Eh, I can't really describe the depth in CS better than just saying its like a golf swing. I don't play golf really, but I know people devote a lot of their life to swinging a fricken golf club correctly. You can spend a ton of time in CS learning how to fire a gun correctly and how to move correctly, and how to throw off an awper with movement tricks and timing. It's why most people will agree that you can't just pick up CS after not playing for long periods and compete at a decent level. You have to get the muscle memory and intuition back. Someone just said that CS is anything but a fast game, but to get really good at CS, your actions have to be automatic, so while there may not be constant action, the action that does happen is very fast paced.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Counter-strike still wins?
- Thread starter piscian18
- Start date
Ut2004 was a consolized piece of shit.
1. Vehicles and large player counts, the sign of a noob and a game with no skill component and all. Onslaught = noobslaught, EPIC should go broke for that, and anybody who played it was a bad gamer and a no talent ass clown and should GTFO and stop gaming forever. Most horrible gametype ever, for the least skilled clowns ever to touch a mouse, I'm glad UT is dead, at least there will be no more noobslaught.
2. Movement = consolized platformer, seriously, it's fucking Mario brothers with guns. Get back a sense of gravity, dodges that you have to time properly, and a complex movement system, not movement for meth addicts.
3. Crap weapon balanced ripped off consoles, WTF is with hitscan dominating everything! Once you stop being a scrub only two weapons really matter, shock and LTG, with a splash of link. The rest might as well not exist. This is bad, in UT99 every weapon was good. Is this Golden eye?
4. Bad map design, way too large and way to open. The maps were made for retards, which is why most even weren't competitive. No choke points, very few control points, and way to open, is this Halo? Get a grip epic and don't make crap maps.
5. Adrennalin, this was so stupid I don't know where to start.
6. Weapons do no damage, nothing is really scary, might as well call it the nerf gun game.
I can go on, UT2004 was a noobed up pile of shit, new school game and only played by people who are bad at video games, noobs, utter, and complete noobs.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
I still like the gun physics of CS and CS:S more then any other game I have played.
I think that's simply a matter of what some people are used to rather than them being good. As a person who has fired and owned many of the guns or similar weapons as those in Counterstrike, I've got to tell you that many of them are WAY off the mark in how they are portrayed.
You're not a CS player. You already claimed to be bias towards Arena shooter, CS is not an arena shooter.
It has a lot of depth but you clearly haven't played into it, maybe never done a 5v5, competed in a league, or anything like that. There is a reason CS and SC are the biggest competitive games (how long have they been played now?) and that isn't because of a LACK of depth.
It also has nothing to do with being cheap. There are plenty of people out there like me who have pretty good rigs and new games but the new games just aren't even close to as good, so we find ourselves going back to the good ones (CS and QuakeWorld of course, what else?), also the competitive scene for any shooter that isn't CS or Quake is a complete joke, except MAYBE TF2 at a high level, but even that seems to have died down quite a bit already.
I'm not trying to specifically pick you out but I think you're attacking the game because you simply don't enjoy it. CS isn't meant to be a 100% realistic game. It was built for competitive & tactical gameplay (this also explains the game modes, CS maps are for fun, DE is for competition or more tactical gameplay). Everything was made that way for a reason. The recoil, damage and armor system, and even the sounds of the guns.
BETA.
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,906
I have never used a firearm in my life, but I am sure that no game out there mimics real life recoil/shooting behavior from what I have seen(maybe a game like Arma comes closest though). It is not because game developers are too lazy to try or that they cannot, but it probably comes down to practicality. Take AWPing for example, no human can pull that off in real life with what you can do in game. And if you wanted the real life aspect integrated in the game, it would become useless.
CS gun fire requires lots of controlled bursts to compensate for recoil. And that takes experience to know how to control each gun's behavior. Just like you say, it is a matter of being used to it. With that said though...
Games like COD, you can aim down the sight and hold that LMB until your enemy is dead. Just fire up black ops and choose an LMG loadout and try this, the recoil is not that big of a factor. My point is, the learning curve for shooting guns in CS is higher than games like COD, which takes more experience and skill.
IMO Ravenshield had the best recoil of all games, and all this recoil talk makes me want to fire it up again
IMO Ravenshield had the best recoil of all games, all this recoil talk makes me want to fire it up again
Used to be a HUGE RvS player back in the day (TWL? LOL). Was such a fun game
Well that's your opinion on CS and that's certainly a valid perspective. Mine is that it lacks depth. I'm not talking about the structure of competition that's cropped up around it, but the game itself. You see depth where I do not. I see more depth in a game of BFBC2 where virtually everything is concealment and not truly cover. The physics of the weapons in that are far superior, and more complex than just about any other game I've seen. Vehicles, strategy, teamwork etc. are all necessary and these things are either dumbed down by comparison or virtually absent from CS. Sure there is teamwork and strategy but when you are so limited by what you can do in the game, the depth is limited. I'm not saying arena shooters are deep by any means. Certainly not. What I am saying is that the arena shooters are what I consider a better test of skill and a more level playing field. Again opinions like this are relatively subjective.
I also never said that CS was designed to be realistic though it was always touted as being such in the beginning by players of the game at that time. Sadly it was probably the most realistic shooter of it's day, but that doesn't say much when everything else was an arena shooter.
I have never used a firearm in my life, but I am sure that no game out there mimics real life recoil/shooting behavior from what I have seen(maybe a game like Arma comes closest though). It is not because game developers are too lazy to try or that they cannot, but it probably comes down to practicality. Take AWPing for example, no human can pull that off in real life with what you can do in game. And if you wanted the real life aspect integrated in the game, it would become useless.
CS gun fire requires lots of controlled bursts to compensate for recoil. And that takes experience to know how to control each gun's behavior. Just like you say, it is a matter of being used to it. With that said though...
Games like COD, you can aim down the sight and hold that LMB until your enemy is dead. Just fire up black ops and choose an LMG loadout and try this, the recoil is not that big of a factor. My point is, the learning curve for shooting guns in CS is higher than games like COD, which takes more experience and skill.
IMO Ravenshield had the best recoil of all games, and all this recoil talk makes me want to fire it up again
This is a common misconception. Many weapons are designed to be controllable with fully automatic fire. The P90 is a perfect example of this. The MP5 is as well. Yes Call of Duty is easy as hell to compensate for with regard to muzzle climb (you simply adjust downward with the mouse) but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Push the fire key without holding the mouse and the muzzle will climb. CS lacks the game play mechanics to compensate for recoil in the same way making it absolute and offering the player no chance to compensate for it other than using burst fire and adjusting the mouse downward in between shots This is not depth, but rather the limited game play physics / mechanics of the late 1990's at work.
Last edited:
Realistic shooters are bad shooters, this has been the case for a long time. Realistic shooters are also noobish games, they are not competitive or skilled games in any sense of the term.
Really, only two FPS games on the PC have ever held any sort of lasting competitive scene with top quality players, CS and Quake. You can't really call either one remotely real in any sense of the term.
However both are designed around competition first and foremost, so they take a ton of skill.
Really, only two FPS games on the PC have ever held any sort of lasting competitive scene with top quality players, CS and Quake. You can't really call either one remotely real in any sense of the term.
However both are designed around competition first and foremost, so they take a ton of skill.
I can agree with the statement that ultra-realistic first person shooters are bad games. I hated many of the Rainbow Six and Operation Flashpoint games which weren't necessarily realistic but attempted to be. I wouldn't call them noobish or say they lack skill. I'd be more inclined to say the skills you use for CS or Quake aren't transferable to a game like Operation Flashpoint. I'm OK (or was when I played all the time) at CS, but I'm really good at arena shooters like UT and Quake. I totally suck at Operation Flashpoint or Rainbow Six games. If they didn't require skill and were totally "noobish" I'd think I'd be able to move through those games as if they had no challenge succeeding so long as I put my time in on the game like an MMO. (MMO games require little to no skill for the most part in my opinion.)
Really, the skill in a game relates to the skill of the competition. No shooters have managed to touch the level of skill that exists in Quake and CS, I don't think people are going to bother to argue that.
I should say that I don't have a problem with simulation style games per say, I played R6 and GR through. But I don't consider them games of skill. It was more just memorization and knowing what would happen.
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
The mp5 and p90 in CS have very little recoil, but also very little accuracy/dmg at med/far range. Pro's are able to spray people down at medium range with the ak/m4, but it takes a lot of skill to control well past the first couple bullets.
I also don't think games should be modeled very strictly on real life, but I would like to make the argument that when a game has really harsh recoil, it is as if the game is leaving it up to the player to fully handle the gun, while games with little recoil assume the character is handling recoil.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
I don't think realistic guns necessarily make the best game guns. I enjoy shooting as a sport but that is not how I like my games to play. It's not even that I am all that used to CS gun physics. I barely have 20hours logged in online for CS, I mostly play it at lan parties. But whenever I do play it I always think to myself "man I wish more games had guns like in cs"
I love how even games that were never released for consoles can now be considered consolized. Sorry you never enjoyed the game, but I thought it was a lot of fun and played it quite a bit. There were a lot of other people playing it too. If you were talking about UT2k3 I would agree that is was lacking, but I thought ut2k4 brought back a lot of the feel of UT99.
Last edited:
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
I don't think the recoil of the guns in CS is what people are talking about when they discuss gun "feel." If anything, that is the thing I like about them the least, the random cone of bullets they spray out.
They way they fire and handle, in terms of aiming and the scale of the players in the world is also something just seems to feel right. That being said, I love BC2 and think that while it is different, also has a great overall feel in movement and gun handling.
They way they fire and handle, in terms of aiming and the scale of the players in the world is also something just seems to feel right. That being said, I love BC2 and think that while it is different, also has a great overall feel in movement and gun handling.
What do you mean "now" it was called consolized when it came out, that insult has been around far longer than the current generation.
Are you thinking of UT3?
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
No UT2003 was consolized, it was released on the xbox as well. And there was a ton of screaming about it, and ton of bitching about Unreal Championship.
The generation of gamers that started prior to UT2003, screamed yelled, threw their fists up in the air and cried about how consolized it was.
Kinda like what happens every time, with every PC game. Which is why devs, if they aren't stupid, don't listen to that sort of crap.
My cat is five years old and she'll do that with virtually any first person shooter.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
UT2k3 did stink, and gamers through a fit about it, but personally I felt they remedied that pretty well with UT2k4 which was not released on console.
I thought so as well. UT2003 was just "off" and UT2004 addressed every complaint I think the community had concerning UT2003.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Though, 2k4 should have been released as a free patch/upgrade to those who bought 2k3...
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
And then UT2k4 went on to sell millions. So why didn't they fix UT3 to get more sales?
I guess they are Microsoft's bitch now, and MS wanted them to give up on UT and concentrate on Gears of War.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
I still play CS Source every so often, on the Noobgalore server, it's one of the best run cs_office servers in existence, it's a really good server to play on.
I play as Snake Doctor, when I'm not playing other games, although it has been a while since I've played.
I play as Snake Doctor, when I'm not playing other games, although it has been a while since I've played.
I do not disagree, but at least they didn't charge full price for it. As I recall UT2004 was $29.99 instead of being another $49.99 purchase.
Actually they did fix it. UT3 got pretty good after the Titan pack. The problem is that the community for it never really got off the ground and by the time the game was fixed it was too little, too late.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
The menu interface/UI is pretty awful still.
UT3 was too much of a hardware hog, you could tell it would be bad just by looking at the graphical detail. It took too long for people to have PCs that could run it so it died as it should.
High end graphics kill a lot of things, including the UT series.
High end graphics kill a lot of things, including the UT series.
It's serviceable now though.
So true. CoD4 and CoD5 were not Steam exclusives as I recall.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Not even close to being the case. UT3 was never a hardware hog unless you counted the demo physx levels.
Pretty much.
It was. I was really involved in the competitive and modding communities when it hit, prounreal, beyond unreal, and nobody could run it well. By the time hardware had reached the point where everybody could, they'd all moved on to TF2 and other games, leaving UT dead.
If it had been released say a year or more later, polished a bit more, I think it would still be alive and kicking today.
Spetsnaz201
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 183
I tip my hat to you, good sir. You have fine tastes.
ARMA II with ACE mode is supposedly really good but being a full time college student working part-time and sending resumes out looking for a coop... I don't have time to play 10 consecutive hours, if at all, sadly.
Yeah ARMA II is a complicated game and you can't just jump into it and play. My computer is not good enough to run the game on decent settings, unfortunately.
Game like this will never be suitable for 99% of people. Most just don't have the patience or brain cells to get into a game like that.
If by patience you mean keep playing and hope the game becomes fun then you're correct, most of us don't have the patience.
It's not as much of a game as it is a war simulator.
radioactivez0r
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 567
Though the discussion seems to have degenerated into an Unreal board, throwing my 2 cents in -
CS is basically the most polished competitive shooter ever made. You may not like how it plays, but you can't deny that 1.6 hasn't been really modified in 7 years and is still the most popular shooter for top-level competitive play. There's just nothing to fix.
CS is basically the most polished competitive shooter ever made. You may not like how it plays, but you can't deny that 1.6 hasn't been really modified in 7 years and is still the most popular shooter for top-level competitive play. There's just nothing to fix.
Let see, more maps, destructible environments, weather effects, new models, new textures, DX11 support, etc. I think there is a lot to fix. Counterstrike is "old and busted." Games like Call of Duty and Battlefield Bad Company 2 are "the new hotness."