History of the CPL - Part V

[CSN NewsBot]

In the long line of articles that reflect the growth and rising development of the Cyberathlete Professional League over the years, the fifth installment, "A New Direction", focuses on the controversy during the change from Quake 3 to Counter-Strike for tournament play.

The immediate response was confusion and outrage. "We just didn't expect it to be dropped at the height of the game's popularity," Lee Trinrud, a veteran CPL Quake competitor remembers. "There was a lot of confusion, and many people became angered. The CPL and the Quake community had grown together, and FRAG 4 and Babbage's were great events. There was no clear reason given for the change and a game simply having more players didn't seem to be reason enough."

Grab your rocket launcher with quad damage and jump whilst grunting like a madman (and all the while being covered with an incandescent glow) as you check out the latest read today and become angered of the transition from Q3 to CS.

[file13]

Sigh.

[xlokix]

Edited by [user="41447"] @ [time="1096225625"]

Part 1: Clicking





Part 2: Logging in.





Part 3: Clicking





Part 4: Clicking





Thank you. Some people care besides yourself.

[Spoonman]

You sir, are very eloquent in explaining how to use one of our various useful features.



PS: The guy was banned for basically saying "who cares about e-sports".

[wolf8218]

[Walter_PPK]

hm I can understand why people get a little unhappy (understatement I know) when they just tell you you cant play your favorite game in your league anymore...

[ploclyn`]

[Haklin]

im still bitter about it..i've been playing cs since beta 2 and started playing q3 from beta1 so i've had a good persective on how both games have evolved "e-sport" wise.



q3(vanila)has just felt so solid and balanced for so long compared to the *cough cough other fps shooter* (UT), i just cant understand how it was dropped.



long live the rail!

[FL!P]

Never really cared much for Q3..

[Bert 004991]

Q3 is too repetitive for esports, I'd say. in CS you can attack and defend in many interesting ways, it's never boring to watch. in Q3, the players just run the same items over and over and over.... zzz.

[entRo]

Haklin wrote..

im still bitter about it..i've been playing cs since beta 2 and started playing q3 from beta1 so i've had a good persective on how both games have evolved "e-sport" wise.



q3(vanila)has just felt so solid and balanced for so long compared to the *cough cough other fps shooter* (UT), i just cant understand how it was dropped.



long live the rail!

Q3 was definitely better suited for e-sports than UT was, but e-sports would have never evolved if the switch wasn't made to CS. CS allowed more in-depth team play and the introduction of actual strategy, and not just map runs with powerup timing.

[trust]

Edited by [user="58407"] @ [time="1096329025"]

there is strategy in Quake 3 Deathmatch, but it's much longer term goals. Keeping control of the map is a strat for instance, but it's not a kill by kill thing, it's a general approach. In terms of player skills, you can't compare quake 3 to anything it's got such awesome play-mechanics. However, with a group of players, Yes, counter-strike is much more intersting in the long haul, also i think the natural unbalance of the weapons lends to more intersting play. quake 3's weapons seem to be very naturally balanced in terms of killing power.



p.s. I forgot to mention, CS > Q3 from a spectator view point, not nessasarily from the players.

[entRo]

From a player's perspective, I enjoy CS competitively much more than I did Q3, but I'd rather watch a Q3 match than a CS one.

[DchozN]

*jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts *jump *grunts

[Julio Caesar]

I suppose this article is adequate. No major grammical errors, so its marginally okay.