Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Review

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Review

Get ready to relive the glory days of tactical shooters.

Read Full Article

Wow... watching that footage almost made me want to boot up 1.6 and make a weekend out of it, almost. I can definitely see what you mean about the game not feeling like anything more than a graphical upgrade with a few new guns, but I think that's really all what the fans want. It's actually kind of nice to see that Valve didn't try and emulate the run-and-gun tactics of Call of Duty, or the sprawling levels of Battlefield, and for $14.99 I think it's a pretty fair price to pay.

Good review, it made me nostalgic for 2001 when I started playing CS.

Watching that footage almost made me want to find an old DX8 machine with a P4 so I can relive the glory days of last-gen graphics. I see that they still haven't even incorporated realistic gun physics into their game, yet are trying to bill it at "realistic."

While the game does offer new highly polished maps and the new demolition mode (which I liked very much), all the servers I played on during the beta insisted on using the old familiar maps and game modes.
I might pick up this game when it'll be bundled with something else I want, since I can just play CS 1.6 or CSS if I ever get the craving to play Counter Strike.
I have to admit that since I began playing Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike isn't as appealing to me.

I kinda liked with my time in the Beta and I even showed it to my cousin, who's a CS über fan and he pretty much liked all the new changes, including the graphical upgrade and everything.

As for it's lack of content, well, many Valve mltiplayer games started with barebones and an anemic amount of content, like Day of Defeat Source and Team Fortress 2, so I'm pretty much not worried one bit about it.

Josh Strodtbeck:
yet are trying to bill it at "realistic."

Define realistic. Call of Duty sells itself as realistic as well.

Bullets have a defined mass, velocity and penetration value, so they have a flight time. But bullet drop is not implemented in any way. Muzzle climb and spread are present and correct as ever.

It's less realistic then ARMA, STALKER or Metro 2033, but more realistic than CoD's magic hit scans and vanishing shotgun pellets. The damage model is pretty good as well, especially with the armour functioning as armour rather than extra health. But still between rubber band re-gen and you are bleeding to death.

But it is just the same as 1.6 in all those respects, which is kind of it's undoing. Then again, more Counter Strike will always be welcome to me, since there's still no other game quite like Counter Strike.

Global Offensive isn't really meant to bring something new to the table, as it is meant to polish the heck out of what they already had. It's not just the graphics that have improved, it's all the stats of each weapon, all the minor little map changes that might be as simple as a box jutting out a bit farther... This isn't meant to be Counter-Strike 2, it's meant to be a better Counter-Strike 1. And to that end, I think it succeeded quite well.

Not to mention, $15 for a brand new game isn't half bad. I sure won't complain, when the annual CoD updates cost a full $60. They may have more NEW, but they're simply not as good. CS:GO is, in my opinion, the finest competitive multiplayer FPS on the market.

P.S. Thanks

Feels more like a graphics upgrade than an actual sequel

Aw our little franchise has grown up.

Can someone tell me how much it is on PS3?

One of the main goals of CS:GO was to bring the competitive communities of CS 1.6 and CS:Source together with one game. Currently, the competitive scene is fractured between the two.

I've played a good amount of both, having played CS since the early betas. I remember when the M4 had a scope, and even a toe-shot with the AWP was a one-hit kill. (so Beta 4, maybe?) I enjoy this version, and I think the gunplay is very precise, as it should be.

CS isn't for everyone, but if you enjoy playing it once in a while, I recommend this. If nothing else, try out Arms Race.

underwhelmed for a $15 game? I'm sure yall have paid more for less lol

Quiet Stranger:
Can someone tell me how much it is on PS3?

http://us.playstation.com/games-and-media/games/counter-strike-global-offensive-ps3.html

The minimum requirements for this game on PC are pretty low though; any computer made in the last 3-5 years should be okay. Since they're trying to get the CS 1.6 players on-board, they didn't want to require top-of-the-line hardware.

fix-the-spade:

Josh Strodtbeck:
yet are trying to bill it at "realistic."

Define realistic. Call of Duty sells itself as realistic as well.

"Realistic gunplay" means the guns behave realistically enough that the vast majority of moves you see in video games, including most of the ones in this video, just result in you not being able to hit anything rather than taking your game to the next level. Things like quick-scoping, shooting while jumping, firing a pistol as fast as you can click the mouse, firing long bursts (5+ rounds) from an AR or SMG (10x true for any Kalashnikov), hipfiring, walking while sniping, spinning around at the kinds of ridiculous speeds enabled by mouse aiming (I really love how gamers insist the in-game weightlessness enabled by using a mouse is "realistic"), etc should either be outright impossible or result in critical loss of accuracy.

The gun mechanics simply aren't very realistic in this game, or the vast majority of games touted as "realistic." Yes, they're more realistic than they are in Call of Duty, but that's like saying Burnout is more realistic than Super Mario Kart.

Josh Strodtbeck:

fix-the-spade:

Josh Strodtbeck:
yet are trying to bill it at "realistic."

Define realistic. Call of Duty sells itself as realistic as well.

"Realistic gunplay" means the guns behave realistically enough that the vast majority of moves you see in video games, including most of the ones in this video, just result in you not being able to hit anything rather than taking your game to the next level. Things like quick-scoping, shooting while jumping, firing a pistol as fast as you can click the mouse, firing long bursts (5+ rounds) from an AR or SMG (10x true for any Kalashnikov), hipfiring, walking while sniping, spinning around at the kinds of ridiculous speeds enabled by mouse aiming (I really love how gamers insist the in-game weightlessness enabled by using a mouse is "realistic"), etc should either be outright impossible or result in critical loss of accuracy.

The gun mechanics simply aren't very realistic in this game, or the vast majority of games touted as "realistic." Yes, they're more realistic than they are in Call of Duty, but that's like saying Burnout is more realistic than Super Mario Kart.

The only really realistic shooter in the market right now is probably America's Army 3. If you're not playing that then you shouldn't be talking about 'realistic shooters.'

Been playing cs since 1.5, got condition zero and css as time went on. When I got csgo beta back in april I went in with low expectations but they were all blown away by CSGO's main success.

They managed to balance out all the weapons so it doesn't devolve into a awp/ak47/m16(now m4)/deagle fest. Competitive mode is for all the veterans while the main modes like casual and arms race are for more laid back action. Managed to get some of my 1.5 buddies in on csgo and now we're raking in headshots. It's worth the $15 but if you don't feel like moving on, by all means, 1.6 and css still tops the steam stats.

As for me, I'm enjoying the new balance, shotguns finally got the respect they deserve. I could go on but it's something people have to see for themselves.

15 bucks for a graphical remake + a few extras for a solid game isn't a bad price (for newcomers especially), but I personally could only stand CSS because of its huge mod community - I see no reason to switch to CSGO which iirc even follows the same mod-unfriendly footsteps of L4D2 and Portal 2.

Personally I think Valve farted this one out quickly to see how their old business model compares to their new once, hence running it along DOTA2 and building both games with the competitive scene in mind first, etc.

But yeah it doesn't bring anything out to grab my attention. It's just another dull modern military FPS, even if it's one with a bloodline that reaches back to the times where everyone was sick of WW2 shooters and modern military ones were the shit. Then again, if I'm up for some fun multiplayer FPS with great variety and full of friendly faces, I boot up TF2, which in a lot of ways is a polar opposite.

I'll pay the 15 just to get it on my console. I'll probably be picking this up this weekend woot!

I played the beta. It was a lot more fun than I, as someone who hates every multiplayer FPS that's not Team Fortress 2, expected, but not worth paying to hold on to. Especially knowing that the player base would be replaced with the same loudmouthed assholes the series has become infamous for as soon as it was released.

For what it's worth, I did enjoy how newbie-friendly it turned out to be, considering I always thought of Counter-Strike as a game for HARDCORE PRO GAMERZ FOR LIFE WAAAAAARGH and thus roughly as punishing and unforgiving to try to play as Dark Souls. The new weapon menu was a good way to implement the radial menu style that they use for consoles without making it feel like a cheap console port (*cough*Portal2gestures*cough*), although I wish I could say the same for the actual menus. The new outdoor lighting looks nice, and the new visual content looks modern enough for my tastes, but it was obvious that some levels were literally copypasted from CS:S with the models updated instead of recreated from scratch. Considering this was a game they expected people to pay for, including people who already had CS:S, that seems unforgivable to me.

I didn't notice any mention in the comments or the review about how CS:GO matches are limited to 10 players. That's quite a departure from either 1.6 or CS:S.

chiatt:
I didn't notice any mention in the comments or the review about how CS:GO matches are limited to 10 players. That's quite a departure from either 1.6 or CS:S.

That's because they aren't. =f you actually knew what you were talking about then you'd know that they fixed that in the beta before release as part of two updates that were 1gb each. it's either 15 total or per team now. Plus, remember post-release support. Valve does a lot of that these days.

Ah, I haven't played it since beta. Was really turned off by the team limits and wrote the game off.

Living_Brain:

chiatt:
I didn't notice any mention in the comments or the review about how CS:GO matches are limited to 10 players. That's quite a departure from either 1.6 or CS:S.

That's because they aren't. =f you actually knew what you were talking about then you'd know that they fixed that in the beta before release as part of two updates that were 1gb each. it's either 15 total or per team now. Plus, remember post-release support. Valve does a lot of that these days.

Do people actually use the quick match system and not the good old server browser?
One look at the server browser and you'd see servers with as many as up to 60 players on a server.

Anyways, this is exactly what I wanted.
Graphical overhaul, better balanced weapons, two new modes and a some nice new weapons.
The only thing I hate is the removal of the USP.
I used to go around headshotting people with that one.
It was my favourite weapon.

I feel like Paul couldn't have missed the point harder. CS has survived as a favorite for so long because it's a winning formula: 'Here are some guns; there are some enemies' - why fuck with it?

I've always liked CS on a casual basis - the simple 'here are some bad guys and an objective' gameplay works well, and this is little more than an upgrade on the same formula, which is why I love it for the same reason I loved CS:S - it's the same game, it looks much nicer, and there're various other upgrades, especially the new game modes,
Counter-Strike isn't meant to change, because it's inherently perfect. It's pretty mindless fun, the only skill really involved being how to shoot and not be shot. No bullshit upgrades, no ranking, no 'kill streaks' or any of that tacked-on garbage.
And if you're not a fan of that basic stuff, the game just isn't for you - but I find it a refreshing break from CoD and Battlefield.

I and millions of others are perfectly content playing the same CS games over and over than whatever new shit EA and Activision vomit up every financial quarter.

Magefeanor:

The only thing I hate is the removal of the USP.
I used to go around headshotting people with that one.
It was my favourite weapon.

the USP is still in the game. It's just now called "P2000". Otherwise, it's exactly the same weapon (minus the silencer)

Bindal:

Magefeanor:

The only thing I hate is the removal of the USP.
I used to go around headshotting people with that one.
It was my favourite weapon.

the USP is still in the game. It's just now called "P2000". Otherwise, it's exactly the same weapon (minus the silencer)

Not the same for me...
But thanks, you reminded me of the second thing I hate. Removal of the silencer.

I picked it up a couple of weeks ago. Have found a server that has just been buffed from 24 man to 30 man, always has >20 people on it, and they're nice guys. It's a great game, slightly different to CSS but in a way that makes it feel updated. The only 2 gripes i have is I want to select the T/CT skin you use again, because atm the terrorists on office are dressed as hipsters and I want the good old arctic avenger back, and secondly I want to saved loadouts to come back to the game. But i assume they'll be added wit updates, so I'm more than happy with the £10 I spent.
I've already sank about 15-20 hours into it and I imagine it will be alot more by this time next year.

