Dear Valve, we want CS on 360

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from. Now I know there is Shadowrun among others, but it isn't the same. Everytime I look to my shelf of games and see Counter Strike for XBOX, I frown.

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that.

Please tell me I'm not the only one!

:D

Well, I love the Orange Box, especially Portal.

That being said, I have no idea what CS is.

It would be great on the console though... I think.

Counter Strike. My bad. :P

Yeah, they need to add CS:Source to the 360 stat!!! That would be a blast on the 360!

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from. Now I know there is Shadowrun among others, but it isn't the same. Everytime I look to my shelf of games and see Counter Strike for XBOX, I frown.

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that.

Please tell me I'm not the only one!

:D

StephenBassford

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from.StephenBassford

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that. StephenBassford

Counter-Strike on the 360 will not be able to match the speed, fast reactions, and accuracy of the PC version. Most, if not all, current computers can run CS: Source (or CS 1.6, at the very least). Why not just play it on the computer, where it is superior?

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"]

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from. Now I know there is Shadowrun among others, but it isn't the same. Everytime I look to my shelf of games and see Counter Strike for XBOX, I frown.

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that.

Please tell me I'm not the only one!

:D

jonnyglitch8

that's old school.

But yeah, I do have Source for the PC, but unfortunately all my friends play on Live.

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"]

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from.Drulx

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that. StephenBassford

Counter-Strike on the 360 will not be able to match the speed, fast reactions, and accuracy of the PC version. Most, if not all, current computers can run CS: Source (or CS 1.6, at the very least). Why not just play it on the computer, where it is superior?

Why not have it on XBOX 360 like Orange Box? It the simple fact to allow the game to reach a larger audience and make some money in the process.

Why not have it on XBOX 360 like Orange Box? It the simple fact to allow the game to reach a larger audience and make some money in the process.

StephenBassford

The people playing Team Fortress 2 (to draw the closest comparison with Counter-Strike) on the 360 and PS3 are not playing the game game as the people on the PC. It's an unupdated game, and it lacks the natural advantages of a mouse and keyboard. It lacks custom maps and mods. TF2 PC even has game modes that aren't available (as of yet) on the consoles.

I doubt Counter-Strike: Source on the 360 will sell enough to justify distribution costs. Where's the market for an inferior version of a four-year-old multiplayer game?

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"]Why not have it on XBOX 360 like Orange Box? It the simple fact to allow the game to reach a larger audience and make some money in the process.

Drulx

The people playing Team Fortress 2 (to draw the closest comparison with Counter-Strike) on the 360 and PS3 are not playing the game game as the people on the PC. It's an unupdated game, and it lacks the natural advantages of a mouse and keyboard. It lacks custom maps and mods. TF2 PC even has game modes that aren't available (as of yet) on the consoles.

I doubt Counter-Strike: Source on the 360 will sell enough to justify distribution costs. Where's the market for an inferior version of a four-year-old multiplayer game?

Yep, this guy knows what he's talking about and should be listened too. As much as I'd like to play CSS it's done, it's never coming to LIVE. And it's not an arcade game...

There are some games that are best left on the PC and this is one of them. Counter Striker and Day of Defeat are different from COD and Halo because they are a lot more realistic/fast paced. Because of the fact that you do not need to look down the sights of your gun in CS and DOD it makes a lot more sense for it to stay on the PC. Becuase of the lack of control you have with a joystick, having an aimer makes more sense in a game like COD, and having a shield in halo makes a lot more sense. If you played the orignal CS on the computer then played it on XBOX it was just awful compared to the PC version. The only benefit i see by porting this over to the 360 is having the ability to play the game on a big tv in HD.

Man, I was hoping to get here before the PC elitists took hold of this thread. They make it seem as if mouse and keyboard are the one and only way to play a first-person shooter, when the advantages, from my personal experience, are very slim. But it won't happen. Not because CounterStrike wouldn't sell, but because Valve has a very strict policy of releasing a game only once every 37 years. I tell ya, if this were a console-only market, Valve would have dead a long time ago. Console gamers don't have time to wait around for years on end for a sequel.Making_Pudding

Certainly, a mouse and keyboard for Halo would be undesirable. It simply wasn't designed for the control scheme. When I spoke of "natural advantages" of mouse and keyboard, I meant in relation to the games that were designed for the control scheme. Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike were designed for a mouse and keyboard. The same logic applies to fighting and shooting games, which I only play with arcade sticks.

