It's got a challengers queue, and two people duke it out why the other person(s) spectate the match. Match has a time limit, most frags win. It's a matter of minimizing your losses as opposed to just racking up loads of frags, which is what makes it so intense.
Am I the only one who found the advent of weak weapons and hyper-flea-on-crack movement systems a major turn off in the FPS genre?
I've got the reaction speeds for faster paced games (2d shootemups prepare you for anything :p ) but I don't actually enjoy fast FPSes. I find myself much more attracted to slower, more cerebral styles such as the earlier counterstrikes and good old UT (the 2kx ones were a travesty to me :/ ).
When I want speed I much prefer a more melee-orientated game or some crazy fighter like Senko no Ronde (waii!).
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I could be wrong lolfighter, but you appear to be looking for reasons to not play it. I'd say the best way to test the waters is to dip your toes in it. The game is free, a small download, and certainly great fun for a while. It's classic deatmatch action with some clever additions and a great visual style. You should play it for no other reason than to confirm your apparent prejudices. You don't need to invest that much time to figure it out. Even a basic glance at the wiki pages will be enough to get an idea for the moves. I played 2-3 rounds without even knowing there was a dash key and still managed to have fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1634202:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:10 AM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geminosity @ Jun 18 2007, 07:10 AM) [snapback]1634202[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Am I the only one who found the advent of weak weapons and hyper-flea-on-crack movement systems a major turn off in the FPS genre?
I've got the reaction speeds for faster paced games (2d shootemups prepare you for anything <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> ) but I don't actually enjoy fast FPSes. I find myself much more attracted to slower, more cerebral styles such as the earlier counterstrikes and good old UT (the 2kx ones were a travesty to me :/ ).
When I want speed I much prefer a more melee-orientated game or some crazy fighter like Senko no Ronde (waii!).
Everyone has different tastes though I guess :3 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In the FPS genre by default there is relatively little going on that acctually requires much attention from the player. Most sim'esc FPS titles out there right now basically can be summed up in "run in the direction you want to go, put target under crosshair, press mouse 1" Then rinse and repeat a million times over. It's not really more cerebral, it's just slower for the sake of being slower. Bring a shooter into a multiplayer envorionment and the slow pace doesn't make sense any more, because suddenly you're not fighting AI opponents designed to lose, you're fighting other players, the the player with the more skill and the better strategy is supposed to win. Because the game has become competitive by default it has to get faster. Now if you leave the movement speeds slow, that basically means that what will get faster is the players ability to twitch to the kill shot, which is basically why competitive CS looks like rail gun wars now at the upper levels. The idea behind making the movement systems so elaborate and fast paced is that it gives the competitive style player practice and master aside from twitch, and it makes the types of twitch skill required of a player more elaborate and 3 dimensional. Basically the quickening of the pace of shooters is the result of shooter designers being unable to make their games anything more than elaborate point and click titles, and therefore the titles that made the targets move more erratically and the viewpoint move more abstractly had a higher skill ceiling, and thus were better games.
Swiftspear summed up why people still play fast-paced FPS's, and why I've found a love in them recently. CS and games like it turn into aim, fire, win. It's not challenging, there's nothing to learn, and it's painfully simple. The skill in a 1v1 match of Quake or Warsow, however, is quite a lot to intake. You have to track your opponent's locations, the spawn of power-ups, remember to keep moving so you're a hard target, all this while often having running battles for 2-3 minutes at a time until the encounter that causes a death.
The reason I don't play CPMA much anymore is because, honestly, 1v1's are too tense for me to do very often. I end up jittery as all hell after one match, and it's an actual adrenaline rush for me. Something I've EVER had a game to do to me in the past 13 or so years of gaming, except the horror games I can't get through. It's all personal preference, but I find slower (more cerebral) FPS's are simply slower, without any kind of brainy aspect to it.
By the way, puzl, we should hook up some time and play a couple matches. If you're into this gameplay wise, I can direct you to CPMA too, which is a Quake 3 mod. Warsow really did take most of its inspiration from it, but its movement is tighter than CPMA. Just CPMA tends to be the better game if you're into raw combat due to the weapons not being obnoxious, and maps feel a little better. Both rock, though, and I've already put 10-12 hours into Warsow just doing race maps.
see this is why you probably prefer the faster ones; you say that slower, low health FPS are just 'aim and kill'. For me it's a mindgame; I rarely take on anyone face to face. Instead of it being about twitch aim and erratic targets it's about ambushes and tactics; the skill is in how you use the level layout.
Ambushes and other sneaky things I love like that aren't really much cop in faster FPSses and there's little room for planning ahead when things are springing about at high speed unless 'ahead' is only a few milliseconds.
I can do twitch (I'm sure most here can) but my playstyle in my preferred FPS games means I don't even need twitch skills; people don't dodge if they don't know you're there until your bullet is already in their back :p
It's much why I loved AvP; using level layout for surprise and building tension.
I guess the main problem is there's no incentive to really creep around a map in the thinking shooters. AvP2 online play was amazing, but that's because the entire game was based around that style of play. Actual "tactical shooters" are just really terrible copy-and-paste FPS's with different models and skins, and they really don't require much thought or tactic. Hell, most of CS is luck in the HORRIBLY STUPID cone fire system.
Hostile Intent, for instance, was a really fun game. But I'm not even a very good gamer and with rudimentary knowledge of the wall penetration system and general aim I could clear out an entire enemy team nearly completely on my own. Compared to the fact I get completely wrecked in fast-paced FPS's shows something is up. Not to mention there's more to do in games like Warsow and CPMA. Can you spend 4-6 hours just playing with the movement system with tricks and speed runs in CS or AvP2? It's absurd how fun and addictive that is.
<!--quoteo(post=1634269:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]1634269[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS and games like it turn into aim, fire, win. It's not challenging, there's nothing to learn, and it's painfully simple. The skill in a 1v1 match of Quake or Warsow, however, is quite a lot to intake. You have to track your opponent's locations, the spawn of power-ups, remember to keep moving so you're a hard target, all this while often having running battles for 2-3 minutes at a time until the encounter that causes a death.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am telling you, from personal experience right here - that CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is. In CS you don't have to just track the opponents location, you have to keep track of your entire teams, and <b>their</b> entire teams, you have to constantly play without seeing the opposing team for most of the round, and you have to constantly be aware of what is going on where. I won't get into it in much detail here, but in CS you have about 20 different things to be aware of, pretty much all the time. Which is a tad sight more than where 1 player is, what hp/armour hes on, and when the RA is gonna spawn next.
<!--quoteo(post=1634269:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]1634269[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason I don't play CPMA much anymore is because, honestly, 1v1's are too tense for me to do very often. I end up jittery as all hell after one match, and it's an actual adrenaline rush for me. Something I've EVER had a game to do to me in the past 13 or so years of gaming, except the horror games I can't get through. It's all personal preference, but I find slower (more cerebral) FPS's are simply slower, without any kind of brainy aspect to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. Running around on a CS public isn't quite the same as playing in a high-teamwork match environment. That's like playing a CPMA duel against someone who doesn't know how to strafe jump.
<!--quoteo(post=1634275:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]1634275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actual "tactical shooters" are just really terrible copy-and-paste FPS's with different models and skins, and they really don't require much thought or tactic. Hell, most of CS is luck in the HORRIBLY STUPID cone fire system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you f***ing kidding me? This is the typical attitude of a player who hasn't played CS <b>properly</b>. There is always an element of luck in every game, the COF system isn't dynamic anyway so that part of the game is entirely skill-based and not luck at all. It fires in pretty much the same pattern every time. CS requires more thought and tactics than any game I can think of off the top of my head. NS comes close but the gameplay is too loose around individual tactics.
<!--quoteo(post=1634275:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]1634275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hostile Intent, for instance, was a really fun game. But I'm not even a very good gamer and with rudimentary knowledge of the wall penetration system and general aim I could clear out an entire enemy team nearly completely on my own. Compared to the fact I get completely wrecked in fast-paced FPS's shows something is up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it shows that you were playing with absolutely dire players in HI. Basically.
<!--quoteo(post=1634346:date=Jun 18 2007, 11:15 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 11:15 PM) [snapback]1634346[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--fonto:Arial Black--><span style="font-family:Arial Black"><!--/fonto--><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>BWAHAHAHAHAAHA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc-->
I just don't understand why people get so enthralled by games like CS lately. It really does just tend to be the same thing over and over, and it's just not that interesting to me. It doesn't seem like it's THAT difficult to keep track of everything in CS when routes are limited, everybody moves the same way, and the only skill you really need is being able to aim.
<!--quoteo(post=1634354:date=Jun 18 2007, 04:33 PM:name=Rover)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rover @ Jun 18 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]1634354[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--fonto:Arial Black--><span style="font-family:Arial Black"><!--/fonto--><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>BWAHAHAHAHAAHA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--> Sorry, just had to get that out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CPMA duel? Warsow? Trust me, CS is harder - and I'm not exactly shabby at duel games.
