Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Review
- Thread starter WMDogma
- Start date
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.
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 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.
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.
Define realistic. Call of Duty sells itself as realistic as well.Josh Strodtbeck said:
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
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
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.
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.
http://us.playstation.com/games-and-media/games/counter-strike-global-offensive-ps3.htmlQuiet Stranger said:
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.
"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.fix-the-spade said:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.chiatt said: