The source engine IS better. you cannot deny that. there are few obsticals to overcome but there is so much more that can be done in source.
Im not just jumping to the latest fads either. my last map release? HLDM. My current project, HLSP. I map for both, and at first I didnt like source, you cant get away with such simple brushwork, you can make a wad in 10 minuites, but when you spend time learning the alternative, its better.
you say that you enjoy pushing the 1.6 engine to its limits, well that may be true, but how far does that take you? the real fun in source is seeing what you can do with the new engine, and then pushing it to the max.
HL 1.6 is great, its an engine that has stood the test of time. I have great fun mapping for it and I love its simplicity. but SOURCE. IS. BETTER.
this is a long post so you could skip the next bit. its more aimed to be direct arguments to hunters comments.
NB.
Ive noticed that all your points are opinion based hunter. you say that HL2 wasnt as good as HL1. thats your opinion.
you say that HL1 is fun to map for. opinion. I agree but its not a fact. and its kind of irelivent if I find osurce more fun to map for.
point 4 and 1 are the same thing... so Il say this. just because some kid made bad awp maps for CSS, I geuss that means its a shitty editor huh? I geuss that if hammer crashes on you you just forget all the work youve done right? Ive been mapping since hammer was born and the bugs back then, and now, are far worse than in the source SDK. not to mention the S:SDK has features that I cant map without in 1.6