Magefeanor:

Bindal:

Magefeanor:

The only thing I hate is the removal of the USP.
I used to go around headshotting people with that one.
It was my favourite weapon.

the USP is still in the game. It's just now called "P2000". Otherwise, it's exactly the same weapon (minus the silencer)

Not the same for me...
But thanks, you reminded me of the second thing I hate. Removal of the silencer.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I miss the silencer on the m4a1. Used to be so useful when you were the last CT left.

LoathsomePete:
and for $14.99 I think it's a pretty fair price to pay.

Pretty much the point I would have made. For that price it's good value I would say, compared with other realistic shooters anyway. Plus you just know the modding scene will be just generally awesome too.

CS was never renowned for its realism.
It wasn't supposed to be realistic, and it was never popular because of it. Because it's not realistic. At least where I lived, it was popular because it was highly competitive and felt good to play with its extremely tight controls.

With this kind of game, you just don't fuck with what works. People love CS because it's CS. To change the core elements makes it a different game entirely, which is almost guaranteed to end in a shitstorm. It's why SC2 is so similar to BW, and why the C&C series turned to shit.

And here's for hoping they make Zombie Mode an official mode in a later update. Zombies for the WIN!

For someone who has never played Counter Strike and has played shooters like CoD (CoD4, MW2, MW3) and Halo (all of them), CS:GO is a very welcome change. I love how balanced the gameplay is, how balanced the guns are (even the irritating AWP) and how much emphasis the game has on gun skill. As this review says, you can't just run around pray and spraying, you really do you have to aim and know what you're doing to be effective with your weapons.

For me, one of the things that I really love with CS:GO is all the parts copy-pasted from Left 4 Dead (and other Valve games I imagine). One of the demolition maps is a house directly taken from a Left 4 Dead chapter (campaign 4 I think? its been a while...) which feels really nostalgic and awesome. With other games/developers, I'd say "well that is really cheap of them, why can't they just make new models to use?", but with Valve, they're using the buildings and models because they are really good buildings and models to use and no one is going to complain.

I strongly recommend CS:GO if you enjoy shooters. I play it on xbox (blah blah PC master race, stfu) and it is a lot of fun. I can't even play MW3 anymore because I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever playing CS:GO for a while. CS:GO makes other shooters look like absolute shit; which it should, Counter Strike has always been the pinnacle of FPS.

Josh Strodtbeck:

fix-the-spade:

Josh Strodtbeck:
yet are trying to bill it at "realistic."

Define realistic. Call of Duty sells itself as realistic as well.

"Realistic gunplay" means the guns behave realistically enough that the vast majority of moves you see in video games, including most of the ones in this video, just result in you not being able to hit anything rather than taking your game to the next level. Things like quick-scoping, shooting while jumping, firing a pistol as fast as you can click the mouse, firing long bursts (5+ rounds) from an AR or SMG (10x true for any Kalashnikov), hipfiring, walking while sniping, spinning around at the kinds of ridiculous speeds enabled by mouse aiming (I really love how gamers insist the in-game weightlessness enabled by using a mouse is "realistic"), etc should either be outright impossible or result in critical loss of accuracy.

The gun mechanics simply aren't very realistic in this game, or the vast majority of games touted as "realistic." Yes, they're more realistic than they are in Call of Duty, but that's like saying Burnout is more realistic than Super Mario Kart.

I've never seen Counter-Strike billed as 'realistic' beyond bullets killing you in a few hits. I would assume that's what the reviewer meant.

Tropicaz:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I miss the silencer on the m4a1. Used to be so useful when you were the last CT left.

I've heard it's being patched back in.

Yeah, well you're trying to pull the argument that regenerating health somehow makes a game inferior, so yeah, I'll pass.

CoD and BattleField are run and gun? My head just about exploded. I don't see how considering they are designed for consoles, they have ADS, wide cone of fire w/ rapid bloom, slow movement, slower strafe, prone for campers, the list goes on. Those games are TERRIBLE.

Run and gun did not die until the xbawks 360 came out; and CS is a twitchy oldskool arena shooter's playground. Not the other way around.

Makes me wonder where your frame of reference comes from.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 62222)