Gaming Counter-Strike: Global Offensive review

Just a question never played counterstrike and its a while that i played on line but love the idea.
what the best way to start playing

 

I would say this is the perfect CS game for you. For ten pounds it's a great way in for beginners.

 

I read this the other day, but wasn't going to be the first to comment, no sir.

I enjoy this game, granted. But 99%? No logic...at all.

 

I'll pick it up in a sale but only because I still don't know if I'll ever get back into multiplayer gaming, if I still did multiplayer I'd be all over this.

It's about time they given it an upgrade.

 

Think there is actually they don't want a wave of hate coming at them from legions of obsessive counterstrike fans for giving an average or below average score, some CS fans are complete raging nuts.

But besides that it's not a £40 game & priced like an Indy game & it's a huge classic with gigantic player base with good support from steam & without a silly extra system they have to make an extra account for so 99% is actually well justified really, some people will get thousands of hours out of CS so the asking price for the game is absolutely dirt cheap which is a big bonus points element on game scores.

 

99% are you insane the game is terrible its just better graphics and a few new guns that don't differ much from the usual garbage weapons you get in source and 1.6, valve clearly was afraid to try something new because of the whiny bitch-fest fanbase it's acquired over the years a simple concept like aiming down the sights isn't even added (even black mesa source has this feature...) come like....im not arguing cod is better or anything like that but keeping up with the times for simple mechanics isnt going to break the game...much..

 

I'm going to play devils advocate here and question the 99% scoring and bias.

Here is an extract from the end of the MW3 review by bit-tech:

"If frankly compared both to its peers and predecessors, then, it's clear that Modern Warfare 3 is not a terrible game, but its stubborn refusal to improve means that it's been rapidly outpaced even as it retains the moreishness of its multiplayer component. There's no identifiable reason to play Modern Warfare 3 over the earlier titles, and discerning buyers will definitely find cheaper or older games into which they can sink just as much time.

Modern Warfare 3 is ultimately a zero sum game when compared to its predecessors, and the only deciding factor is the disappointing amount of time it's taken to change precisely nothing."

A popular game gets slated for being the same as previous games in the series - 55%

In comparison, the CS GO review finishes by acknowledging the lack of change but then slapping 99% on it! Where is the logic in this?

Now I am not a MW3 fan and I played CS in its varies forms since beta 5.2 and thoroughly enjoyed it BUT to me CS GO is very little more than a make over of an old game with very little in the way of new content. I just can't handle playing 10 year old maps such as dust anymore. OK so the game mechanics of CS are totally different to something like MW but what gives Valve the right to get a 99% score for a game that is pretty much identical to its previous incarnations, yet when the likes of Activision do the same thing and give people what they want, they get a score much less..

I would say mid 80s score is more accurate to acknowledge a game which has super tight game mechanics but has taken over 10 years+ to nail and multiple game iterations with a distinct lack of new content.

One rule for CS another rule for every other game? Easy to jump on bandwagons. I am just putting across an alternative view of the scoring..

 

Because Valve charges 10 GBP instead of 50 GBP for it?

 

You also forgot that Valve don't release it every year.

 

So charging £10 is enough to justify a 99% score? As an aside, according to Bit-tech MW3 was 34.99 when they reviewed it.

 

Plus, Valve doesn't release it as a new game every year.

 

I like how they took gungame and called it "arms race." Good thing I actually like gungame, will probably buy.

 

I agree with this.

I've bought it and its not bad but it does feel like a re-skin of CS:S and not much more.
Imo i'd say its worth £6 not the £12 i paid. Wait for a steam sale people!

I hate the circular buy menu and the fat guns from L4D2..... Deagle the size of a house anyone?

The real question is when will we see DOD:GO!

 

CS:GO brings a slight refresh, a few extra guns and features for £12. I think thats fine tbh. Most common expantion packs also do this, but nobody complains.

MW brought nothing new at all. They charged £30 for nothing new. So it deserved a crap score.

Although 99% is slightly high lol, but ive not played it yet

 

Your comments seem a bit bias. Obviously MW3 had new content in it. I am not going to go out of my way to list them but clearly it had a new single play experience, new multiplayer maps, guns, game modes etc..

CS:GO as far as I am aware was never sold as an expansion pack, even if it was it appears to have less content than the likes of the BF3 expansion packs!

Again just playing devils advocate

 

I think the price is spot on for what it is - I played last night with some guys I've played many an online game with (Battlefield, Modern Warfare included) and we all agree that much fun was had, in fact probably the most we've had in a *long* time. It totally exceeded my expectations.

I am happier that they stuck with the original maps and tweaked them rather than releasing more (and inevitably unbalanced maps). The maps in CS are very varied already but they've still improved the game where it needed it.

At least I feel I got my money's worth and then some, even compared to buying BF expansions, etc

The point about the MW3 review is well made though, perhaps if the price for this were higher for CS:GO it would be a different story. I guess the fact we don't get a new CS every year is a factor too.

 

£10 is a bargain definitely. But I still don't think it warrants the score! I am enjoying it, but from a reviewers perspective, which although is obviously one persons opinion - shouldn't be based on any lasting heritage!

There is the additional content, and again, for ten notes there really isn't a lot to complain about. That said, on the face of it you are talking about an age old mechanic on what is now unfortunately an age old graphics engine. The dated visuals alone should equate to more than the missing 1%.

Also the sound effects are worse than Source, god knows why they felt the need to change some of them.

It's good, and if you're a CS fan it's a cranking buy for the money. But I'd give it 85/90% tops. There isn't anything that will draw new fans in ( the casual game modes aren't exactly something you'll end up spending night and day playing lets face it), just keep the old ones lubed for a few months.

 

I agree with you.

Perhaps one of the issues with this review is, IF Bit-tech think the game is worth 99% then they have not conveyed their reasons effectively. Instead, they have given a very brief high level review. Any game that gets such a high score should have a detailed enough review to justify it.

 

99%. Hilarious.

This game is a refinement of previous versions of CS - arguably a near perfect game before, which is fine. But there must be at least a few improvements?

My big gripe is still the fact there's bugger all to do if you die.

My bigger gripe is that I don't feel it adds any new dimensions to the game from before.

My biggest gripe is the lack of cross platform compatibility. I was hoping for an amusing PC v Console flame war, but more importantly, it means we can't get as many people together on a LAN battle at xmas.

 

No comments about the shitty lobby system? It gives me an error when I try to directly connect to a favorite server 3 times, but allows it the fourth time. Also, you can't keep server browser open in the background. I also miss the auto-join when server has a spot open. Otherwise I like the improved graphics and sound. All the maps will be fixed if they aren't already.