Counter Strike: Global Offensive Available for Pre-Purchase on Steam

[Mindweaver]

I've had, "BOOM HEADSHOT!" in my head since the sale started.. I'm buying this just on the sheer fact of all the intellectual grown up conversations that will be going on during game play! and the artistic sprays! hehehe

[NAVI_Z]

can't wait to get my hands on this! been playin cs since v1.0 in 99'. i still play cs.s today. zombie mod is a lot of fun! can't beat the price of $13.49. hope to c all of you guys and gals on the 21st! frag ya later!

[TheMailMan78]

No destructible environments? Not worth it.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

No destructible environments? Not worth it.

how many times have you played an old classic, only to wish for the game to have updated engine/graphics/net code, while leaving the gameplay intact?


valve has done it, and at a cheap price too.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mussels

how many times have you played an old classic, only to wish for the game to have updated engine/graphics/net code, while leaving the gameplay intact?


valve has done it, and at a cheap price too.

Quake 3 redone in the Tech 5 engine would still be Quake 3. Its not 1999 anymore. My days of rocket jumping in static environments are over. If it was a platformer sure. That's what they have ALWAYS been. I can dig a cheap remake of Mario Bros. But an FPS is a different animal. Its evolved. I can't play an FPS anymore multi-player unless it has destructible environments.

I think its gonna be so cheap because they know with todays culture its popularity will be short lived in the mainstream. Valve isnt selling it cheap because Gabe is such a nice guy. They are selling it cheap because thats all its worth.

[Mussels]

i'm not saying new games arent needed, or less fun. i'm just saying that people DO want cheap remakes of their old classics, without the bugs and glitches.

[kiddagoat]

All I hear is bitching in this thread...... This is CS... not BF, not CoD, not Quake..... stop comparing it to these games. It is a different kind of game.

No destructible environments? Who cares really... I mean with BF3 it is all the same animation no matter where or how you hit the buildings, they all fall the same way.

Different feel and mechanics to CoD..... Thank whoever you worship/pray to, it is a good way to rid yourself of franchise fatigue and the ass-raping of your money that CoD has become. Besides everyone knows CoD pretty much ripped one of their multiplayer modes off of CS entirely... Search and Destroy anyone??

CS is a staple classic that most of us have been playing for almost 10 years... and well some longer than that. The tactics and strats that can be come up with are an amazing element. Can't do it in CoD, too many campers with OP inventory items and killstreaks. Can't do it in BF, too many vehicles, maps too big, not really geared towards the close quarters of 5v5.

Valve got the input from both CS:S and 1.6 competitive communities in an attempt to bridge the gap between them.

Thanks to a fellow member of TPU, I have a CS:GO beta and I have been playing it.

They up-scaled the visuals, tightened up the controls and mechanics, tweaked the hitboxes, and redid some the maps.

This was made for the fans of CS and is catered towards them. Not the CoD kiddies that just wanna spray, talk like big boys on voice communications, and brag about their broke ass killstreaks. Not the BF kiddies that enjoy the super over the top effects, bullshit aim and hitboxes, running stuff over with vehicles and destroying the whole map. CS:GO holds onto the roots of CS, and if you haven't played it yet, then STFU and GTFO of this thread.

Flashy graphics and DX11 do not make a game. Console ports if done properly and well can be a good thing... look at Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Don't hear too much bitching about the console foundation of those games. Some of you guys are ridiculous in your expectations and what you feel is a good game. Do any of you know how to program? Do any of you realize what goes into making a game? Because if you do, you would appreciate what the developers do more than anything. Not just some couch developer that trolls around internet forums bashing works of art for the sake of bashing.

If they make a game that maxes out hardware such that only about 10% of machines can play it, a select few of the PC Gaming community bitch. If they make a game that has bad graphics, a select few of the PC Gaming community bitch. The current engine scales well and for those of us with the higher end machines do have some eye candy to look at. The game is still very playable and enjoyable at most resolutions and looks good.

If you love CS, whether it be 1.6, CZ, or Source, you will love and enjoy GO. The aiming and some of the new guns might throw you off for a bit, but it will come. It's just like riding a bike.

CS was indeed in need of an overhaul and the community too divided. I hope this does bridge it all together.

[RejZoR]

Originally Posted by Mussels

how many times have you played an old classic, only to wish for the game to have updated engine/graphics/net code, while leaving the gameplay intact?


valve has done it, and at a cheap price too.

