Lun
GamingWithLun   Malaysia
 
 
No information given.
Currently Offline
1 VAC ban on record | Info
1857 day(s) since last ban
Artwork Showcase
Merry Christmas
Screenshot Showcase
Counter-Strike 2
Review Showcase
879 Hours played
⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜⇜Lunny's Review⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝⇝

This game is kind of a mixed bag for me. In and of itself it's kind of mediocre and the game developers don't seem to pay that much attention to it anymore. However, the game's biggest strenght, the simple mechanics, is what really carries it for me. The game is really easy to get into but has a really high skill curve due to it not featuring any sort of aim assist or bloom and overall being very punishing against inexperienced players, especially against higher elo players.

I probably won't have a popular opinion here but it is how I feel none the less.
I played CS a lot when it was first released as a mod for Half-life. I put hundreds of hours into both pub matches and matches with my friends in private servers. I stopped playing it at about the time that it was about to make the move to a retail product

Counter-strike as a franchise is something of a time capsule. It is a example of a late 90's shooter frozen in time that never really changes and that is probably what makes it both novel for the average gamer and important for the competitive scene that has formed around it (and taken control of it in a lot of ways).Because a e-sports style competitive scene has formed around Counter-strike, it puts Valve in a difficult position because they can't really change anything without facing harsh resistance from the veteran players. Even minor visual changes are met with extreme criticism because they may upset the carefully cultivated meta.

It was not always like this. When I was playing, the idea of e-sports level competitive play was only just starting to manifest and thus it was more rare to find the ultra-competitive players who get wrapped up in memorizing spread patterns, researching dominant strategies and reading up on the established meta. A lot of players back then were just there because it was fun to play and had a huge playerbase (thus meaning that servers were always reasonably available).Playing Counter-strike back then was not the commitment that it can be now. The overall behavior of the playerbase was different. You may have gotten the usual smack talk during a match but you did not have people telling you to do things exactly this certain way in order for the whole thing to play out like a E-sports match either (at least not in any great number).

The game's matchmaking system is very simple and is pretty much comparable to any other game's in the industry. If you win enough, you rank up, you loose enough, you derank. This ranking system is what has held this game alive for all these years. It's REALLY difficult for people to reach the top and as someone who has only reached LE (Legendary Eagle), the 4th highest rank in the game, I can safely say that the game demands dedication, and much of it. This might scare newcomers but it's what in my opinion makes the game so appealing, especially after so many years of playing.

Overall I think the game is a very skilldemanding game with a huge skill curve which is very rewarding whilst you've mastered it. With decent graphics and great mechanics it still holds up today in this fps-crowded landscape. And also, it's free! <3
Achievement Showcase
Recent Activity
5.4 hrs on record
last played on 3 Jul
39 hrs on record
last played on 30 Jul, 2022
879 hrs on record
last played on 30 Jul, 2022
Az 16 Oct, 2019 @ 7:46am 
烟雾弥漫
Human 6 Jul, 2019 @ 2:25am 
帅哥伦
Howard 3 Feb, 2019 @ 8:54pm 
suck deek
user348212 11 Aug, 2018 @ 4:42am 
+rep professional biker
✪HaPPY™ 27 May, 2018 @ 3:55am 
+rep such a lucky player and skillful at the same time
在座的各位都是Large 25 May, 2018 @ 12:19am 
。                 ゚   .              .
,         .  .        .
     。                   ゚         。
  .        .     .          。  . 
 .               𝓗𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓪 𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓭𝓪𝔂ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ   。  .
        。                 ゚   .              .
,         .  .        .
     。                   ゚         。
  .        .     .          。  .