Counter Strike Tournement recrution

[PEACE!]

Hello
As a fan of an ancient Computer game I was pleased to see that PA is having a Counter Strike Tournement.
Ofcourse i want to join but...
Wel......
Don't think i'm good enough to join on my own
so who'd like to join me in joining
I've played CS for quite some time now(dunno for sure couse i've been doing some homework and PA too) But I own the game for about 2 years now
Wanna check my skills?
PM me and we'll arrange something
greetz
Stark A.K.A. PEACE!

[Lupin]

1.6 sucks dick.

[Androme]

You're shit at CS and you know it.

[Evergreen]

I hear Steam sucks the cock.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I hear Steam sucks the cock.

At least it isn't Canadian.

[PEACE!]

1.6 is better then 1.5 and if you "heard" who cares if you haven't tried it yourself you can't tell.
1.6 is more stable then 1.5 and adapted to PC faster then 100 Mhz

[Lupin]

i played 1.6 and i still say it sucks (my opinion, you dont have to care anyway )

well 1.5 is much faster than 1.6 and i never had a prob with stability in cs.

[Deathjam|wee]

Originally Posted by PEACE!

*blah blah blah ****ing random crap*

Stark A.K.A. PEACE!

r u having a ****ing Identity crisis or something

who r u Stark of PEACE!

and btw forums have progressed to a point where ur name is clearly displayed next to ur post, so u don't need to type it under it

****ing retard

/rant

[JammyJim]

I still write my name sometimes under my post.

off his back at once



JJ

[KaneED]

Call of Duty all the way guys.

Seriously, those veins in your arm in CS are not real. And nor would people say "i r t3h 0wn3r 0f j00" in the heat of battle, which is incidentally, a good mod for Call of Duty.

[Pyr0 MK III]

Battlefield 1942 is where its at



JJ

[Androme]

Yr al rong

Gamespy ches iz wear itz @

p34c3 0()+ d()d3r5

[Evergreen]

UT 2004 is where it's at



JJ

[Intrepid00]

I have UT2k4, but haven't played it for so long.

JJ

[at0mic.c0w]

so they are not playing 1.5 ?

KKK

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

UT 2004 is where it's at

Agreeing with sunday in an agreeing with sunday thread.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

1.6 is more stable then 1.5 and adapted to PC faster then 100 Mhz

This is a brilliant statement. I can't think of anything it can possibly mean that 'it runs slower'.

[PEACE!]

hehehe well actually my flatmate has a 700 Mhz and doesn't like to play 1.5 couse it takes longer to load then 1.6(could be him though:P)
BTW has any of you ever tried the Windows button while playing 1.5? That's one of the main reasons I went 1.6.
be hounest........
CS is Ancient.......
but at least 1.6 uses less ancient techniques then 1.5
and.......
Half Life 2 will go Steam as well so why not switch now

and I will put my name under here just to bug the guy who can't type three sentences without turning them into ******************** you ********** (it's so easy to curse on a cencored forum:P)

Greetz
PEACE! A.K.A. Stark A.K.A. Stapper A.K.A. Mapper A.K.A. owbabythat'sthespot:P

(that should be enough to piss him off wouldn't it?)

Ps. CS isn't realistic at all(grafical wise anyway) but it doesn't need to be. It's a game so it's about gameplay. If I want a game that looks cool i'll grab Enter the Matrix(cmon those moves look great) while that game sucks. but cs still rules after 5 years couse it aims @ gameplay instead of grafic performance

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by PEACE!

Half Life 2 will go Steam as well so why not switch now

Because I refuse to use Steam to play HL2 MP as well. It's poorly coded, has plenty of bugs, and downloads things you don't want without asking you.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

If I want a game that looks cool i'll grab Enter the Matrix(cmon those moves look great) while that game sucks. but cs still rules after 5 years couse it aims @ gameplay instead of grafic performance

EtM had terrible graphics. CS has terrible gameplay.

I'm seeing a pattern in your opinions (and spelling)!

[edit]

And I love the way that you appear to think yourself resplendant in some kind of 'cool', internet or otherwise, judging by your post and extremely bad rebuttals.

[Dante Hicks]

Hey, I love CS!

[PEACE!]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Because I refuse to use Steam to play HL2 MP as well. It's poorly coded, has plenty of bugs, and downloads things you don't want without asking you.

at least the bugs are still dealt with in steam 1.5 is dead

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

EtM had terrible graphics. CS has terrible gameplay.

maybe you should read my post again it was about moves that looked great
But I do agree it's not the best looking game ever
Still that's not the point
And how would you explain the fact that CS is still top notch in FPS MP?
How can you acceive this without good gameplay?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm seeing a pattern in your opinions (and spelling)!

and would you mind sharing this pattern dr. Freud?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And I love the way that you appear to think yourself resplendant in some kind of 'cool', internet or otherwise, judging by your post and extremely bad rebuttals.

and you would be cool enough te judge me?
ofcourse you studied the human Psyche while getting you english degree but does this really give you the right to judge and pettronise me?
maybe you should try to look at yourself before you judge others
especially if you wish to judge them on base of thing you dont know anything about or that don't matter
I believe this trhead was about CS, not about my poor english or lack of style and posting threads in a way they'd make my english teacher proud......
in cunclusion i'd like to say one more thing
I think you are a great person.........
"FOR ME TO POOP ON"(Triumph the insult comic dog)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by PEACE!

at least the bugs are still dealt with in steam 1.5 is dead

1.5 is anything but dead. Unsupported, maybe, but there is still a large community who play it, either because they don't like the changes in 1.6, or because they don't like steam. Mostly the latter.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

And how would you explain the fact that CS is still top notch in FPS MP?
How can you acceive this without good gameplay?

There are a lot of idiots about, and most of them play counterstrike. Games don't need to have the best gameplay to become popular, they just need luck; CS has 3 big assets:

1. it's really old, so it runs on anything.
2. it has a system of fake depth.
3. it was the 'next big thing' just as internet gaming was taking off.

Most of the people who have experience of other games (and don't dismiss them out of hand because they're 'not counterstrike') play other games. The Quake series, the Unreal series.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

and would you mind sharing this pattern dr. Freud?

I'd prefer you not to associate me with Freud. Freud was a quack.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

and you would be cool enough te judge me?

Why do I need 'cool' to judge someone?

Originally Posted by PEACE!

ofcourse you studied the human Psyche while getting you english degree but does this really give you the right to judge and pettronise me?

English degrees, and the psychology taught in them, are a load of rubbish at best.

I have as much right to judge anyone as you, or anyone else does, if we're going down that road. I personally feel I have more right to judge people on this issue, because I have experience in the areas concerned, and know of a wide range of opinions that I can draw on for evidence.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

maybe you should try to look at yourself before you judge others

The closest I can get is to look in the reflection in this computer's CRT, which is currently turned off. Of course, if we're talking about CS, then there are plenty of flaws which are independent of opinion. The lack of depth is a fairly obvious one.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

especially if you wish to judge them on base of thing you dont know anything about or that don't matter

I put it to you that I know a good amount about Counterstrike, and internet gaming in general.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

I believe this trhead was about CS, not about my poor english or lack of style and posting threads in a way they'd make my english teacher proud......

This thread was about CS, and my comments were restricted to commentary on CS, where they were not replying to you. If you didn't want a topic discussed, why did you bring them up?

Of course, the major exception to this is my comment on your SPAG; this is a necessary point. Whilst poor spelling and grammar are not essential to get your point across, good spelling is a piece of courtesy which shows a modicum of respect for your fellow users; grammar is even more important, as it is the basis for the entire understanding of the language, and thus it helps ones argument if you can construct sentences which can accurately convey to a second or third party what it is exactly that you are meaning, which has a twofold effect, that of reducing possible misunderstandings, and also granting the ability to make subtler points with fewer explanatory requirements.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

in cunclusion i'd like to say one more thing
I think you are a great person.........
"FOR ME TO POOP ON"(Triumph the insult comic dog)

I'm sorry, but I'm not into that kind of thing. I hear MM is quite the swinger, though.

[Leshy]

Obligatory CSS sucks post.


Hugs,
Lizzy

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

2. it has a system of fake depth.

Of course, if we're talking about CS, then there are plenty of flaws which are independent of opinion. The lack of depth is a fairly obvious one..

What is fake depth? And how do we measure depth anyway (objectively I mean)?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What is fake depth? And how do we measure depth anyway (objectively I mean)?

