Mutechno's side:
The whole “gods” argument on why CS 1.6 is declining is a jest. It's all in the head, it's all mental. It doesn't change anything, it changes what you think and how you think but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. How you view someone or something is how you view it, it manipulates an object, it doesn't change anything. Whether you view Ksharp as a god or not doesn't change the fact that an AK is worth $2500, it doesn't change that fact thats it's 5v5, it doesn't change the fact that an m4 has 30 shots, and it doesn't change the fact that a deagle can kill with 1 shot with head armor. The gods argument is like imaginary numbers oppose to real numbers. Viewing a god or understanding his or her impact on the game is all it is, you can't draw anything from it, because there isn't anything to draw from it. It's fake, it's all mental. Whether gods or legends exist or not, doesn't decide and factor in on how many people actually still play CS 1.6, it's all in your head, it's not tangible.

According to Steam Stats:

• Counter-Strike93,40966,4507.216 billion
• Counter-Strike: Source28,71837,3411.907 billion

that's a fact right there. There's absolutely nothing that can be said (directing towards Thorin). It is what it is, CS 1.6 has over three times the player amounts as the CS:S. Statistics don't lie. It's like science, it's like DNA, it's like a unique finger print. If DNA is found at the scene of a crime, and it matches your DNA, then you were present. Science doesn't lie.

Lets take a closer insight and read between the stats. What can be inferred? CS:S has been out for 3 years now dating back to 2004, and it still is down in the ratio (3:1) The CGS era has begun, and it's down 3:1 ratio. So, even after 3 years of (tweaking, promoting, distributing, selling, and producing) and on top of the 3 years they had to build the game up, CGS era came and the ratio between CS 1.6 and CS:S is still at 3:1, imagine what the ratio was pre-CGS era?

If CS:S didn't take over 3 years ago, why is going to take over now? CS:S biggest attempt to revive the game still left it down 3:1 in ratio.

And whats this superficial slogan about CGS being “the first real league”? Whats CEVO, CAL, UGS, GGL, NGL, CEGL, and OGL then? Are they just some imaginary league? That's a slap in the face to other organizations and it shows the unprofessionalism of CGS.

The two biggest hype about CGS is the money and the fact that its on TV.

First off, the biggest argument about the money, which is a 30k salary is that you play games for a living and you make money off it. Wait a second, doesn't CGS have an age rule? Hence why fnx wasn't able to compete? And noticed how I didn't say “having” a job doing something “enjoy” because half the CGS Source players don't even enjoy playing Source! So you can throw the “do what you enjoy doing for a living” phrase out the window. Back to the age rule, it's at 18 years old, at 18 years old or older most of us are in college studying, let's see how much a CGS player makes a year under the salaries.

$2,500 a month. Um yeah, good luck surviving in the rule world with that amount. But then again, he's making 30k a year playing video games, but then again hes an adult and if you think 30k will get you anywhere in life or even raise a family or even live comfortably, you need a reality check. 30K might of worked back in the Great Depression in the 1900's but not in the 21st century lad. It's all about the big bucks!! How ironic that Thorin talks about steel, ksharp, and rambo and the legacy they left behind. Back then they were playing for the love of the game. Not because of the money. See you guys, CGS is like a soap opera, if I wanted to see a soap opera, I would go watch “For Love or Money” or “Joe Millionaire”, I would not go see CGS. Actually, watching “For Love or Money” is like watching CGS, its about sold-out gamers than play for money and not for the love of the game. CGS is a joke. Gaming has always been and always will be for the love of the game not because of the money. I want to watch an intense between two top international teams playing for the pride of their countries, not some broke gamers playing for themselves. Once again, if I wanted to see that, I would turn on my T.V. and watch some soap opera.

CGS on TV?

CGS is not on regular cable T.V., you need to order a “special package”, CGS is not on MTV, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Spike TV, Sci-Fi, TNT, TBS or any of the other channels. No one is going to order the special package.

“Hey mom, can I order the CGS package?”

First off, how ridiculous does that sound? Secondly, CS 1.6 has been on cable T.V. numerous times already, channels that DON'T need to be purchased.

