Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

[Slothy]

I was going to post this in the what are you playing thread but it was getting too long.

I've been playing a fair bit of CS: GO over the last week. I stand by what I said about it being a bit faster than CS:S, but I'm definitely liking it. Matchmaking seems to work pretty well, the guns are starting to feel good now that I've gotten used to them a bit more, and the new levels are good while some of the older ones have some neat changes. Dust in particular plays a lot better than it did before as there's now a stairway leading from the underpass to the ledge above it on the CT side and a makeshift bridge linking that to the most direct path from the CT spawn. I'm probably not explaining that too well, but suffice it to say there's more than one good route to take on that map now.

There are some little things that irk me though. I didn't like the new crosshair (it obscures more of the screen than in CS:S), but luckily they had the classic one in there as an option. But the thing that really bothers me is the buy menu. It's been changed to a radial menu which actually makes selecting things with the mouse really quick and easy, but it's difficult to quickly figure out which number key to hit which is how I always used to navigate the buy menu. But that's something that should just be a minor quibble. There is a re-buy previous option so in theory you should only need to navigate the menu once, but if your money is too low it can lead to some less than optimal behaviour. For example, it prioritizes buying a primary weapon over anything else, and I'm not sure what the grenade priority is, but personally, if I'm low on money I prefer to grab my armour and a Desert Eagle and just pick up whatever else I can find. But I had months of practice using the Deagle extensively in CS:S so I'm more comfortable with it than most primary weapons.

But what really chafes me a bit is the lack of preset buy options. CS:S was updated a while back so you could save preset buy options and just quickly hit b for the buy menu then whatever key they were assigned to. You could save up to 4 presets for both teams which was awesome if you had different preferences for different maps, or even just one preference you wanted to buy instantly. I have absolutely no idea why, but that's not in this game, or at least not in the beta. Fingers crossed on an update.

Still though, for $15 it's a worthy update to the CS gameplay. So who else is getting this on the PC and wants to have some games together? I'm pretty sure it comes out officially tomorrow.

[Bolivar]

Look, here's the thing, Vivi: I care about you. I know you like to put on this whole persona where you uncaringly dismiss people's opinions as if they're objectively wrong, but the truth is, it doesn't need to be like that. I don't want to hurt your feelings or cause disagreement or discord. I want EoFF to be a gaming utopia. But the other day, when I was wondering why I died, I saw one of my teammates circle-strafe around a dude and unload an entire clip on fully automatic to take a guy out.

I don't know what game this is, but it certainly isn't Counter-Strike.

Call of Duty. That's the buzzword going around and the inevitable comparison, but is this game really like Call of Duty? Not really. But there are major compromises that need to be addressed. Like why so many of the playlists deviate from what CS actually is. Or why you don't have to buy Kevlar and a helmet in most of them. Or why, to my knowledge, the MP5, arguably the most used weapon in competitive play, is absent from the game. But the most baffling, offensive middle-finger to the fans is the fact that the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map. Is there a single person out there who can rationalize to me why the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map? I'd really like to know if there is. Because I would be absolutely stunned if anyone can explain to me why the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map.

But what I really want to know is if Valve or the team I am unfamiliar with who updated the game have offered any explanation for why the graphics are so horrible. If you're a member of the "graphics don't matter" brigade, I want you to take a deep breath and walk away from the computer, because, trust me, you have nothing constructive to say. Yes, CS is about the classic competitive gameplay and the graphics are the first cow to be sacrificed in order to preserve that. But if you're not giving an eight of a damn about what makes Counter-Strike Counter-Strike, why would you insist on such atrocious graphics? I've heard people say that certain objects actually look worse in CS:S and I'm inclined to believe them. You know what, I might as well say it, Call of Duty can run at above 60 fps on most PCs that are used for gaming nowadays (not even necessarily "gaming PCs") yet it looks like Crysis, ultra realism mod compared to this game.

Abomination. Yes! I call this game an abomination. I just can't get into it and it's a very horrible feeling to have if you loved the community and times we've had that were created by the original Counter-Strike. I really hope that tomorrow, when I download the real game, and I boot it up, and I join a server, I'm not confronted with the unjustifiable lag, the confusingly unfamiliar gameplay, or Terrorists with skinny jeans.

I swear there is no Weapon in the Arctic powerful enough to save Valve if there are Terrorists wearing skinny jeans in my CS_Office.

[krissy]

best post of 2012 ^
i don't even play cs

[Slothy]

Look, here's the thing, Vivi: I care about you. I know you like to put on this whole persona where you uncaringly dismiss people's opinions as if they're objectively wrong, but the truth is, it doesn't need to be like that. I don't want to hurt your feelings or cause disagreement or discord. I want EoFF to be a gaming utopia.

I honestly can't tell how much you're serious with most of this post or how much you're trolling but whatever, let's run with it in the interests of healthy discussion.

But the other day, when I was wondering why I died, I saw one of my teammates circle-strafe around a dude and unload an entire clip on fully automatic to take a guy out.

I don't know what game this is, but it certainly isn't Counter-Strike.

So your teammate sucked and as a result this isn't Counter-Strike? That sounds like the definition of Counter-Strike to me.

But there are major compromises that need to be addressed. Like why so many of the playlists deviate from what CS actually is.

Not sure what the issue is. Arms Race and Demolition essentially worked in one of the most popular server side mod in CS:S as well as a new game mode. How adding extra modes in addition to the classic competitive mode is a bad thing is beyond me. If you don't want to play them then don't. If you don't want to play a CS with them, then play CS:S. This is really a complaint about a non-issue.

Or why you don't have to buy Kevlar and a helmet in most of them.

Well, seeing as you don't buy equipment in the two new game modes and classic casual is meant to ease new players into CS it kind of makes sense. Again, classic competitive mode is still in there so if you want to play that then just play that.

Or why, to my knowledge, the MP5, arguably the most used weapon in competitive play, is absent from the game.

I don't know what servers you were playing on, but in CS:S the MP5 is the weapon you take when you can't afford anything better. Play actually revolved around the M4A1, AK-47, and the AWP with some people occasionally using other weapons. I can gladly say that a lot more weapons are viable in this game.

But the most baffling, offensive middle-finger to the fans is the fact that the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map. Is there a single person out there who can rationalize to me why the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map? I'd really like to know if there is. Because I would be absolutely stunned if anyone can explain to me why the Terrorists are wearing skinny jeans on the Office map.

Now you just be trolling. But in case you're not, who honestly cares?

But what I really want to know is if Valve or the team I am unfamiliar with who updated the game have offered any explanation for why the graphics are so horrible.

Care to elaborate? Because the game looks as good as any Source game. Actually, it'd be fair to say it looks better than most. Definitely better than CS:S.

You know what, I might as well say it, Call of Duty can run at above 60 fps on most PCs that are used for gaming nowadays (not even necessarily "gaming PCs") yet it looks like Crysis, ultra realism mod compared to this game.

This criticism might bother me a bit more if I thought any of the recent COD titles had art styles that actually looked good. But based on what I've seen watching a few competitive matches during MLG events that isn't the case. Sorry Bolivar, but we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'll gladly take any CS where the art style is fairly clean and easy to read on screen over any of the recent COD titles where everything kind of runs together in a non-distinct visual mess. And this is coming from someone who owns two copies of COD4 and dumped a few hundred hours into that games multiplayer. Things have been downhill since then for that series visually.

I'm not confronted with the unjustifiable lag,

I've had a couple of instances of really bad lag, but for the most part the experience has been quite smooth. I expect this will get ironed out in time. If not with the full release then sometime after.

the confusingly unfamiliar gameplay

I really need to ask so I can understand this complaint: if you don't want to play the new game modes, then why are you? Just play classic competitive if that's all you want to do.

[Bolivar]

Well, I really liked my first post, so I didn't want to ruin it, but after spending more time with the game, I'll make a more serious follow up.

I think my previous anecdote is a good starting point. You seem to think I was upset because my teammate sucked. I'll be clearer. I was upset because my teammate was having more success sprinting and spraying than I was crouching and aiming. When the game you're playing has "Counter-Strike" in the title, this is a reason to delete the game.

When Valve announced CS: GO, they flew a slew of pro gamers out to their offices to thoroughly test the game, tell them what they think, and spread the word that it's coming. The No. 1 reason Valve gave for its development was to replace Source after its failure to provide a platform for competitive gaming. The philosophy was to build a graphically updated game that fell somewhere between 1.6 and Source rather than just remake 1.6.

Full Disclosure: I'm a 1.6/Condition Zero player. So I definitely am looking for something closer to that. Some people have told me that the run-n-gun mechanics I'm seeing are vestiges of Source, but WAY toned down from that. Honestly, after a good deal of play on launch day, I am starting to warm up to the game, but there is a long way to go.

There was at least one point I agreed with in your post: The MP5 was THE weapon you took when you couldn't afford anything better. Or when you needed to save (more on that later). Or when equipment mattered more than your primary. Or when you were guarding a tighter space, like Short A on dust2. Or when you wanted to skip M4/AK for AWP. Or when you wanted to save to plan ahead. It's the cheapest of the four standard weapons and available to both teams. This is why in the competitive scene, the MP5 is indeed the most commonly used weapon.

This doesn't mean that this is a bad game. But it is a clear indication that whoever made this game "just doesn't get it." There's a long list of other factors driving this point home. Such as the official absence of some very classic maps that were the pillars of the Counter-Strike experience. The lack of silencers. The missing spray paint tags. The lack of darker areas and flashlights/night vision to see in them. The requirement of buying ammo in Classic Competitive which was absolutely a HUGE part of the gameplay. All of these issues suggest the game was not given sufficient tender loving care, or respect, that it deserved.

It's very upsetting to see the new matchmaking playlists when so much that was integral to the game was missing. Taken together, it's the classic invitation to newcomers and slap in the face of old fans. I have come to appreciate them, though, and I think their ordering is rather brilliant, because Arms Race eases you into the gameplay, Demolition introduces the idea of objectives, Classic Casual shows you what CS is all about and Classic Competitive is the main event, which you should be ready for after playing through all previous modes. It's quite an ingenious build-up. But why didn't they also make a third or fourth game mode to build upon the classic "cs" and "de"?Dumbing it down can be awesome, but it is tremendously disappointing when a developer makes accessibility a priority while completely ignoring innovation. Balancing the accessibility/innovation dichotomy is one of the largest factors that makes Call of Duty the success it is.

And success is obviously at the heart of it here. Counter-Strike was two things: it was the biggest video game in history and it was the most praised competitive platform of all time. Unfortunately, the First Person Shooter genre has dramatically evolved in the about twelve years since CS first came out. Valve can't have both. In the state the game is in now, they would have been much better off having iron sights.

I'll leave you with a quote from the CSGO forums:

CS up to 1.6 was the most popular online multiplayer game of all time.
There are many reasons for this, and currently CSGO is lacking in a few areas which need improvement if it wants to take the crown.

I concede that a lot of my issues sound like trivialities, and they may not matter much to you, Vivi, but they matter a great deal to me and millions of fans who are now voicing their criticism of the game. Fans of the modders that created Counter-Strike and the community that facilitated it for so long, not fans of Valve and their repeated attempts to capitalize on it while consistently diluting its gameplay. This may be the third time they've done it under the guise of a new game, but it's the first time they cited rehabilitating the competitive community as the reason for doing it.

They have a lot of work to do.

[Slothy]

You seem to think I was upset because my teammate sucked.

No, I just thought it was a good setup for a mediocre joke.

I'll be clearer. I was upset because my teammate was having more success sprinting and spraying than I was crouching and aiming. When the game you're playing has "Counter-Strike" in the title, this is a reason to delete the game.

Honestly, I've seen few people who were successful running and gunning. It can work at close range obviously since being a foot away kind of trumps weapon spread, but anytime I've been forced to keep moving and fire, I frequently either lose to crouched players with better positioning from a distance, or I unload half a clip to kill one guy who was right in front of me. Run and gun is more viable than it kind of was in the original CS (though I specifically remembering it being possible in some circumstances) but it's still trumped by better positioning, aim, and crouching from a medium-long distance.

And in the end, it doesn't bother me since it means more variety, and this isn't CS 1.6. It's a new game altogether, and while somethings are different, it still plays a lot like a new CS game to me.

Full Disclosure: I'm a 1.6/Condition Zero player. So I definitely am looking for something closer to that.

Also in the interests of full disclosure, I've been playing CS since Beta 3.0 or 3.1 and while I still appreciate the original, I definitely preferred CS:S, even though the irony of treating Source like some sort of bastard step child of the series is that it maintained a lot of issues the original had (especially level design and weapon balance) while the new one actually fixes a lot of that in my eyes.

There was at least one point I agreed with in your post: The MP5 was THE weapon you took when you couldn't afford anything better. Or when you needed to save (more on that later). Or when equipment mattered more than your primary. Or when you were guarding a tighter space, like Short A on dust2. Or when you wanted to skip M4/AK for AWP. Or when you wanted to save to plan ahead. It's the cheapest of the four standard weapons and available to both teams. This is why in the competitive scene, the MP5 is indeed the most commonly used weapon.

The fact that I prefer CS:S to 1.6 and you're the opposite probably lead to some confusion here. The MP5 was borderline useless in CS:S. It was fine if you managed to hit the other person in the head (though even then it sometimes had to happen twice to get through the helmet). Otherwise, it was the weapon you bought when you wanted something pretty accurate that took 5+ shots to kill someone. The Desert Eagle was actually the go to in Source for saving money. In fact, I frequently used it in the place of a primary weapon because it was so good. Even when there were times I could use the M4 or AK instead.

Such as the official absence of some very classic maps that were the pillars of the Counter-Strike experience.

I'd be curious to know which maps you're talking about since as far as I'm concerned, the best maps from my time with 1.6 and Source are all there. Some such as Dust are actually more playable and balanced with the changes which were made than they've ever been.

The lack of silencers. The missing spray paint tags. The lack of darker areas and flashlights/night vision to see in them.

These I don't mind since silencers were kind of unbalanced being available to CT's only, I expect sprays will probably get patched in eventually and I never cared about them that much anyway, and I can't remember many maps where light levels ever came into play. Certainly it wasn't something that mattered in the official maps and carried over to Source. In fact, I specifically remember frequently thinking how useless the flashlight and night vision were in the original CS since it was almost never useful on any map I remember playing.

The requirement of buying ammo in Classic Competitive which was absolutely a HUGE part of the gameplay. All of these issues suggest the game was not given sufficient tender loving care, or respect, that it deserved.

Honestly, I never liked buying ammo. CS has always walked a fine line with having a dangerous slippery slope of successful teams pulling far ahead and having limited money to buy ammo was terrible. There's too much potential there for it to lead to lame duck situations where you can afford guns, but not enough ammo. Especially since the weapons were pretty unbalanced in previous versions leaving very limited numbers of good choices. They actually took that out in Source and I think it's a good thing. It helps to keep the competitive playing field a bit more balanced from round to round since successful teams are already pulling ahead and gaining an advantage anyway.

But why didn't they also make a third or fourth game mode to build upon the classic "cs" and "de"?Dumbing it down can be awesome, but it is tremendously disappointing when a developer makes accessibility a priority while completely ignoring innovation.

That they didn't innovate enough? I'd say making the game of CS even moderately accessible to new players is pretty impressive because I honestly didn't think it'd be possible to do as much as they did. Not sure what else they could have done, especially when the best way to attempt to appease CS fans at all is to literally do absolutely nothing because the majority will hate any attempt at progress good or bad.

And success is obviously at the heart of it here. Counter-Strike was two things: it was the biggest video game in history and it was the most praised competitive platform of all time. Unfortunately, the First Person Shooter genre has dramatically evolved in the about twelve years since CS first came out. Valve can't have both. In the state the game is in now, they would have been much better off having iron sights.