I'd say, in an FPS, the number of different techniques, tactics, and things to learn. Something like UT2K4's dodging system is depth, as it adds to what you can do in the game. (This is talking about the 'gameplay' part of the game in isolation; something like Tom Clancy's Random Stuff [see what I did there?] has an excuse for not allowing jumping, or what have you, but CS isn't exactly realistic, is it)

The only real 'depth' to CS, beyond basic things like 'learning to aim' or 'learning the maps' is the variety of weapons, which at first glance appear wide and varied. Once you actually use them, you find out that which weapon you use doesn't affect the gameplay much at all (beyond shoehorning you into a specific role), hence 'fake depth'. The combat system in KOTOR is similar; at first, complex and varied, but when you gain experience with it, you find it's extremely limited.

[Structural Integrity]

Battlefield 1942 :: Desert Combat is where it's at

JJ





Jumping this bandwagn doesn't feel right.
But desert combat rocks anyway.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

but CS isn't exactly realistic, is it)

Compared to what? Some Tom Clancy nonsense? Probably not. But compared to most other FPS yeah it probably is. If only because of the setting. This may not be important to you but I remember being utterly bored by Quake-style games and CS was amazingly refreshing in that respect.

The only real 'depth' to CS, beyond basic things like 'learning to aim' or 'learning the maps' is the variety of weapons, which at first glance appear wide and varied.

Now that you've defined depth then I must say I'm not particularly interested in it, so that's fine.

It's somewhat akin of comparing Street Fighter 2 : Turbo (on the SNES) to one of it's later incarnations. There is more to do in Super Street Fighter 2 Alpha Zero EX Ultra Mode Blackbelt Edition or whatever but the simplicity of SF2:Turbo (or even SF2) makes for more interesting games (again, imho). The exact timing of punches/kicks/etc is what makes a good play as opposed to learning overblown super moves or similar. I'm sure by your definition chess would have more depth if we added a third dimension, or gave powerups or something. There would, after all, be more to do. But it wouldn't make for a better game.

I love the simplicity of CS. A poor player still has a vague of chance of making some kills but there is enough variant to ensure on average a more skilled player will always win.

[PEACE!]

Thank god!(and education I might add)
some people in this world can actually post their opinion in a way that half of the world's population wouldn't understand them!
Ofcourse I agree that language Is a strong tool when used correctly(and a evry weak one when use incorrectly) but I was hoping that a person like you would see trhough that.
To return to the point I never intended this thread to contain but was forced upon me by mindless creatures which feld the need to post reply's like "CS sux cock"
Now personally I don't share this opinion(especially since it has been stated as a fact).
If this would be true the CS community would walk around with a big smile on it's face(since most CS gamers and gamers in general are male and will not dislike oral stimulation of their penises).
I've played counterstrike for about 3 years now and I came to love the game and respect it.(damn i must get a personal life:P)
I have tried to find a game to replace my ancient Counter Strike but without any luck.
For instance I tried:
AA(2 realistic)
Battlefield 1942(very good but not basic shooter enough)
UT(2 much mindless fraggin)
and SOF2(not enough recoil)
as you might notice I don't like these games enough becouse their nothing like CS.
And I think that is where the problem lies.
Most people are affraid of changes. I considered myself not te be but I was.
And why play another game when you have a great one allready!
And it runs on a 300Mhz!
Ofcourse it looks like shit but grafics are irrelevent if you have a game that can grab you.

I'd like to say one last thing about steam.
I don't really like it either but CS 1.6 runs nicely on it and I have windows anyway so all those things you might download which you don't need aren't even close to the pile of junk windows is.
The worst thing about steam is that you NEED to be connected to the internet to play. Good for their business couse it's very hard to play without original cd-code but bad for LAN party's.

Furthermore i'd like to add that I do play other games next to CS but those will never replace it(well no current game anyway)

So in short:(read only this if you don't like long boring post)
There are many good FPS MP games like:
CS!
UT(series)
Quake(series)
RTCW:ET
Battlefield(series)
Far Cry
SoF2
(I do not consider AA a food mp game)
But none of them are simular to CS.
That is the main reason why people still play CS(in my oppinion).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Compared to what? Some Tom Clancy nonsense? Probably not. But compared to most other FPS yeah it probably is. If only because of the setting. This may not be important to you but I remember being utterly bored by Quake-style games and CS was amazingly refreshing in that respect.

