Jump to content

Concerned


Recommended Posts

If he is playing to pass the time then fine. If he is playing because he likes the console as much or more then PC then he is not a diehard fan. Simple and easy.

You've lost all your creditbility right there, unless you have no clue who Rocky is, which I doubt.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but all the nonsense console bashing, and anything not l337 PC gaming bashing, is getting tiring.

True dat... omg I'm agreeing with a Ranger's fan...blah! :devil:

madden.4.jpg

CS has more teamplay, timing is very important, executing tactics precisely is very important, more skill needed too. More communication. 1on1's can be just as exciting or boring as in GR.

- ^all that in 1:45 rounds instead of 10:00 / 15:00.

Or can someone explain me why GR is MORE tactical in online play then other games? Because it seems like a lot of people are under impression that all those fast run 'n gun games are for brainless people

Ummm yeah - you can't bunny hop your way out of an alley full of guys using an autosniper and getting 6 consecutive headshots....

Edited by tangovictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is evry much down to how you play the game really. Yes, CS:S can be tactical, in fact, in matches you have to use tactics to win the game, otherwise you will lose....and badly.

However, the real test in GR, comes when you are maybe one man down and have to think of a way to get back to level pegging, or better still, going on to win the match.

That's the hard part and when the game starts to get really exciting. Will add, that in GR, I do not camp. It's the easiest way for the other team to find you. I always keep moving around and picking people off, still without them knowing where or how it happened. That for me is where you need good tactics in GR and being able to predict peoples moves.

But too many people do take CS:S the wrong way. There are some very good players, all of whom I would say do not use the bunny hopping feature, cause frankly it doesn#'t help with the rets at all.

Ummm yeah - you can't bunny hop your way out of an alley full of guys using an autosniper and getting 6 consecutive headshots....

LOL - That is a major minor point of css, not the bunny hopping, but the fact that you can take out several people far too easily compared to GR. Again, that being said, it's still a thinking mans game, if you wish to play it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is evry much down to how you play the game really.  Yes, CS:S can be tactical, in fact, in matches you have to use tactics to win the game, otherwise you will lose....and badly.

I was saying that you don't have that many options in GR.

- You have to spread your team all over the map (almost) every time.

- You can't really rush 1 side of the map with 6 people, you'll easily lose 2-3-4 players after your team finally takes that player out 200 meters further away in a bush behind a tree in a shadow...

- You're missing things like smokegrenades or flashbangs to do something special, or to distract the enemy.

Yes, you need some good tactics in CSS/CS or any other game, and not just "you go there, you do that and i go there and cover X" tactics of GR. You most likely talked about what you as team are going to do when the only defender at bomb B dies..

- Take over B?

- Go to B as fast as possible to see what's going on?

- Decide it's to hard to take it over and save your weapons for the next round?

I often saw tactics on a jpg for ghost recon, with lines going from spawnarea to left and right of the map. Thus lines of where people need to go, also things like spam and stuff added on it. In CS you can't really do that lol :D

"predict people's moves"

Same in every other game ofcourse. And i think GR is (AGAIN) limited in this. Because of the death bodies (the camera's). So it's not _THAT_ hard to predict, especially if you have a nice overview of the map to see where his teammates died and where my last teammates died (maybe i even saw a red diamond when he killed my teammates).

bunnyhopping lol, it's always the less experienced online players labling people as bunnyhopper... even though it's NOT possible in a game... you are still a bunnyhopper or you have some kind of script for it.

Edited by Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that you don't have that many options in GR.

- You have to spread your team all over the map (almost) every time.

- You can't really rush 1 side of the map with 6 people, you'll easily lose 2-3-4 players after your team finally takes that player out 200 meters further away in a bush behind a tree in a shadow.

Disagree. There are many different ways of finding a solution to situations in GR1. To play GR well you have to think on your feet, just like any other game. Without the chance to change tactics, direction of movement etc then you are buggered.

As in every game, even CS:S, there are some basic ideas of what you always do in every match. You only change things if you are getting stale and wish to mix it up a little, or initially the tactics don't work and you have to switch styles.

With CS:S matches you have 12-15 rounds to perfect what you want to do. With GR1 you only have 3 rounds per map (depending on rules, so sometimes less) so you have to set up your gameplay well in advance and hope that you come out on top.

