular. It was cheap, had low system reqs and great gameplay/replayability all rolled into one. That couple with a high skill cap and great teamwork and competitive scenes made for a very popular game.
4. If valve made a game that was as good as CS1.5 (not 1.6) and had support for the community I'd definately play.
1. 2. No 3. The wallshooting and perfect precision when aiming makes it a natural arena for the pros imo. 4. Probably, something along the lines of cs 1.6 with better graphics or some FPSMMO
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
Ive played both Competitively CS 1.6 with teams (1st~, GB, ECO), CS:S (ECO, VG) all pretty much top teams at one point, so I believe I have some understanding of both games or atleast a good opinion... CS 1.6 flowed a lot better, the game felt crisper, faster and the hitboxes were bang on most of the time depending on lag. As for source, the game felt slower, not because of better graphics just in general it didnt have the same netcode or feel as CS 1.6. I finished my CS days off with source, because at the time more tournaments were switching over; not sure now adays I know teams still play 1.6 and source, i guess it depends on what big name tournaments happen and what they choose? I remember WCG had qualifiers one year in 1.6 and the grand finals were in source... or vice versa cant remember.. but that was messed up.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
Yes I played COD and halo, not competitively, but more just for fun. Both games compared to CS are slow; HALO for sure is slow and COD just doesnt have the same teamwork imo.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
Umm HALO is very very competive most likely more then CS if not on par with it; as MLG and other big name companies have held numerous HALO tournaments. Peronsonally though HALO is a console game, and CS is a PC game; both are different. CS i find allowed more teamwork, it was if you get killed your team is down instantly etc. In halo i guess you respawn etc.
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
No i doubt they will, the closest new game that looks to be like CS was COD MW2; or perhaps Crysis 2 when that comes out?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
I played CSS first, then tried to get into 1.6 when I heard all the 8 year veterans bitching and moaning about Source.....but, tbh, they are just being nostalgiac. The "hitboxes are terrible" argument was only true for about the first year of release, the random recoil patterns got mostly fixed a couple years ago, and pretty much any other argument is just people that have played the same game for 10 years refusing to change just out of principle. CSS is a very solid competitive game, and if the 1.6'ers would wake up a realize their game is completely 100% never going to go anywhere, the whole FPS community would be a lot better off.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
I LOVE Quake Live/Q3. Best FPS ever made, imo. I got into it really heavy right after the beta came out and got pretty decent, up to a point where I could compete with some of the heavy hitters in CTF. It is ridiculously skill-based, however, and a single amazing player can completely take over a game, unlike CS, where teamwork is generally more important. Plus the QL competitive scene revolves around duel......which is 1 v 1, lol. It is so fun to play though, nothing like completely taking over a pub server and putting up 20:1 k/d ratios on CTF.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
Because they are easy and balanced around horrible players. Coming from a CS/Quake background, I have yet to find a PC FPS that I couldn't flat-out dominate right out of the gate. MNC, for example, its a good game, but completely balanced around players being terrible. I can snipe and put up 40:1 scores on most maps, just because people are terrible. I've faced level 80 snipers and such and completely destroyed them. Another example, BFBC2. I can't drive any vehicles for crap. I have(had) no decent weapons unlocked. I barely knew how the game worked, and definitely didn't know any of the maps. I basically lived at the top of the stats sheet, especially if I snipe or go behind enemy line/rambo. Seriously, NOONE can snipe in that game. I'll get lazy and some guy will get an easy sniper kill on me, and I can come back to the exact same spot, and just walk out and kill him, and then kill him again and again as they try to knock me of my perch. So sad.
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
Hopefully. And hopefully they'll finally make Episode 3 too. But that won't happen any time soon.
I played CSS first, then tried to get into 1.6 when I heard all the 8 year veterans bitching and moaning about Source.....but, tbh, they are just being nostalgiac. The "hitboxes are terrible" argument was only true for about the first year of release, the random recoil patterns got mostly fixed a couple years ago, and pretty much any other argument is just people that have played the same game for 10 years refusing to change just out of principle. CSS is a very solid competitive game, and if the 1.6'ers would wake up a realize their game is completely 100% never going to go anywhere, the whole FPS community would be a lot better off.