This is not about CS then, this is about CS now. For instance, I couldn't say that Doom was a great game 'because of the graphics'. I could on release, but we're not comparing conditions at release. Games have moved on from then, as they have moved on from CS, which, if anything, has been moving backwards for many of its release iterations.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm sure by your definition chess would have more depth if we added a third dimension, or gave powerups or something. There would, after all, be more to do. But it wouldn't make for a better game.

Chess is immensely deep, because of the large varieties of methods which are valid. There is tactical depth, something that, in especially public games, this kind o'thang doesn't have. Even in the realm of the FPS, CS is tactically simple. Re: fighting games, the more available interactions, the better the game is; remember that you don't have to learn any of the moves, but they are there if you want to use them, which is the only real issue in multiplayer gaming. It could be the most complicated game in the world, but if people play by simplified rules, it's still simple.

After a while, there is a limit as to how much 'fun' you can have with Street Fighter 2: Turbo, because to an extent the game is down to which characters people pick, or their reaction speeds. If I wanted a pure twitch gaming experience, I wouldn't play SSF2:T, because it's not an elegent example of the form.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I love the simplicity of CS. A poor player still has a vague of chance of making some kills but there is enough variant to ensure on average a more skilled player will always win.

If I wanted elegant simplicity, I'd choose something like Doom or Quake. CS has MANY things that are different, such as the jumping, but they restrict from the player options, rather than add to them, which isn't a good thing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by PEACE!

UT(2 much mindless fraggin)

In what? Random pubs on FFA? Well, to use a popular idiom with you young people, durr.

UT2K4 has some of the most strategical and tactical gameplay of anything I've, well, played. 1 on 1's, and this is true for other games of this type, but more so for UT, bring other concepts to the fold; map and item control, more predictive play. TDM brings other things to the fore. Onslaught, on the other hand, is the most strategic online play I've experienced outside Total Annihilation.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

I don't really like it either but CS 1.6 runs nicely on it and I have windows anyway so all those things you might download which you don't need aren't even close to the pile of junk windows is.

You crack me up little buddy. Whilst I'm not in the business of defending Microsoft for their rather poor record of Release Now/Patch Later, you're putting forward an extremely bad argument. One bad thing happening is not excused by a very similar bad thing already having happened; indeed, with the amount of knowledge of Windows that must have been had, it makes it much much worse.

Oh, and say what you like about windows, it's never downloaded a gig of stuff which I can't access and didn't ask for.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

The worst thing about steam is that you NEED to be connected to the internet to play. Good for their business couse it's very hard to play without original cd-code but bad for LAN party's.

I don't think that actually applies any more; I heard it was removed in a recent update.

[JonnyBGood]

Oh good god


F. Nietzsche

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Oh good god

Yes, mortal?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is not about CS then, this is about CS now

It's still realistic compared to many other games in the same genre.

After a while, there is a limit as to how much 'fun' you can have with Street Fighter 2: Turbo, because to an extent the game is down to which characters people pick, or their reaction speeds.

I disagree as I'm still playing the game (on and off) a decade (ish) later. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

If I wanted elegant simplicity, I'd choose something like Doom or Quake.

That may be, but I'd choose CS as would many others. And it's not because I've not played Doom or Quake enough, merely I prefer CS.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's still realistic compared to many other games in the same genre

You mean the ones that aren't trying to be realistic (or anything close)? Compare it as a 'realistic shooter' to Call of Duty or Red Orchestra, and 'It's a realistic game in an unrealistic genre!' obviously doesn't apply any more.

Re: SSF2:T, it's still a good game. I never said it wasn't enjoyable, just that it doesn't have the staying power for long term consistent playing compared to other games of its type; whilst you can play a game on and off for years and not care about its limitations of flaws (good examples: Minesweeper, Solitaire), when you see there are other options available, and play it more than may be deemed 'occasionally', the flaws rear up and poke you in the nose.

That reminds me of possibly the best reason CS being everpopular is a bad thing: it stops people getting new computers, which mean publishers still aim for a rather too low LCD. Lack of upgrading is a bigger issue stateside than it is here, because they're still getting games on millions of CDs, whilst we're getting them on DVDs in DVD boxes.

Counterstrike can be fun in short doses, or if there isn't anything better available; but to me, a good game needs content, if it is to be anything more than a minor distraction.

Games are serious business, you know.