I am not a "PC elitist", and on the accusation that Valve only releases a game once every "37 years" (love the hyperbole, by the way), Here's Valve's release schedule. With the exception of a three-year gap in which no games were released by them (admittedly, a long gap from a company as big as Valve), they've been releasing at least one game a year.

No we don't. CS belongs on the PC along with Team Fortress 2. If your really serious about playing it then play it on the PC where it's meant to be played.

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"]Man, I was hoping to get here before the PC elitists took hold of this thread. They make it seem as if mouse and keyboard are the one and only way to play a first-person shooter, when the advantages, from my personal experience, are very slim. But it won't happen. Not because CounterStrike wouldn't sell, but because Valve has a very strict policy of releasing a game only once every 37 years. I tell ya, if this were a console-only market, Valve would have dead a long time ago. Console gamers don't have time to wait around for years on end for a sequel.Drulx

Certainly, a mouse and keyboard for Halo would be undesirable. It simply wasn't designed for the control scheme. When I spoke of "natural advantages" of mouse and keyboard, I meant in relation to the games that were designed for the control scheme. Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike were designed for a mouse and keyboard. The same logic applies to fighting and shooting games, which I only play with arcade sticks.

I am not a "PC elitist", and on the accusation that Valve only releases a game once every "37 years" (love the hyperbole, by the way), Here's Valve's release schedule. With the exception of a three-year gap in which no games were released by them (admittedly, a long gap from a company as big as Valve), they've been releasing at least one game a year.

[QUOTE="Drulx"]

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"]Why not have it on XBOX 360 like Orange Box? It the simple fact to allow the game to reach a larger audience and make some money in the process.

DamianAlexander

The people playing Team Fortress 2 (to draw the closest comparison with Counter-Strike) on the 360 and PS3 are not playing the game game as the people on the PC. It's an unupdated game, and it lacks the natural advantages of a mouse and keyboard. It lacks custom maps and mods. TF2 PC even has game modes that aren't available (as of yet) on the consoles.

I doubt Counter-Strike: Source on the 360 will sell enough to justify distribution costs. Where's the market for an inferior version of a four-year-old multiplayer game?

Yep, this guy knows what he's talking about and should be listened too. As much as I'd like to play CSS it's done, it's never coming to LIVE. And it's not an arcade game...

My apologies. I was under the impression that Valve didn't release many games. Now I see that I was wrong. I'm quite sure that adding "Source" to the end of a game you released decades ago certainly qualifies as a fresh game. And here I thought that Call of Duty was pushing it by releasing two games with similar engines! Who knew! I mean, if Valve is any indication, they can continue doing this for millenia! Making_Pudding

Dismissing Source games, Valve has released at least one NEW game a year after the release of Half-Life 2 (with the exception 2005). Contesting a correction I made would be beneficial to most arguments, but not this one. My point stands.

****, I don't even like Valve.

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"]My apologies. I was under the impression that Valve didn't release many games. Now I see that I was wrong. I'm quite sure that adding "Source" to the end of a game you released decades ago certainly qualifies as a fresh game. And here I thought that Call of Duty was pushing it by releasing two games with similar engines! Who knew! I mean, if Valve is any indication, they can continue doing this for millenia! Drulx

Dismissing Source games, Valve has released at least one NEW game a year after the release of Half-Life 2 (with the exception 2005). Contesting a correction I made would be beneficial to most arguments, but not this one. My point stands.

****, I don't even like Valve.

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"]Why not have it on XBOX 360 like Orange Box? It the simple fact to allow the game to reach a larger audience and make some money in the process.

The people playing Team Fortress 2 (to draw the closest comparison with Counter-Strike) on the 360 and PS3 are not playing the game game as the people on the PC. It's an unupdated game, and it lacks the natural advantages of a mouse and keyboard. It lacks custom maps and mods. TF2 PC even has game modes that aren't available (as of yet) on the consoles.

