counter strike 2

[fade2black2004]

Originally Posted by Oriox

True. I will get it - but not if my pc runs it at any less than 60fps.

because you can tell the difference between 50 FPS and 60 right??

theres more to graphics then FPS and thats gotta be one of the stupidest things ive heard from a gamer. i could understand it more when people wouldnt play crysis because they were getting 15fps but any less then 60?

[cvb724]

I really can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. 30 frames in one second is good enough for me.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by fade2black2004

because you can tell the difference between 50 FPS and 60 right??

theres more to graphics then FPS and thats gotta be one of the stupidest things ive heard from a gamer. i could understand it more when people wouldnt play crysis because they were getting 15fps but any less then 60?

Yes, i definitely can. If your FPS is twice that of someone elses, i see them first. That means i have an advantage. Every little helps on something like CS:S.

I genuinely do worse if i play CS at 40 or 50fps than at 60 or 70fps. Seriously, i do. It may be in my mind that i have an advantage but whatever it is it still helps me out.

[Akubane]

50 frames per second vs 60. youd see them what, 1/10th of a second sooner-ish? I doubt your reaction time is accurate to within 1/10th of a second lol.
I guess it's just hardwired into peoples heads now, if anything just the idea of only having 50fps is making them perform poorly. placebo effect ftL.

i have full confidence in steams capability to make this a great game. One of the few companies I don't have any gripes with, minus being forced to launch everythign from the steam client. That's a bit irritating. Anyway, I'll wait for some reviews and videos, and a thourough bug review before payign for it, but if its CS:S with way better graphics I'm in.
Yeah gameplay is more important than graphics but I've been spoiled by this system and the newer games, I'd rather not look at anythign sub-par anymore.

If anything they should give it great looks with the option of scaling it down to the CS:S junk for all the people that'll whine about not getting 4000 fps. (not targeted at you, pointed at the people who actually do whine about not getting 150fps. lmao)

[TheOtis]

Dude, no. I don't want to see a Counter Strike 2.

Source will live on forever. I played 1.6 back in middle school and still play source to this day.

The only change I wouldn't mind seeing is a graphics update. Their are thousands of custom maps and multiple mods, it'll never get old. They'd be stupid to release a new one. Valve knows what a big following source has, I doubt a new game would change that.

[Akubane]

no offence meant but i'd be glad if half the CS:S followers never moved on. at least untill they hit puberty anyway.

[Drizzt5]

Originally Posted by Akubane

50 frames per second vs 60. youd see them what, 1/10th of a second sooner-ish? I doubt your reaction time is accurate to within 1/10th of a second lol.
I guess it's just hardwired into peoples heads now, if anything just the idea of only having 50fps is making them perform poorly. placebo effect ftL.

i have full confidence in steams capability to make this a great game. One of the few companies I don't have any gripes with, minus being forced to launch everythign from the steam client. That's a bit irritating. Anyway, I'll wait for some reviews and videos, and a thourough bug review before payign for it, but if its CS:S with way better graphics I'm in.
Yeah gameplay is more important than graphics but I've been spoiled by this system and the newer games, I'd rather not look at anythign sub-par anymore.

If anything they should give it great looks with the option of scaling it down to the CS:S junk for all the people that'll whine about not getting 4000 fps. (not targeted at you, pointed at the people who actually do whine about not getting 150fps. lmao)

Thats me... Honestly i notice the diffrence between below 100 fps and 200 fps. It doesnt usually go down to 100 fps on my rig but still... i notice it.

Or maybe i dont and its in my mind, but im not going to complain if they come out with the game and i get 60fps... infact i hope they do... that means i'll have an advantage over the people trying to play it on 7600 gt's.

BTW, i agree... i havent played cs:s for many days now and i finally have the high pitched voices of team mates and pubbers out of my head. thank geezus.

[Akubane]

I'm not saying there is no difference. there's an obvious difference of 10 frames. but theres a point where it just cant show things any sooner and its just stuffing more frames in between each other smoothing out the movement even more than your perception can even notice. After a while if anything's being gained it would be in milliseconds and its not likely human reaction time could make any difference out of it.
this is all speculation on my part im no physisist lol

but you're right i guess every bit helps, even if its 1/100th of a second XD

and omg yeah. i can understand some teamkillers man. some of these sqeaky brats i've turned around and shot, my team or not lol.

[Oreo]

How many times have you sworn you've clicked the mouse button, know it would of been a headshot but it was just 20 or 30ms to late?

Thats why i play at LOWW settings to get around 180 or 200fps, then a razer mouse to nock 7ms off normal mice, and then a £150 gameing router that nocks about 12 or 13ms off once more (it actually does, its great )

Counterstrike is just about the most heavily dependent game for reaction time. Milliseconds often makes the difference between you die and you not dieing.

Heck, i even bring my chair closer to my desk so that my face is closer to the screen,and light reaches my eyes quicker, lowering my reaction time by about 0.000000000000001 seconds. (i actually do, for somereason, despite my high knowledge of science, i still do it )

[alexsabree]

Having low settings would actually make the game harder to play. Your monitor can only output like what.. 60 frames?

Anti-aliasing and AF I might consider an advantage.