<!--quoteo(post=1634357:date=Jun 18 2007, 04:36 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 04:36 PM) [snapback]1634357[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just don't understand why people get so enthralled by games like CS lately. It really does just tend to be the same thing over and over, and it's just not that interesting to me. It doesn't seem like it's THAT difficult to keep track of everything in CS when routes are limited, everybody moves the same way, and the only skill you really need is being able to aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, basically nL started playing it, and people seem to be following us lol. The key word in that sentence is *seems*. Sure it doesn't seem hard - neither does quake. If you actually play it to a high level you will realise just how hard it is. You won't really appreciate it unless you *do* play it to a high standard tbh.
<!--quoteo(post=1634273:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:18 PM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geminosity @ Jun 18 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]1634273[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> see this is why you probably prefer the faster ones; you say that slower, low health FPS are just 'aim and kill'. For me it's a mindgame; I rarely take on anyone face to face. Instead of it being about twitch aim and erratic targets it's about ambushes and tactics; the skill is in how you use the level layout.
Ambushes and other sneaky things I love like that aren't really much cop in faster FPSses and there's little room for planning ahead when things are springing about at high speed unless 'ahead' is only a few milliseconds.
I can do twitch (I'm sure most here can) but my playstyle in my preferred FPS games means I don't even need twitch skills; people don't dodge if they don't know you're there until your bullet is already in their back <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It's much why I loved AvP; using level layout for surprise and building tension. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In pubs I'm kindof indifferent, unless the game is REALLY slow and retarded, like zombie master. CS is fast enough to enjoy in pubs, DoD is fast enough, SF is fast enough. But when it gets to the competitive level it just falls apart totally. You can't use the map to your advantage the same way, because every decent team know the map as well as you, and will run their strats to either avoid the stuff they don't like, or powerhouse through your hiding spots checking every corner.
You asked what the fascination with fast paced games are. The fascination is that they are more competitively feasible, especially when you account for a more generic and rounded skillset development, and a less focused strategical intellect. Basically the skill curve is less bumpy and has a very high ceiling. That sort of design appeals to alot of players, especially high end players, because it's the only model for a competitive shooter we have that acctually looks like that.
<!--quoteo(post=1634254:date=Jun 18 2007, 06:29 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jun 18 2007, 06:29 PM) [snapback]1634254[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I could be wrong lolfighter, but you appear to be looking for reasons to not play it.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you are completely correct. In fact, I had pretty much decided against it when I heard it required bunnyhopping. I loathe bunnyhopping with a vengeance. Add to that that I never liked Quake much and you're right: I'm not looking to play the game. It's based partially on experience, partially on prejudice. But I am certain I won't like the game, so I won't bother with it.
It's still interesting to read about though. I am getting the feeling that "first-person-shooter" is far too broad a term. The differences in style seem to be vast.
<!--quoteo(post=1634374:date=Jun 18 2007, 04:00 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jun 18 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]1634374[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No, you are completely correct. In fact, I had pretty much decided against it when I heard it required bunnyhopping. I loathe bunnyhopping with a vengeance. Add to that that I never liked Quake much and you're right: I'm not looking to play the game. It's based partially on experience, partially on prejudice. But I am certain I won't like the game, so I won't bother with it.
It's still interesting to read about though. I am getting the feeling that "first-person-shooter" is far too broad a term. The differences in style seem to be vast. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bunnyhopping pretty much is required, but being a fragger isn't. In all honesty, 90% of the time I invest in these games is trickjumping as opposed to actually fragging and doing matches. Too much fun trying to pull off a complicated string of trickjumps. The lack of that is why I avoid tactical shooters, honestly. Freedom of movement = fun = Jet Grind Radio-styled FPS gaming.
That said, I can see why people don't enjoy these games, and I only really got "into" them recently. Though, I've always been a huge player of The Specialists, which is Quake-style gameplay lite.
<!--quoteo(post=1634361:date=Jun 19 2007, 12:00 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 19 2007, 12:00 AM) [snapback]1634361[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> CPMA duel? Warsow? Trust me, CS is harder - and I'm not exactly shabby at duel games. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't play CS, as I absolutely loathe how generic it is.
As you said "<b>any</b> game": 1on1 RTS games can be far more difficult.
I completely fail to see the difference between CS, warsow, etc and a run of the mill shooter. Generic "realistic" (limited such as CS, I'm not talking about games such as RO) shooters are easily on par gameplay-wise with CS. When talking about games such as Warsow and CPMA, I can't help but think of the unreal series (on a side note, I've always preferred ut over q3a :/).