CS:S is limited though, you can only go to A or B, and the "normal" routes to get there are very much the same every time. Which does get boring. And the snipers are rediculously accurate in the game. So much so that we used to limit them to one person per team, otherwise you found everyone wanted to take one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But too many people do take CS:S the wrong way.  There are some very good players, all of whom I would say do not use the bunny hopping feature, cause frankly it doesn#'t help with the rets at all.

LOL - That is a major minor point of css, not the bunny hopping, but the fact that you can take out several people far too easily compared to GR.  Again, that being said, it's still a thinking mans game, if you wish to play it that way.

Yeah, I still play CSS almost every night - it's fun, but not tactical fun like the good ol GR1 days - like the guy said, you can have a 2 hour 1 vs 1 showdown in a match and have everyone still watching... and even the pub games in GR are much more tactical than any pub in CSS I've ever been in. CS is fun no doubt, and they have great players there too - but I think the matches in CS are quite a bit more reaction and pure mouse skill based than utilizing sound strategy and tactics in a team effort.

I was once involved in a 4+ hour 6 vs 6 match, where the final map (3-3 tie) lasted better than 2 hours in a 1 on 1 showdown (no time limit). Nobody left comms, everyone stayed and enjoyed it - I doubt that would EVER happen in CS for me - especially how I felt at work the next morning after 4 hours sleep.

Cheers!

:drunk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not bashing consoles. I have a PS2 and play some raceing games on it. However, I hate people saying they are diehard PC gamers but they love the console just as much or more. It just doesnt work that way. whats so hard to understand about this?

Oh boy... I am a die hard German Beer lover and love to have a hearty German beer, but also enjoy a good American brewed Coors Light as well..... It's all just beer, enjoy it all.

It's all just games... enjoy them all. :thumbsup:

-John

I agree. However, I need a better analogy considering I'm under the legal drinking age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree there Cobblers.

If it's a 3on6 or 4on6 and the opponents has everything locked down and you can't go anywhere you need 2 things to win:

- Hoping they make unnecessary mistakes (like hunting you)

- You need luck (opponent -in better position- misses easy shot)

( - You can take down people based on skill (aim, or quick peeks) )

You're somehow "implementing" mistakes (of opponent team) in your tactics. I don't agree you can outsmart a team by flanking or something, if so then it's simply luck that they aren't checking it and/or mistakes from their side.

If you're playing a decent strict team you have almost no chance of winning - but against weaker teams that got 2 nadespam kills in the beginning.. against them you can come back because they are A. Slow with shooting back when you popup somewhere or B. they have tactical 'insight' of a brick.

- If you're leading 6on3/6on4

- You took 1+ point in Hamburger Hill

- You have better positions

- You don't do anything unnessary (playing save)

- GR is not a rush/aimbased game but positioning-game

Well, i really don't know how you manage to win a round then :) And if so then it almost has to be some random factors that has nothing/almost nothing to do with tactical stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once involved in a 4+ hour 6 vs 6 match, where the final map (3-3 tie) lasted better than 2 hours in a 1 on 1 showdown (no time limit).  Nobody left comms, everyone stayed and enjoyed it - I doubt that would EVER happen in CS for me - especially how I felt at work the next morning after 4 hours sleep.

Cheers!

:drunk:

1hour 59 mins and 30 seconds of that 2-hour long 1on1 was "waiting for the opponent to make a mistake".

Ofcourse this can be exciting, but... a 1min 1on1 to decide the winner of the match can be just as exciting then a 2 hour long 1on1.

It's quite similar imo:

Or you get outaimed or you get outsmarted, same for the 1min and 2hour 1on1.

I've won 1on4 even 1on5's in games with 2 min rounds, and i can tell you it's just as exciting as GR's 1on1's with 5 minutes remaining. Your heartbeat is going crazy and you're so pumped next round that you can't concentrate and mess up the following round.

Also in GR i won a 1on3 i believe in a deciding round against a team i hated so much, so it was a very personal match ;) And yes it feels very good, but if it was another game with shorther timelimit and i did the same thing the feeling would've been the same.

GR pubs is more individual skill then teamplay imo, you can't really compare it imo

Furthermore GR is a more closer community, in other (bigger) games you don't know anyone really and it's less fun then if you're playing against someone you haven't talked with or something. Atleast that's my experience

Edited by Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ See, I've played and won with those type of odds, ie 6v3. You can make diversionary tactics to make advantages for yourself. Much of it comes down to having a well oiled team.

And once CS:S matches get into full swing, all tactics end up going out the window anyway, for the team that has lost most matches, ends up with the least money. Shooting someone with a pistol with no armour, against someone who in turn is firing at you with a super accurate sniper rifle, armoured up to the hilt, just to stop you from gaining access to a corridor does tend to get boring after a while and you end up wanting to give up due to the amazing advantage the other side has got.

So yes, CS:S is tactical, but only for the first three rounds or so. GR, well you are always on a even playing field, it's just down to the best team on the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ See, I've played and won with those type of odds, ie 6v3.  You can make diversionary tactics to make advantages for yourself.  Much of it comes down to having a well oiled team.

And once CS:S matches get into full swing, all tactics end up going out the window anyway, for the team that has lost most matches, ends up with the least money.  Shooting someone with a pistol with no armour, against someone who in turn is firing at you with a super accurate sniper rifle, armoured up to the hilt, just to stop you from gaining access to a corridor does tend to get boring after a while and you end up wanting to give up due to the amazing advantage the other side has got.

At that point, CSS's tactics take a turn for the losing team. Their goal is to earn as much money as possible, at the cost of the matches.

The winning team's goal is to strengthen their lead before the roles switch. Something like that could never be in GR. As I said: "It's actually far easier to have depth of tactics in an unrealistic game than it is in something like GR1."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sup - you just make that sound too easy for the losing team to get back into the game. I've had more chance implementing tactics in GR1, than I have in CS:S.

And CS:S must be the only game where tactics aren't needed, just one guy with an auto sniper rifle, which even CS:S players class as the "noob gun". So CS:S then becomes more like fighting in the napoleonic war, rush at the enemy and hope for the best!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1hour 59 mins and 30 seconds of that 2-hour long 1on1 was "waiting for the opponent to make a mistake".

Ofcourse this can be exciting, but... a 1min 1on1 to decide the winner of the match can be just as exciting then a 2 hour long 1on1.

No, only about 30 minutes of that was 'dead' time - the rest was action packed - with cat and mouse chasing all over the map, missed long range shots, and wounding nades tossed in the spots suspected of holding a camper. 2 minute run and gun matches are not what GR is about - that's what CS is for - and always will be in my book. OT 1 on 1 is an all-together different story, and pretty lame IMO. Give1/2 points for a tie if it can't be settled in regular play or re-schedule a rematch and try again. OT shootouts are for hockey.... not GR.

madden.4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like my console just as much as my PC, i wish i could just have the one to game on but as was said, until the devs realise people like us exist there will always be a need for the PC.

at the end of the day whether you play CSS,BF2 or GR we are all FPS fans and we should all learn to get along :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sup - you just make that sound too easy for the losing team to get back into the game.  I've had more chance implementing tactics in GR1, than I have in CS:S.

And CS:S must be the only game where tactics aren't needed, just one guy with an auto sniper rifle, which even CS:S players class as the "noob gun".  So CS:S then becomes more like fighting in the napoleonic war, rush at the enemy and hope for the best!!

I've taken out autosniper guys with handguns at long range, myself.

Also, one hit headshot kills at long range with the IDF, perhaps the most accurate single shot ar in the game.

I never said CS's tactics were at all realistic, but 'fight for money and accept losing' is the kind of tactical decision you could never see in a realistic game.

CSS's tactics cross multiple rounds, normally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this one has really spun off topic................. :huh: ..I can't believe its still going..................

Me neither.... obviously we are a little short of anything new about GRAW. The thread has been pretty interesting, though - amazing how many diverse opinions there are on tactical gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once involved in a 4+ hour 6 vs 6 match, where the final map (3-3 tie) lasted better than 2 hours in a 1 on 1 showdown (no time limit).  Nobody left comms, everyone stayed and enjoyed it - I doubt that would EVER happen in CS for me - especially how I felt at work the next morning after 4 hours sleep.

Cheers!

:drunk:

hehe that reminds me of one of the ebst amtches i was ever invloved with. started around 8 pom my time adn didnt get over till the morning lol. we split the first 2 maps and then the third one we tied 3 times before fianlly getting the match over. man it was so fun. and the best part about it was that we my clan was friends with the other clan we where playing agains and man nether side wanted to elt the otehr win cause of the bragging rights hehe (i do belive we wont but who cares when youj have so much fun in a match?) man i hope graw can have matches like that again hehe

Edited by REDMONSTER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been as an observer to several pro CS:S and 1.6 LAN tournaments, and while the gameplay is very unrealistic, within the bounds of that world there are many tactics and strategies that are employed by the ranking teams.

Although I'm not a fan of CS gameplay and feel it's success is the singlemost reason why new games are being arcaded down, I can recognize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once involved in a 4+ hour 6 vs 6 match, where the final map (3-3 tie) lasted better than 2 hours in a 1 on 1 showdown (no time limit).  Nobody left comms, everyone stayed and enjoyed it - I doubt that would EVER happen in CS for me - especially how I felt at work the next morning after 4 hours sleep.

Cheers!

:drunk:

hehe that reminds me of one of the ebst amtches i was ever invloved with. started around 8 pom my time adn didnt get over till the morning lol. we split the first 2 maps and then the third one we tied 3 times before fianlly getting the match over. man it was so fun. and the best part about it was that we my clan was friends with the other clan we where playing agains and man nether side wanted to elt the otehr win cause of the bragging rights hehe (i do belive we wont but who cares when youj have so much fun in a match?) man i hope graw can have matches like that again hehe

what grade are you in, or are you just drunk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not bashing consoles. I have a PS2 and play some raceing games on it. However, I hate people saying they are diehard PC gamers but they love the console just as much or more. It just doesnt work that way. whats so hard to understand about this?

Oh boy... I am a die hard German Beer lover and love to have a hearty German beer, but also enjoy a good American brewed Coors Light as well..... It's all just beer, enjoy it all.

It's all just games... enjoy them all. :thumbsup:

-John

Right on, John.

I happen to hate consoles, but for one, my hands are so big, I cramp up with the controllers, and for another, I can't afford both, and I'd rather have my PC, since I can do so much more with it.

As for Rocky, I do know a bit about him personally, and I can tell you that he is most definitely a hardcore PC Gamer, no doubt in anyone's mind who knows him, or has played countless hours with him.

So I suggest we stop all of the judgmental crap, especially if we don't know who we are talking about.

If you like consoles, moe power to ya. Go grab one, a bunch of games, a drivnk and a snack, and have at it.

If your A PC diehard, do the ssame, and let everything be everything.

There is plenty of room for both. This house has 4 die hard PC gamers in it. 4. But between all of us, 7 or 8 consoles.

So what?

You play games your way, and let everyone else play theirs. That simple.

And please knock off the flaming and the insults. All it does is make the people doing it look about 8.

Edited by Specter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing for me is that once the PS3 comes with HD TV support (giving PC graphics a two finger salute) i can't justify having both a high spec PC and a PS3, so much so that i'm already banking on it and not upgrading my PC any further, thats the long term plan for me as if not for games i have absolutely no need for very high performance PC as otherwise all i use it for is email, word-pro, www and other non-intensive programs that i could run on a 486!, given that i don't see me upgrading this PC for about 10 years or so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing for me is that once the PS3 comes with HD TV support (giving PC graphics a two finger salute) i can't justify having both a high spec PC and a PS3, so much so that i'm already banking on it and not upgrading my PC any further, thats the long term plan for me as if not for games i have absolutely no need for very high performance PC as otherwise all i use it for is email, word-pro, www and other non-intensive programs that i could run on a 486!, given that i don't see me upgrading this PC for about 10 years or so!

Xbox360 is HD already btw... and the PS3 just announced yesterday it will only support DVI/HDMI inputs for HDTV (no component). I'm sure this has something to do with copy protection and HDCP compliance.... but nonetheless for any of you considering the $450+ splurge... if you have an older HDTV without HDMI/DVI, plan on another upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...