This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Sorry, but Counter Strike GO sucks

#181ShebeskiiPosted 10/2/2013 3:51:28 PM(edited)
Orestes417 posted...
I think what annoys the hell out of me with the CS set is in the last part of that third point. There seems to be a perception that those skills are unique to CS. They aren't. There's nothing special about map awareness, positional play and sound whoring in shooters in general. Most high level BF and CoD players do it reflexively. Yes, you can do decently without it, but to imagine superiority because because CS is better known for it is just... hubris is the word I'm hunting.


A well executed CS play is no different than an NFL play that takes longer with different fields to play on. You're acting like the respawn heavy controlled chaos of BF (which includes map awareness, positional play and sound whoring) is anywhere near as structured as CS.

Just because BF requires some of the same skills as CS, does not mean they're pretty much the same.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#182Orestes417Posted 10/2/2013 3:51:33 PM
Worknofun370 posted...
Orestes417 posted...
I think what annoys the hell out of me with the CS set is in the last part of that third point. There seems to be a perception that those skills are unique to CS. They aren't. There's nothing special about map awareness, positional play and sound whoring in shooters in general. Most high level BF and CoD players do it reflexively. Yes, you can do decently without it, but to imagine superiority because because CS is better known for it is just... hubris is the word I'm hunting.



Those traits are far more important in CS than in BF or CoD. I think that's the point that was being made, not that they aren't possible/don't happen in other FPS.


I don't argue that they're more important as a baseline. I take issue with the presumption of superiority in any way shape and form based on it and the sheer arrogance that comes with it.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#183Worknofun370Posted 10/2/2013 3:55:20 PM
Orestes417 posted...
Worknofun370 posted...
Orestes417 posted...
I think what annoys the hell out of me with the CS set is in the last part of that third point. There seems to be a perception that those skills are unique to CS. They aren't. There's nothing special about map awareness, positional play and sound whoring in shooters in general. Most high level BF and CoD players do it reflexively. Yes, you can do decently without it, but to imagine superiority because because CS is better known for it is just... hubris is the word I'm hunting.



Those traits are far more important in CS than in BF or CoD. I think that's the point that was being made, not that they aren't possible/don't happen in other FPS.


I don't argue that they're more important as a baseline. I take issue with the presumption of superiority in any way shape and form based on it and the sheer arrogance that comes with it.


Ehh, I think when the point is being made that CS is more competitive/strategic than a shooter that it's not all that arrogant or superior to point out that it does those things far better than most games, or to stand on that as to why CS is such a great competitive shooter.
#184ShebeskiiPosted 10/2/2013 3:57:19 PM
Orestes417 posted...
Worknofun370 posted...
Orestes417 posted...
I think what annoys the hell out of me with the CS set is in the last part of that third point. There seems to be a perception that those skills are unique to CS. They aren't. There's nothing special about map awareness, positional play and sound whoring in shooters in general. Most high level BF and CoD players do it reflexively. Yes, you can do decently without it, but to imagine superiority because because CS is better known for it is just... hubris is the word I'm hunting.



Those traits are far more important in CS than in BF or CoD. I think that's the point that was being made, not that they aren't possible/don't happen in other FPS.


I don't argue that they're more important as a baseline. I take issue with the presumption of superiority in any way shape and form based on it and the sheer arrogance that comes with it.


You could extend your argument to Checkers vs. Chess and say Chess players are just arrogant.

There's real objectivity here.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#185Orestes417Posted 10/2/2013 4:05:21 PM(edited)
It's fair to say that it's more rigid and formalized than most games. It's also fair to say that it's more precisely balanced for competitive matches. I think it comes down to this though, the CS set doesn't much like admitting that there's deep strategic thought even amid pure chaos and I suspect being forced to cope with the truly unexpected makes them twitch. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm off base there.

As for strategic depth, I could school your ass on squad tactics for Karkand every bit as long as you could expound on Dust2. I know guys who could do the same for any given map in CoD4 too. Except the Bog. the Bog sucks and no one plays it.

---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#186ShebeskiiPosted 10/2/2013 4:24:04 PM(edited)
Orestes417 posted...
It's fair to say that it's more rigid and formalized than most games. It's also fair to say that it's more precisely balanced for competitive matches. I think it comes down to this though, the CS set doesn't much like admitting that there's deep strategic thought even amid pure chaos and I suspect being forced to cope with the truly unexpected makes them twitch. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm off base there.


The whole point of strategy is to make your opponent face the unexpected. Or at least its an extremely vital component. If your strategy is predictable, you rely on skill, and that's a strategy in itself.

