ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 15:20:
I'm not a newb at CS. I played it for years. I was probably better than 95% of people who come on this site. I never liked the aiming system. And aiming was my specialty.

Now, in most modern games, it's still possible to aim perfectly, but you have to go in the right stance, aim down sights and not be moving, among other things.

In general it's far more deep, immersive and is like a mini game on it's own. And also, for me, a lot more fun. Apparently, most gamers agree, because all mainstream games are becoming like this.

I'm not saying that there's no room for oldschool games like CS. I'm also NOT criticizing CS. I'm just saying that I WISH, they would have changed the aiming style, because I did like some of the features of the game.

I also went on to explain a side point: "This just in, guy who dedicates life to activity claims that activity is better than other activities" is a funny headline.

You've changed your stance, I've not changed mine but you have gone ahead and misrepresented it anyway. You said that CS had random aim and implied that even if you tried to aim it would not aim properly... That not the case. While I understand your point that my opinion of the game would be biased, I wasn't giving my opinion, I was refuting an incorrect claim you made. You're now clarifying that it's just your opinion and you're not a fan of the aiming. Fine.

But now to the topic of whether it's dated or lacking features... CS aim is affected by movement, jumping, crouching, weapon selection (and a few have multiple firing modes), the player's rate of fire (clicking/tapping/holding), and ultimately the player's aim. The missing pieces you are lamenting are apparently prone and iron sights. In my opinion Valve made the right decision by deciding not to include those in the game. Prone is traditionally a camping stance (or worse, dolphin diving) and CS certainly doesn't need more campers, it's designed to be a fast game not a plodding one. Iron sights would probably fit better but there are already 6 weapons that feature scopes. Iron sights typically come at the cost of "hip firing" being made extremely inaccurate (randomly so ;P) and I don't think that's something that CS players are itching to experience. As someone already pointed out CS is still the most played PC FPS for a reason and the solid aiming mechanics is a part of that.

Not so much lately, but I play nearly every FPS that comes out. I'm a pretty big Battlefield fan, played tons of Q3, tons of HL and Source mods (but those feature aim/netcode pretty damn close to CS), Enemy Territory, TF2, was big into CoD4 but have not played any since. Clearly by time played CS is my favorite, but I'm not a CS fanboy, at times I'm very critical of the game (you should hear me on voice comm ). You were trying to paint this as "I love CS! There's nothing wrong with it! It's the best!" but that's very far from the truth. Wasn't even about what's "better" but just about dumb claims from people who don't play the game ("but I played a lot 7+ years ago!" big deal).

Speaking of dumb claims from people who don't play the game:

I would get it if it wasn't a 90% of a headshot all the time. It gets old. The hs ratio in CS is far above and beyond any other game.

I'm a headshot machine and my percentage is 51% the server average is 45%. Body shots in CS are very weak, especially for pistols and sub machine guns. A player could spray into the chest with an MP5, hit 5 times, and then the recoil lands the 6th hit on the head... That kills would count as a "headshot" kill and the percentages I quoted come from headshot kills divided by total kills. My point being, most kills from weak weapons will come from headshots because that's the most likely to finish off the enemy.

edit: Ahh, like I said that 51% was my headshot kill percentage (the one you see on the kill feed)... My actual headshot percentage across all bullets landed is 23% (compare with body of 30%). They don't seem to have a server average for that stat but clicking on some random players shows that it's about 13-19%

Hell here's my stats page for my usual pwning grounds: http://gameme.dogzgaming.com/playerinfo/156802

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2012, 21:33.

MattyC wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 17:28:
A lot of talk about pointer on head and the first shot being accurate had me thinking. I haven't played CS in a long time and I haven't played it seriously in a REALLY LONG TIME (like way before Steam), but I remember many guns not working like that. Like I thought it was the AK you actually aimed right above someone's head? Could be just remembering it wrong.

I think up and to the right? was the magic spot. I know it was in AQ2.

I would get it if it wasn't a 90% of a headshot all the time. It gets old. The hs ratio in CS is far above and beyond any other game. It is as though the invisible head model is 2x the size of the head.

A lot of talk about pointer on head and the first shot being accurate had me thinking. I haven't played CS in a long time and I haven't played it seriously in a REALLY LONG TIME (like way before Steam), but I remember many guns not working like that. Like I thought it was the AK you actually aimed right above someone's head? Could be just remembering it wrong.

