Poll

Which is considered noobier?

Cs:1.639%39% - 31
CS: Source60%60% - 48
Total: 79
bobby177
Member
+129|6530|Texas.. getting out asap

Presence wrote:

You don't have nerds tweaking their files to give them every possible advantage over other players.  So, CSS>1.6>BF2
Uhhhh yeah you do
Microwave
_
+515|6712|Loughborough Uni / Leeds, UK
I'm not going to talk about which is "noobier" because you can't really give an opinion based on a word with multiple interpretations.


In terms of which is 'better' - the whole debate immensely annoys me.


How enjoyable a game is, is surely based on visuals and the actual gameplay (I believe that is more than an opinion - yet still not (for obvious reasons) a fact.


People who play 1.6 claim ZOMFG 1.6 is teh 1337, css is 4 n00bs, I made linux etc etc.



1.6 looks undoubtedly terrible in comparison to CSS.

CSS wins that one.



The only thing 1.6'ers can claim 'betterment' (I think that's the right context/word) is gameplay.

HOWEVER, as they were both made by valve, mostly the same maps.....omg...they're quite similar.


Surely the only reason people play 1.6 is that their PC can't handle source - thus they attack it for being easy!! (Or for shiggles - word of the day )

I rest my case!





Trying to somehow connect this to the OP:  I believe CS:1.6 is "noobier" based on how shit the graphics look and the overly loyal and delusional user base.


edit: I've played both.

Last edited by james@alienware (2007-05-29 11:25:31)

lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|6886|Denver colorado

Retalliation[1337] wrote:

B-Scimitar wrote:

jord wrote:

CSS is better than 1.6, i know this without ever playing 1.6
QFT
QFTx2
Qft^3
br4vo.f0xtrot
Member
+1|6627
I like 1.6 and CZ better than Source because i enjoy having to aim my weapon before firing it.

[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

burst to legs in source -> headshot.  that's how great hit boxes source has.
QFT, the source headshot hitboxes are rediculous.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6596|byah

=TBG=Zoton wrote:

I have never played either of the two because I know how bad people hack in it and I'm more than happy with the quality of the gaming in BF2
BF2s quality makes it seem like it was made by children in sweatshops
strikeman67
Member
+5|6670
I have played all the flavors of CS and I prefer CS:S.  The reasons I like S is the following:

1)  The maps have been updated with improved backgrounds.
2)  The S engine lets you effect items in the enviroment.
3)  The ragdoll physics are cool in S.
4)  The new Flashbangs and smoke are much better in S.

That is why I like S over the other CSs.
Microwave
_
+515|6712|Loughborough Uni / Leeds, UK

br4vo.f0xtrot wrote:

I like 1.6 and CZ better than Source because i enjoy having to aim my weapon before firing it.

[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

burst to legs in source -> headshot.  that's how great hit boxes source has.
QFT, the source headshot hitboxes are rediculous.
Bullshit.



strikeman67 wrote:

I have played all the flavors of CS and I prefer CS:S.  The reasons I like S is the following:

1)  The maps have been updated with improved backgrounds.
2)  The S engine lets you effect items in the enviroment.
3)  The ragdoll physics are cool in S.
4)  The new Flashbangs and smoke are much better in S.

That is why I like S over the other CSs.
That, I agree with.

Last edited by james@alienware (2007-05-29 11:52:06)

m4s3rchi3f
Member
+122|6351
wow...people love source as much as 1.6 Incredible. I just dun like source cuz its huge hitboxes.And the lack of recoil in its spray.
bobby177
Member
+129|6530|Texas.. getting out asap

strikeman67 wrote:

I have played all the flavors of CS and I prefer CS:S.  The reasons I like S is the following:

1)  The maps have been updated with improved backgrounds.
2)  The S engine lets you effect items in the enviroment.
3)  The ragdoll physics are cool in S.
4)  The new Flashbangs and smoke are much better in S.

That is why I like S over the other CSs.
All useless things that don't effect gameplay. Except for #4 a little bit.
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6789|St. Andrews / Oslo

deathaspekt wrote:

Alright, let's put this bull shit to rest. No game is better than any other game. You may like a game better than another, but these things are clearly based on opinion. The games are different even if they have the same maps and guns. The individual experiences are as follows:

1.6:
+ Arcadey, fast paced gameplay (Dubed best in world by many)
+ Incredibley diverse community (People are usually just pubbers or LANers)
+ Very casual or very intense play
- Dreadful visuals, sound quality and build
- VAC no longer highly effective...

