Nuke Coming Next Wednesday

[Salamandra]

Edited by [user="328364"] @ [time="1132850320"]

Wha? Where you you people playing on? All the servers I play have piranesi on all the time, probably the most consistantly liked map along with cbble.



And, yeah. Whenever voting conspires against all the regulars and picks dust or dust2, I usually prod the admin to change the nextmap. It might not be very democratic; but people who come into a server for 10 minutes, and attempt to make me play dust2 for about 3 solid hours don't deserve a vote.



The only reason why any map gets boring for me is because I play it too much. I think every map is at least quite good.

[snkcube]

Yay, de_nuke.

[V.C. Sniper]

OMG W00t~!1!! de_nuke and dod_argentan is g0nna be sw33t!!!! I cna't wait t1ll itz reLEase!!!! 0mgZZ!!!!! YESSSS~!!!!! !OMg sooo excited w00t!!!!!!! GREAT JOB STEAM AND VALVe!!! Steam is gonig to be the future w00tZ!@ GrowinZ fAsssttt@!!!!! omg yes!!! w00t!!!! CAN't WAIT TO PLAY DE_NUKE AND DOD_ARGENTAN !!!!! omg THEY r g0nna r0x m3 d34d!!! oMG w00t!!!

[Stone Cold Spider 3:16]

now all we need is docks :P

[ChinesesRubdown]

no we need militia NOW!!!!! and arctic avengers model

[3unknown3]

I didn't really like nuke in 1.6, it was bland using half-life textures and looked shabby, random and just felt like the whole thing would fall apart, but then that's just me. Pirenesi is quite fun, so is cobble, italy and aztec is one of my favorite maps on source. Compound is pretty good but port seems like awp_port rather than de_port

[hugo-rj]

Salamandra: playing the same 4 or 5 maps only improve the tatics you use on those maps... I don't think cs needs lots of maps, but it does need 4 or 5 nice, balanced and interesting maps. Of course, that's the way I enjoy this game. I'm not saying it's a rule...



3unknow3: nuke is a map where lots of action happen... I don't even think about the textures anymore :) But I respect your opinion, because there are different ways of enjoying CS... if you want a game with nice graphics, forget about 1.6 at all, because it's dated. But what makes people still play it? For most people, it's all about gameplay. And nuke delivers it...

[sadisticflirt]

Disappointing. Simply disappointing. A good month for counter-strike enthusiasts! Nuke! Militia! Two Models! Rubbish. We're left with just Nuke at the end of the month. Typical ValVe Software. Disappointing as ever.

[[CyW]-=BigBear=-]

hugo-rj wrote..

if you want a game with nice graphics, forget about 1.6 at all, because it's dated. But what makes people still play it? For most people, it's all about gameplay.

It think you mean fps.. Because without good fps there's not a lot to enjoy about gameplay.. That's why most still play 1.6, because it gives them a lot more fps and therefor indirectly better gameplay then CS:S in which the vast majority can't get good fps (yet)..



If you leave out the fps issue, the 'basic' gameplay of both CS 1.6 and CS:S is virtually the same..

[washuplushie]

[CyW]-=BigBear=- wrote..

most still play 1.6, because it gives them a lot more fps and therefor indirectly better gameplay then CS:S in which the vast majority can't get good fps (yet)..

lies, if you really go for FPS you just turn down the graphics in CS:S, I have a really bad video card and I get 50fps on medium settings. I still play cs because it's the original and it's still a good game, but cs:s is the (soon to be?) perfected version.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

I have a fairly good video card (6600GT) and I maybe average 50-60 fps in CS:S with decent graphics settings.



The problem is, by the time I lower my settings to the point where I can get what I consider to be acceptable FPS (roughly 80+) CS:S looks far worse than CZ does, as I can run that at 1280x1024 with 4xAA/8xAF and keep my FPS counter pegged at 99+ through even heavy firefights with smoke nades.



I personally have no desire to game at 640x480 with muddy textures and no reflections. As such... yes, FPS is an issue for most people, and for the bulk majority of people who play (according to the Steam survey) CS:S doesn't run anywhere close to as smoothly as older versions do. In HL2, I don't mind, because I'm just playing against the computer. With something as competitive as CS, though... anything less than perfectly repsonsive hinders you, and can make the difference between living and dying that round. That's likely where CS:S loses a lot of appeal, so I'm inclined to agree with BigBear on this one.

appended @ [time="1133137691"]

To clarify something on that post, I average 50-60fps, but I dip down into the 20-30 range at times in heavy combat, which in my opinion is unplayable for this style of game. To keep that from happening ever, it becomes necessary to drop the graphics details far below what looks good.

[kerosine99]

Nighthawk, here's a question. For you, does CS:S on all the lowest settings look worse than CZ on all the highest settings?



For me, while it is frustrating to have to play on low settings, the ragdolls alone make CS:S worth playing.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

In my opinion, yes, it looks worse. For me, the resolution and image quality settings (like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering) make a huge difference on how good something looks to me. Yes, the buildings are more angular and flat in CZ than in CS:S, but on those settings the texture resolution is better in CZ than in CS:S.



Factor that in with all the jagged edges from turning off AA and the further blurred textures when you drop to bilinear filtering... and the end result is a visual experience that has lost nearly all of the benefits of the new technology. Physics modeling alone can't make up that difference for me.



Needless to say, if I was running a 7800GTX on an FX-57, I probably would look at CZ and say "why bother?" because it'd run basically the same as CS:S. I'm not rich though, and my 2600+/6600GT, while decent, don't make CS:S an attractive option for me personally.



But hey, other people find other things visually appealing (or revolting) so each person can make their own choice on what to play.

[Vlux]

sadisticflirt wrote..

Disappointing. Simply disappointing. A good month for counter-strike enthusiasts! Nuke! Militia! Two Models! Rubbish. We're left with just Nuke at the end of the month. Typical ValVe Software. Disappointing as ever.

I agree. I remember them mentioning that, and so far, it's been a pretty dull month with no major additions to Steam.

[donkeynuts123]

ok this is my opinion source runs fine. My system specs are 3000+ amd 64bit oc'ed to 2.4, 2x512ram, msiX800xl 265mb, 19in. widescreen 8ms Viewsonic LCD. I run this game at 1440x900 with all settings cranked up. And I rareley go under 100 fps. On assault in firefights I had about 60 fps and the same goes for inferno. As for a server with custom maps that is basically full all the time is the usbong team server ip: 64.94.100.36:27015

They mostly play custom maps they have even had people convert custom cs maps to de maps for them. And btw i'm not rich either before this I was playing source on a 2ghz pen.4, 256mb rdram, 64mb geforce 4 mx420 which is basically a geforce 2. When i played source with that stuff I had most stuff set to low and play at 800x600 and get decent fps (50-60).

Btw if you have norton or some shitty anti virus like that i suggest replaing it with nod32 because its not a resource hog.(btw my entire system cost me about 600 dollars without the monitor which was 300)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...2E16824116373