There's not a single true thing in there
Css is extremely laggy, It was coded for 56k and 200 pingers and valve does not want to change that. It cause all kind of strange behavior like blood spots but still 100 health, getting killed at cover or interp advantage. Not only that but they brought css to the OB engine and now you can't play with 100 tick anymore which made things worst.
Gameplay wise the models are huge and the movement physics suck. A good 1.6 players will make you miss all your awp shots, that's not possible in css. Killing an awper with something else than another awp is mostly luck in css. The awper has his hand infront of his face, so on top of the lag, you might only do 27 damage instead.... and since the models are HYUUUGE and the movement so heavy, the awper has it easy mode.
You can see an interview with 3D|MOTO here (a professional 1.6 player) and hear his opinion on CS:S. This was recorded in DEC-2006, so it really has nothing to do with the early problems of the game back there in 2004 / 2005.
.....
It was not only 3D|MOTO who had that opinion on CS:S. It was pretty much everybody in the competitive scene. This was an alert. Most of the people involved in the competitive scene rejected CS:S. All the great international events like CPL, ESWC, WCG, KODE5, etc, rejected CS:S. There was only one big event who gave a chance to CS:S, called THECGS, and guess what? It failed.
You might be asking why they did that, and the answer is well know. CS:S was just not as competitive as a game, as CS1.6. So why replace it? It had nothing to do with the players, it was the game that was just broken from the point of view of a competitive player.
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1) There are small gameplay changes that make a HUGE difference at the highest levels. It is not an issue of map/graphics changes
2) I have played other FPS games but none of them are particularly enjoyable. None of them are more enjoyable than CS 1.6 that is for sure.
3) CS is most popular because it implements the basics of team play with skill and allows for the better player to win out much more often than in watered down more noob-friendly games. Everyone starts off at the same level with 800 dollars and a pistol, you don't run into people with better guns or perks and it takes skill to aim your gun and fire unlike a game like COD where you look down your scope and spray and every bullet is aimed directly at the target, which only takes about 2 bullets to kill.
4) Probably not, and no, since they never made the original counter strike, it was a mod.
I've been a Counter-Strike player since day one so I'd like to say I know quite alot on the subject.
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
The difference is the feel. The idea behind Source was to port it to a new graphics engine, but for reasons unexplained, valve chose to alter a million tiny things effectively making it an entirely different game. The idea is the same, you have the same weapons, but everything feels different. The weapon firing feels different, the movement feels different, the hitboxes are different, throwing nades is different.. Basically they've changed so many aspects of the game a little to ruin it for anyone who's played it for a while. It's still a good game, but if you're from 1.6 you really see no reason to switch to this inferior version (Kinda the same that alot of BW players feel, except SC2 has generally had a good transfer-rate from BW - which is not the case at all for Source.)
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
Not competitively. Counter-Strike has a unique scene of gamers where things are just ordered. If you want a match, you find one on cetain Quakenet channels etc. The same can't be said to the same degree with Call of Duty and the likes.. I've played COD quite alot, but only for the fun of it - they're also great games but the competitive part of it is nowhere near 1.6.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
It's basically the things I just noted above.
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Don't count on it. They had a horrible experience doing Source (with the response it got). CS ProMod seems to be a possible contender for the next CS-game, but it's still int he works and has alot of problems with it still, although its a way better port than Source ever was.
On February 24 2011 02:46 braammbolius wrote: Haven't read the entire thread but let me asure you OP.
CS:S is Nothing Like 1.6. Comparing the two would be like comparing starcraft and command&conquer.
I wouldn't go that far at all, you make it seem like it's night and day difference like halo vs quake. I'd say it's more like BW vs SC2. Somethings are easier and simpler. A lot of the tricks from BW don't carry over to SC2, like in 1.6 can shoot through 1 brush. The same basic strategy and teamwork element are there in CSS.
