NokkonWud said:
I realise it's a totally different game, it plays different etc... but I'm not talking abou tthat. CS1.6/1./1.3/.1.1/1.0 all required a level of skill to shoot, through every generation of version since 1.3 the game has got gradually easier (or user friendly). CSS as a game is much more user friendly as it's much, much easier than the older version of CS. Of course a lot of it comes to technique and I clearly have good technique, but I found CSS to not require much skill.
I was recruited into DeMent after 3 days of playing the game (though I also played the original at a very high level) by my friend and became friends with many of those people.
However, why should I have to post IMO? It's a forum, everything on here comes down to opinion unless it's quoted and referenced as fact.
the last bit is the best paragraph i've seen on a forum in a while. fed up with people being grammer nazi's or complaining about something ridiculous.
though i do think you are wrong, and right. some people have very good technique for these kinds of games, i played a little CS:S earlier and got a 30:5 run going and was being accused of cheating constantly. i have good technique, but that in and of itself is a skill other people don't have and its what makes me and you better at the game than others. its also harder to say its easier than old versions of CS because by playing those previous games you improved how good you are to a point aswell. for instance if you played the very first version of CS you wouldn't be as good as you were now, your style improves, your reactions and map knowledge improve and knowing how to best use guns. so if you've played a lot of CS before, then you're skipping that introductory period where you need to learn some stuff when you started playign CS:S. so though it appears easier, it might not be, if you see what i mean?
as for some of the other utter tripe in this thread, pad's more realistic aiming, no its not, firstly almost every console game has auto-aiming stuff added in, its far less realistic. not that keyboard+mouse and a pc version of a game are hugely realistic though, but you generally don't have autoaim and can turn it off in most games that have it, infact its off by default in every game i've seen. most shooting games are awful when it comes to realism. if you take ANY gun, point, hold your shot, and fire one bullet it will go where the sights are(in real life, assuming the sights are spot on in the first place but we'll assume they are). a bullet can't go through a straight barrel and simply decide to come out of the barrel at a different angle. the thing that dictates accuracy is recoil, rate of fire and simply how good you are at holding/keeping a gun steady and so forth. very few games get "realistic" shooting, but a pad being better with autoaim is a ridiculous claim.
but who wants to sit on a sofa with keyboard and mouse, it doesn't work, however loads of people i know(especially at uni) have their console on their desks hooked up to monitor. for them a keyboard and mouse, and the option to turn off autoaim would be brilliant.
the possibly most ridiculous thing in this thread though is the claim that turning around quickly with keyboard and mouse is unrealistic. i've yet to find myself, when trying on purpose to turn as quickly as possible, find myself at a limited speed that i feel is slow. i can either turn upper body in a split second, or i can move feet too, jump and turn instantly, the idea that turning around is so slow in real life that slow with a controller is realistic on consoles, lol, that did give me a good laugh.
one last thing, oh yes, with possible faster aiming, and easier aiming with a keyboard and mouse and what i think is the more realistic fast reactions to stuff, the opponent also has the ability to react and aim faster so its a catch 22 and evens out.
.
It means 'In My Opinion' because thats what it is.
