Why CS:GO is the best multiplayer shooter out there

I picked up Counter-Strike: Global Offensive last week. I don’t know why it took me so long—the game came out in August, after all, and it costs only $15. Anyway, I was playing Battlefield 3 with a buddy of mine, and we were both getting slaughtered by a whole team’s worth of veterans—you know, those folks with the golden eagles next to their names and every unlock in their arsenals. I mentioned CS:GO in passing, and my friend asked, "Why aren’t we playing that right now?"

So we did. We logged out, opened up Steam, bought CS:GO, waited for the download to finish, and jumped in.

It took me a few hours to get back up to speed. This was my first time playing any version of CS in nearly six years, and I’d forgotten all the tricks—crouch to increase accuracy, walk to sneak up on enemies, take out the knife to run, camp whenever possible, and most of all, don’t right-click to aim un-scoped weapons (’cause you can’t). Making things even trickier, I had to familiarize myself with the slightly tweaked gameplay mechanics and new weapons in CS:GO. Somehow, the game felt both weirdly alien and tantalizingly familiar.

I pressed on. After a few hours, I rediscovered why CS is such a good game—and why other multiplayer shooters still pale in comparison.

It’s not that other shooters aren’t well designed or fun to play. A good round of BF3 (or whichever Call of Duty sequel all the pimple-faced teenagers are glued to right now) can be just as cathartic as any CS match. The problem is that, unlike CS, those games seem to require constant commitment—something I, as grown man with a job and hobbies other than gaming, can never quite muster.

With today’s shooters, you’ve pretty much got to pick up the game at launch and play on a regular basis. The more you play, the higher you rise through the ranks, and the more weapons you unlock. If you only jump in occasionally (for, dare I say it, recreation), then there’s no way to keep up with more committed players. You might be just as skilled as the next guy, but not having this unlock or that weapon may mean losing a fight nine times out of 10. That seems to happen whenever I return to BF3 after a long hiatus.

By contrast, CS is totally egalitarian. Everyone has access to the same items, and players aren’t ranked. Nobody cares if you play four hours a day, seven days a week. All that matters is how well you negotiate the next firefight. You might take out half of the enemy team… but then again, a much less skilled player might blind you with a flashbang grenade and unload his top-of-the-line shotgun into your skull. It’s not unusual to see a good player climb to the top of the scoreboard only to decline back into mediocrity. In CS, skill and alertness are your primary weapons—and when you get tired, there are no unlockables to help you keep your edge.

That’s not to say CS takes the alertness requirement to an uncomfortable extreme. I gave up on the Modern Warfare series a long time ago for that reason: multiplayer skirmishes are just too damn fast and hectic. Drop your guard for a microsecond, and someone is guaranteed to air out your skull with a few well-placed bullets. That kind of constant stress gets exhausting after a while. In CS, Valve has tuned the cadence and pacing almost to perfection. Some rounds are fast and intense, while others go on for several minutes, with two or three surviving players hunting each other in a deadly game of cat and mouse. Players are encouraged to retreat and flank enemies, too, so some battles are interrupted and resumed elsewhere, with wounded combatants quietly sneaking around, trying to get the drop on each other.

CS:GO is just loads of fun. I can jump in anytime I want, play for a few hours, and then quit until I feel like playing again. I never feel an obligation to grind my way through defeat after defeat just to catch up to other players. Nor do I find myself suppressing the urge to play because I know I’ve fallen too far behind.

Before I sign off, let me address why I think CS:GO is worth picking up over the classic CS 1.6 or CS:S. Valve hasn’t modernized the basic mechanics or scrapped the classic maps—that would be sacrilege—but it’s made a plethora of little enhancements that, in my view, make the game more modern and enjoyable. For example, players now get assist points when they inflict damage but die before getting a full kill. In older versions of CS, you could get someone down to a single health point and receive zero credit when another player finished him off. No longer.

On top of that, Valve has transplanted the multiplayer matchmaking and dedicated server mojo from its other, more recent titles, so getting into the action (either alone or with your friends) is now much easier. There are new game modes, if you don’t mind the odd departure from the classic formula, and the graphics have gotten a much-needed coat of fresh paint. CS:GO still looks slightly dated next to Battlefield 3, but it’s nowhere near as old-school as even CS:S. Don’t get me wrong; graphics don’t make or break a good game. But that doesn’t mean a little eye candy can’t improve the overall experience.

When I first read about CS:GO, I expected it to be a watered-down, prettied-up version of the original geared toward console players. Now, I see it’s every bit as authentic as its predecessors, and it actually improves upon them in very tangible ways. If you’ve given up on other multiplayer shooters out of frustration—as I almost did—then try CS:GO. Trust me. For $14.99, it’s more than worth a shot—and Steam has it on sale for $11.24 today.

Comments closed
    • TPGTinBad
    • 7 years ago

    I am representing “The Proving Grounds” (http://www.tpgleague.org/)

    The Proving Grounds has been a long standing competitive league community for the Half Life Mod – “Day of Defeat” since 2002.

    We are expanding our League to include Counter-Strike: Global Offensive – Classic Competitive.

    Our CS:GO Classic Competitive League begins January 10th, 2013. There is no registration/entry fee! You are all welcome to play and have fun. Our default match day/time is Thursday @ 6:30pm PST/ 9:30pm EST.