1. I've played CS 1.6 and CS:S casually, CS1.6 is definitely harder. The players are generally better and it is a lot harder to hit your shots. CS:S also takes out a lot of strategy with the whole 16k starting money thing. And I think awps dominate CS:S way more than in CS1.6, but I may be wrong.
2. I play CoD1 mainly, I played it competitively when it was still in CAL/CPL and I never quit playing : / There are some interesting comparisons to the two. CoD1 still had that "spray n pray" aspect to it, but it wasn't nearly as bad as CoD4+ are at all. I think that aiming down the sights and leaning adds something to the game that CS1.6 was missing for me.
3. Well, the CoD series had potential with CoD2, but they decided to start making games for the Console then porting it over to the PC, which led to PC gameplay being a joke. (shameless CoD1 plug) Luckily CoD1 was made for the PC first, and is still an amazing game. Even though it is hard as crap to find a good server to play in since they are all "rifles only" now... which is a joke.
4. A new CS game? I doubt it... a new competitive FPS? Probably why not.
Simply put, CS is a team game - its probably the same reason why dota is so incredibly popular and has a specific skill following at higher level
Games like quake absolutely blow CS and all other FPS out of the water in terms of skill, but quake is based all around 1v1 duelling. Getting good at quake is nearly impossible, skill gaps are absolutely rediculous, i wouldn't know 100% comparison but you can just look at BW skill gaps and see the difference
Its mostly the team element of CS which really makes it what it is
Also, inherently, team games make it much more difficult to hit skill caps or to have perfect style execution - that is, if your teamwork is incredible, you have a fair shot at competing with the best even if other parts of your game (such as raw aiming etc.) arn't at their peak In CS, of all games maybe this isnt 100% so, since certain maps (dust lol) are so worked out that its almost like build orders in SC.
Lastly ofc, CS is a hardcore style game (unlike TF2 - compare TF1 to TF2, or maybe melee to brawl, or even SC1 to SC2) - and hardcore games always attract the more competetive scene
I played CSS first, then tried to get into 1.6 when I heard all the 8 year veterans bitching and moaning about Source.....but, tbh, they are just being nostalgiac. The "hitboxes are terrible" argument was only true for about the first year of release, the random recoil patterns got mostly fixed a couple years ago, and pretty much any other argument is just people that have played the same game for 10 years refusing to change just out of principle. CSS is a very solid competitive game, and if the 1.6'ers would wake up a realize their game is completely 100% never going to go anywhere, the whole FPS community would be a lot better off.
There's not a single true thing in there
Css is extremely laggy, It was coded for 56k and 200 pingers and valve does not want to change that. It cause all kind of strange behavior like blood spots but still 100 health, getting killed at cover or interp advantage. Not only that but they brought css to the OB engine and now you can't play with 100 tick anymore which made things worst.
Gameplay wise the models are huge and the movement physics suck. A good 1.6 players will make you miss all your awp shots, that's not possible in css. Killing an awper with something else than another awp is mostly luck in css. The awper has his hand infront of his face, so on top of the lag, you might only do 27 damage instead.... and since the models are HYUUUGE and the movement so heavy, the awper has it easy mode.
You can see an interview with 3D|MOTO here (a professional 1.6 player) and hear his opinion on CS:S. This was recorded in DEC-2006, so it really has nothing to do with the early problems of the game back there in 2004 / 2005. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlgXwk86i7Y
.....
It was not only 3D|MOTO who had that opinion on CS:S. It was pretty much everybody in the competitive scene. This was an alert. Most of the people involved in the competitive scene rejected CS:S. All the great international events like CPL, ESWC, WCG, KODE5, etc, rejected CS:S. There was only one big event who gave a chance to CS:S, called THECGS, and guess what? It failed.
You might be asking why they did that, and the answer is well know. CS:S was just not as competitive as a game, as CS1.6. So why replace it? It had nothing to do with the players, it was the game that was just broken from the point of view of a competitive player.
Why are you linking a video from 06??????
