Did a search and found nothing, so I figured I'd start a thread. Who else is excited for the beta? I thought I wasn't until I saw the game in action, looks like it'll be a good mix of 1.6 & CS:S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDVLYJ_HQso&feature=relmfu

Ok, could someone explain how there's a huge difference between these two? I've played both, and they seem about the same to me.

Meh. Team Fortress 2 was supposed to be a competitive game, look what it is now.

Besides, we already have Starcraft 2, which set the bar for eSports games even higher... and with the generic FPSes we've been getting lately, I don't see much future in FPS eSports gaming.

And judging by the first impressions of this game... meh, again. 1.6 uses the GoldSrc engine, one that Half Life uses.

CSS uses the Source engine, one that Half Life 2 uses.

They are similar, if not the same, in gameplay.

Source feels slower, 1.6 has quicker pacing, at least in my opinion. The physics differs vastly in each game. It's hard to really describe it, but they just feel completely different. From the looks of the video, it seems Valve is making a return to faster gameplay. This is all just what I think, though.

I've had several people tell me I'm a complete moron for thinking they're similar :P. Apparently, CSS is a complete noob game for kids, and CS1.6 is omgh4rdc0rz.

:P Ahh.

^ CSS is for n00bs because of the damn hitbox. It is like you're firing at a damn bus or something.

The Source engine is not good enough for FPS games (at least, judging from what we've seen so far from Valve).

Autoaim in HL2, one kill splash kills in L4D and L4D2, terrible hitboxes in TF2.

Firing in Modern Warfare / Crysis / Battlefield 3 is miles better than any Source game.

I'm pretty excited for it. I got a beta key at PAX that I applied. I wonder when the beta is coming out.

I can't speak for Crysis or Battlefield 3, but I think the shooting is way better in TF2 than in MW. Nothing against CoD, but TF2 feels "right", if that makes sense. I think I'll wait for the actual beta to see how GO sizes up, though.

Firing between your enemy's legs and slaughtering him is not 'right'. You're supposed to miss that shot, not splash his organs everywhere.

1) autoaim and hitboxes don't really have anything to do with the engine, but with the game design itself. And I have no idea what splash kills are, unless you're talking about grenades.

2) Modern Warfare 2? You're complaining about autoaim, and you say Modern Warfare 2's combat is good? -____-

3) As far as I know, the hitboxes in CSS were fixed long ago. I might be wrong.

I haven't really noticed this, to be honest. I'd have to check for myself.

I never noticed it either. I have a hard time believing that you COULD notice, given how insane most TF2 matches are.

They are 'insane' because the hitboxes are very big... Either that, or Valve have seriously messed up the collision detection algorithms.

Take the demo's grenade launcher for example. The grenades it launches can hit even if you're aiming a bit away from the enemy.

A good gameplay is where the bullet can fly through the enemy's fingers, not kill him while passing half a meter away from him.

I've noticed that bit, but I would imagine it's more the fault of game lag, instead of hit-boxes. I definitely agree that Counter-Strike is definitely the more competitive game, but again, we'll have to actually play GO to see for ourselves.

In 1.6 you can do bunnyhopping, all walls are like paper (for example all rifles can fire through them), grenades can damage through walls.

Also flashbang in CSS does not only blind you, but deafen too.

And the biggest difference: "CSS is teh suxx0rz cuz 1.6 is teh 1337 gaem". I guess that because you can't kill everyone through concrete wall, the game sucks. No pr0 1.6 playz0r could provide me with sufficient answer.