Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 25

On August 28 2011 17:21 Jibba wrote:
I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of the radial menu. It obviously won't be the same in the PC version and it's not much different than the VGUI currently in CS. Just ignore it and use your number keys.

And there's nothing wrong with being elitist.

On August 28 2011 17:37 Kojak21 wrote:



But to be an elitist you have to hate change, and the radial menu is change!

+ Show Spoiler +

On August 28 2011 18:05 Jibba wrote:

Yeah, but you only have so much hate to give to the world, so you should save it for the things truly worth hating, like CSS and WC3.

On August 28 2011 16:20 Ack1027 wrote:


Or the game is actually gonna be bad?
If blizzard came out with sc2 and sc3 during the last 12 years do you think that people who said it's not as good as bw are just whiners or elitists? Cs 1.5 and 1.6 was one of the best competitive e-sports of all time and its not fair to lower the bar because game designers ignore keeping some of the best aspects of 1.5 and 1.6.... In the same vein its incredibly foolish to think that games like sc2 will ever get certain aspects right like bw nailed. I hope you don't call bw enthusiasts elitist and ' never wanting to play anything new ' It's one thing if they are obnoxious about it but if its just not their style and they have a valid reason such as the previous version simply being BETTER, there's not much you should say.

I think one of the most trite and ridiculously stupid arguments that exist in the world is that if you haven't tried it then you can't have an opinion of it...there's tons of that logic in this thread.

Dumb animals can tell fire will burn them without actually touching it.

On August 28 2011 21:55 T0fuuu wrote:


BW elitists are bad because they complain the game is too easy and takes no skill after playing for a few months yet they still cant get a weekly cup or tlopen victory by the time they quit and go back to bw. So yes, bad and middling players complaining about the lack of skill in game X is elitist and just shows how arrogant they are.

Im not saying that people that enjoy/prefer playing bw are elitist, they are just fans of the game and thats good for them, but the people that make a habit of trolling other gamers for bw being BETTER are just plain bad.

A perfect example of an elitist would be middling CS 1.6 player that hasnt had any noticeable tournament victories to show for his decade of gaming yet never misses an opportunity to call CS:S players bad because they play an inferior game.

You could look at QL and Q3 scenes if you wanted to see proof that pro players can change games to an easier game (10 min duels, weapons less tiered, fast weapon respawn, ammo increase) without the level of competition suffering. A game doesnt have to be played for 10 years like bw or cs to have a high skill ceiling and competitive community. Even at QL's imminent death from the proscene its probably at quakes highest competition level with multiple players internationally that could all win a tournament, even compared to the golden days when there were maybe 3 or 4 at best. You could even look at real professional gamers that made the change from q3-> cpm -> q4(the cs:s of quake) ->q3 -> QL and appreciate that even though they played competitively "worse" games in an elitist timescale that they still did it professionally without the elitist bitching, got the money and raised the overall skill of quake and moved onto the next game. People like cooller or cypher don't get called sellouts or noobs that couldnt play game X because they followed whichever game was paying more money, instead they get respected because they can take an inferior game and raise its skill ceiling and show that even after playing for so long that they still havent reached their full potential, yet alone the game's.

Anyways when did you have more fun playing cs? When the community was big and there were lots of new teams and players to be made from pub? Or now when the overall standard of play is much much higher but there are fewer teams to scrim and tournaments? High skill does not always mean the most fun and thats all that really matters to gamers.

On August 28 2011 21:55 T0fuuu wrote:
Anyways when did you have more fun playing cs? When the community was big and there were lots of new teams and players to be made from pub? Or now when the overall standard of play is much much higher but there are fewer teams to scrim and tournaments?

On August 28 2011 22:43 Doraemon wrote:
cross platform play on a fps? oO hmmph. that'll be interesting.

On August 28 2011 22:33 Klaca wrote:
Eh... changing from Q3 to QL is hardly a change at all.. roughly same learning curve.

Your argument against BW is a red herring - learning curve is determined by the dispersion of the performance of play. like if top level players never lose to mid level - curve is high. But if they do lose, curve is not as high.

So to bring examples - top CS player can lose to mid level by lucky spray, top sc2 can lose to mid level through 2rax/1.1.1/4gate, but top quake player never lose to mid quake player, top bw player also never... maybe with 3 hatch hydra in zvp but its rare.

On August 28 2011 22:36 Jibba wrote:

How about both? The point of the term 'skill ceiling' is that it doesn't change during the lifetime of the game. 2003-2008 was the best period in the game's life because it featured the same high skill ceiling and the community was big. Players are much better today than they were back then, but the skill ceiling hasn't changed (aside from the AWP change.) People understandably don't want a game with a big community and low skill ceiling, or else everyone would still play all the other games that tried to replace 1.6 and CoD1/2.