And you are 100% bsing. Here. There are problems with Source, but not the crap you describe.
Laggy? Wtf? Blood spots and 100 hp? WTF? Movement physics suck? WTF? And the whole AWP thing just screams wtf? Most of the good CSS teams have 1 AWPer max, many pick up opponents Awps if they can, but for the most part its 4 rifles and 1 AWP. AWPs only dominate pubs, I have no idea what you're talking about in the competitve scene. Hands blocking hs a serious problem? ROFL? i hardly ever AWP'ed in CSS, and killing them is definitely not luck with a rifle. Maybe if you follow the crouch m4 spray technique so popular, but if you actually aim and use grenades, AWPs aren't anything close to untouchable, especially with the peekers advantage(which IS a problem).
Did you even play CSS competitively or are you just quoting bs you read on the Steam forums?
I did play CSS competitively, for 4 years. Yes, it had problems, but laggy, bad hitboxes, and horrible reg are definitely NOT among them, especially recently. Although arguably, the very last couple of updates seemed to fark a lot of stuff up for some people.
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
1. The source engine and game dynamics are completely flawed when compared to cs 1.6. Although the graphics are better, it's another one of those... improved graphics for lesser game mechanics.
2. I have played every halo, cod, battlefield, source, 1.6. TBH, Counter strike 1.6 will probably never be topped with battlefield coming second but you really can't compare those two types of games. I dont understand why everyone needs kill streak perks, it's the most absurd thing to have in an FPS and shows no skill. Ex. If i get 7 kills in a row, congrats to me but when i call in a helicopter and it goes and kills 12 people. That doesn't prove or do anything but having a npc kill 12 people. cs 1.6 is by far the hardest skilled game out of the FPS genre.
3. You can argue that Halo is just as competitive as cs 1.6 but personally, I think it is because of the raw natural skill that cs 1.6 takes and the coordination with strategy that makes it so unique and fun.
4. Probably not but i could be wrong. (hopefully) I think the days of those type of FPS's are gone. Everyone seems to wanna see +500 OMG CRAZY HS, now grind out 5000 more xp to get master sergeant but dont forget once you get to max level, START all over again and have a cool icon beside your name to show how nuts you are.
Counter strike 1.6 is the hardcore version of FPS (In my opinion). It's the money system, the team work, the skill that truly takes it one step above everyone else. Plus, the graphics really aren't that bad :D
On February 24 2011 01:50 skyR wrote: I prefer source for pubbing and 1.6 for competitive play.
Source competitive rules are stupid (16k starting money).
when did t happen? just cgs as i remember it's always been $800 in every league/tourney
CGS, CAL, CPL, and CEVO is all I can remember. Basically every league had it at 16k. Things might have changed now but it was definitely at 16k back in the day.
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
Because I grew up with it and have been stuck with it ever since. Also the 1.6 community is way bigger than the CS:S community. CS:S is far from the same as 1.6, different map designs, improved graphics, not even close to the 1.6 feeling, the aim.. basically everything is different in CS:S in a bad way, there's a reason 1.6 is so big. The gameplay is so different in CS:S.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
I play some Battlefield Bad Company 2 and some other fps games, but that's just public/having fun for me, no real teamwork or strategies used compared to 1.6 where I used to never play public and only 5v5s.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
It's hard to say really, I think CS has that feeling, it requires skill but at the same time teamwork is at least just as important, it has everything, fast rounds with all sorts of weapons, bunnyhop, boosting and what not. There is nothing out there compared to CS.
Also you barely even need a computer to play it whereas in other games you need a solid computer to be able to play.
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
No, they basically quit updating 1.6 and gave it up, focusing on CS:Source and yeah we can see how well that went. They won't make something that the 1.6 community appreciates I am sure of it.
The "new cs" today is ProMod which is still in beta phase and it's being done by 2 students as a hobby t_T
Because I grew up with it and have been stuck with it ever since. Also the 1.6 community is way bigger than the CS:S community. CS:S is far from the same as 1.6, different map designs, improved graphics, not even close to the 1.6 feeling, the aim.. basically everything is different in CS:S in a bad way, there's a reason 1.6 is so big. The gameplay is so different in CS:S.
