Deathmatching: Effective, or non-sense?

I think everyone will agree deathmatching is entertaining. It’s always fun to deathmatch, it gives you a sense of freedom. Freedom to run guns blazing through a map without the worry of death. However, the question remains: Is deathmatching effective from the competitive gamers vantage point?

The argument stands. Will deathmatching help your aim and contribute to better gun control when firing your weapon? Many think so, I have to agree. Like anything in life, the more you do something the better you get. Why then do I see players continue to hound deathmatching, ranting about the ineffectiveness it causes in the competitive gamers mind. One point comes to mind, considering there is no “downtime” in deathmatch, it causes the player to act in a chaotic, non-tactical fashion. Of course there is the possibly this playing style will carry over in matches, or scrims.

My take on deathmatch is; restrict the amount of deathmatch you play, yet deathmatch continuously. There are many useful skills you will learn from deathmatch, just as there are un-useful ones.

Share Your Opinion - Do you think deathmatch is effective, if so, how should it be used?

Is Realistic Game Play Better or Worse?

Is realistic game play better or worse? This has been discussed for a long time, but lately it’s on fire with the introduction of Counter Strike: Source being endorsed by the CGS, and the majority of top Counter Strike teams making the switch. Players quickly noticed you couldn’t do a lot of things in Source that you could in 1.6. The reason for this is Valve wanted to make Source more, realistic.

In Counter Strike 1.6 you can shoot through brick walls, metal walls, concrete walls, and stone walls giving it a unique feel, but most certainly taking away from the realism.

Now that players are switching to source, it seems the realism can be quite frustrating. Not because they dislike the idea of realistic video games but rather by moving towards realistic game play, they were forced to make significant changes. And like the saying goes, don’t fix something that isn’t broken.

Share you opinion - do you think Valves decision to introduce realistic game play was a good move, or do you prefer the old style?

Would you wait in line overnight for a video game?

I’m sure you know every time a new version of Halo hits store shelves, hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic fans wait in lines for hours to get their copy of the game as soon as possible. The majority of retailers release major titles at midnight of their launch date. However, retailers such as Best Buy and Radio Shack who aren’t open 24 hours a day typically open at their normal hours. Therefore, game enthusiasts must wait in line outside overnight. To make the situation worse, the majority of major titles are released in November for the holidays so you also have to wait in the freezing cold.

Would you be one of these die hard fans who camp out overnight just to get the next version of your favorite game series a day early? In most cases, I’m sure you’re thinking to yourself, no way would I spend 8 or more hours in the freezing cold when I can wait another day or two. Either by purchasing the title from another major retailer when they receive another shipment of the title. Or use a trusty online retailer such as GameStop or EB Games who almost never run out of supplies, as long as you pre-order.

A lot of game enthusiasts want it right away. They want to get their hands on the game so bad that they refuse to order it from an online retailer because it takes 2-3 days to ship the product. This isn’t just because they want to play the game as soon as possible. They want the feeling of excitement and loyalty gained when knowing in exactly 6 hours they’ll be holding something in their hands they’ve been drooling over for the past 2 years.

Excitement or not, I would not camp out overnight in front of a Best Buy for the next expansion of World of Warcraft but the question is, would you?