How MNC pwns Halo Reach

I don't consider Counter Strike a tactical shooter.

Most people do. It's often gotten credit for starting the whole tactical shooting trend due to it's massive popularity. Yes, I know games existed before that, that's not the point.

It also plays exactly like CoD. Game, set, match?

When you say most people do, do you have a source or data to prove it?

You must not have played reach because the focus rifle is horrible[/quote]

opinions

Overtime is a joke. But juice-rushing aside, it takes a full complement of passable teammates to make it to overtime in the first place.

Otherwise, you're right, southside, the two games are very different. It's like comparing basketball with doubles tennis. (You decide which is which in that analogy on your own. :roll: )

I think of Counterstrike as being in a very similar category as CoD. And I don't think of either as "tactical." Neither does a quick survey of some of those sites, but the information isn't as readily available, as Counterstrike isn't as ubiquitous as CoD.

From who? You ? Counterstrike players who want to sound cool?

Anyone who actually says that is just wrong. That title actually goes to the first Rainbow Six, which came out in 1998. The Counterstrike mod for Half Life didn't exist until 1999.

Then what the heck is the point? The tactical shooter genre was alive, well, and popular before Counterstrike had a playerbase.

Except that your other 4 people are what are presumably playing defense long enough to prevent them from beating you at melting the money ball.

I typed counter strike in yahoo and clicked on the 1st link, which I admit was wiki

"Counter-Strike is a tactical first-person shooter video game..."

THERE ARE NO TATICS IN MNC, IT IS ALL PURE BACON FLAVORED LUCK.

So no?

That would be a yes actually. You asked for a source showing people thought it was a tactical shooter and I showed you a commonly used source, written by gamers, by says I'm right.

Sorry but you all got served.

A generalization, but I guess it is correct. I can say though, that the ability to do this results in lessening the strategic nature of MNC to a certain degree? It doesn't really matter though, because as I said before, its comparing apples to oranges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

+1

wiki isn't a reliable source.

I don't know who thinks Counter Strike started the genre synonymous with Rainbow Six, considering the two play so considerably different.

Counter Strike helped pioneer/revolutionize online FPS and competitive gaming as a whole, but it was certainly not part of the tactical shooter genre.

Not to agree with him in any way, but when asking for the opinion of what the public thinks, I believe it does have some merits. The problems come when you are trying to cite it as a professional source.

I'm right but it does reduce strategy? I'm not following. Sorry.

I might be paraphrasing what you're trying to say, but the way I would put it is that it can make strategy irrelevant at the end of the match, but not lessen it, per se. You can have a sound plan throughout the match, but have your work undone in overtime when the rules change and one lucky support with $500 saved makes a desperate run for your ball.

Oh, then beat them before that happens.

And according to MW:2's wiki page, CoD is NOT a tactical shooter. So you would still lose even if we accepted your ridiculous example as definitive (which we don't).

CoD is not a tactical shooter.

Note: This was written before you tried to go edit the wiki, don't try it.

I'm gonna stop feeding the troll now.