I am asking these questions related to Counter-Strike out of curiosity. I myself play a little CS:S (still, SC2 FTW!).
1. If you only play CS 1.6, why so, and not CS:S? I heard CS 1.6 is more competitive, but I don't understand how, as CS:S seems to be exactly like CS 1.6 except for minor map changes and improved graphics.
2. Do you play other FPS games, such as COD or Halo? If so, do you prefer them over Counter-Strike? I think CS is a much better game, as it encourages teamwork and strategy much more than other FPS games.
3. How come other FPS games aren't as popular competitively as CS is? Is it because of the lack of strategy and teamwork, as I mentioned?
4. Is Valve going to make a new CS game? Do you think it should?
Answering these questions will make me become much more knowledgeable of the CS community and FPS in general. Thank you in advance!
Edit: Minor errors.
I'm pretty opinionated on this subject, basically I've been playing Valve FPS games since HL1 was made. I hate the source engine because it's pretty horrible. Hit Reg is a big issue for me, source just does not feel the same as Gold Source (the HL1 engine). Mainly my beef with source is because I fell in love with DOD 1.3 and they ruined DODS, it could have been a great game but it was dumbed down beyond belief. I guess it's what people would compare as BW to SC2, except SC2 is good and I like BW and SC2 equally but I make the comparison in that DOD 1.3 was for hard core players and DODS was for casuals. Now saying this, to answer your questions...
1.) I actually don't even play CS at all anymore, I haven't even opened steam in months, just no real interest in those games anymore as I played them to death. However, I recently played in a CSS pug with a friend of mine when we LAN'd and it was really fun, so CSS isn't bad it's just not the same. The guns work completely differently, the spread on all the guns is different and there is LESS recoil and MORE run and gun involved in CSS. There is less reliance on strafing perfectly and more emphasis on simply aiming at your opponent and spraying, so overall there is less APM as you may say, because there is less keyboard movement requirements compared to CS. Also there is basically no walling, which was a HUGE part of CS, you can't shoot through most walls that you could in CS, so the entire competitive scene of CS basically hates CSS for this reason as well as the reasons I talked about above.
2.) Hell yea I play other FPS games, but they simply aren't as in depth as CS is, you got that right for sure, EXCEPT for Day of Defeat (DOD). CS is like Football because it is round based where you make a play based on the circumstance (what your teams economy is and what round it is). Day of Defeat is like Hockey, which is why I like it so much. Basically it's a game that flows back and forth and the objective is to capture all the flags on the map, there are classes like TF2 but isn't gimmicky at all and is just pure, straight game play. There are classes that are effective at long range and ones that are effective at close range, having the perfect balance is essential for victory and you can't simply camp like you can in CS (CT's have to camp, but T's can camp in some circumstances) because there are objectives each team must fulfill to win. Of course noobs will camp and in some circumstances it is smart to camp like if you are down to your last flag for example. In league play, generally each class has a role depending on the map, the rifle players go to places where they can fight long range and the assault classes go to places where they can fight close range, but there are often strategies that mix this up and work just as effectively.
As far as other games go, Halo is crap, COD is decent but it's gimmicky and is just about fragging, except unless you play an objective game but even then you can just frag, get XP and it's whatever. BF:BC2 vietnam is probably my favorite FPS right now (DOD will always be #1 in my heart) because it does a damn good job of putting you in the environment, COD:Blkops just doesn't do this, I still feel like I'm playing modern warfare. I like games that put you in the moment like BF:BC2, DOD did this well (at the time) which is another reason why I like it.
3.) Other FPS games aren't simply as popular because at the time when CS was made, there were only a handful of competitive games out there, Quake being one of them and a couple others. Basically the pros stuck with CS because it's still competitive and there is always room for improvement, and if the money is in CS still, why play another game? Basically the pros keep playing, and the aspiring pros keep playing as well, it's pretty much like SC:BW there will always be hard core fans who continue to play and look up to those who still do.