I doubt Counter-Strike: Source on the 360 will sell enough to justify distribution costs. Where's the market for an inferior version of a four-year-old multiplayer game?

wow

It's funny to hear people say that Counterstrike wouldn't work on consoles. You know why? Cause it already did. Counter Strike for XBOX was very popular when it first came out. Also, saying it is meant for mouse and keyboard doesn't spoil it's chances on consoles. If you played CS for XBOX then you would know that.

With this thread, I simply wanted to bring about some fun nostalgic memories and see who wished (alongside me) that we could have a Counter Strike games on XBOX 360.

You do realize that by "Source" games, I don't simply mean those with "Source" in their title, right? So, if we're discounting Source games, you'd be wrong. So your point would not stand. It would do the opposite of stand. It would sit. Or fall.Making_Pudding

Lulz. Okay, fine. I'm sorry my telepathic abilities are not as well-honed as yours. That's my fault. I'm completely owning up to it. Your allegation that all games running on the Source engine are the same is stupid for one reason: you don't understand what an engine is! According to your logic, Vampire: The Masquerades - Bloodlines is the same game as Half-Life 2.

Most (if not all) the games Valve has released since Half-Life 2 use the same old engine. Just a new, dull, coat of paint over the same tired old frame. You get a little excited, buy the game, then realize that it feels just like it always did: like you're simply a pair of floating arms.Making_Pudding

The "frame", I'm assuming, are the shooting and movement mechanics*. According to this list, the only mechanical features built into the Source engine pertain only to AI. THE SOURCE ENGINE DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER MECHANICS IN A GAME THAT USES THE ENGINE. Any mechanical similarities in Valve games are because the games are all Valve games, to point out the obvious. They're not a hotbed of creativity, contrary to the popular belief, and why should they be? They're rich as hell.

*If the "frame" isn't in reference to the shooting and movement mechanics, then what is it in reference to?

You play it for a week or two (as was the case for Left 4 Dead) and then simply go back to the game that everyone is still playing. I'm pretty sure that, by now, I don't have to mention which game is "the game that everyone is still playing".Making_Pudding

As I mentioned before, I don't like Valve. I liked the original Half-Life, I like Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike (both not truly developed by Valve), but everything else they've released can burn in a ****ing hellhole.

i find it funny when people quote"where games belong" if the world was as close minded as they are "only belongs only on pc" hahaha ----but i did used to have it on my pc a couple years back it was fun and addicting and theirs a lot of mods and so many downloadable Maps and Skins on guns to Clothing i cant imagine how it is now but it would be nice on the 360 but Yet would feel so limited compared to the pc cause thats how it felt on the old xbox Version of counter strike.

It's pretty old now and any PC should be able to run it. Buy it there instead.

You guys do know that Valve was going to put CS in the Orange Box but then changed it for TF2.

CS would be another bargain bin game in a matter of weeks, mod's are what made this game famous and you cant mod a game on the 360

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"]

Lulz. Okay, fine. I'm sorry my telepathic abilities are not as well-honed as yours. That's my fault. I'm completely owning up to it. Your allegation that all games running on the Source engine are the same is stupid for one reason: you don't understand what an engine is! According to your logic, Vampire: The Masquerades - Bloodlines is the same game as Half-Life 2.

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"]

Most (if not all) the games Valve has released since Half-Life 2 use the same old engine. Just a new, dull, coat of paint over the same tired old frame. You get a little excited, buy the game, then realize that it feels just like it always did: like you're simply a pair of floating arms.Drulx

The "frame", I'm assuming, are the shooting and movement mechanics*. According to this list, the only mechanical features built into the Source engine pertain only to AI. THE SOURCE ENGINE DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER MECHANICS IN A GAME THAT USES THE ENGINE. Any mechanical similarities in Valve games are because the games are all Valve games, to point out the obvious. They're not a hotbed of creativity, contrary to the popular belief, and why should they be? They're rich as hell.

*If the "frame" isn't in reference to the shooting and movement mechanics, then what is it in reference to?

You play it for a week or two (as was the case for Left 4 Dead) and then simply go back to the game that everyone is still playing. I'm pretty sure that, by now, I don't have to mention which game is "the game that everyone is still playing".Making_Pudding

As I mentioned before, I don't like Valve. I liked the original Half-Life, I like Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike (both not truly developed by Valve), but everything else they've released can burn in a ****ing hellhole.