Base Q3 sucks. And the differences are huge. I can feel the movement differences between Warsow and CPMA, weapons are weaker, etc. UT is slower, more tactical, and while it's relatively fast the movement isn't quite as free as in Quake games.
I STILL don't understand the hate for CS... honestly. Im sure somebody will come in with that stupid cliche "Well when I have to deal with 12 year olds saying stuff like 'I OWNZERED YOU NOOB', Im just to elite for that stuff!". Yeah, that's complete bull######. (almost) Everyone I've run into playing that game was either neutral (Only played, never talked, you know the type Im talking about) or just cool and mature.
Complaining about reptitiveness of any game is idiotic as well, EVERY game is reptitive given a long enough time-frame. You might as well say "Why do people play chess?! It's the same pieces and the same starting positions EVERY TIME" yet chess has been popular for hundreds (?) of years.
Yeah, so how about you guys try and top MY elitest high-ground now!
Testament: I wasn't saying there aren't any differences, as every game is different and (cliché incoming) different people like different things. As for UT, don't forget the translocator.
Xyth: I still don't understand the hype about it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
The gameplay sucks, that's the source of my hatred. And yes, the cone of fire is absolutely retarded.
<!--quoteo(post=1634346:date=Jun 18 2007, 03:15 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]1634346[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I am telling you, from personal experience right here - that CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is. In CS you don't have to just track the opponents location, you have to keep track of your entire teams, and <b>their</b> entire teams, you have to constantly play without seeing the opposing team for most of the round, and you have to constantly be aware of what is going on where. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You make it sound like CS is the only game with teams; what game with teams isn't like that?
<!--quoteo(post=1634394:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:28 PM:name=Rover)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rover @ Jun 18 2007, 07:28 PM) [snapback]1634394[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I completely fail to see the difference between CS, warsow, etc and a run of the mill shooter. Generic "realistic" (limited such as CS, I'm not talking about games such as RO) shooters are easily on par gameplay-wise with CS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because frankly I could write several 20+ page essays on the matter and still not cover everything, or convince you entirely. I'm just gonna quit and tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong, aswell as incredibly ignorant to believe that.
<!--quoteo(post=1634403:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]1634403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The gameplay sucks, that's the source of my hatred. And yes, the cone of fire is absolutely retarded.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh ... why? If you're gonna bring opinions to the discussion table, shut the **** up or bring facts to back them up.
<!--quoteo(post=1634403:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]1634403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You make it sound like CS is the only game with teams; what game with teams isn't like that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How often do you need to know where every single player on the server is, in say .... NS? or a TDM game? No, in CS you have to be aware of where literally <b>every</b> single player is, where they're looking - <b>all</b> of the time. But again, it's one of those things - if you don't play to a high level yourself you won't understand.
<!--quoteo(post=1634404:date=Jun 19 2007, 02:56 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 19 2007, 02:56 AM) [snapback]1634404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because frankly I could write several 20+ page essays on the matter and still not cover everything, or convince you entirely. I'm just gonna quit and tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong, aswell as incredibly ignorant to believe that. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm honestly curious, so could you at least give me a hint as to why it's so much better?
And for me being ignorant to "believe that", I've tried cs and I've tried generic games. When games have similar well-known guns (most generic "realistic" shooters have stuff like the M4 etc), similar objectives (hostages? a bomb?) and sometimes even similar systems (the money system isn't exactly cs-only), they kind of seem the same to me. Sure, they feel completely different, I'm not arguing with that. But the feeling of a game is personal preference, not superiority of a game (I'm not talking about extremes here, not taking into account games where you wouldn't be able to jump for example).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're gonna bring opinions to the discussion table, shut the **** up or bring facts to back them up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That has to be the funniest thing I've read today. I still say, though, that CTF is probably the most interesting organized play game mode. The entire concept of CS being de_ kind of bores me, as I don't particularly enjoy the round-by-round gameplay every single time I play.
<!--quoteo(post=1634406:date=Jun 18 2007, 08:05 PM:name=Rover)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rover @ Jun 18 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]1634406[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm honestly curious, so could you at least give me a hint as to why it's so much better?
And for me being ignorant to "believe that", I've tried cs and I've tried generic games. When games have similar well-known guns (most generic "realistic" shooters have stuff like the M4 etc), similar objectives (hostages? a bomb?) and sometimes even similar systems (the money system isn't exactly cs-only), they kind of seem the same to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically yeah, CS is similar to other games in terms of the objectives and content - but with CS that isn't the point. With CS, the metagame <b>IS</b> the gameplay. Sure it happens to an extent in other games, but never to the extent that it does in CS. With the ability to wallspam, flash and smoke grenades etc - there's just so much you can do with the map in order to get an advantage. And that's what the game is about for the top level players - the metagame of trying to get an advantage at no loss to yourself. I mean obviously you have your economy to take care of, and your usual map control/pickoff/rush strats, but that's literally just the basic entry level of play. With the higher level teams, everybody can do that perfectly, and the round-turning points generally happen, or are heavily influenced by, what happens before a push or a rush. I'm gonna cite an example here from the swedish ESWC qualifier finals the other day, begrip vs fnatic. fnatic tried to push A and both teams traded kills down to a 3v3. fnatic then rotated to B, with 2 players in tunnels and one coming back to mid. One of the begrip players managed to sneak through a smoke grenade in mid into the lower tunnels, killed both the fnatic players in the tunnels and basically won the round for them. The entire metagame is risk vs reward - do you take a chance peeking a corner to get an early pick or do you stay hidden so they dont know your position? do you wallspam or not? do you flash for no reason or not? That's why CS is such an interesting game, sure it *does* get boring if you play it too much, but it's the competetive side of the strategies, the counter-strategies and the metagame which really makes it shine - because it has all that ontop of a 'generic' team-based shooter, aswell as a complicated economy system. That probably made no sense to you :/
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
edited June 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1634404:date=Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]1634404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Uhh ... why? If you're gonna bring opinions to the discussion table, shut the **** up or bring facts to back them up. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The cone of fire is ridiculous, pretty damn near a toss of dice. Objectives don't mean much you can just kill everyone to win, that happens a lot of the time. Visually it's dull, boring weapons and the maps are mundane and lack atmosphere. Buying weapons is quite dull, considering a couple rounds in you just have enough money to get whatever you want so it's a dumb gimmick that could be done without.
<!--quoteo(post=1634404:date=Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]1634404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How often do you need to know where every single player on the server is, in say .... NS? or a TDM game? No, in CS you have to be aware of where literally <b>every</b> single player is, where they're looking - <b>all</b> of the time. But again, it's one of those things - if you don't play to a high level yourself you won't understand. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You haven't played anything other than CS have you? In DoDS or GoW if you just go about willy-nilly(funny phrase) you're going to get raped, Rocco Siffredi status; especially in GoW since your teammates can revive you. In DoD completing the objectives is incredibly satisfying since it happens once every 10 or so minutes then you're rewarded with the hunt of remaining members of the opposing team.
Anyway, I'll stop helping the derail and I'll continue this on another topic if you want to open it.
Comments
The most fun mode is still probably CTF, though.
I've got the reaction speeds for faster paced games (2d shootemups prepare you for anything :p ) but I don't actually enjoy fast FPSes. I find myself much more attracted to slower, more cerebral styles such as the earlier counterstrikes and good old UT (the 2kx ones were a travesty to me :/ ).
When I want speed I much prefer a more melee-orientated game or some crazy fighter like Senko no Ronde (waii!).
Everyone has different tastes though I guess :3
Am I the only one who found the advent of weak weapons and hyper-flea-on-crack movement systems a major turn off in the FPS genre?
I've got the reaction speeds for faster paced games (2d shootemups prepare you for anything <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> ) but I don't actually enjoy fast FPSes. I find myself much more attracted to slower, more cerebral styles such as the earlier counterstrikes and good old UT (the 2kx ones were a travesty to me :/ ).
When I want speed I much prefer a more melee-orientated game or some crazy fighter like Senko no Ronde (waii!).
Everyone has different tastes though I guess :3
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the FPS genre by default there is relatively little going on that acctually requires much attention from the player. Most sim'esc FPS titles out there right now basically can be summed up in "run in the direction you want to go, put target under crosshair, press mouse 1" Then rinse and repeat a million times over. It's not really more cerebral, it's just slower for the sake of being slower. Bring a shooter into a multiplayer envorionment and the slow pace doesn't make sense any more, because suddenly you're not fighting AI opponents designed to lose, you're fighting other players, the the player with the more skill and the better strategy is supposed to win. Because the game has become competitive by default it has to get faster. Now if you leave the movement speeds slow, that basically means that what will get faster is the players ability to twitch to the kill shot, which is basically why competitive CS looks like rail gun wars now at the upper levels. The idea behind making the movement systems so elaborate and fast paced is that it gives the competitive style player practice and master aside from twitch, and it makes the types of twitch skill required of a player more elaborate and 3 dimensional. Basically the quickening of the pace of shooters is the result of shooter designers being unable to make their games anything more than elaborate point and click titles, and therefore the titles that made the targets move more erratically and the viewpoint move more abstractly had a higher skill ceiling, and thus were better games.
