Cs: Source Vs Cs 1.6

[iGuest 3]

css is fun

Cs: Source Vs Cs 1.6

 

Counter strike today has some pretty cool things. My favorite thing about source are the zombie mods. Normal counter strike source was fun, but there were to many hackers and people with no lives. Zombie servers are fun and heres a list why:

 

1) humans vs zombies (ct and t work together).

2) some servers have 1 stab kills meaning if your stabbed, you become a zombie and fight one.

 

3) respawning makes for no more of watching the people when you die.

4) some servers have unlimited ammo .

5) you build a cade out of machines, couches or anything to last until the round ends.

6) fun and creative maps are every where that were built for zombie mod alone.

 

7) zombies are tough (some with 5000 hp) so killing a zombie is a cratifying experience worth itself.

 

There are downsides to the zombie servers

 

1) not noobie friendly

2) killing a single zombie is tough but 10-13 is impossible if your alone.

3) some maps have really cheap spots making it impossible for zombies to kill them.

 

Its fun and worth a try.

 

-reply by Matt

[iGuest 3]

Seriously I have 1.6 and I have source and I have a good computer that can run source with out any lag or any changes or anything. I prefer 1.6 actually because of the graphics and everything it has to offer. I like having the graphics like they are, there is just something about them that makes them awesome. Another thing is that I love all the bugs in 11.6 that they took away in source. The bugs are what make the game what it is. Overall I choose to play 1.6 more cause its so awesome-reply by SOMEONE

[iGuest 3]

Counter-Strike 1.6.Cs: Source Vs Cs 1.6

Counter-Strike 1.6 is far, far better, unless you're a graphics *BLEEP*.

The Source hitboxes are so jammed and buggy, you have to shoot ahead of the running opponent to hit his head. Not to talk about totally random recoil, uncontrollable. FPS drops even on better computers, less servers, wallbanging is not effective anymore... They really screwed it up. It says in the cover "The latest version of the world's #1 online game", not "The most played online game in the world".

In 1.6 it's accurate as hell, if you are a good player, you will get headshots if you shoot the head. You don't get them in Source even when the opponent is standing still. And jumping controls are a lot better in 1.6, there are climb maps, and the zombie mod is overall better. The ONLY, ONLY good thing about Counter-Strike Source is Zombie Escape. 

-reply by Daputti

[iGuest 3]

That's kind of wrong... I have a good enough computer to run Source.

But I rather play 1.6, because it's harder, and doesn't have all that stupid graphics.For instance, at Dust2, Source has all those basket stuff, and all that worthless graphics.

I play 1.6 more than Source

-reply by Stanley

[jamjamnorman 0]

Counter strike:source is definately better than cs 1.6

[-Sky- 0]

I agree with jamjamnorman. Counter-Strike: Source is way more advanced and upgraded then Counter-Strike 1.6, Counter-Strike Condition Zero, and Counter-Strike 2-D. However, will this "new" Counter-Strike Online be better then the Source? Counter-Strike is already online, so why bring out another?

[BlooDTake 0]

I didnt had the chance to play Counter Strike Source,but i had the chance to play Counter Strike 1.6 and i can say that im proud with my skills on CS 1.6 .But i think that Counter Strike Source is better then CS 1.6, lot of peoples play it..I also got Counter Strike Source setup,but i cant install it some DOS window was opening and i dont know why it didnt wanted to play it or install it (not sure.)it was sometime ago

[Strikee 1]

I Played Source for a few hours and i was impressed with the graphics , it's the exact 1.6 version with improved graphic. It is just like a facelift of a car model ) .. Stil , after playing CS for many straight years.. 5,6 , it was one of the most played games by me , after Mu Online and Silkroad. The advantage of 1.6 compared to Source is that it runs on much slower PC's but it's also less realistic , a thing that's quite normal beeing so much older then it's rival. After so long here in my country 1.6 stil remains the most played multiplayer FPS game and the servers for it will keep on going as players keep staying online. Source had a big start when it was launched but most people stil prefered 1.6 because they were more used with it.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Strikee (see edit history)

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!@StrikeeI'm a fan of Counter Strike: Source and although I admit that at first the gameplay is different and may be more frustrating for Counter Strike 1.6 players, I do think that the change makes the game more well-balanced. I still have the complaint that when firing a gun, you sometimes notice that the opponent gets away without even getting hit when you were absolutely positive that you had the gun pointed the right way and had the mouse button pressed. It's one of the two benefits that I have with Smokin' Gun, with the other benefit being that it's free. However, the graphics of Smokin' Gun are more comparable to Counter Strike 1.6 than with Counter Strike Source - it's a whole different generation of computer games.In either case, Counter Strike Source rocks, unless you have an older computer that needs replacement, in which case you probably would not be able to play most of the other newer games either.

[index.html 0]

That's a toughie right there. I made the transition to Source like many, but cs 1.6 still has it's merits. Such as you don't need an uber computer to run it. That can be a problem in source; the graphics can kill your frame rate. Also, I seem to get a much lower ping in mods of the original Half life than I do playing the source mods. That is a little aggrivating, but I can live with it. Also, I've played pretty much all of those maps in Source except for oilrig. I'm not quite sure if I've played the original assault in source yet, but I have played some of the altered versions.

[katana123 0]

well i definitely prefer CSS as to 1.6 mainly because i enjoy games with better graphics. I dont play css as much now as i have moved on to other first person shooters like COD MW2, but i do enjoy a few css mixes every now and again.I do like cs 1.6 for its gameplay, i reckon it is better/harder than css and you do get less cheaters.IF you haven;t already tried CSPROMOD you should download it and try it now (FREE). Promod incorporates CSS graphics and 1.6 gameplay together, and you can edit these settings if you do not like itPersonally I still prefer CSS as I enjoy it the most.

[Spudd 0]

I've only played 1.6, and from what I can see, I'm going to stick with it. Counter Strike 1.6 is one of the few first person shooter games I've actually been able to run at a proper framerate. I also love the level of extendability with it. My vote would have to be for Counter Strike 1.6

[Бојан 0]

Counter-Strike 1.6 is the beast, the Source needs more minimum requirements for playing although the 1.6 can be played even on older PC's like Pentium 3 or something like that. I vote for Counter-Strike 1.6

[maniacaayush 0]

though cs source is havin better gfx....cs 1.6 is more prefered ...!! u can very easily find hundreds of server for 1.6 is comparision 2-3 only of source ...!!source got better graphics but 1.6 is faster game.....very adjustable is terms finding as many mods is net as you want,as many maps...which keep on increasing ....less bugs,though not real but a better feeling of killing a player....like for headshot and that is wht the reason it is more prefered in gaming events too !!i have both games still i too prefer cs 1.6 !!

[iGuest 3]

It's funny how much things have changed in only 4 years.CSS is now miles more popular with loads of mods and a MASSIVE content community producing maps and skins everyday.Practically any PC you buy today can run CSS, but I admit, 1.6 is still popular.I know this had been inactive for ages, but it amazes me how we have progressed from having PCs with under a Gigabyte of ram to PCs with quad cores and 8 gb of ram.