I would love to have CS on the 360.

If Valve made a console port it would take away everything that made it special in the first place. For those who don't know CounterStrike has always been about quick reaction timing. To me, that just wouldn't work on a console. The thumbsticks would slow the game down and it would no longer be CounterStrike.

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"] Unless a first-person shooter was released in arcades, it is not an "arcade"-style first-person shooter. No notable first-person shooters have been released in arcades.

[QUOTE="StephenBassford"] O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that. Drulx

Counter-Strike on the 360 will not be able to match the speed, fast reactions, and accuracy of the PC version. Most, if not all, current computers can run CS: Source (or CS 1.6, at the very least). Why not just play it on the computer, where it is superior?

You PC enthusiast/elitist get on my nerves. No, we don't want your crappy, choppy shooter. Give me a 360 controller andI guarantee you I can match you. I am sure the 360 can run this game better than a PC. LOL mouse and kb...

If Valve made a console port it would take away everything that made it special in the first place. For those who don't know CounterStrike has always been about quick reaction timing. To me, that just wouldn't work on a console. The thumbsticks would slow the game down and it would no longer be CounterStrike.

WHIT3Y90

Just because YOU have poor reaction speed with a thumbstick doesn't mean everyone else is just as slow. Just continue speaking for yourself. You don't represent every player.

isnt the xbox version of counter strike BC?

i dont think if they did released it on the 360 they would add the access to player created content which everyone would demand

so the xbox CS is not only already out, but its the best CS console port you can hope for

also, whats the difference between CS and CS source? is it just the graphics?

Man, I was hoping to get here before the PC elitists took hold of this thread. They make it seem as if mouse and keyboard are the one and only way to play a first-person shooter, when the advantages, from my personal experience, are very slim.

But it won't happen. Not because CounterStrike wouldn't sell, butbecause Valve has a very strict policy of releasing a game only once every 37 years. I tell ya, if this were a console-only market, Valve would have dead a long time ago.Console gamers don't have time to wait around for years on end for a sequel.Making_Pudding

His bolded statement says that Valve releases games infrequently. I refuted that statement, with a link to Valve's release schedule since 1998 (the release of the original Half-Life). It showed that, with the exception of a three-year gap in between the release of Ricochet and Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, Valve had released at least one game a year. That is not "infrequent". Also note the second bolded statement.

Making_Pudding responded with the following:

My apologies. I was under the impression that Valve didn't release many games. Now I see that I was wrong.I'm quite sure that adding "Source" to the end of a game you released decades ago certainly qualifies as a fresh game.Making_Pudding

Dismissing Source games, Valve has released at least one NEW game a year after the release of Half-Life 2 (with the exception 2005). Contesting a correction I made would be beneficial to most arguments, but not this one. My point stands.Drulx

You do realize that by "Source" games, I don't simply mean those with "Source" in their title, right? So, if we're discounting Source games, you'd be wrong. So your point would not stand. It would do the opposite of stand. It would sit. Or fall.Making_Pudding

The "frame", I'm assuming, are the shooting and movement mechanics*. According tothislist, the only mechanical features built into the Source engine pertain only to AI. THE SOURCE ENGINE DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER MECHANICS IN A GAME THAT USES THE ENGINE. Any mechanical similarities in Valve games are because the games are all Valve games, to point out the obvious.

*If the "frame" isn't in reference to the shooting and movement mechanics, then what is it in reference to?Drulx

His final response:

I lost track of which side you're arguing for/against around halfway into reading the wall of text.

You admit a lack of telepathic ability (an area in which I'm proud to say I'm very proficient), then you go ahead into a senseless rant about how Source games are not the same (the technical details of which escape me). Then you say the one thing that made sense: They feel the same because they're Valve games. It struck me not because of it's accuracy, but because IT'S THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL THIS TIME.Making_Pudding

He attacks my post ("wall of text"), not understanding that I am not defending Valve, but the definitions of the word "engine" in the context of video games, and how engines relate to the games utilizing them, and the release schedule of Valve games (and ultimately a following statement, incorrectly stating that console gamers don't have to wait for long periods of time for a sequel to a game). I am not arguing for Valve, but those concepts, Making_Pudding.