    Match Settings:

    Game Mode – Classic Competitive
    Rounds per Half – 15
    Starting Cash – $800
    Freeze Time – 12 seconds
    Buy Time – 20 seconds
    Round Time Limit – 2 minutes and 0 seconds
    Zeus Weapon disabled
    Players are allowed to carry up to 3 different grenades
    -2 Flash bangs are allowed and are considered to be 1 grenade

    Overtime Match Settings:

    Rounds per Half – 3
    Starting Cash – $10,000

    To sign your team up please visit [url<]http://www.tpgleague.org/csgo/[/url<] Thank you, Tin Bad

    • brookespl091
    • 7 years ago
    • espetado
    • 7 years ago

    “MW: multiplayer skirmishes are just too damn fast and hectic”

    Hear hear. Or we are just getting old, 37 and counting, that actually does have a more profound impact on several aspects of action multiplayers than I like to admit. I was king in BF1 en 2. In BF3 not so much. All others: same feeling as you.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    So, I bought CS:Go when it was on sale today for $7.50 and I’m glad I didn’t pay more for it. While the gameplay is relatively the same as CSS, which isn’t something I mind, it’s still hacked to shit, just like CSS. Took me all of one game to find someone with no recoil, esp, and a tight aimbot (body model to head).

    I guess the best bet for this is to find a server with decent admins, the same as TF2. Valve really needs to step up their anti-cheat game, the same as other game developers.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      You realize that it isn’t that hard to control the fire of the “Big 4” and Desert Eagle to score a headshot? Hell, spray and pray tends to result in headshots at close quarters.

      There are plenty of people online who have spent enough hours homing their speed/accuracy in CS to the point that they can almost pass as an “aimbot”.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        I played CSS for a year and a half nonstop, I have most definitely had my fair share of CS experiences…

        Skill never makes you omniscient. It’s also easy to see a aimbot and recoil compensation when observing first person. It’s very linear and has a very automated quality to it (for instance they get within a certain distance of someones head and the crosshairs snap to it or have a variable aim assist in which it move the cursor to their head instead of instantly moving there). People have variance and don’t always act the same every single time. You don’t become a ‘god’ simply by playing a game for years. The rules of humanity still apply to you.

        Cheating is quite common online, especially in CS, BF, and CoD.

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    I just logged into Steam and CS:GO sells now for 5.49 Euros, offer expires in about 26 hours. Dang that’s a tempting deal even though i don’t particularly like the game, for that price i think you get a lot.

    • Code:[M]ayhem
    • 7 years ago

    More like CS:GTFO.

    CS 1.6 still is the best version

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    just bought it on sale because of your recommendation.

    • Sam125
    • 7 years ago

    Wow I completely forgot about CS:GO. I had originally dismissed it as it was Source based and I really didn’t care for CS:S as the movement, hitbox detection and some other important details felt really wrong to me so it’s great to read that CS:GO is going for a more original CS feel. I suppose asking for a CS 1.3 experience would be asking too much and as I’ve heard that 1.6 is pretty much as good as 1.3 was after the gigantic screwup that 1.4 was… which is the version that caused many of the original player base to leave CS.

    • Xenolith
    • 7 years ago

    CS:GO is 50% off Nov 26-27… $7.50. For the entire CS bundle… $10.

      • TurtlePerson2
      • 7 years ago

      I was very tempted by that price, but I’m not getting anything during this sale. Until I trim my backlog, I’m not buying any games. I’m not giving much up since it will be on sale in a few weeks for Christmas.

    • hasseb64
    • 7 years ago

    Great advice and a very good explanation for shooters in general. I do miss CS, was an early on it late 90ties and then started with others like BF42. Have played BF3 as you and have same experiense.
    I will grab this game for sure, tired of BF3 now, BF42 was a much better and balanced game. Only thing I hate is the need of Steam or Origin or whatever “Shell”

    • Aveon
    • 7 years ago

    Atleast they don’t release another CS every year switching Developers !

    • brucethemoose
    • 7 years ago

    Planetside 2 made pretty much every other shooter irrelevant for me. It made me drop the little bit of CS and BF3 I play on the PC, and drop Halo 4 and COD on the Xbox.

    It seems wrong. Unlike CS, you basically buy essential upgrades with real money, and unlike CS, there are so many things terribly, terribly wrong with PS2. Maybe it’s a phase, but right now, playing CS feels like a chore in comparison.

    • votekick
    • 7 years ago

    I played CS:GO earlier this months and it didn’t tickle my fancy, I played mostly CSS and very little 1.6.

    One thing I did like was the additional grenades, molotov and the decoy, which either block your enemies path or amuses them. The UMP isn’t broken anymore and i believe that added an SMG if thats all i don’t recall I stuck to my usual load out @Krogroth I’m not really the big four fan myself, I’m more into SMGs.

    One thing I did notice was in Aztec didn’t have the ramp down the the water from spawn on the Terrorist side, Italy didn’t have the radio but they did bring back the chickens so I forgive that.

    The player models seem to have a weird posture I don’t know if its just me, and the matchmaking or really joining a friends game which they’re hosting locally and your at a lan… Didn’t seem to be all that foolproof. That and I never worked out how to get Gungame working which is supposed to be built in.

    @sweatshopking the source engine is really isn’t in its 1st version as they keep updating it with new game releases. Orange box in 2006, L4D (2008) got a small jump and then again for L4D2 (2009), Portal 2 (2011), CS:GO now. Releasing a whole separate engine giving it a number, I don’t see why doing that instantly makes it better. Rewriting an engine from the ground up is great but costs more money and the keep improving things anyway which they can then spend that time and money else where.

    In all honestly the game felt like a graphics bump and a few extra guns, I don’t feel it was really worth the $15, and neither did my mate who bought it twice (so his girlfriend could play). I acknowledge that the game is a step forward in several ways but it didn’t warrant another $15 in my book.

      • Washer
      • 7 years ago

      I wanted to say that in comments section filled with trolling or opinions from those who haven’t even played CS:GO that a criticism of the game that’s reasoned and informative like your’s really stands out. You deserve more thumbs up… sadly someone already negated mine.

    • Zenphic
    • 7 years ago

    CS:GO is quite a good shooter indeed.