I'm willing to pay FULL PRICE if anyone delivers me a total graphics refresh of the System Shock 2 and Need for Speed Hot Pursuit (1998), High Stakes and Porsche 2000. Just completely retouch of maps and tracks and new graphics engine. No changes to gameplay, story or anything else.

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I'm not sure if they released CS 1.6 or Source on consoles, not that I can remember anyway. But I'm sure they took note of the PC market when they started development on the game seeing as though CS was born on the PC to begin with. I kept going over my friend's house to see him play because I didn't get into the beta, but from what I saw, it looked promising. And when it comes out, it'll confirm everyone's expectations about the game.

I know Source was back on the original Xbox. I wanted it until I found out that it was online only and I had dialup so I coudlnt get it.

Dont get me wrong, Ive wanted an updated CSS game for years, but GO wasnt what I was expecting. I was expecting a whole new game, revamped graphics (see major overhaul) and all new maps with a few CSS favorites. However, GO could offer all new maps instead of just all revamped CSS maps. I am not sure on that.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by kiddagoat

All I hear is bitching in this thread...... This is CS... not BF, not CoD, not Quake..... stop comparing it to these games. It is a different kind of game.

No destructible environments? Who cares really... I mean with BF3 it is all the same animation no matter where or how you hit the buildings, they all fall the same way.

Different feel and mechanics to CoD..... Thank whoever you worship/pray to, it is a good way to rid yourself of franchise fatigue and the ass-raping of your money that CoD has become. Besides everyone knows CoD pretty much ripped one of their multiplayer modes off of CS entirely... Search and Destroy anyone??

CS is a staple classic that most of us have been playing for almost 10 years... and well some longer than that. The tactics and strats that can be come up with are an amazing element. Can't do it in CoD, too many campers with OP inventory items and killstreaks. Can't do it in BF, too many vehicles, maps too big, not really geared towards the close quarters of 5v5.

Valve got the input from both CS:S and 1.6 competitive communities in an attempt to bridge the gap between them.

Thanks to a fellow member of TPU, I have a CS:GO beta and I have been playing it.

They up-scaled the visuals, tightened up the controls and mechanics, tweaked the hitboxes, and redid some the maps.

This was made for the fans of CS and is catered towards them. Not the CoD kiddies that just wanna spray, talk like big boys on voice communications, and brag about their broke ass killstreaks. Not the BF kiddies that enjoy the super over the top effects, bullshit aim and hitboxes, running stuff over with vehicles and destroying the whole map. CS:GO holds onto the roots of CS, and if you haven't played it yet, then STFU and GTFO of this thread.

Flashy graphics and DX11 do not make a game. Console ports if done properly and well can be a good thing... look at Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Don't hear too much bitching about the console foundation of those games. Some of you guys are ridiculous in your expectations and what you feel is a good game. Do any of you know how to program? Do any of you realize what goes into making a game? Because if you do, you would appreciate what the developers do more than anything. Not just some couch developer that trolls around internet forums bashing works of art for the sake of bashing.

If they make a game that maxes out hardware such that only about 10% of machines can play it, a select few of the PC Gaming community bitch. If they make a game that has bad graphics, a select few of the PC Gaming community bitch. The current engine scales well and for those of us with the higher end machines do have some eye candy to look at. The game is still very playable and enjoyable at most resolutions and looks good.

If you love CS, whether it be 1.6, CZ, or Source, you will love and enjoy GO. The aiming and some of the new guns might throw you off for a bit, but it will come. It's just like riding a bike.

CS was indeed in need of an overhaul and the community too divided. I hope this does bridge it all together.

Its an FPS with modern day weapons on small maps and a dated engine. Its 13 bucks for a reason. Its a throw back to 1999 which is fine. But to call it a "work of art" is a little bit of a stretch. It has nothing new. Just some little bones of new effects......oh wait pretty graphics don't make a game. Why did they update it again? Why not just play the original?.....oh yeah UPDATED graphics to sucker in console players.

But they didn't go far enough because the engine can't handle it. They know this. They know it can no longer hang with the big boys. This is why its 13 bucks. Its a fun revisit to the past. Good for a few hours. Nothing more. That and maybe a little quick cash cow from the console kids. Next up, CS:Global hats for .50 cents. Oooh I can wear a L4D2 Bill hat in CS: Global?!?! (Throws money at screen)

Originally Posted by kiddagoat

No destructible environments? Who cares really.

