::POLL:: CS 1.6 and CS:S

[chowmein]

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.

 

[Schadenfroh]

CS 1.5

 

[Malak]

If you have a computer that can handle it, full detail CS:S is beautiful. The gameplay is identical.

 

[Appledrop]

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

 

[magomago]

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...

 

[chowmein]

wow man, i can maintain a 3:1 ratio easy on 1.6

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

 

[gorcorps]

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.

 

[Cawchy87]

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.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: malak
If you have a computer that can handle it, full detail CS:S is beautiful. The gameplay is identical.

CS 1.6 is very different from CS: Source. It's all about the small things, like changes in weapon switch times.

 

[BW86]

Source, I liked 1.3 the best though.

 

[Malak]

I'd prefer CS more without the economy. Penalizing the losing team seems awfully unbalanced.

 

[seeson]

I have yet to play CS:S, but I agree with BW86 that 1.3 was the best version.

 

[KoolDrew]

Counter-strike: 1.6

 

[intogamer]

sometimes source sometimes 1.6 my computer is ok will source bit laggy sometimes.
I like to dl so I do 1.6 for less lag.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: malak
I'd prefer CS more without the economy. Penalizing the losing team seems awfully unbalanced.

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.

 

[JBT]

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.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: malak
I'd prefer CS more without the economy. Penalizing the losing team seems awfully unbalanced.

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.

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.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

I still play CS 1.x (not sure which exactly but it's <1.6). CS:S is sorta nice-looking but still meh. I've uninstalled HL2/CS:S for some time now.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Malak]

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.

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.

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.

 

[christoph83]

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.

 

[sparkyclarky]

beta 6.6 > all

 

[chowmein]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
beta 6.6 > all

i loved beta 6.7, the aug was the best gun then.

 

[thecrecarc]

in both cz and 1.6 my ratio is kill/death 1/15 usally