    • Ngazi
    • 7 years ago

    It’s a good game for people who suck in 1.6.

    • rrr
    • 7 years ago

    “Why CS:GO is the best multiplayer shooter out there”

    No, it isn’t. That’s just your opinion. I, for one (and many other players) prefer more fast paced stuff, like Quake Live, Warsow or old Nexuiz or its fork Xonotic.

      • ncspack
      • 7 years ago

      blog means opinion

      [edited]

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        Plus one.

        • rrr
        • 7 years ago

        It doesn’t make what I said not true.

        • Mumrik
        • 7 years ago

        Yet he presented something as fact in the headline.

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    Key to CS success?

    It is Quake I Rocket Arena with powerful, hitscan weapons and some teamwork thrown intro the mix.

    Give it a “realistic” facade.

    You got yourself Counterstrike.

    I’m never understood the entire craze behind CS. It gets pretty boring fast once everyone has one of the big four (AWP, G3, AK47 and M4) backed by the Desert Eagle. It becomes a twitchy, bunny hopping match on who gets the first headshot.

      • ludi
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]It gets pretty boring fast once everyone has one of the big four (AWP, G3, AK47 and M4) backed by the Desert Eagle.[/quote<] That's a self-inflicted pain, and there's no reason you have to go along with it. You want to see some of those same people get royally miffed, then grab yourself some armor, flash nades, a Scout, and a Glock, and then take people out by alternately blinding them with a well-bounced flash and rushing in to pin them to the wall with a 3-shot Glock burst. If you consistently aim for the chest, then the shots successively hit chest, neck, and head as it pulls back on recoil. Use the Scout as backup for enemies at a distance. Two well-placed scout shots will take out any amount of armor and it really annoys the AWP snipers because the Scout is so much quieter. Why people do the same old boring thing over and over, and then complain that it's the same old boring thing over and over, is somewhat a mystery to me.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        Scout = hard mode, it is inferior to the other sniper rifles and assault rifles in almost every way. You have to make a head shot or bust. Scout isn’t that much quieter than the infamous AWP.

        Glock = worthless POS, it often requires two headshots to score a kill. Desert Eagle is better in every way expect ammo capacity (42 rounds is usually enough anyway). Desert Eagle and ammo are cheap enough that there’s almost no reason to use the Glock.

        The reason why people stick with big 4? They are better than anything else in the game. They are accurate, kill in one heatshot and armor does little to stop their rounds. The progamers stick with M4/AK-47 because they are almost as effective as the infamous AWP for half of the cost, if you are a crack shot.

          • Meadows
          • 7 years ago

          I’ve gotten used to your mixing up “expect” with “except”, but “heatshot” caught me by surprise.

        • Zoomer
        • 7 years ago

        I used to do this back in the day. Pissed the crap out of the AWP campers as it is much more accurate when moving.

        • shaq_mobile
        • 7 years ago

        Scout and pump shotty are the only way to fly. little pew pew and some boom clack clack. anyways, back to natural selection 2 and ps2. 🙂

      • travbrad
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]It gets pretty boring fast once everyone has one of the big four (AWP, G3, AK47 and M4) backed by the Desert Eagle. [/quote<] You've never seen a good player with a P90 I guess. A few of us used to rush with P90s and it was total carnage. The M4 in CS is probably one of the most overrated guns in gaming.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        AK-47 and M4 in capable hands can do the same thing. The difference is that M4 and AK-47 are more accurate (if use them as sniper rifles) and cost the same…..

        P90 = SAW-lite

        Weapon balance hasn’t exist in CS for years. There’s no reason to use Big 4/Desert Eagle combo unless you are strap for cash or simply want to challenge yourself.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Weapon balance hasn't exist in CS for years. [/quote<] ...says the person who probably hasn't *played* it in years either.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            For a game that hasn’t seen changes any significant gameplay changes in years…….

            Most of the patches revolve around fixing bugs with netcode, server and the source engine.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://store.steampowered.com/news/6279/[/url<] [url<]http://store.steampowered.com/news/6510/[/url<] Yup, no game changes there. I only went back until I found a few major changes that actually affected gameplay which was back to September 2011. How many more would I find if I went back 'years'?

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 7 years ago

    I had been on the fence about the game, but I think I’ll pick it up if it’s 50% off during the Steam sale. I played during the beta and it felt too different than Source for me. After spending a lot of time playing Source, I find CS1.6 to be really strange to play. I assume that CS:GO will feel strange at first, but then will become normal after a few hours.

    • Erebos
    • 7 years ago

    The title says best multiplayer shooter and yet Cyril is only looking for a casual shooter. Misleading much?
    And I always thought that the CS franchise is catering towards the e-sports crowd and being very unforgiving to new/casual players.
    Try Planetside 2. It’s free2play, the world is persistent which means you can drop-in/drop-out whenever you want. You can play support roles (engineer or medic) if you want to play casually.

      • Washer
      • 7 years ago

      1. He wants a shooter he can play casually, not the same as a casual shooter. The unforgiving aspect of CS is overcome with skill, in many games it can only be overcome with time (not that I think BF3 falls in that category, just use cover and you’ll do fine in BF3). Which brings me to…

      2. How is Planetside 2 catering to casual players? For one the game is much more complex due to the layers necessary for an MMO. You can play one map of either CS game type and completely understand it. You may suck at the movements or recoil control but the basics of the game are very obvious. Planetside on the other hand is not at all obvious. Aspects of capturing and controlling territory are more in depth than either de or cs game types alone, not to mention the various mechanisms to upgrade your character. Even more I don’t see how medic or engineer would be less difficult or “hardcore” than light, heavy or infiltrator.

