EPTI'm pretty sure that Valve regularly patches their games, and CSS is probably no exception. So as of right now, does anyone know if source "requires just as much skill" as 1.6? Or should I just stick with counter-strike 1.6?
CS 1.6 vs Source?
| Forum Index > General Games |
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
I'm pretty sure that Valve regularly patches their games, and CSS is probably no exception. So as of right now, does anyone know if source "requires just as much skill" as 1.6? Or should I just stick with counter-strike 1.6? | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
| ||
|
SaveYourSavior
United States1071 Posts
Easy in terms of actual gameplay in killing and amount of horrible people that play that game. To make a shitty comparison its somewhat similar to ssb: Brawl compared to melee except not only does Source suck (imo) compared to 1.6, they didn't really add anything new gameplay-wise besides remove nifty, skillful glitches and tricks (they even removed some stuff like the retarded, yet fun to use CT shield) and change up hitboxes, recoil, etc. I can only think of 1 detrimental glitch that was removed in source (crouch hop). It's like what Starcraft 2 is looking to be compared to Starcraft: Brood War. It will create a gigantic rift in the community possibly just like Source did to 1.6 because even though it may be inferior, sponsors go for the newer games without much question and leave the better game in the dust. A game in a set of sequels that even though the previous title is better, the new game is played because it is new and plastered with golden, shiny shit. CS 1.6 got largely demolished competition-wise, it's still going, it's still the most popular online fps game as of now but Source simply has the sponsors and money. The question is, will Starcraft 2 mess up the great Starcraft Orig? (probably not) If you like somewhat dumbed down gameplay, maybe it's up your alley. If you are average in 1.6 you will pretty much do very well in random pubbies in source, but not really in competent scrims nevertheless. Competent scrims have everybody deagle headshotting with ease due to the watermelon sized heads in comparison to the smaller head hitboxes in 1.6. Being "good" in Source makes you average, yet being a great deagle headshotter in 1.6 makes you become an excellent player. Some dudes I know say they would never play 1.6 because it looks like they are throwing a spray can or something when they throw a grenade. Well Gameplay > Graphics anyday and really, thats all source has going for it against the superior CS 1.6. GrApHiCs To finally answer your question, source does not require as much skill as 1.6. Source idiots/fanboys might disagree, but its true. You do not need as much technical skill in source in comparison to 1.6, you don't really need as much game smarts either. Yeah I hate source it sucks. | ||
|
Jizz
Australia224 Posts
blonde= Dumber and prettier | ||
|
paper
13196 Posts
: ( | ||
|
Realpenguin
8253 Posts
Source, on the other hand, seems to reward more aggressive (read: dumb) players because of the low recoil and large head hitbox. Just play what you feel is more fun. | ||
|
Chariot
United States36 Posts
On December 20 2008 20:47 paper wrote: why can't developers make shit pretty AND functional : ( Because they have a budget | ||
GTR
51638 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
I don't know what it is that makes me continue to consider Source... I guess it's the name. | ||
|
CapO
United States1615 Posts
and then sc could be like cs 1.6? (more skillzzz) | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
 ? Or without a p90 that shoots completely straight even though you jump. Or a scout and awp that shoot completely straight without zoom. Or without bunny hopping? | ||
|
ZhenMiChan
Netherlands1181 Posts
 I prefer 1.6 because it feels less based on luck and more on skill. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
Trust me. 1.6 is infinitely better then source (in every aspect other then the reg in source is somewhat better and the graphics...). 1.6 is just a much better competitive game, and skill is a much more important aspect then it is in source, and there are so many more little tricks in 1.6 that can you give you an edge over an opponent in source (knowing some obscure spam spots, for example). Stay with 1.6 You won't regret it. | ||
|
krazymunky
United States727 Posts
| ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
| ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On December 20 2008 20:45 Jizz wrote: Source is the Blonde version of 1.6. blonde= Dumber and prettier That's a good one. It's true. I prefer 1.6 myself and always have. | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
Many reasons for that, easy recoil, bigger head hitboxes, i don't even consider graphics good, it is goofy in css and graphics is irrelevant in counter-strike. It's soon to be completely dead now since cgs folded. Idiots from Valve cut the amount of 1.6 players exactly in half with recent destructive patch and it still has more players. http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/ http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/ | ||
|
Azrael1111
United States550 Posts
| ||
| ||
