silly Wrote:

JackMonroe Wrote:

silly Wrote:In MW, there's a greater potential for some players to be better than others, compared to CSS; a potentially greater skill difference.

That is so very false.  The game is easy to start and easy to master.  During the free weekend of black ops on steam, I got to the cap of 30 in hours and got called a hacker at least 10 times.  Back in COD4 I played in scrims and pooped on everybody and again got called a hacker over and over.  That is with me just picking the game up on the side.

You genuinely did not undestand the point I was making  :-\
In CSS (especially since the OB update), there is an overall lesser potential difference in skill between players. In other words, there are more limitations on how good a player can get, relative to other players.
It is easier for a talented fps gamer to get extremely good at MW games, relative to the other fps gamers. There's more room and less limitations for that to happen. I was on average, much better at MW2 relative to the other players, compared to in CSS. I have also noticed that with many other players.

That doesn't make sense to me. It is much harder for anybody untalented to become extremely good at CS then it is for COD, and there has always been huge gaps of skill between players in CS. It isn't hard for someone relatively new to do well in COD, but someone relatively new to Counter Strike isn't going to do nearly as well. Even in pubs in CS, similar players are always at the top of the leaderboards because the gap between those players and the less skilled players is so huge that the less skilled players have no chance to excel at the game and overcome the more skilled players. But in COD, it is much easier for a bad player to finish at the top of his team, and to do well much more frequently because the skill gap is smaller.