Warskull wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 15:08:
...
Isn't possible that you simply do not know what you are talking about? Counter-Strike endured for so long because of its aim system. The first bullet will always go pretty much dead on where the center of your crosshair is. The next two will be pretty close. You are criticizing counter-strike on what is widely accepted to be its strength and then saying modern games (which are far more random in their spray) do it better.

I'm not a newb at CS. I played it for years. I was probably better than 95% of people who come on this site. I never liked the aiming system. And aiming was my specialty.

Now, in most modern games, it's still possible to aim perfectly, but you have to go in the right stance, aim down sights and not be moving, among other things.

In general it's far more deep, immersive and is like a mini game on it's own. And also, for me, a lot more fun. Apparently, most gamers agree, because all mainstream games are becoming like this.

I'm not saying that there's no room for oldschool games like CS. I'm also NOT criticizing CS. I'm just saying that I WISH, they would have changed the aiming style, because I did like some of the features of the game.

I also went on to explain a side point: "This just in, guy who dedicates life to activity claims that activity is better than other activities" is a funny headline.

I think they should settle it with a duel...

ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 14:21:

Sepharo wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 14:11:

ItBurn wrote:
Having played CS as much as you did, I don't think I can take your arguments as valid. :P

Of course. It would be silly to value the opinion of an experienced long time player over someone who likely played the game 10 years ago and possibly revisited briefly over the years. Everyone who doesn't play CS is always an expert on it.

You can't argue with a guy that a game sucks when it's his favorite one. You also can't expect someone who's been so close to something for so long to have an unbiased opinion of the thing. I'm not saying I know more about CS than you do, just that, in MY mind, you're not really a reference one should use to decide if it's better than other games.

Isn't possible that you simply do not know what you are talking about? Counter-Strike endured for so long because of its aim system. The first bullet will always go pretty much dead on where the center of your crosshair is. The next two will be pretty close. You are criticizing counter-strike on what is widely accepted to be its strength and then saying modern games (which are far more random in their spray) do it better.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 14:11:

ItBurn wrote:
Having played CS as much as you did, I don't think I can take your arguments as valid. :P

Of course. It would be silly to value the opinion of an experienced long time player over someone who likely played the game 10 years ago and possibly revisited briefly over the years. Everyone who doesn't play CS is always an expert on it.

You can't argue with a guy that a game sucks when it's his favorite one. You also can't expect someone who's been so close to something for so long to have an unbiased opinion of the thing. I'm not saying I know more about CS than you do, just that, in MY mind, you're not really a reference one should use to decide if it's better than other games.

ItBurn wrote:
Having played CS as much as you did, I don't think I can take your arguments as valid. :P

Of course. It would be silly to value the opinion of an experienced long time player over someone who likely played the game 10 years ago and possibly revisited briefly over the years. Everyone who doesn't play CS is always an expert on it.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 10:19:

ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 09:22:
Modern games brought a lot more than rpg elements. To me, a proper shooters needs several critical features that CS doesn't have. Going prone, aiming down sights, aim being affected by more than just moving vs not moving and shooting, stamina, and probably more. All these makes shooters a lot deeper and they feel a lot less frustrating.

That's very subjective. Those are certainly features of some FPS but I disagree that they are things that a modern FPS must have. BC2 consciously left out prone and the game was much better for it.

ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 09:22:
If you take the measures to aim properly, it aims properly. None of the CS randomness.

Ahh the ol' "CS randomness" paired up with the "CS doesn't aim properly even though I am". Such a tired complaint from frustrated players. Trust me, it's possible to aim properly in CS and it's only random if you let it be.

Having played CS as much as you did, I don't think I can take your arguments as valid.
I knew someone would say something about what I wrote on the aim. All I'll say is that I hate how aiming is managed in CS, I prefer it in other games.

nin wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 10:31:

Trust me, it's possible to aim properly in CS and it's only random if you let it be.

Relink those videos you had a few weeks ago...there was one where you were on a serious killing spree. :)

They may not help my point here to the untrained eye . Especially because there are plenty of times where I do let it go random. There's a calculated risk there happening at a fraction of second to decide that "hey that guy probably has low health at this point... go full random, attempt to control the recoil with slight randomness, or aim and tap/burst (different rates depending on the weapon) knowing exactly where the shots will land."

But really CS is pretty simple, aim at the heads and click.