The begining of his second paragraph calls my rant about the Source engine "senseless" (the technical details of which escape him), despite the fact that it arose from a logical conclusion regarding one of his own statements. He ends the paragraph stating that one of my points (that all of Valve's Source games play similarly because they're Valve games) was the point that he was making the whole time, despite the fact that he never said such a thing.

[QUOTE="Drulx"]Counter-Strike on the 360 will not be able to match the speed, fast reactions, and accuracy of the PC version. Most, if not all, current computers can run CS: Source (or CS 1.6, at the very least). Why not just play it on the computer, where it is superior?Nocturnal15

You PC enthusiast/elitist get on my nerves. No, we don't want your crappy, choppy shooter. Give me a 360 controller andI guarantee you I can match you. I am sure the 360 can run this game better than a PC. LOL mouse and kb...

There are some games that are best left on the PC and this is one of them. Counter Striker and Day of Defeat are different from COD and Halo because they are a lot more realistic/fast paced. Because of the fact that you do not need to look down the sights of your gun in CS and DOD it makes a lot more sense for it to stay on the PC. Becuase of the lack of control you have with a joystick, having an aimer makes more sense in a game like COD, and having a shield in halo makes a lot more sense. If you played the orignal CS on the computer then played it on XBOX it was just awful compared to the PC version. The only benefit i see by porting this over to the 360 is having the ability to play the game on a big tv in HD.

MastaP110

Yeah i remember i had the original xbox version...it was terrible in comparison(although i was playing source).The other problem is the usercontent on CS:Source people make heaps of maps,the surf mod and all that jazz they'd just charge you 3 crap maps for 10$ on xbox live lol.If it lets say came with the orange box or in a set of games then thats cool but buying it on its own would be blatently silly.

you are right, we do need CS now... :)

Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty 4, but sometimes I crave the "arcade" style that many companies tend to steer away from. Now I know there is Shadowrun among others, but it isn't the same. Everytime I look to my shelf of games and see Counter Strike for XBOX, I frown.

O how I wish there could be a good CS Source port to 360.

I felt that CS was more about speed, fast reactions, and accuracy. I miss that.

Please tell me I'm not the only one!

:DStephenBassford

I wouldn't describe Counter Strike as arcade

It was released for original Xbox and failed to sell well enough

You can't match the speed of reactions on a console port to playing it on PC

Counter Strike in its various forms has been out for over 10 years - whatever PC you have can run it

Being a Valve game, it gets good support on PC, but would get no support on consoles - just look at TF2 - coming up to 2 years since launch, and no update for consoles to fix the many glitches or hacks, or add any of the numerous content packs released free for PC through Steam.

I'm not speaking for every player. But I can assure you that many PC vets would agree that console reaction speed is no where near as fast as the PC. And personally I don't think you can judge, on the account of you've only played and owned console games. You would have to crank the sensitivty up to max to match the speed. I love to see you pull off a gorgeous head shot with those settings :)

I'm not speaking for every player. But I can assure you that many PC vets would agree that console reaction speed is no where near as fast as the PC. And personally I don't think you can judge, on the account of you've only played and owned console games. You would have to crank the sensitivty up to max to match the speed. I love to see you pull off a gorgeous head shot with those settings :)

Well It would be pretty awesome on the 360....especially not getting all those erros i got on CSS. Someone said CS was all abouit speed and accuracy well maybe the speed but not so much accuracy I mean you would get easier kills by rushing "Guns Blazing" than sniping or lining up your shots In CS.. Plus its VaLve so chances are no Iron sights........................

I'm not speaking for every player. But I can assure you that many PC vets would agree that console reaction speed is no where near as fast as the PC. And personally I don't think you can judge, on the account of you've only played and owned console games. You would have to crank the sensitivty up to max to match the speed. I love to see you pull off a gorgeous head shot with those settings :)

WHIT3Y90

LOL you're foolish to read my profile and assume that console games are all that I have played. I've played CS and I've bought/played Fear several times at my best friends house, just to name a couple. I don't even have all the console games I've played on my profile, they are just the ones I can remember. I crank the sensitivity on most of my shooters anyhow. I can assure you that most PC vets probably suck at console shooters because of their ignorance. I can at least admit I fail with a mouse and KB. With a 360 controller or hell even the original xbox controller I would do fairly well.

