Not quite... I would not venture to say that CS is realistic (not enough at least) nor is it more fun or more challangeing than Quake 3. If you don't see it you probably haven't played enough good players. the strategy is diffrent - logical still but not nessisarily something that would ever come up in a match of CS or most any other game. There's your common run around in a circle and shoot stuff common finding in Quake, but then there's a rail match where the rythem and timing of your opponents shot and routes affects how you move. It's hard to explain but I digress.Originally posted by Andy
Well whatever you want to call 'not real' games Anyway, sure, realism may seem like a detourant, but games like Counter-Strike, Gran Turismo, Splinter Cell, etc offer a ton of depth in their gameplay, and imo, can often be much more engaging than most 'not real' games.
Realistic games have merit and often it can be great. I can imagine myself as a Hedgehog but I can envision myself as a Black Ops agent trying against the challange of "mundane" real life to accomplish realistic objectives. The you can have realistic elements in a complete fanatasy.. like Morrowind (moreso like the way Morrowind could have been if some key thimgs were improved and/or enhanced).
Having all of one and not the other is like having all 2D games and no 3D. I'm not discussing that at all right now. Basically - it's your call - but niether one or the other is right.
Bookmarks