[Lupin]

CS has by far the biggest community of all mp action games which is prolly the main argument to play it.

i played a couple of 5vs5 clanwars and i have to say, CS aint only about "aiming" and "learning" the map. to win you have to have a big repertoire of good tactics.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Games are serious business, you know.

ofc and so is CS. the money you can win with CS is the biggest compared to other 3D shooters. additionally many pro-clans (and CS has lots of) are sponsored by different companies (ie. nvidia). claiming cs isnt serious biz compared to other games is quite inadequat.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

CS has by far the biggest community of all mp action games which is prolly the main argument to play it.

There are substantial communities of most other MP action games out there, unless you're looking at mods like AirBucs.

Originally Posted by Lupin

i played a couple of 5vs5 clanwars and i have to say, CS aint only about "aiming" and "learning" the map. to win you have to have a big repertoire of good tactics.

Most (or at least, most popular) CS maps are immensely simple, mainly because of the limited number of objective areas. Tell me how de_dust compares tactically to something like, say, OnsCrossfire.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

ofc and so is CS. the money you can win with CS is the biggest compared to other 3D shooters. additionally many pro-clans (and CS has lots of) are sponsored by different companies (ie. nvidia). claiming cs isnt serious biz compared to other games is quite inadequat.

You do realise that my line was a mockery of this kind of attitude?

CS is the biggest because it's the biggest. Sheer numbers can't define what's the best game, or else FFX would be deemed better than Planescape: Torment, Instagib would be better than AirBucs.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You mean the ones that aren't trying to be realistic (or anything close)?

Erm...yes? Realism isn't a particularly good/bad thing in itself but sometimes it's desirable or satisfying. I'm not really interested whether a game is trying to be a particularly way (realistic/slow-paced/gory), but CS is more realistic than other games. Yes, it's not the most realistic game, but no-one was making that claim. A certain level of realism is desirable. Too much is often tedious. CS, for myself, has the right amount.

it doesn't have the staying power for long term consistent playing compared to other games of its type

For yourself, perhaps. For others, not so much. You seem to be trying to make the arguments "objective". I've played dozens of other beat 'em ups and plenty of FPS. And I still disagree.

That reminds me of possibly the best reason CS being everpopular is a bad thing: it stops people getting new computers

I dislike the upgrade cycle in PCs anyway, so I'm not too bothered about this. Most very very good games I've ever played on the PC had relatively modest minimum specs (even at the time). I can't think of a game which genuinely pushed the technical envelope and I actually liked a lot. Maybe CS when it came out; I can't really remember what the minimum specs were compared to average PC.

[Lupin]

[quote=MrL_JaKiri]There are substantial communities of most other MP action games out there, unless you're looking at mods like AirBucs.
[quote]

ofc but cs has far more public servers.

Most (or at least, most popular) CS maps are immensely simple, mainly because of the limited number of objective areas. Tell me how de_dust compares tactically to something like, say, OnsCrossfire.

i dont know "OnsCrossfire", but in de_dust you have quite a lot of possibilites to storm the front.
the map leaves you two different ways to reach a bombplace. you can go through the tunnel or you take the way under the "bridge" (well it isnt a bridge, but i dont know how to call this way).

now if you go to the tunnel you have atleast three different options to storm the bp (right/straight left/left-right).

"under the bridge"-way is quite linear indeed, but in combination with the "tunnel" it can be very effective.

i aint a "pro" in cs, but if you seriously think about it you can find a lot of tactical possibilites on this or any other map in cs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, it's not the most realistic game, but no-one was making that claim

You said it was good because it was realistic, which was a change from the nonrealistic shooters of the day. Forgive me for interpreting this as some kind of recommendation based on its comparative realism.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

For yourself, perhaps. For others, not so much. You seem to be trying to make the arguments "objective". I've played dozens of other beat 'em ups and plenty of FPS. And I still disagree.

Some people will always play the same games over and over again. However, all other things being equal, I don't see how you can argue that having less depth is a good thing in a multiplayer game of this nature (ie not internet based), as noone is forcing you to use it.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I dislike the upgrade cycle in PCs anyway, so I'm not too bothered about this. Most very very good games I've ever played on the PC had relatively modest minimum specs (even at the time). I can't think of a game which genuinely pushed the technical envelope and I actually liked a lot. Maybe CS when it came out; I can't really remember what the minimum specs were compared to average PC.

When Half Life came out, it was fairly mid range; about the requirements of something like Unreal Tournament 2004 in comparison with today's standards.