Source:
+ More realistic, tactical gameplay
+ Amazing engine with superb graphics, sound design, and physics
+ Hugley active community with loads of custom content and mods
- Deemed as of lesser gameplay value than 1.6 (By most who played 1.6 before Source)
- More system straneous, subject to problematic updates

Clearly, 1.6 is far more of an arcadey game with a faster pace while Source's play is more reliant on tactics although skill plays an overwhelming role as well. These games have their own perks and flaws. I enjoy a more tactical, realistic experience (Even as so, quite arcadey) as I enjoy (and am good at) exploiting an enemy team tactically rather than relying completley on my aim. But that is just me, it depends soley on the gamer. Personally, 1.6 got old for me after too many years. That is just me.

DISPELLING IDIOCIES, ROUMERS, AND ACTS AGAINST YOUR BROTHER GAME:

1) "Source takes no/far less skill"
ONLINE GAME. ONLINE. CONTROLLED BY OTHER PEOPLE. This means that it is not the gameplay, rather the players you are playing against. How about you get on a good server? This should be common sense, it is the specific players you are against at the time. Source is what we call less skill leaniant. This means although the more skilled player will win, it will not be by so much. This is because the running speed/walls ect. have been toned down to a more practical pace, making your resources for surviving much lesser and the ease to kill your enemy higher. However, EVEYONE PLAYS WITH THESE MODIFICATIONS INCLUDING YOURSELF, therefore no. We can look at games like Unreal 04 as the most skill leaniant, as the worlds best players almost NEVER die at all.

2) "Everyone hacks in X"
No. Play a better server or private, or god forbid just boot the kid.

3) "1.6 sucks because of the graphics"
You are a graphics whore. You would play a pony game if it were in DX10. GAMEPLAY is the main aspect of any game (Although visuals do help with the gameplay).

4) "Source is just spray pray"
CS:S source code, weapons.ak.dll, line 62
int fire_raddi == .76^.12&11

CS 1.6 source code, weapons.ak.dll, line 40
int fire_raddi == .80^12&10

See for yourself. The entire thing is this all across the map. Although the Source guns have a slightly more narrow maximum spray diamater, the 1.6 guns are more consistent, meaning you can more accuratley deliver at higher rates of fire. In the end, they are mathematically balanced, what Valve had intended, a mathematical similarity with different variables substituted in.

5) "Source's purpose was HL2 graphics /w 1.6 gameplay, so it failed"
No, that was not the purpose, if it were that is what we would have. I am sick of devs releasing annual updates of pretty much the same exact game with better graphics and sound and maybe an extra feture. So was Valve. This is why they made it an entirley new game in and of itself rather than just a 1.7. And you know what? 1.6 is still there, too. Amazing.

6) Act: Lying to attack a ****ing videogame...
This happend quite a lot, and I always find it painfully obvious. People are actually making up fake stories and claims to attack another video game or defend their own. This is the ultimate idiocy. We saw this in this thread as Rockraven, someone had before indispicably stated that he had played 1.6 out, now stated for some reason that he wanted to just now buy 1.6, and made a stupid excuse about pretending to make someone cry onto their mic. Please, stop, all of you.

Who cares what game you play? When you tell of how you ripped up B tunnels with an AK, everyone knows what you are talking about. When you talk about fishing double doors with an AWP and nailing three CTs on their way to B site from T spawn, we all get it. It does not matter what game you play because it starts with Counter-Strike, and ends with some kickass fun.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6525
CSS is one of the n00biest games ever. 1.6 isn't much better but at least in 1.6 the hitboxes aren't larger than refrigerators.
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6710
CS is the most balanced, pure FPS game I can think of. It involves so many aspects of skill at once. Yet so many players can't play it and develop prejudice against it
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
PvtStPoK
paintball > bf2
+48|6571|montreal, quebec

m4s3rchi3f wrote:

Stupid girls trying out gaming.
i bet you still think girls are  pooh and they stink just like when i was 7
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6422|California
condition zero owns
fucking hax it up
kajukenbo_kid
Member
+36|6472|...
^^lol, source is more of an eye candy, 1.6 actually has skilled players
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6422|California
lol i have 2 banned valve accounts.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6770|Purplicious Wisconsin
Source is more noobish because the guns are much more powerful than in 1.6, however 1.6 has that stupid shield for ct.

But I prefer source because of graphics and such, and i'm not a noob.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard