Counter-Strike GO

[BeerTent]

I think you were mostly right the first time with four weapons. CS:S revolved around the AK-47, M4, and AWP predominantly. Some people would venture into scout territory since it was cheap and a head shot was a head shot. The only other weapons that saw much use in my experience were the P90 and the MP-5, but the people using those were few and far between.

I was also counting the desert eagle, which, on most servers I played, if the first AWP shot missed, they resorted to that. I liked to sneak up on people with the knife too, so I was killed by that secondary pretty often.

 

[Dukenstein]

It's really really really really really really good. It fixed everything I did not like about source. Guns feel like you hit someone, shotguns are good, smgs are good, pistols other than the deagle are good. AWPS are discouraged, menues are great, it looks nice and best of all..it's still hardcore. Old fans are just bitter, they can't move on at all. Sticking to 1.6 when Source came out I understand, but this game is closer to 1.6.

 

[Vivi22]

I was also counting the desert eagle, which, on most servers I played, if the first AWP shot missed, they resorted to that. I liked to sneak up on people with the knife too, so I was killed by that secondary pretty often.

Not sure how I forgot the deagle when I used it all the time now. It was my go to pistol regardless of anything else. Actually, it's still my go to in GO, and I frequently even forgo a primary weapon to save money and only use the deagle until I can get a primary weapon I like and some grenades.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I'm thinking of the game as a sort of expansion pack to CS:S, and it's expansion pack priced. Think about it, it upgrades the graphics, adds plenty of new maps, gamemodes and guns and changes quite a lot about the game. If this was priced at 40 quid instead of 10, then something wouldn't be right. But at 10 pounds it's actually more value for money than most DLC that comes out nowadays. So gamers complaining that they're "not getting enough for their money" are kinda just wrong.

 

[bafrali]

I see it as a waste of development time which could have been used for other franchises.

 

[BENZOOKA]

1750+ hours on Steam clock for CS:S alone. Plus more than a decade with the franchise. I could write a book about all the different things and how they work, but anyhoo, it's a must buy obviously. And they've continuously improved it during the last few months of beta.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I spent many an hour of my early teenage years playing Counter-Strike and wondering if this version is worth getting.

Depends, if you can get it on PC you'll be better.

The original cross platform play went rather predictably in the beta. Specifically, first the console players got their faces torn off, then Microsoft started getting in the way of the updates. Repeat until Valve forcibly separated Xbox off by itself.

Whether or not Valve will admit to it, CS:GO already seems to be going the way of TF2 on Xbox with updates likely to be rare and new content being rarer still.

But it is more Counter Strike, never too much of that.

 

[AshFightsRobots]

Ill be honest its CSS more polished making it feel like its own game. No matter how many times I played CS 1.6 and CSS they always felt like mods to me, which in its early days it was, I could never quite put my finger on why. So far I love it, however the fact they canned cross platform play is the only complaint I have, I was looking forward to proving to my xbox loving chums that they are inferior FPS players. *sigh*

 

[Waaghpowa]

I was looking forward to proving to my xbox loving chums that they are inferior FPS players. *sigh*

Even if they didn't can it, it would have only been with PC and PS3, not Xbox.

The only problem I have with CS GO is the use of AWP's. If this version is going to be more accessible, then you're likely to get a lot of players using the damn thing because it's a one shot kill on anything except the arms.

In CSS not using the AWP was basically an unspoken rule because it was just stupid. If you wanted to snipe, people would use a scout since you actually need to make a head shot with that thing.

 

[Tropicaz]

I was looking forward to proving to my xbox loving chums that they are inferior FPS players. *sigh*

Even if they didn't can it, it would have only been with PC and PS3, not Xbox.

The only problem I have with CS GO is the use of AWP's. If this version is going to be more accessible, then you're likely to get a lot of players using the damn thing because it's a one shot kill on anything except the arms.

In CSS not using the AWP was basically an unspoken rule because it was just stupid. If you wanted to snipe, people would use a scout since you actually need to make a head shot with that thing.

Yeah, the server I played on the only sniper that you could use was the scout. Made games much more balanced.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

I'd seriously only get it on PC. The price is cheap for what it is I guess...but word on the street is that it's not as smooth on Xbox as it really should be.

If you have the option, and the patience to get destroyed a few times, get it on PC:].

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Seriously the graphics are subpar. Valve needs to build a new engine already. I'm hoping thats why Half Life 3 is taking so long. Wouldn't it be an all is forgiven moment if we could see Half Life 3 using graphics as powerful as the CryENGINE 3?

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Seriously the graphics are subpar. Valve needs to build a new engine already. I'm hoping thats why Half Life 3 is taking so long. Wouldn't it be an all is forgiven moment if we could see Half Life 3 using graphics as powerful as the CryENGINE 3?

Not everyone actually gives all that much of a shit about graphics.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Seriously the graphics are subpar. Valve needs to build a new engine already. I'm hoping thats why Half Life 3 is taking so long. Wouldn't it be an all is forgiven moment if we could see Half Life 3 using graphics as powerful as the CryENGINE 3?

Not everyone actually gives all that much of a shit about graphics.

Ouch hot topic for you?
My point is the graphics shouldn't look like Counter Strike: Source. I love Valve, I was just surprised by how little it change visually, thats all.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Got to say, not really feeling the game so far. Bought it because of the preorder deal on PSN and I'm kind of regretting it now. There's just nothing here that stimulates me.

 

[Aeonknight]

Let's see...

Can't log in cause servers are too busy it says. Didn't another company have this exact same problem and was strung up for it?

And from others who actually did get to play, sounds like it's not even as good as Source.

Yep. valve sure is awesome. Oh well, it'll be a nice little distraction, then it's back to BF3.

 

[Newby_Newb]

Global Offensive is easily the worse version of Counter-Strike ever.

I love people who simply make a statement and then never back it up.

The person wants to know if it's worth getting. Explaining why you don't like it might help him consider how much weight to give your opinion.

Here are my reasons for not liking it.

-The changes made to the maps has made them worse. They have less room to maneuver and there are more choke points.

-The animations for weapons and characters look worse than CSS.

-Some weapons are too over-powered.

-The game has post-processing effects that make the game look like ass.

-The new buy menu is horrible.

-Movement and shooting feels floaty.

-There are problems that I am having with with joining servers.


There are more problems with this game, but I think that this is enough.

 

[Vigormortis]

1750+ hours on Steam clock for CS:S alone. Plus more than a decade with the franchise. I could write a book about all the different things and how they work, but anyhoo, it's a must buy obviously. And they've continuously improved it during the last few months of beta.

This opinion, this opinion right here, not only mirrors my own but is also (easily) the most sensible response so far. I've logged untold hours over the years in 1.6 and Source. Hell, for that matter, I used to compete regularly in Source tourneys; both amateur and pro league. So I'm not some "noob", to use the popular vernacular, who knows nothing about the series.

With that in mind, I see Global Offensive as an attempt by Valve to not only balance, but also fix, much of what was wrong with Source and 1.6.

Did they succeed? So far, I'm inclined to say yes. The weapons feel more substantial this time around while still requiring a hefty dose of skill to use properly. Rounds no longer devolve into "four M4s and one awp" or "four AKs and one awp" as most of the other weapons actually do shit this time. The movement and hit-box systems have been vastly improved. The level redesigns make even the oldest maps more fun and fair. Not to mention the new additions: two GunGame modes, new guns and grenades, officially supported Zombie Mod (coming soon), etc, etc.

So, OP, the short answer to your question is: Yes.

The long answer is: Oh hell yes. They improved the game in almost every way. Don't listen to the old-blow-hards who're bitching about how it "isn't Source/1.6 and therefore is the worst in the series." They're idiots.

 

[Kargathia]

Seriously the graphics are subpar. Valve needs to build a new engine already. I'm hoping thats why Half Life 3 is taking so long. Wouldn't it be an all is forgiven moment if we could see Half Life 3 using graphics as powerful as the CryENGINE 3?

Not everyone actually gives all that much of a shit about graphics.

Not to mention that somehow I doubt Valve's suddenly going to cater to high-end computers only. They seem quite comfortable using high-end aesthetics with midrange requirements; after all it does help if more people can play your game.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I think you were mostly right the first time with four weapons. CS:S revolved around the AK-47, M4, and AWP predominantly. Some people would venture into scout territory since it was cheap and a head shot was a head shot. The only other weapons that saw much use in my experience were the P90 and the MP-5, but the people using those were few and far between.

The FAMAS is pretty common too. When fired full-auto its a glorified SMG with a smaller magazine, but when you burst-fire it's almost pin-point accurate regardless of range. I used to see a lot of people burst-sniping with it.

I made it a point to use unpopular weapons, though. It wasn't uncommon to see me take to the field with an FN Five-seveN and a Steyr TMP. Both of which can be surprisingly effective if used properly, though are admittedly much more situational than the flavor-of-the-month alternatives.

As for CS:GO... haven't played it yet. $15 is pretty cheap, but I think I'll wait for that to drop in a Steam sale. I expect I won't have to wait too long to see it for $5 or less.