| vlad321 said: I swear it's like it's 2000 again and a few random Countards are trying to push off their noob game as taking more skill than Quake and UT. I thought we had graduated to trying to teach modern shooter fans that their games are skilless half-assed shooters. Why isn't it? Because in UT the amount of skill you have directly plots to where you are on the scoreboard. If you suck, you will be at the bottom, if you are good at the top. In CS there is no such relation at all. I remember picking up CS in the earlier versions right off UT. I AWPed bastards left and right as soon as I learned what the AWP is. I was a force of nature, and I just sucked at CS. That would have been absolutely impossible in UT, even with instagib, you would require absolutely amazing skill at aiming and dodging to do anything. UT2004 and Quake 3 were the last well made games where noobs weren't pampered to try to make them feel good. Though it explains why the recent shooters sell so much, the better you think you are the more likely you are to buy the game, whether it is true or not. |
You've never played Counter Strike the way it was ment to be, during Clan wars, 5on5 league with skilled opponents. Every noob can take shotgun or AWP for that matter and lucky frag someone on public with 32 players playing map ment for 4. And going from one PC FPS to other is nothing to brag about. Every half decent player that is somehow good at either one of these games can pick up the other one and play at some decent level. FPS skills are transferable.
BTW UT sucks compared to Q so hard it's not even funny. Q3 is the most skill requiring FPS ever and I stand by that, but leveling UT above CS is retarded. Still the difference between these games and all the others that came after that is one hell of a gap.
MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising
