Yes, this is why I don't like engaging in comparisons about games. People will assume I'm trying to tell them one is 'better' than the other and will be offended by it.
So let's say I'm indeed talking out of my ass and have just been told off by a vastly more experienced CS player. My question then is: how is a semi-professional's style of play of any relevance to the public perception of the game style?
How does a pro's ability to shoot land headshots while 80% blinded in any way effect the 99% of players below him that can't?
Since this thread is about how and why UT3 is not popular and that 'mainstream' gamers aren't buying/enjoying it, my comments are meant to represent the views of a good-but-not-pro (just like me) gamer.
Stating that people that dedicate anywhere from 2-5 hours a day in one single game CAN do some of the things I just said were near impossible is not a contradiction of anything, but rather a confirmation that practice makes perfect. Nothing else. Hence the term *near* impossible.
There's also people that can stack eggs on top of each other or throw three triple-twenties in a row while blindfolded. That doesn't mean that it isn't near frickin' impossible.
When talking about difficulty, I don't think it can be expressed as a numeric value. I like to think of it as a curve. The Y axis would probably represent amount of talent/time invested needed to be succesful, while the X axis represents the level of playing that one wants to be succesful at.
For UT, I'd say it's a pretty straight 45 degree line.
For CS it's a curve that starts really flat, and only at higher levels becomes steeper. Most games' peak would probably be at the same value, with the exception of dumbed-down games where the graph would be a straight line once you pass "2 weeks into the game".
Long story short: Any game can be as hard as you want, as long as you're playing against equal opponents. Hell, you can call a match of Tetris VS. harder than UT and CS combined as long as you're playing someone that's really good at tetris, and knows all the intricacies of the game. That doesn't mean that a beginner can't pick up tetris and survive the first 5 minutes without a problem.
Btw, I found none of those counter-arguments very convincing.
Your finding it easier to hit targets in UT/Quake(flying all over the place) than in CS(standing still, hiding behind a crate that you can shoot through or strafing -bunnyhopping is instant death), is also subjective and may even suggest that CS's cone of fire does indeed negatively affect a player's ability to land shots consistently. (Same input mechanism, same tracking skill, probably same FOV, same mouse, higher game performace, yet less/slower movement and *still* harder to hit?)
Also, I wouldn't call being able to shoot through the odd wall/crate (where you're not completely gambling about your opponent's whereabouts) indirect fire. It's still point and click, just with an obstacle in between.
I'm talking about stuff like hitting people with splash damage, either from rockets, combos, flak secondary, the grenade launcher in Q3, etc. Even UT rockets' ability to change course in mid-air when locked could be called indirect fire. Stuff that allows you to hit people while taking yourself out of the line of fire, or that will allow you to 'probe' a location for enemy presence(listen for damage sounds), or that will allow you to set a trap of sorts for someone that you know is going to be somewhere. Stuff that allows for an advantage when used right, and in combination with superior tactics.
As for recoil patterns, I must admit I haven't played CS very much before CS:S. I, for one, have not learned the recoil patterns.
I am no stranger to fixed spread patterns though, and have played at least a couple of games that incorporated them into their weapons.
I'm going to refer to my 'curve' idea again here, there is probably a 1% of the CS players that can spray an entire magazine, hitting every shot, while moving, on a moving target. The other 99% will probably resort to bursts, or standing still for a fraction of a second when firing, etc. This is still completely ignoring the fact that even when one has mastered the recoil compensation, you still need to track the opponent.
Saying that the recoil patterns therefore do not hold a player back when it comes to aim is nonsense. It's like saying that there are UT players out there that can get 2 headhunter awards in a single match, therefore the sniper rifle is overpowered, completely ignoring the other tens of thousands of players that cannot even get a single headhunter award consistently.
Fact remains: there is a mechanism in place in CS that makes your shots land somewhere else than where you aimed. This mechanism will have to be worked around by the player (or compensated, such as you describe) before the actual in-game accuracy will be equal to the player's tracking accuracy.
Some players will be able to do this, the majority won't.
Result: CS is less aim based 99,9% of the time.
Please do not take offense again, my intention is far from trying to belittle the CS community (me being a part of it). I just think it is ignorant and slightly fanboyish to declare that a game with only hitscan weapons, restricted movement, and a much heavier focus on teamplay takes an equal amount of aiming talent/instinct/reflexes as a game where people will dodge all over the place, be able to fly halfway across an open space (2k4), move at 1,5-2 times the speed, are able to perform trickjumps and in the case of Q3, bunnyjump in order to accelerate to speeds FAR higher than normal walking speed.
That's all.
Point in case:
Q3 CPMA
UT2k4
and CS1.6
Mind you, both arena style games' videos are taken from 1v1 duels, whereas the CS video is 2 teams facing off. Considering that, the speed/chaos only intensifies when you add extra players.
If after watching that you still feel CS is at least as aim-based or reflex-dependent as Q3 and UT then you're the one talking out of his ass, not me.
Anyway, let's keep this slightly on topic now. If you feel you still have to enlighten me on the art of CS1.6, just use PM.