Also CS is one of the few games out there were there is always going to be free content, every other modern FPS games requires DLC that you must pay for, I'm pretty sure people stick with CS because of this very reason. But remember, CS is made by Valve which is on Steam, so all of those CS players also play other games on Steam like TF2, so you can't rule out those people who play TF2 because they are combined with other Steam communities like CS.
4.) Yea, CS3 will come out for sure, but probably on a new engine which I believe is being worked on. So we'll probably see HL3 and CS3 out there in the next couple years or so, but Valve is like Blizzard, they release products when they feel like it but Valves products are sometimes just inferior. I mean look at L4D, it was a great game, there could have been free content to continue the story but instead Valve makes L4D2, charges people another 60 to play the same game which was a huge disappointment. Also Valve has made a TON more games than Blizzard has so I guess there is a better chance that there will be some games that are pretty bad. It's interesting, they made CSS good but made DODS awful and was a testing ground for TF2 which is great. L4D was good but L4D2 wasn't, so it's hard to predict if CS3 would even be good and if it will even remain the same game. I say "will it remain the same?" because Valve really keeps an eye on current FPS games and if anything is true, more and more FPS games are becoming more and more gimmicky to keep people playing, COD set the trend for this and I hate them for it.
Kind of a rant but there you go. I think steam is a great platform and has a lot of good games but I've really lost my faith in Valve, they kind of lost their touch although I've heard that Portal 2 is like gonna be the best thing ever. Valve cares about TF2 but doesn't give a shit about DODS and probably wouldn't care about CSS either if that wasn't a large portion of their fan base.
If people like CS 1.6 but like graphics of CSS, check out CSPro Mod, it's FREE if you have HL2 and I have high hopes for it. What I played (version 1.4) was pretty sick, I like it a lot, so we'll see how that developes.
Thought I give my 2 cents here as well. I played at a fairly high level of 1.6 back in the days (with that I mean we gave the top teams some competition but lost most of the times ) I still play from time to time but not as much.
1. Because they blew it with source, it is as easy as that. The map designs and graphics I rather enjoyed, but the feeling isnt nearly the same and I find that it is way way easier to get headshots and the like in CS:S (mind you, havent played it for about a year, dunno how it is atm).
2. Yes. I do play black ops, quake live and Halo:Reach. Im a mass gamer though so I play nearly everything. But those 3 are the ones I played alot and really tried to get good at.. I enjoy QuakeLive more than cs. If I could find a good clan for either of the other 2 perhaps I would like it as much to.
But I am a little bit biased because I hate what the Counter-Strike has become if you are not on the elite level.
3. It came at the right time. And the reason it still sticks is because no other game has been able to offer all of what CS has in the same (or greater) way. It is a little like the situation with WoW. There are alot of good MMORPG's but still everyone rages that it is not exactly like wow.. That is the problem. I really think CoD had an opportunity with MW2 but they fucked that up when they didn't include LAN support.
4. dont know if they will and if they at all care about CS they really really should. It's not going to get any easier attracting new players without updated visuals. Remember though that Valve did not develop Counter-strike, Sierra did.
1. CS:S is a rather solid game. I do however play CS 1.6 since that's where the vast majority of my friends play.
2. I play CoD: Black Ops on a frequent basis and the rest of the CoD franchise sporadically. I also play some BF2 and TF2 every now and then.
3. I think it is because CS is such a basic game where it makes balancing the game so simple. There is no need to worry about vehicles or weapon upgrades. The simplicity of the game functions of CS to me, allows for more teamwork and strategic game play. *Sidenote* Halo and Quake are quite popular FPS game and played quite competitively.
4. It would be very interesting if they did make something resembling counter-strike. I do hope they would because I enjoy playing the games they have put out so far (Portal, L4D2, TF2, CS).
I played CSS first, then tried to get into 1.6 when I heard all the 8 year veterans bitching and moaning about Source.....but, tbh, they are just being nostalgiac. The "hitboxes are terrible" argument was only true for about the first year of release, the random recoil patterns got mostly fixed a couple years ago, and pretty much any other argument is just people that have played the same game for 10 years refusing to change just out of principle. CSS is a very solid competitive game, and if the 1.6'ers would wake up a realize their game is completely 100% never going to go anywhere, the whole FPS community would be a lot better off.
There's not a single true thing in there
Css is extremely laggy, It was coded for 56k and 200 pingers and valve does not want to change that. It cause all kind of strange behavior like blood spots but still 100 health, getting killed at cover or interp advantage. Not only that but they brought css to the OB engine and now you can't play with 100 tick anymore which made things worst.
Gameplay wise the models are huge and the movement physics suck. A good 1.6 players will make you miss all your awp shots, that's not possible in css. Killing an awper with something else than another awp is mostly luck in css. The awper has his hand infront of his face, so on top of the lag, you might only do 27 damage instead.... and since the models are HYUUUGE and the movement so heavy, the awper has it easy mode.
You can see an interview with 3D|MOTO here (a professional 1.6 player) and hear his opinion on CS:S. This was recorded in DEC-2006, so it really has nothing to do with the early problems of the game back there in 2004 / 2005. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlgXwk86i7Y
.....
It was not only 3D|MOTO who had that opinion on CS:S. It was pretty much everybody in the competitive scene. This was an alert. Most of the people involved in the competitive scene rejected CS:S. All the great international events like CPL, ESWC, WCG, KODE5, etc, rejected CS:S. There was only one big event who gave a chance to CS:S, called THECGS, and guess what? It failed.
You might be asking why they did that, and the answer is well know. CS:S was just not as competitive as a game, as CS1.6. So why replace it? It had nothing to do with the players, it was the game that was just broken from the point of view of a competitive player.
Why are you linking a video from 06??????
And you are 100% bsing. Here. There are problems with Source, but not the crap you describe.
Laggy? Wtf? Blood spots and 100 hp? WTF? Movement physics suck? WTF? And the whole AWP thing just screams wtf? Most of the good CSS teams have 1 AWPer max, many pick up opponents Awps if they can, but for the most part its 4 rifles and 1 AWP. AWPs only dominate pubs, I have no idea what you're talking about in the competitve scene. Hands blocking hs a serious problem? ROFL? i hardly ever AWP'ed in CSS, and killing them is definitely not luck with a rifle. Maybe if you follow the crouch m4 spray technique so popular, but if you actually aim and use grenades, AWPs aren't anything close to untouchable, especially with the peekers advantage(which IS a problem).
Did you even play CSS competitively or are you just quoting bs you read on the Steam forums?
I did play CSS competitively, for 4 years. Yes, it had problems, but laggy, bad hitboxes, and horrible reg are definitely NOT among them, especially recently. Although arguably, the very last couple of updates seemed to fark a lot of stuff up for some people.
I linked a 2011 topic, not a 2006 video, and that video still stands, the game has slightly less bugs than it had before (took them 6 years to fix the grenade animation bug and the flashes going trough walls) but it's still has laggy and bad as it ever was.
There's like 6 other ppl saying the same stuff I did in this topic.
On February 24 2011 01:50 skyR wrote: I prefer source for pubbing and 1.6 for competitive play.
Source competitive rules are stupid (16k starting money).
when did t happen? just cgs as i remember it's always been $800 in every league/tourney
CGS, CAL, CPL, and CEVO is all I can remember. Basically every league had it at 16k. Things might have changed now but it was definitely at 16k back in the day.
It was 16k while CGS was going I believe so that the players wouldn't have an issue with playing other leagues since they'd have the same config. Once that shut down, all the other leagues switched back to MR15.
I played CSS first, then tried to get into 1.6 when I heard all the 8 year veterans bitching and moaning about Source.....but, tbh, they are just being nostalgiac. The "hitboxes are terrible" argument was only true for about the first year of release, the random recoil patterns got mostly fixed a couple years ago, and pretty much any other argument is just people that have played the same game for 10 years refusing to change just out of principle. CSS is a very solid competitive game, and if the 1.6'ers would wake up a realize their game is completely 100% never going to go anywhere, the whole FPS community would be a lot better off.
There's not a single true thing in there
Css is extremely laggy, It was coded for 56k and 200 pingers and valve does not want to change that. It cause all kind of strange behavior like blood spots but still 100 health, getting killed at cover or interp advantage. Not only that but they brought css to the OB engine and now you can't play with 100 tick anymore which made things worst.
Gameplay wise the models are huge and the movement physics suck. A good 1.6 players will make you miss all your awp shots, that's not possible in css. Killing an awper with something else than another awp is mostly luck in css. The awper has his hand infront of his face, so on top of the lag, you might only do 27 damage instead.... and since the models are HYUUUGE and the movement so heavy, the awper has it easy mode.
You can see an interview with 3D|MOTO here (a professional 1.6 player) and hear his opinion on CS:S. This was recorded in DEC-2006, so it really has nothing to do with the early problems of the game back there in 2004 / 2005. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlgXwk86i7Y
.....
It was not only 3D|MOTO who had that opinion on CS:S. It was pretty much everybody in the competitive scene. This was an alert. Most of the people involved in the competitive scene rejected CS:S. All the great international events like CPL, ESWC, WCG, KODE5, etc, rejected CS:S. There was only one big event who gave a chance to CS:S, called THECGS, and guess what? It failed.
You might be asking why they did that, and the answer is well know. CS:S was just not as competitive as a game, as CS1.6. So why replace it? It had nothing to do with the players, it was the game that was just broken from the point of view of a competitive player.
Why are you linking a video from 06??????
And you are 100% bsing. Here. There are problems with Source, but not the crap you describe.
Laggy? Wtf? Blood spots and 100 hp? WTF? Movement physics suck? WTF? And the whole AWP thing just screams wtf? Most of the good CSS teams have 1 AWPer max, many pick up opponents Awps if they can, but for the most part its 4 rifles and 1 AWP. AWPs only dominate pubs, I have no idea what you're talking about in the competitve scene. Hands blocking hs a serious problem? ROFL? i hardly ever AWP'ed in CSS, and killing them is definitely not luck with a rifle. Maybe if you follow the crouch m4 spray technique so popular, but if you actually aim and use grenades, AWPs aren't anything close to untouchable, especially with the peekers advantage(which IS a problem).
Did you even play CSS competitively or are you just quoting bs you read on the Steam forums?
I did play CSS competitively, for 4 years. Yes, it had problems, but laggy, bad hitboxes, and horrible reg are definitely NOT among them, especially recently. Although arguably, the very last couple of updates seemed to fark a lot of stuff up for some people.
I linked a 2011 topic, not a 2006 video, and that video still stands, the game has slightly less bugs than it had before (took them 6 years to fix the grenade animation bug and the flashes going trough walls) but it's still has laggy and bad as it ever was.
There's like 6 other ppl saying the same stuff I did in this topic.
Sooooo, there's 6 people that I know haven't played the game since 07.
The 2011 topic...that still has a 2006 video. Seriously. All you whiners apparently haven't played the game since it first came out. Anyone that gave the game a serious chance in the past couple years would have to agree that it is vastly improved(well except for a couple of the most recent patches, lol). Some things about the game seem fundamentally broken(peekers advantage, anyone?), but anyone still whining about hitboxes, lag, and stupid animations hasn't played it in 4 years, simple as that.
There is a reason why there are so many more international tournaments for 1.6 than source with huge prize pots. There is a reason why people are still playing a 10+ year old game with an outdated engine. There is a reason why other seemly competitive games fail in terms of popularity and depth.
1.6 > CS:S
anyone who tells you that source is better is just plain wrong. while source may be a good game, it is completely different from 1.6 and should not be compared in any way. you are truly comparing apples to oranges here.
tldr: both are good games, but 1.6 reigns supreme in terms of competitive play, major international lan events, and is tried and tested fps game.
EPT
.
