ASUS Picks CoD4

poker is 70% luck "inbe4 pokerwnbs flame incoming" why the heck should FPShooter experience give you an advantage ?

if any advantage is gained it won't be through the fps element of fps games... an rts gamer for instance would in theory have a much larger advantage

the 'better' a game is, the more spectators it will have.
the more spectators a game has, the more sponsors you can get.
the more sponsors you have, the more money you can give.

so there is a simple relation between how good a game is and the prize money available.

easy, isnt it?

ps. my interpreataion of "good" (in this case) is how appropriate a multiplayer game is for esports.

"I don't know the realse date of CS but i guess somehow in 1999 or 2000"
--> yeah, the very first version of CS was released in 1999.

"If ET would not be free, a lot more player would play it, and would be a lot more sponsors and multigamings and more developer could do things with this game, which means more prize @ LANS and ofc alot more LANs.."
1. If... if if if if ifififififi. in germany we say "hätte hätte fahrradkette...". :p
2. anyways, i dont get why a game should be more successfull if it wasnt available for free?!
i mean, isn't it an advantage when everyone can download a full game and test it (that's why developers release a demo version of a game before releasing the full version, right?).

"and the hitboxes are even worser than in ET"
i don't know the hitboxes in ET, but when your CS is configured correctly and you play on a decent server, the CS-hitboxes are very nice. and don't try to be a smartass in that point - i am playing CS for several years now and i know what i am talking about (aside from that, blaming hitboxes for your own failure is somehow lame :p).

"and not a teamplay based game."
that's a joke, right? when you play CS in 5on5 it is more about tactics and teamplay than about individual skill.
i don't say that there are no games out there which are more based on teamplay, but claiming CS was not about teamplay, then you have absolutely no idea about what makes the difference between the very good and the outstanding teams (i am talking about a very high level now!).
there are of course situations where the skill of one single player can decide about winning or losing a round. but that's what makes CS so fascinating (for me).
when i think back in ET:QW or Battlefield 1942/2 you couldn't take out more than 3 players in a row for different reasons (assumed you are on the same skill level and your enemies have more than just a few hp left... at least it was very unlikely that you were able to kill 4 or even more in a row).
but in CS you can take out a whole team which has 100%hp left (with a bit of luck and indeed lots of aiming).

the only thing i don't like about CS is, that there are just 4 or 5 maps which are used for competitive playing (there are of course a few more, but most of them aren't very well liked and thus not in the map pool of the most cups/tournaments/leagues e.g. voted out by the teams ). i'd like to have a bit variety concerning that... but honestly, who cares about how grenades fly? O.o :>

conclusion: your opinion is "ET >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CS" and mine is quite the opposite... and i guess we won't change each others opinion with our argumentation --> what we are doing here is senseless b...shit.

have a nice day my dear friend.