Alice Lew (aka ali_st), winner of the womens ESWC 07 was featured on MTV's “True Life: I'm A Professional Gamer” Let's compare some random CGS package to MTV... How many more people saw that one episode of True Life than ALL of the CGS season combined? Enough said. WCG 07 was featured on Spike TV, Spike TV... how big of a channel network is that? MTV + Spike TV to random CGS package is like comparing the New York Jets to the Patriots. I guarantee you that more people saw that one MTV True Life episode and Spike TV's WCG than all of the CGS season.

According to cabletvadbureau.com/02Profile...
1. There is only one channel that owns the young adult demographic. Young adults 12-34 name MTV as the most recognized network. MTV is the best way to connect with 12-34’s who are 91 million strong and growing, and represent 33% of the U.S. population. They look to MTV to find out about their world in their language, from their point of view.

2. There is only one channel that taps into the financially powerful young adult demographic. They’re young, and they’ve got money spend. The MTV audience wields over 250 billion dollars in buying power. Our audience is 198% more likely than Total U.S. 12-34 year-olds to reside in homes with a HHI $75K+ and represent $250 billion in spending power. By the year 2010, young adult spending power is projected to be $350 billion.

3. No other channel can deliver the young adult demographic like MTV. MTV is consistently named the top choice for advertisers who want to reach this coveted market, MTV has been voted World’s Most Valuable Media Brand four years in a row. "MTV has had as far-reaching an influence on many facets of popular culture as any cable television network. It’s (MTV) effects on music, TV and lifestyle fashions have been deep and enduring" (Daily News, 7/01). Why? "Everyone who has a TV knows there is something called MTV." (Businessweek, 2/18/02). Since most cable networks typically skew 35+, you could be missing out on reaching valuable young viewers. By adding MTV to your media schedule, you can attract and capitalize on the 12-34 year old audience.

4. Our audience is deciding what they want. MTV’s median age is exactly when a majority of young American adults begin to form life-long brand loyalties. Young adults 15-17 are excited consumers and extremely impressionable. Now is the time to influence their choices. 12-34 year olds have higher brand recall and more recognition than 35-49 year olds. In fact 69% make their purchasing decisions based on brand name, not price.

5. Our audience gets what they want. When it comes down to shelling out money, this crowd wields a lot of influence and spending power. In total, persons age 12-34 accounted for 41% of all retail shopping dollars spent last year. In fact, 12-34s spend more money shopping per person than did those over 35 years of age. Plus, "48% of young adults have a say in family decisions from paper towels to vacations" (USA Today, 10/6/99).

In the past year, MTV viewers 18-34 have spent:

• $8 billion of on clothing expenditures
• $845.5 million on video game systems
• $2.2 billion on fine jewelry
• $5.5 billion on major household furnishings
• $885 billion on audio equipment
• $5.3 billion on foreign vacations
• $21.6 billion on personal computers (home use)

6. Our audience just keeps on watching. MTV has experienced ratings growth over the last two years among our target audience of 12-34 year-olds. MTVhas spent 26 consecutive quarters (3Q97-2Q03) as the top rated basic cable network. And the audience just wants more and more and more MTV. Get on board today. MTV can take you where you need to be.

• Median Age: 21
• Median Income: $49,773
• Income: 47% of all MTV viewing households have an income of $50,000 or more per year and 22% have an income of $75,000 or more per year.
• Education: 42% more likely to have college.

Source: Nielsen, 04/01/02-06/30/02. Base 2+; MRI Spring 2001, Nielsen. PNF 2Q’00, MRI Doublebase 2003

I would like to thank Thorin for proving my knockout push in this debate, Ksharp, rambo, and steel used to play for the love of the game (hence their “godness”), thats something we can all agree on. And now, both Ksharp and Rambo are off to CGS playing for money. Having fun and enjoying that one time you ace or that one time you pull an amazing clutch is priceless. And this is not saying CS:Source is a bad game ether, follow your heart, if CS:Source is where your heart is at, by all means, play CS:Source. Play the game you enjoy the most. This is Kevin “Mutechno” Tran reporting from Annandale, Virginia, have a nice evening readers.

---

Thorin's response (and to round 2 comments from mutechno)
Firstly I'll respond to some of Mutechno's side of round 2.

Bearing in mind this is a debate about specific elements of Counter-Strike to sidetrack the argument in basketball comparison isn't very useful but since those are the examples Mutechno used I'll respond in like manner.

The NBA example can quite easily be used to make the very points I was making in round 2: that changes to a game which worsen it or limit it reduce the skill gap between players and change what must be done to succeed, sometimes for the worse as in the case of CS 1.6. It's too glib to say there was the 80s era of basketball with Magic, Bird and Isiah and then the 90s with Jordan, Hakeem and the admiral up to the 2000s with shaq, kobe, duncan etc as though they were all playing exactly the same game. Any observant NBA fan will have noticed the drastic rule changes regarding defense which have outlawed a great deal of the contact and made hand checking and the like illegal. In the late 80s hard physical defense like that of the Pistons could stop Jordan irrespective of how good he was because of the amount of punishment he had to withstand in comparison to the foul calls and opportunities to benefit from free throws. Throughout the decade of the 90s defensive calls were changed and by the time you get to the knicks of 96 no team is able to play that kind of physical game anymore and if they do it is without a great deal of success. That is not the exact same game previous eras were playing. In the 2000s there is a famous quote from Pippen, one of the great defensive players of the 90s, which goes along the lines of: if I tried playing defense the way I used to against the modern stars I'd have fouled out by the 3rd quarter.

The scoring element of the NBA has also changed over the years. Back when Pistol Pete scored 68 points in a game there wasn't a 3 point line. When Kobe scores 81 in 2006 and 7 of of his field goals are 3 pointers one can easily see how changes in rules have made the game easier and reduced the effectiveness of other elements in favour of more 'entertaining' aspects to the layman. The 90s was well known as a period where scoring across the league went down and so the NBA brought in a variety of changes which artificially increased scoring which for the casual fan translates to 'excitement'.

The point isn't to endlessly debate basketball changes but to show that the change of CS and basketball is in no way analogous. One of my main contentions in round 2 was that the great players of yesteryear (the gods) had been limited in so many ways thanks to changes in CS like removal of fast walking, jumping consecutively and worsened spray that the paths to success were more limited and rigid. This meant that the difference between a top 10 player in the world and a top 3 became neglible as it barely affects matches over the long term. Were the same changes to have taken place in basketball then the effect would be that when Kobe tried a dunk from the free throw line a la Dr J or Jordan then he could fall 2 feet short of the basic thanks to Valve having changed the air acceleration. The rigid and small set of qualities which lead to success now in comparison to yesteryear in CS mean that if an average team (think one who finishes 9th-12th regularly) practiced twice as much as a good team (think top 6) then the chances of the average team winning are quite good in the modern era. In the past teams like NiP or X3 could go undefeated for 6 month stretches at a time. Likewise in the NBA regardless of the rule changes a team of good players (think vince carters) would rarely beat a team of very good players (think kobe bryants) merely by practising twice as much.

The rules of the NBA have changed and affected the sport, the actual GAME of CS itself has changed. A player in the NBA can theoretically jump higher than Jordan or shoot better than Bird by developing his athetetic and shooting abilities with more advanced training techniques than those players, a player in CS can never jump as well as steel or spray as well at pre-1.5 HeatoN because the game itself is limited so that those things aren't possible anymore. That is the contention people have missed by getting failing to process metaphor and taking 'god' and 'robot' too literally.

Now to Mutechno's round 3 arguments.

"The whole "gods" argument on why CS 1.6 is declining is a jest. It's all in the head, it's all mental. It doesn't change anything, it changes what you think and how you think but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything."

Firstly nobody said CS 1.6 is declining, that's not even the topic of this debate. The debate is about the STATE of CS 1.6 and so the fact the game has been unnecessarily limited is not only relevant but a given fact provable on tangible levels.

"The gods argument is like imaginary numbers oppose to real numbers."

Truly a brilliant piece of argument since apparently you don't understand what imaginary numbers are. Assuming you're not sending me your arguments through a time machine from the 1600s it shouldn't take a lot of research to figure out why so called "imaginary" numbers are not in fact make believe in the context of Mathematics. I'm not about to sidetrack the whole debate with ad hominem attacks so let's just ignore that line for a moment and pretend you didn't just refer to something you don't understand on a basic level.

"Whether gods or legends exist or not, doesn't decide and factor in on how many people actually still play CS 1.6, it's all in your head, it's not tangible."

That some of the greatest players of all time have been forced from the game since they enjoyed playing Counter-Strike and not Counter-Strike 1.6 is pretty significant to me and many others. They enjoyed the paths to success open in previous versions, the limited paths in 1.6 are rigid enough that they filter out some of the best players to ever pick up a mouse, that's fairly important. Those that aren't filtered out are forced to ignore certain elements of their game which made them successful in previous versions and concentrate on the few limited paths to success open in 1.6 and so diversity and unique styles of play have almost disappeared. There are still differences and the observant spectator can see them but where in the past we had eagles and vultures and sparrows and hawks now we have 100 different species of tit, so sure we have a grey tit over there and a blue tit over here and oh look there's a great tit. I'd rather see players able to express their abilities in a wide variety of ways without limitations than a bunch of barely distinguisable tits thanks.

"Whether you view Ksharp as a god or not doesn't change the fact that an AK is worth $2500, it doesn't change that fact thats it's 5v5, it doesn't change the fact that an m4 has 30 shots, and it doesn't change the fact that a deagle can kill with 1 shot with head armor."

Oh and I suppose the fact Ksharp can't switch to his AWP in time to kill Joe newbie spraying him with a famas doesn't change anything? How about the fact he can't jump away and fire his deagle with the same accuracy? What about the fact in that 1v1 his options went from maybe 10 different ways to win the round to 3 thanks to the time it takes him to walk silently from one area to the other instead of silent walking (tapping shift) as in the past? Doesn't change anything yet?

"Statistics don't lie. It's like science, it's like DNA, it's like a unique finger print. If DNA is found at the scene of a crime, and it matches your DNA, then you were present. Science doesn't lie."

No but the interpretation you chose to draw from statistics is not absolute. By your logic you'd find my DNA at the scene of a murder and then I'd go to jail for murder despite the fact being at the scene of a crime and commiting it are two entirely different things. For some reason this particular round of arguments sees Mutechno repeatedly throwing out a bunch of copied and pasted stats from various sources which never seems to lead close to the topic of the debate which is about the state of CS 1.6

"According to Steam Stats,

Counter-Strike93,40966,4507.216 billion
Counter-Strike: Source28,71837,3411.907 billion"

The topic for debate isn't 'do lots of people play CS 1.6?' it's about the state of CS. Someone could argue that the state of modern Hollywood cinema is poor, citing reasons from creative control limitations issued by studios to the lack of funding for talented directors and showing them the box office numbers for 'I robot' and 'Pearl Harbour' wouldn't disprove or negate any of their arguments nor infer any proof on your side.

"Lets take a closer insight and read between the stats. What can be inferred? CS:S has been out for 3 years now dating back to 2004, and it still is down in the ratio (3:1) The CGS era has begun, and it's down 3:1 ratio. So, even after 3 years of (tweaking, promoting, distributing, selling, and producing) and on top of the 3 years they had to build the game up, CGS era came and the ratio between CS 1.6 and CS:S is still at 3:1, imagine what the ratio was pre-CGS era?

If CS:S didn't take over 3 years ago, why is going to take over now? CS:S biggest attempt to revive the game still left it down 3:1 in ratio."

Again none of this is relevant to the topic at hand. CS:S could have 1 person playing it and be the worst game imaginable or it could have 4 billion playing it and be the best game ever and it would have absolutely no bearing upon the state of CS 1.6 except in an indirect way such as if all the good players left to play Source which is a line of reasoning which I've yet to invoke since it's not particularly interesting or significant.