        • Erebos
        • 7 years ago

        Planetside 2 can be played casually just as well. You don’t need to know the whole layout of the continent or the capture/control mechanics of bases or grind for weeks to unlock weapons/skills/etc. Just pick engineer or medic, instant deploy at a hotspot and shoot baddies while healing/repairing your teammates, thus playing a support role which IS easier than playing as a lone wolf heavy assault or infiltrator.

        Being a part of such massive battles is IMO tons more satisfying than running around tight maps in CS with just 10 people.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      CS was the epitome of casual shooter, until COD:MW took its place. It has almost no learning curve and it doesn’t require a killer system to play it. It runs fast on hardware that is ~10 years.

      CS is already dead in the e-sport arena.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    No matter how much you play, you never can become omniscient. That is a golden rule and a easy way to identify cheaters. They can’t know what they shouldn’t be able to see, hear, or interact with. BF3 is hacked to shit and probably more to do with your crappy experience then a team worth of ‘vets’ that have played a lot. Playing a lot doesn’t mean you’ll be good at it either.

    I’ve mentioned it numerous times, but you guys REALLY need to try Blacklight Retribution. It has pretty darn good graphics and the gameplay is new and refreshing. If I wasn’t stuck on Natural Selection 2 right now, I’d be playing it. BL:R is free too.

    There is a microtransaction system in the game, but you aren’t required to use money and there really isn’t any ‘grinding’. Normal starting weapons are just as good as weapon you get later on in game. You can unlook premade weapons too instead of customizing your own for quite cheap. Of course all of that can be expedited with money. But it didn’t take me long at all to unlock my loadouts and I had fun all the while playing.

    Really, try BL:R it has old gameplay elements as well as new mixed together quite well.

      • zimpdagreene
      • 7 years ago

      I agree with you on the BF3 hacking. Yes I am one of those level 100s but not with the kills of 75 to 2 or 125 to 10 or even more. The hacking has become norm in it and most hacking know to turn it on and off times. That’s the one problem with making the things on screen look more and more real but the security behind it stays the same. But BlackLight Retribution is something I will try out. O and zimp707 on BF3

      • RMSe17
      • 7 years ago

      I just found Planetside 2, seems like a great FPS.. like combining BF2 and Tribes. And Epic scale.

      • WhatevsBrah
      • 7 years ago

      No grinding?

      Have they gotten rid of that god awful method of making you rent items?

      It was a very good game until i realized the items I “bought” disappeared after 24 hours because i didn’t spend real money on them. Full uninstall right after that.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        You use the pull down box for duration and select ‘permanent’. If you can’t find that I’m not sure anyone will be able to help you.

      • Arclight
      • 7 years ago

      BL:R is ruined by 1 shot kill snipers imo.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t have any problems with snipers, then again I don’t peak corners with a assault rifle that snipers are aimed it. It’s really easy to flank in BLR.

    • wizpig64
    • 7 years ago

    To play devil’s advocate, CS punishes you being bad by limiting what you can buy until you get a few kills. Also, while Battlefield 3 has unlocks, some of the best weapons in the game are unlocked right off the bat (e.g. the m416 for the assault class).

    Just sayin. I love CS and BF equally 🙂

      • sircod
      • 7 years ago

      The starter guns in BF3 are some of the best, even with the stock attachments. The only straight upgrade is some of the equipment like defibs, since you don’t start with them, and some squad perks which are pretty small. But after you spend maybe an hour with each class you are on pretty much equal ground with everyone else.

      It is a poor musician who blames his instrument.

    • Game_boy
    • 7 years ago

    Hopefully it will become a legitimate professional sport like SC2 or Dota2.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      Nope, CS is already dead in the eSport arena. It used be alive back a decade ago.

      If anything COD franchise is the eSport FPS.

        • jihadjoe
        • 7 years ago

        Dreamhack has CS:GO and I don’t see any form of CoD in it.

      • TakinYourPoints
      • 7 years ago

      FPS are boring as spectator events, their long term metagame is stagnant, and the basic gameplay is comparatively shallow. They don’t have the observability or competitive depth that something like Starcraft or DOTA have, which is why FPS won’t have success on that sort of scale.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        Starcraft is pretty shallow into itself. At the high-tiers, it comes down who has the most effective micro-management. The first 10-15 minutes is the most critical part of the game.

        In before, “macro is the only thing that matters” crowd. Macro only matters at mid and lower-tiers. It is assume that you have mastered macro-management when you enter into the higher-tiers.

          • TakinYourPoints
          • 7 years ago

          Complete nonsense, differences in play styles (greedy vs tech vs all-in, etc) still determines who wins games and under which circumstances (combined with race match up, of course). Execution of macro is obviously better at the highest leagues (you’ll spend money even in the middle of an engagement, you won’t get supply blocked, etc), but that great execution frees up players to do [i<]actual strategy.[/i<] Superior micro alone generally doesn't win games, not unless we're talking about specific things like defending early rushes or all-ins. Games that seem determined by micro were actually determined long before with the chosen strategy (ie - losing an army due to micro didn't really lose the game, it was the decision to sacrifice economy for an earlier push and now he's screwed because he cannot remax his army like the opponent with the stronger eco and production).

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            Starcraft’s strategy is shallow and basic. The most strategy involve is what kind of build order you want to go with and when to create your first expansion (first 15 minutes of the game). The rest of game revolves around tactics and micro-management.

            The difference between Bronze/Sliver league and Platinum/Diamond league is micro-management. They can use units that are cumbersome for novice players (Ghosts, High Templar, Banelings, Ravens etc.) to devastating effectiveness.

            If you think Starcraft is “deep”, then you haven’t play an actual strategy game (Civilization, Europa Universalis, Total War series.)

