On August 13 2011 17:19 Zombo Joe wrote: I don't get why people hate on Source. Nobody ever states any major reasons. Its all minor nitpicking.
Alright let me list some things.
For one, character models are much bigger in source compared to 1.6. At the same time, levels also feel more enclosed. Corridors feel smaller, and just in general levels feel very wrong to someone that came from 1.6. The result of these two issues combined is an fps that makes aiming MUCH easier. That of course means the game takes far less skill, which in turn means getting really good is less rewarding, and then there is the issue of good players can't separate themselves because the skill cap is just too low.
Perhaps an even bigger issue is the abysmal recoil system. Each gun in 1.6 was incredibly nuisanced and it took a very very long time to master the recoil of most automatics. As an example, bursting with the ak was an incredibly powerful technique for getting headshots at mid to long range and it was completely different than bursting with, say, the m4. At the same time learning how to properly pull down on the crosshair when you wanted to spray with the ak also took a long time to master and once again, it was completely different than spraying with any other weapon. With source there is basically none of this depth involved with aiming. Headshots feel faceroll and often times highly random, grenades are too powerful, character models too big, game speed too slow....the list goes on and on.
You could sum my post up as an elitist that thinks Source doesn't take skill and you would be correct. That is the problem with Source, there is no depth or nuisance, at least compared to 1.6. I guess if you were to compare Source to something like call of doody then it probably seems like the most skillful and deep fps ever made. But, its just meh for someone that grew up playing the original CS religiously.
On August 13 2011 14:29 SeizeTheDay wrote: A lot of people are bitching about Source, the only problem that source had was that when people come around corners 1 of them can see each other first before the other can see them (HOWEVER it was only a small amount, it wasn't a whole body it might be just the shoulder). The reason why a lot of 1.6 players didn't switch over to source wasn't the gun recoil it was because of the fact i just said, also there is another reason is the HIT BOXES that was another big problem. Also 1.6 is the BEST FPS game for tournaments for team play. I played 1.6 and Source at a Semi-Pro level. To be honest I can not play 1.6 anymore I prefer to play source, but the people hating on source never gave it a chance most of you are jumping on a wagon because others say its bad...
For me, Source feels completely different to 1.6 in the same way SC2 feels very different to BW. I find it very hard to describe but jumping into a game of 1.6 just feels comfy, whereas Source (while fun) feels alien. The movement, the guns, everything just feels fun and right in 1.6. I personally feel that lo-fi games are generally more pleasing to play for long periods of time.
Same here.
My biggest problems with Source : Too easy to kill or too accurate. I get HS on pretty much every kill even if it's a cross map handgun shot or me spraying randomly. I'm not a great player either, the game is just too forgiving.
I go back and play 1.6 and I actually need to aim and control my spread to kill someone.
But there's also flashbangs. I hate how it removes sound AND it flashes your screen in spectator mode as well (even if you switch person). Stupid I know but this one thing always comes back to ruin CSS for me.
lol ive been playing competitive 1.6 for 2yrs and source for like 3years and stopped start of 2011 and that's actually SO ANNOYING LOL.
Personally I only moved to source because it had and still does have a much better competitive scene in Australia. I find both games different and neither is easier than the other, although Source mp5 is kinda bs lol. For some reason, 1.6 online feels disgusting. I have no idea why but 1.6 LAN feels orgasmic compared to the online playing.
The thing that will win me over for CSGO (since ausource is basically dead and I'm keen to move to a new CS now) is the hit registration. I think the current source reg is pretty darn good except it could still be better.
EDIT; And my addressing the 1.6 v Source wars. 1.6 players think theyre all elitists and put down Source due to the minor problems. Honestly, I don't understand what the problem is with learning a new game and mastering a new game. If anyone followed CSP, there's something wrong with the 1.6 community and mindset. It was the Source people who embraced change and the 1.6 players who were bitching about every small thing. It's too late at night and I'm way too tired so this actually came out so bad lol. When I was about to write this I had so many ideas but they're all flown out now lol. tldr; 1.6 players are stuck up spastics. Source players seem more open minded. CSGO will have Source players move over and 1.6 players will continue with 1.6.
On August 13 2011 17:19 Zombo Joe wrote: I don't get why people hate on Source. Nobody ever states any major reasons. Its all minor nitpicking.
Alright let me list some things.
For one, character models are much bigger in source compared to 1.6. At the same time, levels also feel more enclosed. Corridors feel smaller, and just in general levels feel very wrong to someone that came from 1.6. The result of these two issues combined is an fps that makes aiming MUCH easier. That of course means the game takes far less skill, which in turn means getting really good is less rewarding, and then there is the issue of good players can't separate themselves because the skill cap is just too low.
Perhaps an even bigger issue is the abysmal recoil system. Each gun in 1.6 was incredibly nuisanced and it took a very very long time to master the recoil of most automatics. As an example, bursting with the ak was an incredibly powerful technique for getting headshots at mid to long range and it was completely different than bursting with, say, the m4. At the same time learning how to properly pull down on the crosshair when you wanted to spray with the ak also took a long time to master and once again, it was completely different than spraying with any other weapon. With source there is basically none of this depth involved with aiming. Headshots feel faceroll and often times highly random, grenades are too powerful, character models too big, game speed too slow....the list goes on and on.
You could sum my post up as an elitist that thinks Source doesn't take skill and you would be correct. That is the problem with Source, there is no depth or nuisance, at least compared to 1.6. I guess if you were to compare Source to something like call of doody then it probably seems like the most skillful and deep fps ever made. But, its just meh for someone that grew up playing the original CS religiously.