Two from GO (lots of bots)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Df2ZMfPxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobd0f7AYnY

Two from CSS (separated by 4 years):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATu3_bCaZUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkgnxB3MHok

Trust me, it's possible to aim properly in CS and it's only random if you let it be.

Relink those videos you had a few weeks ago...there was one where you were on a serious killing spree.

ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 09:22:
Modern games brought a lot more than rpg elements. To me, a proper shooters needs several critical features that CS doesn't have. Going prone, aiming down sights, aim being affected by more than just moving vs not moving and shooting, stamina, and probably more. All these makes shooters a lot deeper and they feel a lot less frustrating.

That's very subjective. Those are certainly features of some FPS but I disagree that they are things that a modern FPS must have. BC2 consciously left out prone and the game was much better for it.

ItBurn wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 09:22:
If you take the measures to aim properly, it aims properly. None of the CS randomness.

Ahh the ol' "CS randomness" paired up with the "CS doesn't aim properly even though I am". Such a tired complaint from frustrated players. Trust me, it's possible to aim properly in CS and it's only random if you let it be.

JaguarUSF wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 07:58:

Sepharo wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 21:23:
This iteration brings a ton of enhancements besides the obvious graphics update

Like what? The game description is very vague on what they have added and improved.

Well for starters: "an arsenal of over 45 weapons, loads of maps, new game modes, new visuals, leaderboards and over 165 Steam Achievements." But they've also redone the netcode, recoil/aim/gunplay, enhanced the radar, the reticle, and the scoreboard. New and improved bots, skill based matchmaking, Valve-hosted servers that spin up (instead of requiring joining a community run server). A reworked money system, hitbox changes, a casual mode and classic mode (casual has no player collision, free armor, etc), and a console release with appropriate modifications unlike the original CS console release.

spindoctor wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 08:32:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 22:48:
"Yank you back"? You act like that's a bad thing. Most modern shooters are pretty bland. Regenerating health, large numbers of generic hitscan weapons that are only slight variations of one another, ranking systems that force you to unlock weapons, items and modes, simplistic traversal mechanics... these are not good things.

Really, the only thing I want from modern shooters is the ability to create parties and easily find and join my friends online. When it comes to actual gameplay, I'll gladly go back ten years.

No I didn't act like it was a bad thing. You pulled that one right out of thin air.

Unless someone still plays the older CS games in 2012, they are going to find the transition to CSGO a little jarring if they've been playing modern FPS games. Even if you insist on believing that every single change to FPS games since CS has been bad, odds are most people will be used to a lot of those things now. All I suggested was that those are unsure should give the older games a whirl to see if they're still comfortable with it's design.

Modern games brought a lot more than rpg elements. To me, a proper shooters needs several critical features that CS doesn't have. Going prone, aiming down sights, aim being affected by more than just moving vs not moving and shooting, stamina, and probably more. All these makes shooters a lot deeper and they feel a lot less frustrating. If you take the measures to aim properly, it aims properly. None of the CS randomness.

space captain wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 21:28:
ring ring ring ring ring ring ...

banana phone!

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 22:48:
"Yank you back"? You act like that's a bad thing. Most modern shooters are pretty bland. Regenerating health, large numbers of generic hitscan weapons that are only slight variations of one another, ranking systems that force you to unlock weapons, items and modes, simplistic traversal mechanics... these are not good things.

Really, the only thing I want from modern shooters is the ability to create parties and easily find and join my friends online. When it comes to actual gameplay, I'll gladly go back ten years.

No I didn't act like it was a bad thing. You pulled that one right out of thin air.

Unless someone still plays the older CS games in 2012, they are going to find the transition to CSGO a little jarring if they've been playing modern FPS games. Even if you insist on believing that every single change to FPS games since CS has been bad, odds are most people will be used to a lot of those things now. All I suggested was that those are unsure should give the older games a whirl to see if they're still comfortable with it's design.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 21:23:
This iteration brings a ton of enhancements besides the obvious graphics update

Like what? The game description is very vague on what they have added and improved.

Cyanotetyphas wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 02:00:
A decade has gone by but I can still wait dead on a server while the last two guys crouch in corners on opposite ends of de_aztec?

its better with voip screaming too

A decade has gone by but I can still wait dead on a server while the last two guys crouch in corners on opposite ends of de_aztec? I'm feeling some serious nostalgia here.

It will be kind of weird to actually buy CS...