The reason I don't play CPMA much anymore is because, honestly, 1v1's are too tense for me to do very often. I end up jittery as all hell after one match, and it's an actual adrenaline rush for me. Something I've EVER had a game to do to me in the past 13 or so years of gaming, except the horror games I can't get through. It's all personal preference, but I find slower (more cerebral) FPS's are simply slower, without any kind of brainy aspect to it.
By the way, puzl, we should hook up some time and play a couple matches. If you're into this gameplay wise, I can direct you to CPMA too, which is a Quake 3 mod. Warsow really did take most of its inspiration from it, but its movement is tighter than CPMA. Just CPMA tends to be the better game if you're into raw combat due to the weapons not being obnoxious, and maps feel a little better. Both rock, though, and I've already put 10-12 hours into Warsow just doing race maps.
Ambushes and other sneaky things I love like that aren't really much cop in faster FPSses and there's little room for planning ahead when things are springing about at high speed unless 'ahead' is only a few milliseconds.
I can do twitch (I'm sure most here can) but my playstyle in my preferred FPS games means I don't even need twitch skills; people don't dodge if they don't know you're there until your bullet is already in their back :p
It's much why I loved AvP; using level layout for surprise and building tension.
Hostile Intent, for instance, was a really fun game. But I'm not even a very good gamer and with rudimentary knowledge of the wall penetration system and general aim I could clear out an entire enemy team nearly completely on my own. Compared to the fact I get completely wrecked in fast-paced FPS's shows something is up. Not to mention there's more to do in games like Warsow and CPMA. Can you spend 4-6 hours just playing with the movement system with tricks and speed runs in CS or AvP2? It's absurd how fun and addictive that is.
I am telling you, from personal experience right here - that CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is. In CS you don't have to just track the opponents location, you have to keep track of your entire teams, and <b>their</b> entire teams, you have to constantly play without seeing the opposing team for most of the round, and you have to constantly be aware of what is going on where. I won't get into it in much detail here, but in CS you have about 20 different things to be aware of, pretty much all the time. Which is a tad sight more than where 1 player is, what hp/armour hes on, and when the RA is gonna spawn next.
<!--quoteo(post=1634269:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]1634269[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason I don't play CPMA much anymore is because, honestly, 1v1's are too tense for me to do very often. I end up jittery as all hell after one match, and it's an actual adrenaline rush for me. Something I've EVER had a game to do to me in the past 13 or so years of gaming, except the horror games I can't get through. It's all personal preference, but I find slower (more cerebral) FPS's are simply slower, without any kind of brainy aspect to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. Running around on a CS public isn't quite the same as playing in a high-teamwork match environment. That's like playing a CPMA duel against someone who doesn't know how to strafe jump.
<!--quoteo(post=1634275:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]1634275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actual "tactical shooters" are just really terrible copy-and-paste FPS's with different models and skins, and they really don't require much thought or tactic. Hell, most of CS is luck in the HORRIBLY STUPID cone fire system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you f***ing kidding me? This is the typical attitude of a player who hasn't played CS <b>properly</b>. There is always an element of luck in every game, the COF system isn't dynamic anyway so that part of the game is entirely skill-based and not luck at all. It fires in pretty much the same pattern every time. CS requires more thought and tactics than any game I can think of off the top of my head. NS comes close but the gameplay is too loose around individual tactics.
<!--quoteo(post=1634275:date=Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]1634275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hostile Intent, for instance, was a really fun game. But I'm not even a very good gamer and with rudimentary knowledge of the wall penetration system and general aim I could clear out an entire enemy team nearly completely on my own. Compared to the fact I get completely wrecked in fast-paced FPS's shows something is up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it shows that you were playing with absolutely dire players in HI. Basically.
CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--fonto:Arial Black--><span style="font-family:Arial Black"><!--/fonto--><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>BWAHAHAHAHAAHA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc-->
Sorry, just had to get that out.
Sorry, just had to get that out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CPMA duel? Warsow? Trust me, CS is harder - and I'm not exactly shabby at duel games.
<!--quoteo(post=1634357:date=Jun 18 2007, 04:36 PM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Jun 18 2007, 04:36 PM) [snapback]1634357[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just don't understand why people get so enthralled by games like CS lately. It really does just tend to be the same thing over and over, and it's just not that interesting to me. It doesn't seem like it's THAT difficult to keep track of everything in CS when routes are limited, everybody moves the same way, and the only skill you really need is being able to aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, basically nL started playing it, and people seem to be following us lol. The key word in that sentence is *seems*. Sure it doesn't seem hard - neither does quake. If you actually play it to a high level you will realise just how hard it is. You won't really appreciate it unless you *do* play it to a high standard tbh.
see this is why you probably prefer the faster ones; you say that slower, low health FPS are just 'aim and kill'. For me it's a mindgame; I rarely take on anyone face to face. Instead of it being about twitch aim and erratic targets it's about ambushes and tactics; the skill is in how you use the level layout.
