(also i played with him before he got vacced and he was 100% cheating)
Account Details | |
---|---|
SteamID64 | 76561197986324641 |
SteamID3 | [U:1:26058913] |
SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:13029456 |
Country | French Polynesia |
Signed Up | July 21, 2012 |
Last Posted | October 7, 2015 at 9:52 PM |
Posts | 554 (0.1 per day) |
just bumping this to say that you can buy 4digit accounts for 100$ and global elite accounts for 10$ and approximately 0 people would buy an eagle 9mil with only cs on the account for 175
JimiJamhttp://i.imgur.com/Q95jntn.jpg
the yangsheng dynasty lives on
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kim-Jong-Un-and-Computer.jpg
actual picture of enigma moderating tftv
tornados2111someone needs to post that actor squid looks like (sry I don't know the name)
ukmd_b18.5 million viewers for the world series of snooker so snooker is an objectively more popular (and therefore probably more exciting to more people) bar game
u still not realizing the circular reasoning in your argument
fact: game1 gets more viewers than game2
question: why does game1 get more viewers
hypothesis: game1 is more exciting
evidence for hypothesis: game1 has more viewers
conclusion: game1 gets more viewers because game1 has more viewers
you're also conflating how exciting people find a particular game vs how inherently exciting the particular mechanics and rules of a certain game are
obviously if people play a particular game and are socially invested in its community and have emotional investment in outcomes of the matches, they will derive more excitement from that game than others. doesn't make the game inherently more exciting (see: inexplicable popularity of cricket)
is there a better objective metric for how exciting a game is other than viewership y/n
18.5 million viewers for the world series of snooker so snooker is an objectively more popular (and therefore probably more exciting to more people) bar game
not saying thats a good thing but its definitely true
Saltysally1d_bviewership is the only objective measure oftf2 and quake are infinitely dull and boring and csgo is exciting?dullness and boringness and excitingnesshow exciting/boring a game is.........
tf2 and quake combined are less popular than csgo
viewership is the only objective measure of dullness and boringness and excitingness how exciting/boring a game is.........
if you even put the slightest bit of thought in it csgo more exciting to watch than tf2.......
there are no 5+minute stalemates in cs like there are in tf2
there is no ubercharge in cs
there is no 10 minute stalemate timer in cs
in cs youre guaranteed to see action every 1 minute 45 seconds
HueyLewisThe difference in game-styles was pretty evident when I was spectating at ESEA lan. I'd look one direction to see TF2 and every player's monitor was always showing constant motion and jumping and shooting. Turn the other direction to CS:GO and every player's monitor was completely still 9 times out of 10. That's not even hyperbole, it's just what you see.
CS just isn't action packed in the slightest. It's a slow game and easy to see why a lot of people find it pretty dull. It's exciting in those small 10 second bursts where pretty much everything that decides a round happens though. It's super easy to follow as a spectator because there isn't much to follow.
maybe if you have a.d.d
i honestly think that the only people that find watching csgo dull are people that play tf2 and other twitch shooters like quake
i honestly dont see how someone can call csgo boring when in quake dueling people jsut +back and low scorelines are extremely common and ctf is just a huge shitfest where nothing happens for 5 years while people build up a stack and then die instantly and then you wait another 5 years for something else to happen
just look at the viewership
6.3k viewers for i52
20k viewers for quakecon (i think i dont really remember)
~400k viewers for esl one
watching cz scout ecos win isnt even fun to watch anymore
imagine how good nip could be if they had a 5th player