--"Think about a 2 player-standoff in Cstrike."
--OK. I see the product of a series of determined and finitely foreseeable events.
--"Whenever your opponent is out of view, he could be acting tactically, or he could just be hopping around at random, and the random hopping could potentially be *more effective*, because it's less predictable."
--Well what do you mean by "acting tactically?" Hopping around randomly? Look, hopping is never the best tactic to win. Better would be to get quiet and watch, if you are on the defending team, or--if playing offense--to quietly walk (don't hop!) and plant the bomb or rescue hosties. (Naturally, shoot the enemy in the back if you see him hopping around like an idiot.)
What's more ole buddy, you have, from the outset, limited our consideration to what you know is the nitty-gritty of Cstrike. Sure, I grant that a 1-on-1 is much better on PD or GE, but that does not make these better games on the whole per se.
--"An idiot with developed aim (or a sufficiently inconspicuous aiming cheat) could best a brilliant tactician."
--Very good point, but not a brilliant leader and his squad (could be bested by idiots with developed aim, since true Cstrike idiots play like it's every player for themselves). Your statement fails to recognize the multiplayer foundation of Cstrike, a foundation which determines whether there *is* a 1-on-1 finale to a given round--or if instead there's an interminable domination by one team.
Ah yes--cheating. I concede that Cstrike, at present, is inferior to PD because of cheating. Parenthetically, in case anyone cares to know, there are no conspicuous aiming cheats, only conscpicuous cheaters. That is, any skilled Cstrike player will *know* that certain things just aren't possible if the game is played as intended...
--"I feel that the game [Cstrike] inevitably fails to reward sound decision-making as consistently as splitscreen mp does."
--This may be true on the level of the indivdual. That is, if your teammates suck, then yes, you are quite doomed. But this is a product of human interaction (such as the team selection of the individual players in the server) and not a major problem for my overall assertion that Cstrike has better intrigue as a game (or at least had it, prior to the cheating epidemic).
Cstrike is a combination of a well-designed win-loss framework, robust customization, realistic and ingratiating weaponry, total-control aiming, teamwork functionality, and good maps. In short, the best hope for a truly teamwork-oriented FPS. Crying shame about the cheating. I'm serious.
"What's more, it took me approx. ten hours or more of play before I was having a damn *bit* of fun;"
//shrugs. Yeah that happened to me too actually. I didn't get high the first time I smoked, either.
--"and am I really in the wrong if I don't find the rather unwieldy...guns in cstrike to be as appealing as ones in PD,"
--Yes.
--"where the decisions you make with the weapons you have [aiming, firing, reloading, and weapon selection decisions] are more important than...the maintenance of a precise firing rhythm?"
--The firing rhythm is just something you have to get used to. If you can't get past this, I think you should spend more time with this game. Heaven knows I take issue with PD's imprecise aiming due to the input device. Ditto for TS2. But hey this isn't a perfect world. As I'm discovering. Hence the redirection of energy to this hilarious post. Have fun with the rebuttal, Strats. I'm expecting your typical genius, with a touch more open-mindedness.
"Don't be so quick to deal out death and judgment." -- Gandalf
"They should not be so quick to test us..." -- Krayzie Bone