And whilst you dislike the upgrade cycle, forcing dev houses to make concessions to 5 or 6 year old technology is not a good thing; you could get a processor that can run ANYTHING currently available for £20, for instance.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

CS is the biggest because it's the biggest. Sheer numbers can't define what's the best game, or else FFX would be deemed better than Planescape: Torment, Instagib would be better than AirBucs.

but how to define if a pc game is good or not?

to an extent a pc game is also a question of taste.

[PEACE!]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In what? Random pubs on FFA? Well, to use a popular idiom with you young people, durr.

UT2K4 has some of the most strategical and tactical gameplay of anything I've, well, played. 1 on 1's, and this is true for other games of this type, but more so for UT, bring other concepts to the fold; map and item control, more predictive play. TDM brings other things to the fore. Onslaught, on the other hand, is the most strategic online play I've experienced outside Total Annihilation.

I have never played UT2k4 but I did play UT a few times so I was referring to the original.

To get back on strategy and tactics
I don't think it's the key element of counterstrike, I still believe that Gameplay is(as explained later on) but it is one of them.
If you wish to become good at Counter Strike you will need to develop your tacticts over different maps(including maps you don't know as they require diffderent tactict then the ones you do know).
The best way to do this ofcourse is in a clan.
With tactics i'm not talking about the Tom Clansy's rainbow six kind of tactics but more about micro tactics(damn i need to find a different word for tactics :P).
What I mean is that becouse Counter Strikes basics are so simple you must focus on the little things to get better.

Before I had a pc strong enough(or poor enough) to play CS on I played Perfect dark on my n64. I was quite good but my brother allwaysbeat me couse he had better aim.
Once I started playing counterstrike I got better at Perfect dark too!
how?
Basic micro tactic!
Just know when to shot, when to hold your fire, when to run towards your enemy, when to flee, when to reload, when to switch weapon when to cover etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying that these features aren't important in other games. These things will help you in every shooter!
But other shooters have their accents on other assets like flying bloody airplanes or riding round in tanks(battlefield) and macro tactics(securing areas so you can low something up which allow your teammates to enter the base through another entrance where they can etc. etc. etc.

Counter Strike is just plain simple but not so simple you can't get good at it(couse of rediculously high recoil some real good map's and a community that keeps improving itself)
New generation shooters are great but people who started out with these games generally have an aim like a Parkinson patient and allways say: "i was reloading" couse they don't care to wait till they get a chance to reload or just take out their handgun.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You said it was good because it was realistic, which was a change from the nonrealistic shooters of the day. Forgive me for interpreting this as some kind of recommendation based on its comparative realism.

It's possible to make a comparison while not being concerned about absolute "ranking" in a set criteria. Let's imagine that many of my girlfriends have been short up until now. I then meet a girl who is quite tall. I remark in a positive fashion that one of the good things about this girl is she is tall. The fact she is not the tallest woman in the world is not that important.

However, all other things being equal, I don't see how you can argue that having less depth is a good thing in a multiplayer game of this nature (ie not internet based), as noone is forcing you to use it.

Well, you are forced to use it if you wish to win (I presume). If you're referring to more depth = more stuff to do then it becomes an arms race. If I am playing Chess with power-ups and stuff then presumably (unless the power ups are useless) I am probably forced to use them, at least ocassionally.

And whilst you dislike the upgrade cycle, forcing dev houses to make concessions to 5 or 6 year old technology is not a good thing

I wouldn't say it was particularly bad either. Most games which seem to rely on their technology (as it were) tend to be awful. I'd much prefer another isometric Fallout which ran on a P2 than the 3D crap-fest I'm worried we're going to get. This is not to make some sort of argument against technical development per se, merely that games companies tend to rely on technical innovation as opposed to gameplay. It is telling that after a decade of unbelievable advancements in processors/graphics-cards the best 3D game I have ever played came out eleven years ago.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by PEACE!

But other shooters have their accents on other assets like flying bloody airplanes or riding round in tanks(battlefield) and macro tactics(securing areas so you can low something up which allow your teammates to enter the base through another entrance where they can etc. etc. etc.

You appear to be ignoring this mode called 'deathmatch', which is generally quite important. Even in Onslaught, which is pretty far removed from DM, your individual DM skills can and do win and lose matches.

Originally Posted by PEACE!

New generation shooters are great but people who started out with these games generally have an aim like a Parkinson patient and allways say: "i was reloading" couse they don't care to wait till they get a chance to reload or just take out their handgun.