Ambushes and other sneaky things I love like that aren't really much cop in faster FPSses and there's little room for planning ahead when things are springing about at high speed unless 'ahead' is only a few milliseconds.
I can do twitch (I'm sure most here can) but my playstyle in my preferred FPS games means I don't even need twitch skills; people don't dodge if they don't know you're there until your bullet is already in their back <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It's much why I loved AvP; using level layout for surprise and building tension.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In pubs I'm kindof indifferent, unless the game is REALLY slow and retarded, like zombie master. CS is fast enough to enjoy in pubs, DoD is fast enough, SF is fast enough. But when it gets to the competitive level it just falls apart totally. You can't use the map to your advantage the same way, because every decent team know the map as well as you, and will run their strats to either avoid the stuff they don't like, or powerhouse through your hiding spots checking every corner.
You asked what the fascination with fast paced games are. The fascination is that they are more competitively feasible, especially when you account for a more generic and rounded skillset development, and a less focused strategical intellect. Basically the skill curve is less bumpy and has a very high ceiling. That sort of design appeals to alot of players, especially high end players, because it's the only model for a competitive shooter we have that acctually looks like that.
I could be wrong lolfighter, but you appear to be looking for reasons to not play it.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you are completely correct. In fact, I had pretty much decided against it when I heard it required bunnyhopping. I loathe bunnyhopping with a vengeance. Add to that that I never liked Quake much and you're right: I'm not looking to play the game. It's based partially on experience, partially on prejudice. But I am certain I won't like the game, so I won't bother with it.
It's still interesting to read about though. I am getting the feeling that "first-person-shooter" is far too broad a term. The differences in style seem to be vast.
No, you are completely correct. In fact, I had pretty much decided against it when I heard it required bunnyhopping. I loathe bunnyhopping with a vengeance. Add to that that I never liked Quake much and you're right: I'm not looking to play the game. It's based partially on experience, partially on prejudice. But I am certain I won't like the game, so I won't bother with it.
It's still interesting to read about though. I am getting the feeling that "first-person-shooter" is far too broad a term. The differences in style seem to be vast.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bunnyhopping pretty much is required, but being a fragger isn't. In all honesty, 90% of the time I invest in these games is trickjumping as opposed to actually fragging and doing matches. Too much fun trying to pull off a complicated string of trickjumps. The lack of that is why I avoid tactical shooters, honestly. Freedom of movement = fun = Jet Grind Radio-styled FPS gaming.
That said, I can see why people don't enjoy these games, and I only really got "into" them recently. Though, I've always been a huge player of The Specialists, which is Quake-style gameplay lite.
CPMA duel? Warsow? Trust me, CS is harder - and I'm not exactly shabby at duel games.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't play CS, as I absolutely loathe how generic it is.
As you said "<b>any</b> game": 1on1 RTS games can be far more difficult.
I completely fail to see the difference between CS, warsow, etc and a run of the mill shooter. Generic "realistic" (limited such as CS, I'm not talking about games such as RO) shooters are easily on par gameplay-wise with CS. When talking about games such as Warsow and CPMA, I can't help but think of the unreal series (on a side note, I've always preferred ut over q3a :/).
Complaining about reptitiveness of any game is idiotic as well, EVERY game is reptitive given a long enough time-frame. You might as well say "Why do people play chess?! It's the same pieces and the same starting positions EVERY TIME" yet chess has been popular for hundreds (?) of years.
Yeah, so how about you guys try and top MY elitest high-ground now!
Xyth: I still don't understand the hype about it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1634346:date=Jun 18 2007, 03:15 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]1634346[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I am telling you, from personal experience right here - that CS is probably a 50-100x harder to play competetively than <b>any</b> 1v1 game there is. In CS you don't have to just track the opponents location, you have to keep track of your entire teams, and <b>their</b> entire teams, you have to constantly play without seeing the opposing team for most of the round, and you have to constantly be aware of what is going on where.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make it sound like CS is the only game with teams; what game with teams isn't like that?
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because frankly I could write several 20+ page essays on the matter and still not cover everything, or convince you entirely. I'm just gonna quit and tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong, aswell as incredibly ignorant to believe that.
