Why source is better than 1.6 -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

.am0k

Ruthless

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

630 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

I had this discussion with 3 friends of mine the other day. I asked them what made source appeal to them. Their answer, the cool graphics and physics. I asked why sacrifice gfx and physics for gameplay. They claimed source and 1.6 to be the same game except for the graphics and physics. They have never played 1.6 or even seen it in their lives. This is the majority of the players out there now, also. I showed them 1.6 and had them play in one of my favorite servers. They were impressed by the graphics (i have many high count models downloaded). On source (they have been playing maybe 3 months, not sure) they would get about a 20-8 score or so. On 1.6 they couldn't acheive a positive score at all. Synopsis: 1.6 gfx and physics are worse, but bearable 1.6 takes more skill and HS are less-lucky Source Hitboxes are way off 1.6 still has the skilled and dedicated community playing it Source is fine if you never played beta-1.6, but I myself, as a vet, will stick to 1.6. ...damn you damn sheilds. Damn you to Nifelheim!




General_Slayer

Stop changing my profile

50 XP

6th June 2005

0 Uploads

163 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

I prefer Source to 1.6, but I play both equally. I like source because really, its a newer game so you're bound to play it more often and longer. I get bored of new games though, so after you get sick of newbs on the servers it doesnt really appeal to you anymore. Even hackers on source cant use the hacks properly, atleast on 1.6 they used them to an advantage and not try and cover them up because its so obvious that they're hacking, with all the shaking of the crosshairs of hackers on 1.6, that was less obvious than it is on source. Older games have more to give than newer games, because the graphics are better or its got a new map or something, you want to play it so more than you did old games that you complete it 5 hours after you got it (I know, i've done it many times)




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago
.am0k Synopsis: 1.6 gfx and physics are worse, but bearable 1.6 takes more skill and HS are less-lucky Source Hitboxes are way off 1.6 still has the skilled and dedicated community playing it Source is fine if you never played beta-1.6, but I myself, as a vet, will stick to 1.6.

This is all based on your biased opinion, and many people such as yourself are trying to convey it as fact on the Steam forums are well. The 1.6 graphics are utterly atrocious; the sheer lack of proper model quality and textures are absolutely horrid. No 'crisp' models/textures exist in 1.6, at least by default. The MSA (Models, Skins, & Animations) Community is an entirely different subject in itself. 1.6 does not take more skill than source. All you devoted players of 1.6 love to point out that "Source is all spray and pray", and the head hitboxes are humongous; well news flash for you, it is the exact same damn game you are playing on the old Half-Life Engine. Nearly nothing has changed, especially in regards on how you play the game. Don't go trying to pass of that in 1.6 spraying occurs less than in source; that is just wrong beyond belief. The problem with anyone playing a previous version of their favorite game is that they will make up bullshit reasons as to why it is better than the latest available platform, in this case source. The only reason the 'competitive' gamers, your top-tier clans that is, are not playing Source, is for a multitude of reasons. The top one is that there is no anti-cheat technology in place yet to help shield cheaters away from the tournaments such as CPL or CAL. VAC 2 is having its server load being tested right now, but the anti-cheat stuff has not been brought in yet. The other is that some do not have good enough rigs to play source, and to be honest, they are going to have to eventually upgrade if they want to play the latest games coming out, or else they will be stuck in the past. I've been playing Counter-Strike for roughly 5 years, and I even beta tested 1.6 three years ago on steam beta when it was first available. During this beta testing process, the AI for condition zero was being tweaked, and when you created a server with a custom map, the bots would automatically configure waypoints, and their behavior was superb. When 1.6 was finalized and slated for release, the AI was pulled and put into CZ, which you had to pay for. By all means, Source is a superior game to 1.6, graphics and gameplay wise.




.am0k

Ruthless

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

630 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

1. Yes this is my opinion. 2. CS graphics are by no means atrocious. FPS count is incredible, and the graphics are visible (at distances etc.) and you can easily make out what is what. 3. CSS does tax my system and to make it run equally as fast as CS, i must lower res to 800x640, and turn off anti-aliasing completely, making it very jagged. (3.4gzh p4, 1gig DDR2, geforce4). 4. I imagine source will get better with time, but it will never acheive the impact of its predecessor. 5. Hitboxes are way off, no reason to argue that. It is atrocious. 6. and less recoil along with larger Headshot box makes for an interesting random experience. Basically, the game needs tweaks, but it is not the gaming delight you made it out to be. I prefer UT2k4 gfx with HL2 physics. That way gfx are great (not the best) and playable. Who says you have to be the best? ...7 out of 10 people who play source, never played CS before.




Master of Reality

I'm lying when I say trust me

50 XP

8th June 2004

0 Uploads

10,166 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
3. CSS does tax my system and to make it run equally as fast as CS, i must lower res to 800x640, and turn off anti-aliasing completely, making it very jagged. (3.4gzh p4, 1gig DDR2, geforce4).

You have a geforce 4, of course your settings will be low. You have a great system with a really shitty video card.




General_Slayer

Stop changing my profile

50 XP

6th June 2005

0 Uploads

163 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

So what if 7 out of 10 people havent played CS before, you ever thought that the reason why that is could be because CS 1.6 was so crap that they didn't like it, because CS Source is more up to date with technology, graphics and gameplay now they find it a much better game than it was.




.am0k

Ruthless

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

630 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Well I actually have two pc's with 2 video cards. The one has high specs, low card. Other is ok specs, better card. The one with the better card runs worse though (p4, 2.5gzh, 1gig DDR, ATI radeon 9800 [i think thats it]). I will switch the cards later, but my point is that you have to have just the right combonation of things in order to run it quickly. And notice that i said, "to run as fast as 1.6." That is a tuff thing to do since my buddy with an alienware (new) runs the game at, like, 1120x1048 (something like that), and gets great fps with no slow downs. BUT: It doesn't run as good as 1.6. As for the comment on how they play new CSS and they never played 1.6 and liked CSS better makes no sense, man. They have nothing to compare it to. And the friends that played CSS have been playing alot of 1.6 to try and form a CAL clan. Hmm...




cyrax02

Master Chief

50 XP

11th November 2004

0 Uploads

161 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

The reason your friend can run CS 1.6 faster than CSS is because CS has very bad graphics for todays technology. My old 333mhz runs that game perfectly. CSS had got better graphics, so requires more system requirements.




.am0k

Ruthless

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

630 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Lol, state the obvious. I'm saying that the requirements shouldn't be as high as they make them. They will have to limit themselves one day instead of releasing just super high powered engines. My guess is the future holds 2 versions of games being made, one for low end pc's that allow high resses with worse graphics and one for super computer owning nerds with high resolution but high requirements.




cyrax02

Master Chief

50 XP

11th November 2004

0 Uploads

161 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

Well, they have to make the requirements high. Unless you want to play a crappy looking game.




  • 1
  • 2