            • TakinYourPoints
            • 7 years ago

            There is a very fast (I’d argue the fastest of any game) action element to RTS, thus limiting the type of depth you’d see in those other games you mentioned. It doesn’t make the game shallow though, over 10 years of shifts in Brood War metagame and SC2 still being figured out is proof of that.

            Also, the difference in higher leagues isn’t micro, it really does come down to superior macro and playing properly to the match-up. A lower league player can micro ghosts just fine but he will get hitched up his on macro (not having a good economy, getting supply blocked, not scaling up production or tech to match increasing income, etc). Guaranteed.

    • moriz
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]I was playing Battlefield 3 with a buddy of mine, and we were both getting slaughtered by a whole team's worth of veterans—you know, those folks with the golden eagles next to their names and every unlock in their arsenals.[/quote<] hardly. you and your friend were getting beaten because your opponents are better shooters, not because they have more unlocks. after all, the best weapons for all the classes (except recon, SKS) are the starter ones. having more unlocks mean jack shit.

    • Turiel
    • 7 years ago

    The golden eagle next to their names and having every unlock in their arsenal means jack shit. Be assault, pick a fast RPM gun, learn its recoil, and that’s really all that you need in BF3 to own. Don’t blame it on the rank, don’t blame it on the unlocks, because the only thing that I need to go 100-20 on TDM or 50-10 on CQ (PTFO/Points MVP is a given) is an M16A3 with heavy barrel and kobra sights and my head.

    The game is broken in a LOT of ways, but “unfair advantage to newer/irregular players because of ranks and unlocks” is the pettiest excuse of those who simply suck at the game. Look at the popular BF3 youtubers, they’re not even the best available out there of the pros, and even they can own with shit guns with NO unlocks and WITHOUT cheeky editing.

    • Meadows
    • 7 years ago

    Good god, people. The same maps in the same game for 13 years. Aren’t you bored of it? No? Not even a tiny bit?

    Incomprehensible.

      • Vaughn
      • 7 years ago

      Disagree meadows!

      I’ve been an on and off cs player for many years now and took a long break from source before picking up GO two weeks ago and enjoying it alot.

      What I think you and the people that share your opinon is missing is CS for me as has always been about the game play and the community that is what keeps me coming back for more. I don’t really care that is the same maps that is not what drives me to play.

      CS still has a formula which works and its why people are still playing it and thousands of them.

      And I think this articles touches on it nicely. I find its a great game for adults because I can just come home from work jump in a server frag for a few hours then go on with my life. If I don’t play the rest of the week then come back the next week I haven’t really missed a beat. I’m from ontario and I play on the Darkly and WTF servers as my favourites as most of the players are local from toronto so it has that sense of community I don’t get in other games.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        You’re free to disagree. The “CS community” had already peaked and it’s only a matter of time before activity dies out completely.

        How much time, you ask? That’s the million dollar question at this point.

          • Vaughn
          • 7 years ago

          And how do you know it has already peaked?

          Do you currently play CS?

          • Arclight
          • 7 years ago

          Personally i believe they screwed up with CS:GO, hopefully the next installment will truelly be something new. I want a jump as spectacular as the one from 1.6 to Source and new maps that really work with the new engine. Just take a look at de_assault, it worked great with 1.6 but on Source it wasn’t that played since Terro had a clear advantage since indoors it was much harder to spot enemies than it was in 1.6 due to the added eye candy.

            • TurtlePerson2
            • 7 years ago

            I had kind of figured that CS:GO was the Condition Zero for Source and that the CS on the next engine would be truly special. Cyril’s post makes it seem like this is much better than CZ was.

            • Vaughn
            • 7 years ago

            I went from condition Zero to Source which was a large jump. The jump from Source to Go isn’t as large but Go is far better than Zero ever was. For 15 bucks I can’t see how you can go wrong. The graphical update alone and the map tweaks are worth the money.

            I spent a week going back and forth between go and source before I uninstalled Source and it does take abit of adjustment at first but best 15 bucks I spent this year other than Torchlight 2 which was a few bucks more.

            And most of the people i’ve spoken with say GO is closer to 1.6 than source ever was that is a subjective opinion of course.

          • travbrad
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]The "CS community" had already peaked and it's only a matter of time before activity dies out completely.[/quote<] It may have already peaked but it's still doing extremely well. If you combine all the CS games it's the 2nd most played game on Steam (only 2nd to Dota 2). Being the 2nd most played game on Steam is a long way from "activity dying out completely". I haven't played CS in years and didn't buy CS:GO, but to say the community is dead is ignoring reality. There are more people playing the original CS than are playing most new games.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            CS is only alive because of the low requirements in hardware and learning curve.

            Hardware from 2000-2001 can handle CS decently. The game comes down who point and shoots the quickest. Most of the maps rarely reward tactics and teamwork.

            The people who used to rock on CS back when it was new hotness already move onto other stuff.

            COD franchise already replaced CS as the popular online FPS. It is kinda depressing that COD MP is just CS MP with more eye candy and “achievements”.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            You do realise the difference between “dead” and “dying”, right? I very clearly remember typing “dying”, and I even added that I can’t know [i<]how long[/i<] that process will be drawn out. The point of the whole thing is that CS will never be as popular again as it once was.

            • travbrad
            • 7 years ago

            I agree it will probably never regain the popularity it once had. I just don’t think “dying” is the best word to use for a game that is still one of the most played games on PC. CS is “dying” in the same way someone who just had their 40th birthday is “dying”.

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      Chess has had the same map for who knows how many hundred years.

        • travbrad
        • 7 years ago

        That king is a camper too.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          He’s the worst kind – a spawn camper!

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    BF3 is best. All unlocks does not matter. Your best weapon is your head, so you must use it very effective, to be at top of the list, than on the bottom. Weapons are well balanced, and none of them (unlocked or not) allow you to wipe out enemies with few clicks without thinking. Try to carefully analyze maps, construct your own tactic, and use it without exceptions. Blind running player without tactic is best target.

    • Xenolith
    • 7 years ago

    CS:GO is a good game. Agree with Cyril that this game is just right for the occasional gamer. I get my ass handed to me in BF and CoD games because I don’t have the commitment. I am below average on CS games, but I am at least competitive.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    The original CS mod for HL1 was the best, especially on a LAN with no lag or hackers.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      I miss the scope on the M4. 🙂

    • sweatshopking
    • 7 years ago

    I’VE NEVER UNderstood the attraction to CS. maybe there is something i’m missing. if you like just pick up and play shooters than quake live is free, and it doesn’t look much worse. i can’t imagine spending 15$ on a source game. that engine is so old they should pay me to play on it. i know, i know, “WTF SSK!!!! STUPIDS GUY!”, but i just can’t do it. I don’t really play any shooters these days, having most of my gaming time switched over to strategy, but my point remains, i’ve never understood what people see in CS (except hacking, which was HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!)

      • Washer
      • 7 years ago

      Nice attempt.

        • jihadjoe
        • 7 years ago

        Challenge: Keep SSK’s post at 0

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 7 years ago

          Burn the troll.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            ATTENTION MAKES ME 🙁 DOWNVOTES BREAK MY HEART. THAT WAY I KNOW NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO ME.

      • willyolio
      • 7 years ago

      teamwork, strategy, reward for good performance, tension that comes from watching your teammates try to win after you die.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        >nope.avi

        >typical CS match

        >1337 hax0r buys AK-47/M4

        > constant knife, Deagle, AK-47/M4 swapping

        > camps at “safe” spots

        > Headshot, Headshot, Headshot, Headshot

        > “OMFG!!!! HAX0R!” “OMFG LAG”

        > “STFU, YOU 12 YEAR OLD FAGGOTS! I RAPE YOU MOM!”

        > Terrorist/Counter-Terriorist Win!

        rinse, rise and repeat…..

        Progamer matches end-up being the same minus the aimbot.

      • cegras
      • 7 years ago

      So for you, graphics is the most weighted factor in determining game quality?

        • Washer
        • 7 years ago

        SSK is trolling, all SSK is capable of is trolling.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          it’s not trolling at all. why the heck would you pay 15 dollars for an engine from 2005 marketed as new? i’m not trolling at all. quake live is free, it’s free because it’s too damn old to pay money for that same old game. I don’t know why anyone would pay 15$ for ANOTHER rehash of the SAME game on the SAME engine as the last one.

          I find CS like playing quake live, an old game, on a tired engine while the industry has moved past it. i just don’t understand why you’d pay money for this.

            • cegras
            • 7 years ago

            There’s a pretty large difference between CS:GO and Quake Live. I’m assuming GO is made on the orange box engine which despite its age still looks good enough.

            QL is also monetized.

            I’m not sure what you mean by ‘moved past it’? Game mechanics are forever.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            You’re trolling. Your posts only purpose is to anger. You made a comparison graphically between Quake Live and CS:GO, that’s laughable. It’s a statement only made by a massive idiot (which… I’m slowly starting to think you may be) or for trolling. The continued insistence that Source is the “SAME” as it was in 2004 now in 2012 is also only a statement made by a idiot, troll, or both. With each Valve game release the graphical improvements are obvious. Even between Portal 1 and 2 you can see a marked improvement. You decide what label fits you.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            please compare it to a new engine like frostbite. its 2012. source is awful
            it was hyperbole but my point was valid

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            I play games. Counter-Strike has not been made with Frostbite. You have no point. there is no alternative way to play the best version of CS yet, CS:GO. I don’t care what engine a game is made with, just the quality of gameplay matters.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            pay me 25$ and ill sell you some awesome Atari roms. revolutionary gameplay!

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            The game engine can effect gameplay. Physics being a very tangible example of this.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            You can subscribe to Quake Live for actual money, but do you know what you get for that? A ton of maps and you can make your own clan too.

            What do you have in CS? The same three maps you had a decade ago, and the same four weapons with nine different skins.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        Someone ‘mentions’ old graphics > next person says graphics don’t matter at all and the opening persons opinion is flawed because they even looked at it

        A lot of things in the source engine are old, not just graphics… such as physics, being able to actively edit and change the game while it’s running, optimizations for multi-threading… I’m sure there are a lot more differences between Source and say the Frostbite 2 or Crytek 2 engine, but I’m not a coder so I can’t pull them out.

        It isn’t just about graphics, sometimes game engines do get old and they were made for technology over a decade ago.

        And I know this is just going to add fuel to your ‘omg he mentioned graphics, lolol graphics don’t matter’, but graphics do matter. They most definitely add to immersion and things like physics I really do appreciate, but are still quite undervalued.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Thumbs up. Seems like Valve’s RDF keeps flying through other people’s heads.
      The best multiplayer game I’ve played continues to be Enemy Territory and subsequently Quake Wars.
      Battlefield 3 is great for massive online wars (as was BF: Bad Company 2), but the enemy territory games valued teamplay in a way that I never saw in any other game. It didn’t matter if you were a great fragger or simply great at your class’s “missions”. If you didn’t play as a team, you and your team would lose. Every map had its own dynamic, with different objectives and I’m not talking about getting object from A to B kind of objectives, I’m talking about rather complex ones. And all of those were related to the “small” story of the Strogg’s invasion. All in all still the multiplayer game I’ve played the most due to how enjoyable it was. BF3 looks great, plays great, but it’s different…and it tries to be more realistic, which is something I’m not that fond of. CS never appealed to me either and just like you I can’t get past how horrible the Source engine looks. This is 2012 and there are plenty other games that offer much more and look much better…and for less money…

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      Because it has almost no learning curve and doesn’t need a killer rig to get a playable experience.