<!--quoteo(post=1634403:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]1634403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The gameplay sucks, that's the source of my hatred. And yes, the cone of fire is absolutely retarded.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh ... why? If you're gonna bring opinions to the discussion table, shut the **** up or bring facts to back them up.
<!--quoteo(post=1634403:date=Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Jun 18 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]1634403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You make it sound like CS is the only game with teams; what game with teams isn't like that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How often do you need to know where every single player on the server is, in say .... NS? or a TDM game? No, in CS you have to be aware of where literally <b>every</b> single player is, where they're looking - <b>all</b> of the time. But again, it's one of those things - if you don't play to a high level yourself you won't understand.
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because frankly I could write several 20+ page essays on the matter and still not cover everything, or convince you entirely. I'm just gonna quit and tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong, aswell as incredibly ignorant to believe that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm honestly curious, so could you at least give me a hint as to why it's so much better?
And for me being ignorant to "believe that", I've tried cs and I've tried generic games. When games have similar well-known guns (most generic "realistic" shooters have stuff like the M4 etc), similar objectives (hostages? a bomb?) and sometimes even similar systems (the money system isn't exactly cs-only), they kind of seem the same to me.
Sure, they feel completely different, I'm not arguing with that. But the feeling of a game is personal preference, not superiority of a game (I'm not talking about extremes here, not taking into account games where you wouldn't be able to jump for example).
That has to be the funniest thing I've read today. I still say, though, that CTF is probably the most interesting organized play game mode. The entire concept of CS being de_ kind of bores me, as I don't particularly enjoy the round-by-round gameplay every single time I play.
I'm honestly curious, so could you at least give me a hint as to why it's so much better?
And for me being ignorant to "believe that", I've tried cs and I've tried generic games. When games have similar well-known guns (most generic "realistic" shooters have stuff like the M4 etc), similar objectives (hostages? a bomb?) and sometimes even similar systems (the money system isn't exactly cs-only), they kind of seem the same to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically yeah, CS is similar to other games in terms of the objectives and content - but with CS that isn't the point. With CS, the metagame <b>IS</b> the gameplay. Sure it happens to an extent in other games, but never to the extent that it does in CS. With the ability to wallspam, flash and smoke grenades etc - there's just so much you can do with the map in order to get an advantage. And that's what the game is about for the top level players - the metagame of trying to get an advantage at no loss to yourself.
I mean obviously you have your economy to take care of, and your usual map control/pickoff/rush strats, but that's literally just the basic entry level of play. With the higher level teams, everybody can do that perfectly, and the round-turning points generally happen, or are heavily influenced by, what happens before a push or a rush.
I'm gonna cite an example here from the swedish ESWC qualifier finals the other day, begrip vs fnatic. fnatic tried to push A and both teams traded kills down to a 3v3. fnatic then rotated to B, with 2 players in tunnels and one coming back to mid. One of the begrip players managed to sneak through a smoke grenade in mid into the lower tunnels, killed both the fnatic players in the tunnels and basically won the round for them.
The entire metagame is risk vs reward - do you take a chance peeking a corner to get an early pick or do you stay hidden so they dont know your position? do you wallspam or not? do you flash for no reason or not?
That's why CS is such an interesting game, sure it *does* get boring if you play it too much, but it's the competetive side of the strategies, the counter-strategies and the metagame which really makes it shine - because it has all that ontop of a 'generic' team-based shooter, aswell as a complicated economy system.
That probably made no sense to you :/
Uhh ... why? If you're gonna bring opinions to the discussion table, shut the **** up or bring facts to back them up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cone of fire is ridiculous, pretty damn near a toss of dice. Objectives don't mean much you can just kill everyone to win, that happens a lot of the time. Visually it's dull, boring weapons and the maps are mundane and lack atmosphere. Buying weapons is quite dull, considering a couple rounds in you just have enough money to get whatever you want so it's a dumb gimmick that could be done without.
<!--quoteo(post=1634404:date=Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jun 18 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]1634404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
How often do you need to know where every single player on the server is, in say .... NS? or a TDM game? No, in CS you have to be aware of where literally <b>every</b> single player is, where they're looking - <b>all</b> of the time. But again, it's one of those things - if you don't play to a high level yourself you won't understand.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You haven't played anything other than CS have you? In DoDS or GoW if you just go about willy-nilly(funny phrase) you're going to get raped, Rocco Siffredi status; especially in GoW since your teammates can revive you. In DoD completing the objectives is incredibly satisfying since it happens once every 10 or so minutes then you're rewarded with the hunt of remaining members of the opposing team.
Anyway, I'll stop helping the derail and I'll continue this on another topic if you want to open it.