The simple answer is 'don't play with idiots'. CS wasn't the first and definitely wasn't the last game to have reloading, and if you're not an idiot you know not to reload in the enemy's line of fire. Not to reload when you don't have to.

These things aren't advanced tactical manouvers dude.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's possible to make a comparison while not being concerned about absolute "ranking" in a set criteria. Let's imagine that many of my girlfriends have been short up until now. I then meet a girl who is quite tall. I remark in a positive fashion that one of the good things about this girl is she is tall. The fact she is not the tallest woman in the world is not that important.

However, it wouldn't serve to act as a justification as to why you didn't go out with any of the other tall girls you could have chosen; you're setting up the false dichotomy of Tall vs Short, something which just isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, you are forced to use it if you wish to win (I presume). If you're referring to more depth = more stuff to do then it becomes an arms race. If I am playing Chess with power-ups and stuff then presumably (unless the power ups are useless) I am probably forced to use them, at least ocassionally.

Before I continue, I'm making a plea for you to stop with the 'chess with powerups' false dichotomy.

Now, onto business.

If you're sitting down, playing with friends (which is what I specified (well, almost. You could theoretically be sitting down playing with people you didn't know, but that's fairly unlikely in the kind of situation we're talking about) if you remember) there are several things that can take place to cause artificial restrictions on the game, to make it simpler; the most obvious is just making house rules, on player choice, or what have you.

The second is the situation you describe: the arms race. I don't see why this is a bad thing per se, unless you're compelled to spend x hours a day practicing to be competitive. This circumstance, when you're dealing with, say, a house of people who work, or a group of people at school or college, is extremely unlikely, because it requires large amounts of time on your own with a computer/console to practice on, and (as we're talking really about console games here, this kind o'game doesn't really work on the pc) as we both can verify, that's not really going to happen. Anyway, moving on: if the major practice you get is with eachother, then you all improve all the time, and in fits and bursts; until someone introduces it as a significant part of their gameplay (usually after mastering the techniques so far used) a variation, a type of move, of strategy, isn't seen. When it's introduced, you find it more used within the group, so the group improves as a unit. I've seen this happen, when we played Super Smash Brothers back in sixth form.

I suppose what my argument is based on is that I find the most fun part of the game to be the learning experience; once I master the essence (and in single player games, subtleties) of a game, it doesn't hold the same charm; this is something I've found especially true recently, when I've been playing Civ II, MOO2 and Alpha Centauri quite a lot, at work and otherwise. Once you can do everything in a game, the only real interest comes from competition with those skills, which is why the multiplayer component of a game has traditionally made or broken it as a 'contender', assuming the game has valid PvP structure. The more depth a game has, the more time I can put into the game and still find it fulfilling; whilst I'm still mastering skills, in single and multiplayer, the game is much more fun.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I wouldn't say it was particularly bad either. Most games which seem to rely on their technology (as it were) tend to be awful.

It depends what you mean by 'rely on their technology'; this is something that isn't really happening much any more (the only recent example of which I can think of is Far Cry, and even that was just mediocre rather than bad), partially because of the sheer effort that creating something on the bleeding edge of technology takes, and partially because of the rise of the licensed engine. There are 4 major FPS engines about at the moment, those being Doom III, CryTech, Source and Unreal; Far Cry was built purely as an engine demo, but UT2K4, Doom III and Half Life II either are or are likely to be very good games.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd much prefer another isometric Fallout which ran on a P2 than the 3D crap-fest I'm worried we're going to get.

Bethseda are competent, and are making the right noises (there's an SA member who works there, and is the first to point out the flaws in Morrowind, for instance. Coincidentally, there's also a J Sawyer (or 'rope kid') who was the lead designer on Fallout 3 when it was still being developed by Black Isle). They're trustworthy.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It is telling that after a decade of unbelievable advancements in processors/graphics-cards the best 3D game I have ever played came out eleven years ago.

I can't say the best 3D game I've ever played. I presume you're talking about one of your crazy Elite iterations though, and when, if memory serves, you're talking about your favourite ever game, it's not a surprise that you haven't found anything better.

However, the technology does add to the gameplay; look at the Havok II physics engine; as with all things, it's to do with the implementation, but it's looking like it's going to be changing first person games for the better in a significant way (example of bad implementation: Max Payne 2. First game with Havok, and it was a gimmick, but not one they used to sell the game. Good implementation: Half Life 2. Problem solving and what have you.)