      It is nothing but point and shoot. “Spray-N-Pray” is surprisingly effectively. The only difference from “n00bs” “CS progamers” is speed/accuracy.

      • TheEmrys
      • 7 years ago

      I guess you haven’t realized that there are constant updates to the Source engine, with another biggie coming. Its changed all the old games, including my favorite, Day of Defeat: Source. Valve just keeps updating its Source engine to the point where it really isn’t the same any more. When TF2 came out, they updated DODS and CSS, without even breaking the old maps.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        i realize there are constant updates to the source engine. heck, COD runs on a modified Q3 engine. that doesn’t mean it’s a current engine. it’s not. it’s old, and has poor physics, graphics, and this version of CS is running on the SAME ENGINE as the last one, USING THE SAME MAPS AND GUNS. why is that worth money?

          • Washer
          • 7 years ago

          More complete nonsense. Call of Duty does not run on a modified Quake 3 engine. None of the code is the same. It’s been myth for multiple releases now. Even if it did contain some leftover Quake 3 code, if 98% of the code based had changed then it’s a new engine. It would misrepresent it by calling it old or calling it the “SAME” engine.

          There are new maps, game mods, and guns. Tweaks have been made to the classic CS maps both visually and in layout. It would not be worth $60 or $30. But $15? Yes, I consider it worth it and so do many others. I don’t care if you disagree, what I care about is you continually lowering the quality of discussion by being a relentless troll.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] none of the code is the same [/quote<] you sure about that? you don't care if i disagree, but my points are worthless? not trolling, here's why CS:GO seems like a waste of money to me: outdated graphics, same old gameplay, changes not enough to warrant another purchase, obnoxious fans. obviously people like it. people also like anime. doesn't mean it makes sense.

            • LostCat
            • 7 years ago

            Some of it does! I used to like anime. By which I don’t mean Evangelion.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            See my response to Krogoth for proof. The same point goes for you.

            You don’t even realize when you’re trolling I guess. Your last line is pure troll. You can’t stop doing it. It’s pathetic.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            obviously my last line is troll. the others weren’t.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            COD has been running on a heavily modifled Q3A engine since forever. The reason? Cost and the engine can operate effortlessly on current generation of consoles. This will change once next-generation consoles get here.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/MW3-Development-Process-Graphics-MP[/url<] [url<]http://beefjack.com/news/modern-warfare-3-puts-fun-over-fancy-graphics-infinity-ward/[/url<] The code has all been changed. Regardless, even if only 70% of it had been changed calling it a "heavily modified Q3A engine" would be stupid over simplification.

    • mockingbird
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t like the feel of CS:Source and if CS:Go is anything like it, then it’s still not as good as the original CS.

    I’ll tell you why:

    The original CS had large maps. Even re-make maps like those pictured above (Which are cs_office and cs_italy I think) are much smaller in actual space size because they have to compensate for the higher strain on the GPU by shrinking the map. As a consequence “pathways” are set out which the player feels he must follow and the feeling of the ability to roam independently and freely is lacking.

    In CS:Source, there are two pathways set out for each team, and one player chooses which group to follow at the begining of the round. The gameplay isn’t appealing at all.

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      Italy and Office are identical in 95% of ways to their originals. They tweaked like the most minor things. The maps are not shrunk. If instead you complained that Valve didn’t release a version of de_rats or something… then I would point you to the fact that was a map mod.

      • bcronce
      • 7 years ago

      Anyone can make a new map and host it. If you’re complaint is maps, then blame the community.

      The most iconic maps were always the more limited ones where it forced people to engage in a short amount of time.

      My opinion, but I played CS since its first public beta but have taken a few year break since CS:S came out and jumping into CS:GO has been a blast from the past. My first experience of CS since CS 1.6 and it has bee nothing but fun.

      I do agree with most of your points, but I don’t fully agree with your summary. To each their own.

        • shaq_mobile
        • 7 years ago

        lol fy_iceworld.

      • Washer
      • 7 years ago

      Huh? Your GPU strain theory makes zero sense. Maps like cs_office and cs_italy and de_dust and de_dust2,etc, etc. are basically identical. In fact, maps like de_dust have be given more paths (de_dust is now actually a semi-balanced map). There has been no shrinking on remade maps and the maps chosen to be remade are done so out of popularity. GPU strains is zero issue, CS:GO flies on basically any remotely modern computer.

      Even CS:S on release performed very well on the low end cards released around the same time. Maps that were remade were not smaller at all. The Source engine even early on scaled very well on low end hardware.

        • mockingbird
        • 7 years ago

        No, the layout of the maps might be the same, but the maps are condensed dimension-wise. The hallways are narrower and corridors shorter… Yes, modern hardware would have no problem with playing the full-size maps with the updated graphics, but they have to appeal to people who are going to play this game on their laptops with integrated graphics.

          • Washer
          • 7 years ago

          CS:GO runs fine on integrated graphics. Your theory is crazy, move on.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 7 years ago

          While the FOV may have changed to make your perspective feel different between engines the actual geometrical distances in most maps is actually near identical and has not changed in a way that could impact gameplay as you have proposed.

            • mockingbird
            • 7 years ago

            I haven’t tried CS:Go, but cs_assault on Classic CS is vastly larger than cs_assault on Source. Not to mention the preset paths you basically have to follow on the Source version.

            I don’t think the Germans behind CS have been innovative at all with it, instead they have been obsessed with the process of the design, micromanaging the weapon balance to no end according to their faulty logic, . They have fallen into the trap of allowing the programmers to design the product. In the late 90s, a rag-tag team of modders released a very entertaining game. Fast forward to today, CS and their multi-million dollar budget only results in them ultimately releasing lacklustre products.

