Ohhhhg man I thought this was lost forever. It was 2002 btw. Can't believe this was uploaded lol :p

I can't believe you have an esr account. The cool kids at the lan events are gonna laugh at you :).

not it is his first post here :)

Yeah, it's just now that I notice.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=users&user_id=29091

;)

uhh nice, always fun to watch old demos of yourself from when you still sucked.
I got a bunch of my own still, quite funny to watch :>

edit: though you are not that bad at that stage ;p come back when you have demos where you can't make bridgejump!

lol american quake is so bad! this is the best you got america?!?!

troll hard go pro.

Those who can't, troll.

never thought I'd get called out on this one :-(

A for effort!

There's no A in effort!

Zoltar brings back memories as well. quite old school

I remember playing Zoltar on DM17, never saw him loose on that map, his MG was insane.

now he much better plays )

Youtube this!

It wasn't 2002. ;P It was QuakeCon 2003 single elimination "128 -> 64 players" match :)

If rapha was scarface then...
On QuakeCon 2002 rapha was knocked out by chance 47:-1 on the same single elimination "128 -> 64 players" match ;D

Crazy things!

this post takes quake dedication to the next level. have a [+].

NGstats for q3? :O I thought that shit was only in UT99.

yea that's what I used to love about the quakecon site -- nGstats after every tournament -- graphs galore on EVERY match!

On QuakeCon 2002 rapha was knocked out by chance 47:-1

holy shit :D

Yeah. Watch this: click!

rofl, i can just imagine rapha sitting there getting destroyed frag after frag getting more pissed after each frag until the score reaches 47 - (-1)



YOU FUCKED UP CHANCE, SHOULD HAVE GONE EASY, LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE CREATED

Damn, that 2002 guy wasn't rapha! My bad. :(
Discovered it searching infos for QuakeCon '99. :P

Think this is the first Zoltar duel I've seen that wasn't on dm17, lol.

Time fragger.

Considering he got very good very fast once getting internet at his own house, it doesn't seem like it.

Considering he was playing in tourneys in 2001 and only got to top tier in late 2008, it doesn't seem that quick to me.

He's a good player, but I would rather have been CZM good from 2004 than Rapha good in 2010.

Being good at anything isn't always about being the best.

Its about the ability you show in relation to time invested.
Not taking anything away from the tguy, but it seems to me he's tried a long time to get where he is and he's had youth on his side.

When you get past your early 20's its very difficult to be a fuctional human being and play top tier gaming.

I have far greater respect for players that perhaps weren't particulalry naturally skilled, and struggled for a while, before reaching the very top through disciplined practice, than I do of naturally skilled "lazy" players. Having discipline and following through with determination is the greatest skill you can have in any aspect of life.

Apart from being actually better, lawl.

tru dat

Me 2, but you have to acknowledge that the best quake 3 players like CZm, Cooller, Socrates, Z4muz etc all knocked quake on the head more than 5 years ago. (name one of those players who takes teh game half as seriously as they did 5 years ago? not one).

And from there you have to ask yourself is Rapha really that good, or has the scene simply slowed down and allowed lesser players to be perceived as better.

I don't doubt Rapha 2010 would beat CZM of 2004.

What I'm saying is, IF<<< CZM etc 2004 had carried on playing, would the recent results be as they are?
You respect Rapha now, but would you respect him if the other players were still on top and he was struggling to place top10.

Probably not, even though he might be the same skill as he is today, his opponents skill would invalidate your opinion of him.

So to me, I always factor in time and player commitment.

umm czm has been playing since qw in 1996, so he took about the same amount of time to reach the top dog position, no surprises!

Pro-gaming is more serious today than back then.
its not as comparable.

Wish I could say the same for 2010 quake live vs 2004 Q3.

Ask yourself what changed in gaming from 1996 to 2000.

fatal1ty with his 8 hours of play regime and broadband made a big diff to how people play quake. You can't say the same thing from 2004 quake 3 to 2010 Quake 4 cos things have not changed that much. The regime is the same.

By 2004, everyone knew the ingredients to being good at quake and more importantly, pretty much aeveryone had the chance to go after it if they wanted that out of their youth.

Waht I'm saying is, once you get to 21-22, it becomes a lot harder to play so much. Which is why I probably respect the old schoolers more. Even if they are not as good, I think they would be had they carried on.

"Its about the ability you show in relation to time invested."

No, its about real results. Anyone can say the would own all if only they really put their mind to it. It means absolutely nothing, just an excuse for people to protect their ego without having to actually achieve anything.

True.

No its not.

You can't objectively judge skill in relation to time invested.

You can, however, objectively judge the skill of two players when they play each other.

Of course you can.

Why do you think they have talent scouts in sports, education and pretty much aeverything else?

I used to play soccer with a kid who was 3 years younger than us and he played in our team cos he was such as asset, it didn't surprise me he went on to play the game professionally, while the rest of us quit at 16 or played sunday league.

Even back then we all knew he had something special.

Despite him not being the best in our team, we knew he was still better than us DEEP DOWN BECAUSE<<<< he was obviously going to get better and he did.

its the same principle in gaming.

I can jump onto a server and paly some street fighter 4 player now, prolly lose a game by 5% and that person would think he's better and your logic dictates that.

What that person doesn't know is, I play about two hours a week to his 2 hours a day. A week of solid play and my game would improve dreastically to the point where I would be winning the games by 5%.

In other words, you can lose and still win in the deepest sense. And you can win and still lose in the deepest sense.

Winning isn't alway winning to those with the right understnading.

What that person doesn't know is, I play about two hours a week to his 2 hours a day. A week of solid play and my game would improve dreastically to the point where I would be winning the games by 5%.

That is just your hope (and your excuse). c:

We all know the difference between losing because you got outplayed and losing because of something else.

If you stopped playing quake for 2 years and lost your first duel by 2 frags, it doesn't mean you got beat by the better player, its whats known as a tempoary loss.

If someone is taking the game seriously and palying many hours vs your casual (or has a lot more expereince) and you're still pushing them its quite obvious you will or would surpass them. So its not something that applies to every player at all.

You have to show potential, if you're losing shaft battles and the enemy is getting away by skin of teeth, that;s a lot easier to convert than someone locking you down for the entire game.

Rapha was what? 13 or 14 back in 2003 or 04. He didn't become a top tier until 18 or 19 which is probably the age where most players' game become mature and well polished. You simply can't ignore the large gap in age between rapha and the group of players that you mentioned.