Generic request: can you put line breaks after you quote someone, without them your text runs together and, especially in a reasonably lengthy post, it can be needlessly difficult to tell where the statement breaks are.

[Nodrog]

CS is shit play quakeworld.

edit: quake has far more 'depth' than UT200x, especially in duels. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously argue otherwise.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

several essays

you sure are serious about computer gaming.

[JonnyBGood]

Everything on this forum not involving me descends into a ridiculously pedantic debate no matter the subject material.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

edit: quake has far more 'depth' than UT200x, especially in duels. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously argue otherwise.

The maps are a lot more '3D' if you will, so there's more to consider. Plus there are more 'tricks' with the maps than there ever were in Quake. And that's not even counting the comparative weapon bases or powerup whatsits.

[1-X]

so do any of you want to join his tournament team, which is all the poor chap actually wanted to know?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Generic request: can you put line breaks after you quote someone, without them your text runs together and, especially in a reasonably lengthy post, it can be needlessly difficult to tell where the statement breaks are.

Does it? My apologies, I always found putting in linebreaks to be aesthetically displeasing. e.g. Without Breaks vs With Breaks. Or did you mean after you try and quote me? Is there any way of preserving both ways? I'll try to change my posts on a thread with heavy involvement from yourself either way.

Tall vs Short, something which just isn't the case.

Well to be clearer : One of the things that I like about CS is its realism, compared to some other games. Conversely, it is a lot more arcadey/fun than many other ultra-realistic games. To continue the analogy my girlfriend is just the right height in this case.

Before I continue, I'm making a plea for you to stop with the 'chess with powerups' false dichotomy.

OK, but the point stands that more features is not necessarily an automatically good thing.

The second is the situation you describe: the arms race. I don't see why this is a bad thing per se, unless you're compelled to spend x hours a day practicing to be competitive.

What if you simply don't enjoy that aspect of the game? It's not even the grind. To use the Street Fighter example again, I simply don't like using super moves. I can do them but I prefer the game without them. Yes, I could make arrangements with people I am playing against to not use them but that's tiresome, not everyone agrees, people forget, they happen accidently sometimes etc. The arms race thing is fine (on some levels) if everyone enjoys learning/doing the moves or playing that way, but that isn't a universal.

To use some sort of cross-thread analogy, its like the off-side rule. On some sort of level football would have "more features available" if the off-side rule was abolished but it's agreed by some that it would make for a less attractive game. The arms race isn't always a pleasant thing basically. Similarly, the game play "forced" by some of the "deeper" FPS to be quite dull. Playing a map for the nth time where people are scrambling for specific weapons doesn't strike me as fun. Again, I recognise this as a subjective view, and not one I can attribute to being more experienced or whatever.

The more depth a game has, the more time I can put into the game and still find it fulfilling; whilst I'm still mastering skills, in single and multiplayer, the game is much more fun.

I'm not sure if I feel the same way. But I think it's slightly misleading to presume that its easy to master "simple" skills in a game like Counter Strike (or SF2 for that matter).

There are 4 major FPS engines about at the moment, those being Doom III, CryTech, Source and Unreal; Far Cry was built purely as an engine demo, but UT2K4, Doom III and Half Life II either are or are likely to be very good games.

I obviously haven't played those games but going on previous experience I imagine I'll hate them all.

Bethseda are competent[...]They're trustworthy.

I hope to be wrong as Fallout is one of my most favourite games.

I can't say the best 3D game I've ever played. I presume you're talking about one of your crazy Elite iterations though, and when, if memory serves, you're talking about your favourite ever game, it's not a surprise that you haven't found anything better.

I am indeed talking about Frontier, but saying its my favourite game ever is just restating the point. Why on Earth hasn't there been a better game than Frontier made yet?

Every Elite-clone I've played since (Privateer 2, Freelancer, X, X2, etc etc) have been utter crap compared to Frontier precisely because they came from completley the wrong approach. Much of that approach does seem to rely on "let's make things pretty" school of game design. I partially blame this on ever increasing hardware specs.

However, the technology does add to the gameplay

Oh, it can sure. But it rarely does. Games are (on average) in a worse state than they were 5/10 years ago despite having dramatically better technology to work with. I'm willing to admit this might be just me getting old and such.