            Not to let CS off easy, TF2 is not any better… I was playing a TF2 mod in 2000 called NeoTF, which was more entertaining then than anything out there today.

            It’s time to mod the “mods”.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            That may be the case with cs_assault but your theory as to why they’re different is bogus.

            I have zero clue what you’re talking about with “the Germans behind CS.” Also, I find it odd how you can make a decision about a game (CS:GO) without having played it. But hey… you seem to enjoy making stuff up.

            • mockingbird
            • 7 years ago

            I was mistaken in thinking that it was designed by German modders… Maybe because the domain that hosted the mod back in the day was counter-strike.de

            Anyway, I don’t LIKE CSS, and I don’t like CS:Go and nothing you’re going to say or do will convince me otherwise. CS Classic is still very entertaining if albeit a bit outdated. Valve still allows all the spoofers to flood the master browser servers so that it is impossible to get into a normal game.

            There’s a reason why the majority of gamers have abandoned the PC as their gaming platform, and it’s not because companies like Valve or Blizzard have been creating successful games.

            • Washer
            • 7 years ago

            You said above you haven’t played CS:GO. Interesting how you already know you don’t like it. Even more interesting is that you already know you wouldn’t like it if you did play it, since you seem so attached to your opinion (about a game you haven’t played).

            • jonjonjon
            • 7 years ago

            when i play CS it feels like im playing a 10+ year old game. after playing cod and battlefield CS just cant compare. its clunky and you cant even aim down your sights. its 2012 not 1995.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve always been a very casual gamer. I’m mostly a “hop-in, play a few hours” then be done with it kinda player, so I’ve never been interested in multi-player ranking games.

    I’ve always enjoyed CS and I don’t play enough to notice the little differences like weapon recoil between versions.

    • squeeb
    • 7 years ago

    Yea its a good game..need to play it more. You can’t go wrong for the price. When I fired it up this past weekend, my exact thought was I just want to get a few quick rounds in (and why I didn’t load up BF3 at the time).

    • cegras
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<] I gave up on the Modern Warfare series a long time ago for that reason: multiplayer skirmishes are just too damn fast and hectic. Drop your guard for a microsecond, and someone is guaranteed to air out your skull with a few well-placed bullets. [/quote<] I'm pretty sure this happens all the time in CS too, in fact, it should be even more stressful. Also, someone needs to confirm: I heard they changed the recoil and accuracy model to DoD style.

    • Duck
    • 7 years ago

    I played CS:GO back in the beta. I hated the game so much. I hated what HPE had done to it. I thought they had butched it was my overall feeling. As if no one at HPE plays any CS at all. I’ve written before in the TR comments on the subject. But I’m trying not to get into a lengthy rant about everything wrong with the game this time.

    If you have CS:S and like it, I strongly advise you to play some CS:GO before you waste your money on it. If you have neither game, my vote would still be with CS:S. But it’s not really as good as it used to be, so it’s getting harder and harder to recommend.

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    [quote=”Cyril Kowaliski”<]Somehow, the game felt both weirdly alien and tantalizingly familiar.[/quote<] I tryed CS:GO during the weekend freebie a few weeks ago and i must say that this was the biggest thing that bothered me. After playing CS:S for so many years i totally forgot about CS 1.6 that the weapons (somewhat even movement?) copies. It's not bad, but i totally forgot about those mechanics and got too used with the CS:S physics and what not. [quote="Cyril Kowaliski"<]Trust me. For $14.99, it's more than worth a shot—and Steam has it on sale for $11.24 today.[/quote<] Oh teh pun. Yeah the price is more than fair for what you get. My biggest gripe though was the insane recoil when you tried to spray and pray and the consolized buy menu (it no longer features the "Save" thingy for ultra quick buy, i usually configured B+G to buy deagle and armour among others, it just became secound nature and i miss that option) and also the controller settings in the menu turned me off. Overall if you don't view the minor consol-ish tweaks as sacrilege, as i do, it's a pretty good game.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      ‘Insane recoil’ was always part of CS to make it ‘more realistic.’ Controlled burst spray is much more accurate but it should vary by weapon – assault rifles ought to have more spray recoil than an SMG for example. Unless you mean the spray recoil is worse in CS:GO? If they really wanted to go for realism then weapons would all have a burst fire mode anyway and not just be full auto but oh well.

      One bad thing I’d heard is that Valve intentionally made the weapons ‘more equal’ so that there weren’t just a few good weapons to use. I understand that from a gameplay perspective but it makes spending more on a weapon mean less and makes for less true variety. It’s like socialism for guns :p

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        I do not consider the recoil in Cs 1.6 or CS:S insane, quite the contrary. What i’m saying though that it’s broken in CS:GO for many weapons, so much so that i saw many people playing straight up just with SMGs and they were actually doing better.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    I still play CS:S, mainly for the reasons you said regarding CS as a ‘better’ FIRST Person Shooter than other MMO-wannabe FPSes. The graphics don’t bother me, but I’ve been around computer games forever. It made me sad when CS:GO came out though because so many people stopped playing CS:S killing server populations by splittnig the game audience. The reason I haven’t picked up CS:GO yet is for custom maps. I make it a habit to seek out servers that run custom or community maps – playing the same maps over an over gets old. I’ll probably get it when it’s $10 or less 🙂

      • Arclight
      • 7 years ago

      It’s 8,24 Euros right now, isn’t it the same but in dollars in the US?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        It is indeed on sale for $11.24…I guess I stopped reading before the last sentence in the review haha. It isn’t on the Steam Store front page as a ‘deal’ so I hadn’t seen it as on sale on my own. *It is now in the ‘top sellers’ list if you scroll through them. There is also ‘Counter Strike Complete’ for $15.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This