Well It would be pretty awesome on the 360....especially not getting all those erros i got on CSS. Someone said CS was all abouit speed and accuracy well maybe the speed but not so much accuracy I mean you would get easier kills by rushing "Guns Blazing" than sniping or lining up your shots In CS.. Plus its VaLve so chances are no Iron sights........................

Gabez_R

Thank you for adding that point. This is something I also notice. Hmmm I guess all those gorgeous headshots were simply lucky! xD BTW Gabez it was all of the PC vets that said CS is all about speed and accuracy. Give me a break. Another thing I noticed, where are all the snipers on CS? The answer...there is none.

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"] How could I have figured that out? How am I to determine the intention of your post when you've clearly not articulated your thoughts in a manner that would be beneficial to the argument? Regardless, I took this to mean that he thought all Source games were the same, with the exception of a, and I quote, "new, dull, coat of paint over the same tired old frame." I took "frame" to mean the mechanics of the game. I replied with this:

[QUOTE="Drulx"]The "frame", I'm assuming, are the shooting and movement mechanics*. According tothislist, the only mechanical features built into the Source engine pertain only to AI. THE SOURCE ENGINE DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER MECHANICS IN A GAME THAT USES THE ENGINE. Any mechanical similarities in Valve games are because the games are all Valve games, to point out the obvious.

*If the "frame" isn't in reference to the shooting and movement mechanics, then what is it in reference to?Drulx

His final response:

I lost track of which side you're arguing for/against around halfway into reading the wall of text.

You admit a lack of telepathic ability (an area in which I'm proud to say I'm very proficient), then you go ahead into a senseless rant about how Source games are not the same (the technical details of which escape me). Then you say the one thing that made sense: They feel the same because they're Valve games. It struck me not because of it's accuracy, but because IT'S THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL THIS TIME.Making_Pudding

He attacks my post ("wall of text"), not understanding that I am not defending Valve, but the definitions of the word "engine" in the context of video games, and how engines relate to the games utilizing them, and the release schedule of Valve games (and ultimately a following statement, incorrectly stating that console gamers don't have to wait for long periods of time for a sequel to a game). I am not arguing for Valve, but those concepts, Making_Pudding.

The begining of his second paragraph calls my rant about the Source engine "senseless" (the technical details of which escape him), despite the fact that it arose from a logical conclusion regarding one of his own statements. He ends the paragraph stating that one of my points (that all of Valve's Source games play similarly because they're Valve games) was the point that he was making the whole time, despite the fact that he never said such a thing.

Christ almighty.

My sincere apologies. I mistook your former post as a wall of text when, in reality, it pales in comparison to this one. Is this your brilliant strategy for engaging in debates? Instead of using succint phrases, you decide to instead bore your opponent into submission by filling your sentences with 50-dollar words that, although accurate, only serve in the purpose of tiring your opponent out so that, by the time he has finished, he no longer cares to continue the debate.

Well, your strategy works.

I no longer care.

It may be of no consequence to you but, in my honest opinion, this is not only a cowardly way to debate, but a poor way to get your point across.

Is Palantas the only person that can properly debate here?

if you played CS:S for years on PC I don't see why you'd ever want it on xbxo 360, unless your looking for a challenge. It just wouldn't be as fun being able to snipe with the AWP and kill in half a second...

I loved CS for xbox 1. CS has a dif feel towards modern fps.

My sincere apologies. I mistook your former post as a wall of text when, in reality, it pales in comparison to this one. Is this your brilliant strategy for engaging in debates? Instead of using succint phrases, you decide to instead bore your opponent into submission by filling your sentences with 50-dollar words that, although accurate, only serve in the purpose of tiring your opponent out so that, by the time he has finished, he no longer cares to continue the debate.

Well, your strategy works.

Making_Pudding

Succint enough?

[QUOTE="Making_Pudding"]

My sincere apologies. I mistook your former post as a wall of text when, in reality, it pales in comparison to this one. Is this your brilliant strategy for engaging in debates? Instead of using succint phrases, you decide to instead bore your opponent into submission by filling your sentences with 50-dollar words that, although accurate, only serve in the purpose of tiring your opponent out so that, by the time he has finished, he no longer cares to continue the debate.

Well, your strategy works.

Drulx

Succint enough?