Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bunchofsugar t1_jeah3rs wrote

Because it wasnt. All pre-CS DM games had either complete lack of depth or were too hard to play for an mass market gamer.

Team Fortress was kinda an exception, but back then it was hard to find enough players to make it work unless you were playing on internet, and good enough internet was luxury back then.

0

Tobi_1989 t1_jeaiuxf wrote

Yeah, but Half-Life 2 deathmatch was a legend... How many other deathmatch games let you smash a dude's face in with a toilet bowl?

Or better yet, catch a toilet bowl sent to smash your face in and return to sender?

2

Monkee-D t1_jeal50q wrote

I miss the days when not every fps was objective based with strick competitive elements players must adhere to. There wasn't a patch every week that changes the games meta, we just didn't care if every game element was perfectly and meticulously balanced. Sometimes you just want to jump into some crazy arena style gameplay with lots of choas and jump out. No player ranks, no unlockables, we didn't really even care if the team lost (because wants the point?)

You just played the damn game and were happy with what you got. Nowadays gamers expect everything to be tailor made to fit every need, want, and desire.

1

bunchofsugar t1_jeals8x wrote

OG CS was like that actually.

But unlike lets say Quake you it was actually possible to win or at least score some kills without going really in depth.

In CS strategy and smart part of the game was kinda obvious for the new player. In Quake it took some experience to figure out that playing smart is actually more important than having reflexes.

1

Monkee-D t1_jeapdvi wrote

That's true. CS actually has strategy, unlike HL2DM which is basically all luck and managed chaos. But maybe that's a good thing? It gives a more arcade like experience. You didn't need to try so hard with that game.

1

KeepBoppin t1_jearkx0 wrote

The premise and gameplay was atleast… Source was the way.

1