I'm a total CS noob but I just played a few matches online after a friend convinced me to get it on 360 and I'm hooked. I should probably learn how to buy weapons though so I can use some of my cash.

...just installed it, and damn, i am lovin it!
Maybe i got lucky with my first server, but untill now, i am owning ;-)

http://www.hltv.org/news/9056-ti3-with-1600000-for-csgo

wru patches

Game is a bit too inconsistent compared to 1.6 or source. For me it's not even a matter of learning the new recoil, angles, mechanics and other things, but it seems that it's just way too clunky and random to actually "learn" anything in the game.

I've played the game since day 1 of the beta and while they have made significant strides in improving the game (I wouldn't even call the first few months of the beta anything close to a counter-strike game) it is still far off from being a viable competitive game in the long run. With that said it's still early so I won't cast it off like 1.6 players cast off source without even trying it competitively.

8-0 in ESEA!

if you needed an excuse to brag you could have just used spoilers

Ew, can't even imagine playing CS on a console. It's like trying to play 24 tables with a touchpad.

I have a 0.6 on the PC.

Tilting because my kills + assists are always way more than my deaths.

Really enjoy the game though even though recoil + variance during close combat is tilting.

thx, this server is great, just keeps crashing when trying to load nuke or d/l a map, but im sure that will be fixed shortly. i like how quickly people that arent "teamplaying" are kicked.

i ll be either "mooo" or "jhksauser"

What did source really offer that made it better than 1.6? I played source for ~100 matces, but never really liked it as much as 1.6 tbh. Gameplay was really awesome in 1.6, everything felt very responsive and accurate. Source somehow just never had that feeling. I think it's the same problem with most modern shooters, controls just didn't have that immediate response feel as in games like 1.6 or Quake. The new maps also were worse, those simple "maps made of boxes" in 1.6 are just awesome for competitive play. Not to mention the slight layout changes in some maps were usually just for worse. And do I even have to mention drastically nerfed damage when shooting through walls? That's just the most stupid idea ever.

I also feel like recoil is more random in css, but I'm not sure if that's really the issue or is it just because I'm more used to 1.6.

I just don't get why anyone would've moved to source, when it didn't really do anything better than 1.6, and especially in first few month it still had lots of bugs, didn't have HLTV available etc etc. And even if you didn't mind all those "minor" things, Source never really had a big scene. At least in finnish scene (which pretty much revolved around CB ladders) there was always >3x more activity in 1.6, even at sources peak years. You could pretty much get a 1.6 match immediatly at almost any time of day, while finding a source 5v5 could sometimes take several hours outside the evening hours.

I still haven't played much GO, just a few hours, but at the moment I feel like 1.6 > GO > Source.

edit: And obv 1.6 scene is much better since avg age is probably 3+ years higher, much less 16 year olds than there was in source.

I've played both 1.6 and source competitively, but at least you have some source background.

That is pretty much a matter of opinion. It would be very hard to scientifically prove that 1.6 is more responsive and accurate than source. It might have to do with playing 1.6 much more than source and developing your game around that while not adjusting to the new source engine.

Modern shooters are developed around completely different game mechanics whereas source and 1.6 are pretty close. There are big differences, but your average gamer won't notice them. The difference between CSS/1.6 and CoD/BF is huge though and will explain why a lot of CoD/BF players cannot pick up CSS/1.6 right away and do well. If source was so easy, then all 1.6 players would be able to pick up the game and dominate CSSers in their own game, but clearly that will never happen.
What you argue against source maps I turn that exact argument around and say that is the reason why source is better. For example, simple maps don't allow for dynamic double and triple fakes. But that statement would actually be wrong. Most of the maps are pretty much the same. Source has a few more props in each map though. How does that make a game "worse"? Adding a few extra props to a already simple map does not make it less competitive. One could argue that the addition of props allows for more competitive play, but that would be hard to prove as well.
Is there any scientific proof that shows being able to shoot through 30 feet of concrete vs 5 feet of concrete make a game better? There are quite a few spam spots in source that you need to learn as well. So either way, you'll need to spend significant time playing either game to learn the intricacies. I could just say that because you cannot shoot through 30 feet of concrete, source players are rewarded more for being patient, holding a strong angle/position and having faster reactions. Whereas in 1.6 you could just spam the wall.

Again, like every thing I've quoted above. It's a matter of opinion. You have used the phrase "I feel" in every single one of your statements. In this case it is probably a matter of being more used to 1.6 than source. I would argue that source is actually significantly less random and more accurate than 1.6. The reason why GO is so difficult for a lot of players right now is because the recoil is much harder to control than both 1.6 and source. Does that make it a better game than source or 1.6? Nope, it just means it's a completely different set of rules you need to follow.

HLTV/minor bugs are no big deal. I play almost every game I play competitively so I am willing to stick it through longer than a few months, just like most CS players do. This is the exact reason why I have played CSGO for close to 10 months now. HLTV is still not available and the 2nd season of ESEA is almost over. However that won't determine whether I continue to play the game or not.

During CAL days, both 1.6 and source had a huge following. At a highly competitive level, population of the game really shouldn't matter at all. This is in the US, so it might be different. During the CGS days nearly all professional 1.6 players switched over to source to play for the large prize pool. Source had a strong population from 2004-2008. Since then both games have dwindled.

Noticing a pattern? Having an opinion is great, but in no way makes it scientific evidence as to why one game is superior to another.

Swag, a 15 year old kid (maybe he turned 16) is currently dominating the 1.6 scene. Age has nothing to do with skill. Just like poker, the amount of time and dedication you put into practice and studying the game is a large factor.

I just wanted to address everything you said.

It took quite a while before source was a refined game, which is why even though I have my own opinions about how GO "should" be, I am willing to stick it out and learn the new game. However, I probably will never say that source or 1.6 is a better game than GO based on my opinions of how the game should play. My 10+ years of playing 1.6 and source does have an affect on how I play GO (as it should), but I will not attribute my perceived lack of skill to the game being a "worse" version of what is already out there.

trazz23 on steam for anyone who wants to play. CSGO is now my primary game.

I'm pretty meh atm but I'll be sinking tons of hours into it, hopefully start playing competitively soon. Never really played CS but was very competitive in COD and RTCW wayyy back in the day. Hopefully I can pick things up quickly.

Sc00by on steam, added you, others feel free to add me.

Of course most of the things I mentioned are just a matter of opinion, but not all of them have anything to do with being more used to 1.6. For example that lack of wallbanging completely changes the dynamic of the game and makes some maps like nuke play completely differently. Of course argument could be made for either one to be better, but for me it's 1.6 and it's not even close. I think it's fair to say I've given source enough of a try for it to be more than "you're just more used to 1.6", as I've literally played CSS for hundreds of hours.

It's obviously not something that made me choose a one game over other, but recording each game yourself is kinda annoying when you're used to HLTV demos. Just like many other small bugs CSS had, like the built-in wallhack that actually took Valve weeks to fix.

It definitely seems different. Source died pretty quickly here, and just like 2 years after release the clan scene activity was probably less than fifth of what 1.6 had.

I wasn't talking about the skill, idk how you interpreted it that way?

The biggest problem in CS was always very immature community and all the problem that brings. A big part of that has to do with age, there was tons of 12-18 year olds playing CS in it's golden years. By the time source was introduced the average 1.6 player had already gotten much older, and seemed like most of the youngest players new to CS series went to CSS, which makes sense, if you want to try out some game, you'll buy the newest one in series.

If you prefer CSS over 1.6, what makes it better for you? I just don't see any improvement except than graphics, which is completely irrelevant for competitive play.