Nineteen Eleven

no one minds the game being different, its just no game manages to get the same feel as CS did. thats all anyone wants and no title since 1.6 has really managed to do it.

yeah, i don't agree with you AT ALL mitch. quake 3 is the best game ever created. cs1.6 is right behind it. chess and checkers aren't bad games because they're old. i don't know why game publishers/developers feel the need to significantly change the gameplay instead of just making the game more immersive by using better graphics, better models, better maps, more interactive worlds, etc.

lower your voice mitch

scorch- wrote:yeah, i don't agree with you AT ALL mitch. quake 3 is the best game ever created. cs1.6 is right behind it. chess and checkers aren't bad games because they're old. i don't know why game publishers/developers feel the need to significantly change the gameplay instead of just making the game more immersive by using better graphics, better models, better maps, more interactive worlds, etc.

Discounting a game simply because it is not 1.6 regurgitated is the problem. Dislike the game because the actual game play sucks. If you want to play 1.6, then go play 1.6. Different doesn't imply bad, it implies different. If that different is shitty (like your bullets not going where you aim the gun), then it sucks and you can say it isn't an improvement over what existed before.

However, this is like saying Super Mario Brothers sucks because it was not a direct port of Mario Brothers. Oh, god, they added a dinosaur you ride and a lot of other things that make game play different!?!?!

If you like Q3, then play Q3. Just don't expect games released 15 years ago to be simple updates of graphics, and that is the only thing that can be made better.

Rambizzle wrote:lower your voice mitch

Go **** your sister, Ricky.

and what game released since CS or q3(outside of live) has come even close to replicating the gameplay of either of those titles? none. thats all i want. yea, the games are old as shit, but no games since have managed to be remotely as good.

seriously, no one's saying they shouldn't make new games... but that no one plays them for any length of time because they **** with the gameplay and make it worse instead of better.

Starcraft 2 did a good job of not **** up the gameplay from the original.

Also I hear that there's a new free AoE game. Gonna check that out soon.

blizzard is about the only exception to that rule. but they also took 10+ years to finally release the game too.

unpro wrote:blizzard is about the only exception to that rule. but they also took 10+ years to finally release the game too.

same deal with diablo 3, but everything i've read is an upgrade over d2. cs:source brought better graphics and worse gameplay because the developers for that game didn't understand why the original game was addictive/fun.