To add to the point about levels, all of the 'realism' that's been added in CS:S detracts from the experience, at least in my view both as a player and a viewer. If you compare the difference between de_inferno, just about anyone who isn't in love with CS would tell you that CS:S is vastly superior, but it's just full of noise and clutter that changes everything about the game.
Even as a CAL-IM scrub, I enjoyed the good wallbanging kill on Dust2 in B halls or through the CT spawn floor (one of my favorite scrims I held a guy in place for a second and he stopped to type 'wow nice' after he got out of the stream). On Nuke I would spam everything; another favorite memory was being in an impossible 1-4 situation, being stuck in lower, hearing a footstep directly over head and killing the guy in a totally random spot. In CS:S I can't tell where anything is based on sound, and I virtually have to be looking at the bomb to hear the defuse noise. As you said, the list is endless..
Thorin bases his entire article on the claim that CS:GO is supposed to replace 1.6, css or unite the fps scene, neither of these claims are correct..so its pointless to argue from that perspective.
In my eyes this is just another CS:CZ but made from another company with valves support. Its as if Valve doesnt trust themselves to create their own CS, so they let a different company do it.
On August 13 2011 17:19 Zombo Joe wrote: I don't get why people hate on Source. Nobody ever states any major reasons. Its all minor nitpicking.
Alright let me list some things.
For one, character models are much bigger in source compared to 1.6. At the same time, levels also feel more enclosed. Corridors feel smaller, and just in general levels feel very wrong to someone that came from 1.6. The result of these two issues combined is an fps that makes aiming MUCH easier. That of course means the game takes far less skill, which in turn means getting really good is less rewarding, and then there is the issue of good players can't separate themselves because the skill cap is just too low.
Perhaps an even bigger issue is the abysmal recoil system. Each gun in 1.6 was incredibly nuisanced and it took a very very long time to master the recoil of most automatics. As an example, bursting with the ak was an incredibly powerful technique for getting headshots at mid to long range and it was completely different than bursting with, say, the m4. At the same time learning how to properly pull down on the crosshair when you wanted to spray with the ak also took a long time to master and once again, it was completely different than spraying with any other weapon. With source there is basically none of this depth involved with aiming. Headshots feel faceroll and often times highly random, grenades are too powerful, character models too big, game speed too slow....the list goes on and on.
You could sum my post up as an elitist that thinks Source doesn't take skill and you would be correct. That is the problem with Source, there is no depth or nuisance, at least compared to 1.6. I guess if you were to compare Source to something like call of doody then it probably seems like the most skillful and deep fps ever made. But, its just meh for someone that grew up playing the original CS religiously.
Pretty much sums it up...to someone who hasn't played cs these changes might not seem that huge but really the super lame nades/flashbangs in source was enough to ruin the game for me. Add in the other points and source was pretty much a complete dissapointment. I played cs for years in cal-m/p but quit source after about a month. Just not a fun game to play coming from 1.6
I played on the highest level of CS 1.6 Cal-I and Cevo-P, many lans and so on. Later CGS decided to make their league source. I fought it because I hated that game, it felt so different to me but eventually I switched, towards the end of CS:S's competitive life here in the USA. I went from not even having the game installed to being at the highest level of CS:S in under a month. It took me most of my teenage years to be great at CS, and while I am sure a lot of those skills were transferable to CS:S the fact that I had nearly mastered the game in a month speaks volumes to the games skill ceiling. I do think both games are good games, I just do not think both games are E:Sports worthy. If CS:GO is different than CS1.6 and CS:S I think that is perfectly fine, CS 1.6 definitely had room to improve, it just had a lot less room to improve than CS:S, in the opinion of someone who played both games, quite a lot, at the highest level and enjoyed both.
On August 13 2011 23:14 Senx wrote: Thorin bases his entire article on the claim that CS:GO is supposed to replace 1.6, css or unite the fps scene, neither of these claims are correct..so its pointless to argue from that perspective.
In my eyes this is just another CS:CZ but made from another company with valves support. Its as if Valve doesnt trust themselves to create their own CS, so they let a different company do it.
He's nostalgic, delusional and seems to worship Minh Le while blaming everything bad in the world on Valve. Le sigh
as much as i want a new CS (I junked so many hours of 1.6, and i'm compeitive FPS player)... I think this is going to fail, atlesat for PC gaming. They are going to be money hungry, and obviously the best audience to attract is the console gamers. This game is going to be on the PC as a console port just as the recent COD series has been (after all games after COD4).
On August 12 2011 14:13 rebuffering wrote: HMM why not work on HL3, or episode 3, what the hell is going on, people who are playing CS 1.6, or CSS, probly dont really care anyways, so why waste time on this. Also, if its still on the source engine, then omg, i will cry, the engine is 7 years old, i dont get it.
who cares about the engine, a lot of people just want a good game
The source engine isn't "7 years old". It is constantly updated and improved by Valve.
And I would have much preferred to see them go a different route for a 5v5 T vs CT game... maybe something closer to Tactical Ops. People who like 1.6 won't like any change. What is the point?
I really would just like them to add some features to source and not make another game, something that makes it easier to setup 5v5's would be nice. That was always the best part of the game for me.
It's pretty disheartening to read Torbull's article and hear some of the basic features of the original game that the invited players had to explain to the developers. Stuff like why it's important that kits be purchased individually rather than one randomly assigned to a CT each round. Sigh.
EPT