I don't think its fun to shoot at someone with a 12ga. shot gun and them be able to use the over of a lawn chair to return fire. That was cool in 1999 when going prone was 1337. Not so much anymore.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by CrAsHnBuRnXp

As for the video game developer thing, i didnt say my "passion" for making video games was differernt than that of the developers. I merely said that most devs take shortcuts in doing everything instead of doing it the right way the first time.

Nevermind that all devs have guys above them pushing releases. They are pretty much forced to take shortcuts (not counting indie stuff). Look at Knights of the Old Republic II...

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Originally Posted by Frick

Nevermind that all devs have guys above them pushing releases. They are pretty much forced to take shortcuts (not counting indie stuff). Look at Knights of the Old Republic II...

I wont look at it because I dont play it. I dont follow star wars and probably never will.

Honestly if it was me, id be telling the guys above me that if they want a good quality game that will bring in money because it's not fail with graphics/storyline/glitches, then to stop pushing so hard to rush a game out the door. Thats just me though and I obviously know most devs wont do that.

[RejZoR]

Ordered CS:GO today. We'll see how it plays on 21th...

[happita]

You guys need to look at it this way. When CS 1.6 went to Source, all that changed was the graphics. I don't know much more than that because the game felt very bland and unexciting and so I stopped playing it. But going from 1.6 to GO, besides just the graphics, there are a few changes to the gameplay elements and the buying system. Nothing radically different just like others have said, the devs want to stick to 1.6's original roots which isn't a bad thing. But I hardly think that a graphics upgrade will get lots of people getting this game. It doesn't even compare to BF3 or some of the other amazing non-CoD shooters in this respect. But to each his own I guess

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by kiddagoat

of this thread.

Flashy graphics and DX11 do not make a game. Console ports if done properly and well can be a good thing... look at Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Don't hear too much bitching about the console foundation of those games.

i agree with you for the most part, but goddamn did the batman games (AA mostly) get a lot of gate on PC. the dodgy physX implementation, the restricted graphics settings for ATI/AMD users...


it wasnt a good situation, thats for sure.

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Quake 3 redone in the Tech 5 engine would still be Quake 3. Its not 1999 anymore. My days of rocket jumping in static environments are over. If it was a platformer sure. That's what they have ALWAYS been. I can dig a cheap remake of Mario Bros. But an FPS is a different animal. Its evolved. I can't play an FPS anymore multi-player unless it has destructible environments.

I think its gonna be so cheap because they know with todays culture its popularity will be short lived in the mainstream. Valve isnt selling it cheap because Gabe is such a nice guy. They are selling it cheap because thats all its worth.

You can't play and FPS unless it has destructible environments? Then why did you buy BF3?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

You can't play and FPS unless it has destructible environments? Then why did you buy BF3?

BF3 has destructible environments?

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

BF3 has destructible environments?

That's what I'm asking?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

That's what I'm asking?

Yes. Yes it does.

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

You can't play and FPS unless it has destructible environments? Then why did you buy BF3?

Originally Posted by DannibusX

That's what I'm asking?

No youre asking why he bought BF3 implying that it doesnt have destructible environments when in fact it does.

[happita]

Originally Posted by CrAsHnBuRnXp

No youre asking why he bought BF3 implying that it doesnt have destructible environments when in fact it does.

It didn't seem like he implied it didn't have destructible environments. He was just plainly asking why destructible environments are so special to MM that he won't go out and try other FPS's that DO NOT have destructible environments....like CS:GO.

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Originally Posted by happita

It didn't seem like he implied it didn't have destructible environments. He was just plainly asking why destructible environments are so special to MM that he won't go out and try other FPS's that DO NOT have destructible environments....like CS:GO.

His first statement (at least to me and I assume MM) makes it sound like he was implying BF3 didnt have destructible environments.

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by Mindweaver

I can relate more than I want to remember! I hated being in CAL-M matches that were high stress cause I knew I would be left alive atleast once during the match and have my whole team spec me. I felt so dumb

[Mussels]

no it doesnt. it has destructible buildings, but only some of them. the environment is non destructible.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mussels

no it doesnt. it has destructible buildings, but only some of them. the environment is non destructible.

Trees, craters TONS of stuff.