• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

::POLL:: CS 1.6 and CS:S

C

chowmein

Platinum Member
i've seen only SS of source and doesn't really wow me. I was wondering if gameplay is different from 1.6 as well.
 
If you have a computer that can handle it, full detail CS:S is beautiful. The gameplay is identical.
 
i have a computer that can handle it, but i still prefer CS 1.6... source seems too laggy in regards to bullet registration (with identical rate setups) and generally source feels not quite so fun as good old original CS. CSS is an OK novelty for a while, if you've played 1.6 before, but it soon wears off, and if you went back to 1.6 im sure you would prefer it 😉
 
CZ or 1.5 😉

Source is REALLY easy and for some reason I can rack up a 2:1 kill ratio without much effort.

1.6 for some reason i'm very LUCKY if i get 1 kill per four deaths :

CZ i get about a 1.6:1 ratio...slightly lower somewhere

But yeah...I like CZ a lot more than source...
 
As always, gameplay outrules graphics. 1.x is MUCH better than Source, but Source is a lot 'prettier'. As others have said, Source seems kinda 'laggy' in speed.

It's $50 I wish I wouldn't have spent. Maybe I can sell my account off to someone. I don't care for Half-Life 2, I just wanted CS:Source to play. Ugh, the mistakes we make in life. 😛
 
CSS is the game for me. Of course 1.6 will run better, they've been tweaking it for years. Give CSS time and will more than beat the crap out of 1.6. The hit boxes lag a little too much, but the gameplay is much better in my opinion.
 
I don't play 1.6 anymore for the same reason I don't play my N64... it looks like crap. I am not very good at either game, but I enjoy CS:S much more.
 
Originally posted by: malak
If you have a computer that can handle it, full detail CS:S is beautiful. The gameplay is identical.
Click to expand...
CS 1.6 is very different from CS: Source. It's all about the small things, like changes in weapon switch times.
 
Originally posted by: malak
I'd prefer CS more without the economy. Penalizing the losing team seems awfully unbalanced.
Click to expand...

Huh? Then who would try to win? The whole point is to win, so you get more money. The losing team still gets money if they lose, just not as much.

Anyway I've played cs for over 6 years and I like cs:s a lot better. It has a lot of potential imo. The moveable objects make the game a lot more complicated than before, and allows for different strats. Check out the new train compared to the old one, its like night and day. CS 1.6 is just too simple now.

 
I like CSS better than 1.6 but I think they are pretty comparable over all. CSS is getting better with every update and runs great on my system. So I would say Source.
 
Originally posted by: christoph83
Originally posted by: malak
I'd prefer CS more without the economy. Penalizing the losing team seems awfully unbalanced.
Click to expand...

Huh? Then who would try to win? The whole point is to win, so you get more money. The losing team still gets money if they lose, just not as much.
Click to expand...

Reducing the enemy to pistols due to lack of money isn't fair, it makes it increasingly difficult for them to come back. Scores are often pretty one-sided because of this, although it has a lot to do with the map too. No other game uses an economy like this, and people still have fun with them, perhaps even more fun. Personally, I could do entirely without the money. I just want to shoot you.
 
Originally posted by: malak


Reducing the enemy to pistols due to lack of money isn't fair, it makes it increasingly difficult for them to come back. Scores are often pretty one-sided because of this, although it has a lot to do with the map too. No other game uses an economy like this, and people still have fun with them, perhaps even more fun. Personally, I could do entirely without the money. I just want to shoot you.
Click to expand...

Then next round you can afford a gun, thats why you save your money for a round, or two, then buy a good gun. Thats the punishment you get for losing. Money adds a lot more risk and reward to the game, if you've ever watched CAL games or seen it at cpl, controlling the money flow is key, and spending wisely. The problem in pubs is that people stack sides and then it becomes unfair.

It's easy to come back when your down the problem is most pubs are full of noobs who run around with their heads caught off. CAL league matches and CPL tournaments are really when the complexitiy of this game shines.

And btw, deagle is your friend on rounds when you dont have a lot of money.

 
Originally posted by: christoph83
Originally posted by: malak


Reducing the enemy to pistols due to lack of money isn't fair, it makes it increasingly difficult for them to come back. Scores are often pretty one-sided because of this, although it has a lot to do with the map too. No other game uses an economy like this, and people still have fun with them, perhaps even more fun. Personally, I could do entirely without the money. I just want to shoot you.
Click to expand...

Then next round you can afford a gun, thats why you save your money for a round, or two, then buy a good gun. Thats the punishment you get for losing. Money adds a lot more risk and reward to the game, if you've ever watched CAL games or seen it at cpl, controlling the money flow is key, and spending wisely. The problem in pubs is that people stack sides and then it becomes unfair.

It's easy to come back when your down the problem is most pubs are full of noobs who run around with their heads caught off. CAL league matches and CPL tournaments are really when the complexitiy of this game shines.

And btw, deagle is your friend on rounds when you dont have a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Actually for the most part I don't have to deal with it, as I tend to use low-cost weapons anyway. I've grown fond of the mac10. I do not use the deagle, ever. Sure, it does high damage, but only 7 rounds... you know when I actually need to use a pistol, it's because I'm attacked by a group. I like to use high-round weapons, which is why I used a P90 for a long time.
 
Well the reason the deagle is the ideal pistol is because 1 bullet to the head = a kill no matter what. Even if they have a helmet on. So when you've got a rich team running at you with rifles u aim for the head. Plus its range is very good. I usually buy a flash and a deagle on rounds where im broke, flash em as you hear them coming and pop out and aim for the head.

Certain guns match certain peoples style of play though. But almost all the proffessional players use a short arsenal of guns, including ak, colt, awp, deagle, and maybe an aug or sig once in a while. They cost a lot, but in the right hands you can mow down a team. You may like the galil, 35 bullets and its a headshot machine. It's kinda like the p90 but with better range imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top