bah how you going mention those classics without the legend of zeldaDr.Battlefield wrote:
Tetris, Pacman, and Super Mario FTW!-r3-anubis wrote:
BAD
BF 2 and CSS = too many damn n00bs
zelda ftw!
zelda ftw!
seriously. you could literally play that game with your eyes closed and get killsbobroonie.bda wrote:
4.. guns are way way way to accurate. you dont even have to aim sometimes just spray and boom head shot 3 people in a row..
I left CSS for bf2 and I was above an average player in CSS skill wise and I think that bf2 > css, though css has better ragdoll physics other than that its a totaly different game type
The thing that really does it for me is the console. BF2 has the shittiest user console as compared to CS or CS:S. In BF you can't alias anything and the commands are waaaaay to long to be intuitive. EX: SettingsManagerfloat.Set GSDefaultLatencyCompensation vs. rate or cl_updaterate. My point is, CS:S can be configured to your way of play. You can script all day long in CS:S. I don't know how many times I wished I could bind a chat message in BF2 that said "hey look out for those mines buddy!" Just an example of how noob BF2 is with the lack of a mine warning and no way to create your own without pausing in game to type a message. Both games are sweet in their own way and that's why I play them both. And well, the punkbuster vs. VAC argument can be an entirely different thread of it's own.....EA vs. Valve well, let's just say they are two completely different corporate cultures with the only common bond being the almighty dollar.
The source engine in general is capable of fancier graphics as I show you here. (any excuse to show off my graphics card)
However, the terrain engine for BF2 is probably better.
However, the terrain engine for BF2 is probably better.
J10>>>>AWP
/thread
/thread
lmaodop3man wrote:
J10>>>>AWP
/thread
The answer is easy there´s so many bad players playing bf2 compared to css
Even the average guy like me can "pawn" sometimes in this game
Even the average guy like me can "pawn" sometimes in this game
I've played both games for a good ammount of time and CSS is "small."
Everything's so linear that you play for a few hours and you've seen everything. All that's left is just to get better.
In BF2, there's always finding a better spot, a better tactic, or anything else in the maps that span multiple square miles.
After going through most everything in both games, all I can give credit to CSS is the modding community.
The source engine is just godly for modding and custom maps are easier to make. BF2E < Hammer
As to BF2, I can go play for a couple minuted and probobly find something I've never seen before.
Everything's so linear that you play for a few hours and you've seen everything. All that's left is just to get better.
In BF2, there's always finding a better spot, a better tactic, or anything else in the maps that span multiple square miles.
After going through most everything in both games, all I can give credit to CSS is the modding community.
The source engine is just godly for modding and custom maps are easier to make. BF2E < Hammer
As to BF2, I can go play for a couple minuted and probobly find something I've never seen before.
BF2: NO AWPs
CSS: AWPs
That brings the score to:
BF2: 1
CSS: MINUS ONE GOOGLEPLEX
CSS: AWPs
That brings the score to:
BF2: 1
CSS: MINUS ONE GOOGLEPLEX
CS:S Strong Points => Its easy to run, not demanding on a PC yet still pleasing to the eye and with a great level of satisfaction in the blood spatter after each successful kill
BF2 Strong Points => No AWPs
Edit: Damnit I didn't read the other post regarding no AWPs, I'm a nub
BF2 Strong Points => No AWPs
Edit: Damnit I didn't read the other post regarding no AWPs, I'm a nub
Last edited by Vampira_NB (2006-06-05 18:38:24)
What's an AWP ?
CS:S:
Graphically better in most areas (Source engine with advanced physics, water, weather, and HDR)
Less Bugs
Timeless Classic!
BF2:
HUGE FIGHTS! With Vehicles!
Squads and Commanders and Ranks
Tad bit more relaxed, not as demanding as CS:S (Gotta love those 1 vs 10 rounds...)
BTW those who complain about the AWP, just stop as its defeatable and not as godlike many claim it to be.
Graphically better in most areas (Source engine with advanced physics, water, weather, and HDR)
Less Bugs
Timeless Classic!
BF2:
HUGE FIGHTS! With Vehicles!
Squads and Commanders and Ranks
Tad bit more relaxed, not as demanding as CS:S (Gotta love those 1 vs 10 rounds...)
BTW those who complain about the AWP, just stop as its defeatable and not as godlike many claim it to be.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7141
hello.....AWP of CS:S = L96A1 of BF2, BUT if u consider the power then AWP = J10
True Dat Superior, true dat.
Both games have their "zomg it pwns all teh time" weapon.
Both games have their "zomg it pwns all teh time" weapon.
Css = Too Slowwww
CSS - Not alot of bunny hoppers!!!
BF 2 - ITS EASTER ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
BF 2 - ITS EASTER ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
Vehicles
bf2 = more involved game with more featuresDaReJa wrote:
BF2 = Better Game.
CS:S = Less Bugs.
CS:S less involved
i used to play cs alot! then i started playing css. i found i was upset with the game play. THERE WERE WAY TOO MANY HEADSHOTS! WTF?!?! everytime you would come around the corner u would either pwn the enemy by giving a hs or get pwned by them by getting hs'd... i hate CSS. cs was not bad, but its old now...
BF2 FTW by far! is has so much more to do AND MUCH LESS HACKERS!!! lol! there was on average around 2 hackers on a server of 18 ppl... that is like having 8 haxors on a 64 server on BF2. imagine that. BF2 is by far so much better than css. then again much less lag on css (obviously cause it is less invilved heh)
overall? BF2
BF2 FTW by far! is has so much more to do AND MUCH LESS HACKERS!!! lol! there was on average around 2 hackers on a server of 18 ppl... that is like having 8 haxors on a 64 server on BF2. imagine that. BF2 is by far so much better than css. then again much less lag on css (obviously cause it is less invilved heh)
overall? BF2
Last edited by pwned7 (2006-06-05 20:56:41)
if u want alot of fun without alot of waiting play BF2, and there isnt as many hackers on BF2
The graphics in CSS pucking fwn BF2, Load times are almost 1/20 of Bf2 times, and I can run EVERYTHING on high
Battlefield, has more fun, its not as serious OMFG YOU NOOB YOU DIED GET OFF THE TEAM type thing
Thats over internet
On a lan, I would say both games would be good, but I would go with CS
CS=Lan
BF2=Internet
However........the bots on CSS haul so much ass over the BF2 ones its not funny
Hell! Nearly everymap can use bots! In Bf2 you have to code it if you want bot support!
Battlefield, has more fun, its not as serious OMFG YOU NOOB YOU DIED GET OFF THE TEAM type thing
Thats over internet
On a lan, I would say both games would be good, but I would go with CS
CS=Lan
BF2=Internet
However........the bots on CSS haul so much ass over the BF2 ones its not funny
Hell! Nearly everymap can use bots! In Bf2 you have to code it if you want bot support!
Last edited by Sarrk (2006-06-05 22:43:25)
i think having the graphic setting of both css and bf2 on high, bf2 would be so much better. its just that bf2 users dont have such good comps so settings are on low - medium. yeah cs would prolly be better lan cause its close quarter combat where alot happens.
I think its bullshit that the AWP is one shot one kill anywhere, its a police version of the gun, thus meaning its weaker, while the L96 is the military versionSuperior Mind wrote:
hello.....AWP of CS:S = L96A1 of BF2, BUT if u consider the power then AWP = J10
Awp uses .338 Bullets I think, one shot, one kill
M95 uses .50 bullets..............One shot everywhere but the head doesnt kill you, including the torso
D:<
css awping(sniping) = noob sniping