About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Go Back   GameCritics.com Forums > GameCritics.com Discussion > Community User Submissions


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2012, 07:56 AM   #1
New Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 0 GameReviewer122 is an unknown quantity at this point
Please rate This Article - Counter-Strike Global Offensive - Analysis

Global Offensive: Analysis

With just a couple of months to go for the highly anticipated Counter Strike: Global Offensive to come out, the game has attracted both scepticism and eagerness from the gamer community. Is it as good a game as it seems? Or is it all just a money-maker, with little or nothing to add to what many deemed was a nearly perfect game?


Counter Strike is one of the most successful gaming series of all time. In this objective-based multi-player first person shooter, players enter the «terrorist» or the «counter-terrorist» team, and proceed to complete objectives/eliminate the enemy team. Though started as a mod in 1998, it has quickly expanded into a game of its own, and the latest game in the series (Counter Strike: Source) has sold more than 25 million copies.

This game, though, was released way back in 2004 (8 years ago now). And thus, Valve have decided it was high time that a new game in the series was released. But are they correct in doing so?

Is the game any good?

From what the Beta version has shown, this game is going to be a good one; in fact, just as good as Counter-Strike source. But that is what most people are complaining about; it is extremely similar to it. There is little/nothing to add. Yes, it is a good game, probably a great game, but one that already exists. What it lacks was one of the things that made counter strike stand out; innovation. So , whilst it'll be your standard first person shooter, don't expect it to be anything more than that.

Does Valve need a new Counter Strike?

The simple answer is: no, no it doesn't. It will rake in a lot of money, sure, but it is not needed to save the company's reputation or to meet a crying demand from players; though its predecessor (Counter Strike Source) was released a whopping 8 years ago, there has been no clamour for a new version, or discontent amongst the community for the lack of one; unlike the stuff we've seen for Half Life 3. In fact, Counter Strike: Source (CSS) is one of the most played games in Steam, regularly hitting 60 000 players per day (and this does not include the original game). As for creating a new counter strike for competition and professional purposes, CS 1.6 is doing fine; in fact, in the recent tournaments, CS1.6 was used and no complaint was made about it, its graphics, or anything at all.

In fact there is absolutely no plausible reason as to why Valve have chosen to make CS:GO right now (except for money, of course). But if they wanted money, they might as well have made the new instalment in the Half Life series; that is a game that needs a new sequel!

What will it add?

What can one add to what was already a nearly flawless game? Few things, one might assume. Not that Valve hasn't tried; new changes (from what the Beta has shown) include a wider and more varied arsenal of weapons, maps, new game modes, an option to play with consoles (before it was only available for PC) and new graphics.

For the weapons, I must say, Valve has done it right; new weapons not only increase variety, but also vastly affect gameplay, especially if you get stuff such as molotovs and decoy-grenades. But do we really need a whole sequel for this? Couldn't Valve has just done a massive update (similar to the one it did when TF2 went free-to-play)?

With the game-modes, we have a different problem. If a game-variation of Counter Strike is even remotely entertaining, it's in one of the many servers of the current CSS. The game modes exists, all they need is a bit of fine-tuning. And to solve that problem, I say it's better to give the tools to the community; after all, they're the ones experiencing the game first-hand, and are (logically) the ones who know what's most fun and entertaining of all. So wouldn't it be better to invest in a new level editor which is simple to use and user-friendly so that the community can benefit from it?

The only good innovation is the fact that, not only will it be available for consoles, but it will also enable cross-platform gameplay (something which Valve hinted at with Portal 2). Sounds almost too good to be true, right? Well, unfortunately, it is too good to be true. Rumours have it that due to technical difficulties, cross-platform gameplay will be dropped. A pity.

And finally, what is probably the most noticeable change of them all, the graphics. The graphics have been greatly increased, and don't get me wrong, it's a good change. But it doesn't do much if the gameplay is the same. And as the bawdy joke goes, playing a game for its graphics is just as pointless as watching a porn film for its plot.

Will it sell well?

Probably yes, it will sell well. But I think it won't sell as well as many people think it will. After all, Valve is investing a lot of money on a newer but still extremely similar, Counter Strike Source. And, if we assume the price range would be around 49.99$, wouldn't people prefer to buy something for 15$?

Not only that, but it has been proven that people would rather buy older, cheaper games of Counter Strike than the newer version. Pick a random day, and chances are, you'll have more people playing the old Counter Strike (released in 1998) than the most recent Version (released in 2004). If they prefer the 1998 version than the 2004 version, why would they suddenly change and go buy a 2012 version?

Also (assuming ones computer was not the newest), a new graphics card / RAM would have to be invested. Several of my friends are avid CSS players (myself included), and yet none of us are eagerly looking forward to buying it; whether its due to financial problems, lack of equipment, or just a feeling that no one else is going to buy it.


Valve, it is already late in development, and you probably can't halt the production of your newest game. And I know you probably see this as a way in which you can rake in a lot of money. And whilst you are my favourite game developers, I consider this a very, very stupid investment. There are several other things you could be working on instead! Creating a new, better map editor, for one, or what many people feel you should be working on instead, Half Life 2: Episode 3.
GameReviewer122 is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | FAQ | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999-2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.