I'm not going to respond to a number of the paragraphs in Mutechno's argument because they are all about CGS and CS:S which has nothing to do with the topic we're debating here. All of his arguments argue from a position of popularly where he uses things like stats of what the MTV generation of youths consume to attempt to validate the fact CS isn't 'declining' as he puts it. Arguing anything on the basis that a lot of people agree with you or do such and such is a pretty basic logical fallacy so there's no good reason for me to address those topics directly when there's an unfinished topic still here which you the public voted to be our chief concern.

"I would like to thank Thorin for proving my knockout push in this debate, Ksharp, rambo, and steel used to play for the love of the game (hence their “godness”), thats something we can all agree on. And now, both Ksharp and Rambo are off to CGS playing for money. Having fun and enjoying that one time you ace or that one time you pull an amazing clutch is priceless. And this is not saying CS:Source is a bad game ether, follow your heart, if CS:Source is where your heart is at, by all means, play CS:Source. Play the game you enjoy the most."

Yep, wonderful stuff there. Mutechno continues to ramble on about Source/CGS and manages to misinterpret my 'god' analogy which was clearly meant to represent the talents of the best players within the limitations of later versions of CS. In the world of Mutechno I apparently just meant people who played CS for the love of it and this somehow validates his 'knockout push'. More than that we'll all appealed to to "Play the game you enjoy the most". Well isn't that just lovely, too bad this isn't called 'Master Hallmark greeting card writer (with bonus stats report from wikipedia)'. Were it no doubt Mutechno would go down a storm. The topic at hand is the state of CS 1.6 and within the context of Mutechno's "Play the game you enjoy the most" I am immediatly drawn back to the topic.

The point isn't that CS 1.6 is a bad game, nor that the best players in it aren't equivalent to the best players in CS 1.1 or 1.3 or 1.5. The point is that the players in CS 1.6 are limited by the changes Valve has made to the game across each version. Whether they are as good at noscoping as Ksharp in his CK3 demo it doesn't matter because they can't physically do those actions within the game, where he quickswitches and noscopes someone who pops out they will switch to the AWP and the delay means the other guy has an entire window of time to kill them before ksharp had his out. We've all accepted the environment of CS 1.6 for so long you might wonder why is this relevant now and why does it really matter? It matters because none of these changes are necessary, we don't live in the fictional age of CS valve imagined we did where changing things to limit the game so noobs in cs_assault 24/7 servers didn't die as much changes anything beneficial and makes more people play the game.

A few years ago the CPL got a 50 million $ investment from Intel, CGS has probably got XXX millions in investment, all of these companies who organize tournament have so much money that there is no GOOD reason CS in a sporting context isn't the best it can be. To get a few programmers to remove the limitations on certain elements which only detract from everyone's overall game would take very little money and very little time but nobody is willing to invest either. It's not a case that if there is a competitive mod for CS which everyone uses for scrims, matches and tournaments that no new players will ever find their way into the competitive world. That's not the way competitive CS works now, for any beginner to play in the competitive world he needs to have his config in order with league rules and download programs that run as anti-cheats, he can't have specific custom models he might have used on pubs. The world of CS is a different place, all the money that could be needed is there for the tournaments, there's tons of tournaments around the world and there's a nice base of talented players so what is the problem still? Simple the game is so limited and the paths to success narrow that instead of us being able to see all these great players shining their talents brightly and properly leading on from previous generations like Kobe or Shaq have done in comparison to Jordan and Kareem instead we're still shackled for no good reason in a lesser environment.

That a top 12 team can beat a top 3 team in modern CS would be GREAT if it were purely a sign that competitiveness had raised to that extent but in reality it's more a case that there is a limited set of factors and now that everyone in the competitive scene has maxed them out or is close to maxing them out there is little to do for each tournament other than see who feels more focused in match A than match B. Upsets should always occur, teams who are the best in the world being totally knocked out before the top 8 is a sign that things have degraded from the previous versions. The state of CS 1.6 is poor because for everything it could so easily be it can't possibly match up, the only factor limiting it right now is people not wanting to improve it.

---

Please vote for who you think the winner of Round 3 was via the poll on the right! Look for the last round of Master Debater soon.

The thoughts and opinions expressed in Master Debater do not represent E-Sports Entertainment.