Your argument that the complaints of the middling gamer don't matter is silly. They can still prefer a more difficult game, even without reaching the top levels. And professional players share many of the same complaints that they do, they're just willing to switch because of the money. They still don't bite their tongue when it comes to criticizing a game. You're not actually talking to them or following them if you don't think they bitched about CSS or Q4.

On August 29 2011 02:05 T0fuuu wrote:


CPMA VQ3 is fucking brutal next to ql. And vq3 plays nothing like q3 without mods.The damage values are much higher, mg is actually deadly, the netcode heavily heavily favours hitscan in all situations even if they say its the same netcode as ql, the hitboxes are different, and its so much harder to hit air rockets or string rockets together because of a 25pc projectile speed decrease in vq3. Thats even before the stingy amount of ammo they give you in vq3.

Anyways time for me to stop being elitist about vq3, even though the games are different'ish top quake players can lose to mid quake players. Spart1e or Killsen can beat rapha/cypher/cooller and they have in group play and thats why the current scene is so different from a few years ago when toxic walks into a competition and just takes the money.(he cant get out of groups now) You could argue that it is because of a different game but I think its cos killsen and spart1e have been playing for half a decade and more and have gotten that good. Bw is much the same in that some random skt guy can allkill in the finals of stx masters >.> It doesnt make the game any less skilled if a middle of the pack player can beat a "top player" It just means that the competition is fierce and players like flash are that much more godly.

My comparison with bw elitists has nothing to do with the pro scene or their game being harder. It has to do with them disrespecting the effort sc2 players put into the game when they say it is easy and inferior.


I never said that its wrong to prefer a game or middling players dont matter. I said that the type of people that bitch about a game they dont play and call it dead on arrival, noob game etc are bad. Just bad. It just so happens that the vocal elitists that attack other games tend to be middling players. Real pros have other shit to do than to flamebait on forums all day.

And how can you say that the best period of the games life was 2003-2008 and then say "how about both" in response to when the game was most fun for you to play? That doesnt make sense because you acknowledge that the game isnt as fun to play now. You are in a way agreeing with my argument that skill ceiling doesnt have much to do with enjoying a competitive game. Other things like the community and what events are happening are far more important to how much people enjoy a game. Great example is SC2 and teamliquid. I dont disagree with you saying that some players dont want a big community and low skill ceiling but I question how much it matters to both the life of a scene and its potential to be an esport. Look at LOL, its got both those and gets bashed on by dota and Hon players but its done alot for its own scene because of developer support and theres alot of potential in that game now.

Uh and.. CS:S and Q4 had numerous complaints with good reason. But what was disgusting is the players that got heckled for switching games to chase money or playing the games they want to play That lingering hate is still in the community today. Alot of the top players cs:s players are always "that guy that couldn't make it in 1.6" and shit like "why would you invite cs:s pros to test the game they should go back to cs:s" which is just a huge disrespect to the players.

Q4 had a similar backlash when from the community where alot of players hated the game and wouldnt switch but nobody in the community would ever say toxic or cypher are bad players cos they played q4 whereas cs player wont get that treatment. To some extent this happens in SC2 as well when people call sc2 pros has-beens or talentless B-teamers as if winning gsl is an effortless feat. But fortunately new fans and players are more open to the game and are happy just to follow the game. This new blood is what I say cs needs, just like what sc2 needed to be successful independant from bw. It isnt necessarily what the scbw scene wanted but its not like it affects them anyways. Bring on cs:go

On August 28 2011 06:53 chaK wrote:

Made my first post on TL just to say you have no idea what you're talking about and clearly have never played Source.

On August 29 2011 04:15 slytown wrote:


Well, I could say the same for people defending Source.

I played a lot of Source actually, even competitively and I have to say it is way too arcade style. (The first time I scrimmed Source it was with 3 guys who had only played 1.6 and were good. We pugged against a Source Main team and rolled them 16-0.) By that I mean someone without a lot of experience can run past any wall, spray, and kill a seasoned player with position. Not to mention the OP of flashes that blind everyone in the room, regardless if ur looking away.

I fell in love with CS 1.5 because it had little accessibility. There was so much to consider and the skill level was massive: AK/M4 recoil, peaking, walls, bunnyhopping, boosting, crouch-running, etc. Source just doesn't have the quirks that the first mod has. I think that's why the best CS players in the world like RobbaN, fOrest, cArn, etc. have stuck with 1.6.

I welcome being called a CS1.6 elitist. You know why? Because I don't want to be good at a video game just anyone can be good at. That goes with anything I do. In any endeavor, be it work or games, I want to put work into it that makes me stand out. I have to say CS 1.6 and Starcraft are so complex in the context of other games on the market, I feel proud being somewhat decent at both.