If team A in CS has been making A rushes over and over, we may eventually expect a change up to B, or a myriad of other strategies like running the clock down, feigning aggression or a two prong approach.

So, CS players experience the unexpected all the time. It's "known" unexpected plays, but they're still unexpected.

How can you get 12v12, let alone 32v32 to work in a concerted, sensible manner? Sure, people do the objective, and from following the objective and using the tools provided, some strategy will exist, but it's much more contrived by the developers and game design. Outside of that, more complex strategies, which may emerge (with most of the team catching on to the idea through some intuition of game flow) won't be reliably reproduced. The fact that so many people cannot communicate over extended periods of time is a major problem. The fact that that many people can't communicate effectively due to size is a major problem. There's some semblance of team strategy with class usage and such, but it's loose.

It gets hard to elaborate on, since it relies on creating comprehensible terms to describe game design and structure, but BF3 is very much you playing into the contrived structure that already exists.

Most of the strategy in CS is emergent based on rules. Strategies are contingent on movement speed, gun performance, level design, money etc. but why we take positions and bomb sites with particular equipment sets is further removed from the core game design than BF - CS is much more abstract.

Look at football. Their formations are not directly related to the field. The strategies are emergent. Same goes for chess. The board is a set of rules that lead to abstract strategies.

BF is much more "here are your goals (attack or defend), here are your tools, use some nifty and witty tactics on the way".

It's just not the same.

And I forgot to mention, but strategies and tactics aren't the same. BF is loaded with tactics. It's scarce on strategy.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#187Orestes417Posted 10/2/2013 4:47:33 PM(edited)
32v32 organized matches happen from time to time, and it's easy enough to coordinate if said participants are game, but you're right it's a usually a waste of time coming up with an overarching strategy vs doing it on the fly at the squad level. It's just not flexible enough to get the job done adequately relying on preplanned strategy. It's more a cascade of smaller informed decisions adding up to a whole. At the squad level though, the main difference between what you CS folks do and a proper BF squad is your five guys decide the entire game, ours can only influence it to varying degrees (except for Defuse, which as I understand it literally IS CS with our gun physics and maps). Oh yes, and the rather obvious difference that we can adjust strategies on the fly while CS players tend to be too dead to worry about it if a plan goes pear shaped.

As for CoD, it'd be closer than you want to admit in league play, if they dropped the ridiculous killstreaks.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#188ShebeskiiPosted 10/2/2013 4:48:32 PM(edited)
Orestes417 posted...
32v32 organized matches happen from time to time, and it's easy enough to coordinate if said participants are game, but you're right it's a usually a waste of time coming up with an overarching strategy vs doing it on the fly at the squad level. It's just not flexible enough to get the job done adequately relying on preplanned strategy. It's more a cascade of smaller informed decisions adding up to a whole. At the squad level though, the main difference between what you CS folks do and a proper BF squad is your five guys decide the entire game, ours can only influence it to varying degrees (except for Defuse, which as I understand it literally IS CS with our gun physics and maps).

As for CoD, it'd be closer than you want to admit in league play, if they dropped the ridiculous killstreaks.


I definitely agree with that description. It's an intelligent and informed perspective on how BF plays out.

It just has more dice rolls along each stage of the process. Tactics are just as important, if not more important in BF. It's not devoid of intelligence in the moment, or with respect to the achievement of goals, but it is very much casual in the sense of concerted strategy. You can jump in and pull off your cool moves (if they're good) and be an asset to the team, even at a high level. Each player matters less, the game manipulates the flow of play, and there's more dice rolling. Doesn't mean it isn't fun, or that skill doesn't take a major part, but it IS casual and accessible by nature.

It's by design non-competitive, or casual. I don't think we should look at the term casual as derogatory, even if I've used it as such (because of disagreement and annoyance).

Many TV shows are casual, as in they don't require a serious watch beginning to end, but they're still good TV shows. Same goes for many movies. Not every movie needs to be There Will Be Blood, and not every movie should be.

I just don't think BF players should try to act like the game is as serious as more competitive shooters from yesteryear.

I may pick up BF4, but I'll pick it up for the EXPERIENCE and ACTION and INTENSITY, not its depth or strategy.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#189Orestes417Posted 10/2/2013 4:53:35 PM
Oh no. for the most part BF players consider it a sandbox where you get to blow stuff up. But there is a serious side in a smaller corner.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#190thatfool12GsPosted 10/2/2013 4:56:44 PM
As soon as I realized CSGO doesn't aim down the sights...uninstalled.
---
Asus Sabertooth z77 - Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz - Hyper 212 Evo - G. Skill Ripjaws X 16 GB Ram - EVGA GTX 680 - Xion 1000W PSU