I'll let the statement that it's the biggest game ever and the most successful competitive platform alone for now. I think Starcraft/SC2 probably holds the title for the latter, and I'm not sure how the numbers work out on the former but I'm sure there must be more successful games out there. CS was one of the first online game to have a major competitive scene develop in North America in spite of what I see as some gameplay issues. But the thing is, I don't think multiplayer games have really evolved dramatically over the years. Certainly not in the competitive multiplayer arena anyway. In fact, most are still running around with nothing more than variants of capture the flag, king of the hill, etc. and occasionally they'll add more casual modes ripped from CS mods. The games certainly change mind you, but I really don't think we've come as far as you might think from CS. Many have just fall somewhere on a spectrum between unforgiving games like CS and more arcadey games like TF2 or Quake. Very few games have played at being a serious competitive game while actually adding new and different game mechanics.

I concede that a lot of my issues sound like trivialities, and they may not matter much to you, Vivi, but they matter a great deal to me and millions of fans who are now voicing their criticism of the game. Fans of the modders that created Counter-Strike and the community that facilitated it for so long, not fans of Valve and their repeated attempts to capitalize on it while consistently diluting its gameplay. This may be the third time they've done it under the guise of a new game, but it's the first time they cited rehabilitating the competitive community as the reason for doing it.

They have a lot of work to do.

See, I don't actually think your issues are trivial. I'd be happy to debate with you on the competitive merit of doing things one way or the other, but I'm not going to tell you you're wrong if stuff bothers you. That's totally fair, and I'll actually give you a great deal of credit for at least articulating what it is that you don't like. I may think it's a better competitive game because of the changes, but I do like hearing and discussing competing view points even if I do have strong views on what constitutes good changes which clash with them sometimes. The debate itself is still enjoyable and enlightening, and since I want to make my own games I'm all for it.

But I'll admit right now that I may be a bit jaded whenever I start hearing about the CS community not liking something. Probably because this is the third time I've seen it if you don't count changes from one beta to another. People basically hated 1.6 when it came out and it was a complete pariah amongst 1.5 players who didn't want to use Steam and hated the fairly minor changes being made to it. Of course now it's the only way to play the original and I quite liked it from the start. And when CS:S came out there was much the same reaction. I saw many CS 1.6 players basically say it was terrible and the worst thing imaginable before it even came out and I knew a fair few who never even tried it. But I felt it actually rebalanced the competitive game play quite nicely, and apparently so did thousands of others. Now we've got GO, which I feel is a definite improvement on CS:S and even the original and we're seeing the same reaction from the hardcore faithful all over again. And in fairness, I haven't seen many even attempt to defend their opinion half as well as you have, so I tend to be a bit dismissive of those who don't even bother to try and discuss it on any kind of meaningful level.

But that's not the case with you, and if you want to keep discussing the game I'm more than happy to hear your detailed thoughts on it and what does and doesn't work, and share mine as well.

[escobert]

I plan on picking it up next week

[Slothy]

I'll have to remember to add you on Steam if I haven't already. Bolivar too come to think of it.

[Bolivar]

Go for it Bert! And Vivi, I think you already did add me, unless [Vivi] Thor is someone else.

And thanks for the lengthy reply, it's definitely always better to have a thought-out exchange rather than some of the discussions going on right now in the Steam forums. I could elaborate on the numerous important dark spots like the B tunnel on dust2, or the maps like prodigy and cbble that should've been in the game, or how primary ammo buying is a huge part of the team saving-buying dynamic that was so integral to the game, but it seems like you're prepared to rebut each and every point I put forth so I think I'm going to chill.

I mostly came here to ponder how insane the EoFF community must be to not be more engaged about this game!!! I'd definitely love to make some teams together and see how we can do out there...

[Bolivar]

Yay, there's an update:

MP1st – Additional Maps for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive in Upcoming Update

It wouldn't be my choice, but Vertigo is definitely one of those "must ship" maps I was talking about.

[escobert]

So I did get it. But, haven't been able to play due to install issues. And GW2.

[Bolivar]

GW2 can do that.

[ali123]

hahahaaaaaaaaaaa-*-*--*-*-*

[Bolivar]

Bots be gettin creative now

[Slothy]

He's not even linking or advertising. Must be a CS bot because apparently it's not that bright.