Counter Strike: Global Offensive

[GoGeTa006]

they're not that important to me, but I am surprised, I mean as you said, HL2 and CS:S had amazing graphics for their time, given that I would've assume a development of a new shooter game that is supposed to compete with the big shots COD and BF they would do some extremely nice and appealing graphics. . .given that its Valve and they have enough $$ for it

I mean CS 1.6 > COD and BF (gameplay-wise) . . .and Im hoping they wont disappoint on CS:GO

I already found very disappointing the 5v5 system. . .

Oh, and the 16v16 (or even the 12v12) games of Office or dust weren't clusterfucks and people got multiple headshots not because they were THAT good... but because there was some idiot blocking another idiots line of view. The "smart" players would always take the paths that had the least amount of people. Yet when their entire team dies while rushing, it's now up to 2 or 3 sole players that will slowly get picked off by the defending team! I always found that less players equals better tactics (not always, but slows rushers down a bit), so I think 5v5 caps seems like a good medium. Five people can obviously camp 2 bomb sites but there is no way 5 people can camp all of the routes to get to each bomb site. Happy medium?

I personally like 10 v 10 most or around those numbers, 5v5 I always found it lame since many times one guy could just go trough path X where no one is and plant/save hostages or something lame like that. . .

16vs16 is a little overcrowded, depending on the map tho. . .

5v5 only works in dust prolly. . .

iono just IMO

[mgz]

they're not that important to me, but I am surprised, I mean as you said, HL2 and CS:S had amazing graphics for their time, given that I would've assume a development of a new shooter game that is supposed to compete with the big shots COD and BF they would do some extremely nice and appealing graphics. . .given that its Valve and they have enough $$ for it

I mean CS 1.6 > COD and BF (gameplay-wise) . . .and Im hoping they wont disappoint on CS:GO

I already found very disappointing the 5v5 system. . .

Oh, and the 16v16 (or even the 12v12) games of Office or dust weren't clusterfucks and people got multiple headshots not because they were THAT good... but because there was some idiot blocking another idiots line of view. The "smart" players would always take the paths that had the least amount of people. Yet when their entire team dies while rushing, it's now up to 2 or 3 sole players that will slowly get picked off by the defending team! I always found that less players equals better tactics (not always, but slows rushers down a bit), so I think 5v5 caps seems like a good medium. Five people can obviously camp 2 bomb sites but there is no way 5 people can camp all of the routes to get to each bomb site. Happy medium?

I personally like 10 v 10 most or around those numbers, 5v5 I always found it lame since many times one guy could just go trough path X where no one is and plant/save hostages or something lame like that. . .

16vs16 is a little overcrowded, depending on the map tho. . .

5v5 only works in dust prolly. . .

iono just IMO

5v5 is what is played in competitive play
de_train
de_season
de_nuke
de_tuscan
de_dust2
de_contra
de_inferno
de_russka
is cevo map list for css

most large shitty maps arent played in comp and 10v10 is the kinda of garbage that is played in battlefield with much larger maps

[GoGeTa006]

a friend exchanged 3 DOTA2 beta keys for 1 CS:GO beta key

he says its fkin epic. . .  I WANT NAO!



and BattleField. . .at least the first one. . .it was SOOO boring to play, it would be fun prolly on a 40v40 size server (iono if they exist, i only played LAN)

but seriously on those LANs 10v10 was the max we could get (only 20 computers) and it was fucking lame, you would RARELY find some other human. . .everyone had like super KDR because you could just kill bot's like crazy

[mgz]

a friend exchanged 3 DOTA2 beta keys for 1 CS:GO beta key

he says its fkin epic. . .  I WANT NAO!



and BattleField. . .at least the first one. . .it was SOOO boring to play, it would be fun prolly on a 40v40 size server (iono if they exist, i only played LAN)

but seriously on those LANs 10v10 was the max we could get (only 20 computers) and it was fucking lame, you would RARELY find some other human. . .everyone had like super KDR because you could just kill bot's like crazy

i cant imagine its that epic it looks like updated css from all ive seen

[Slysoft]

an updated version of the greatest fps is fine with me. as long as they don't kill the modding community which really is the reason counterstrike is so good

[metro.]

They've been working really hard to kill the modding community.

[TMRNetShark]

an updated version of the greatest fps is fine with me. as long as they don't kill the modding community which really is the reason counterstrike is so good

Crackhouse with unlimited respawns is soooo much fun.

[anonimouse]

Not looking forward to another generation of hitbox lag.

And it's 2012. Let's be honest, CS:GO looks like garbage compared to even Crysis 2, BF3, H4...

[anonimouse]

Not looking forward to another generation of hitbox lag.
At least in MW3 I can write off the lag compensation as a handicap.

And it's 2012. Let's be honest, CS:GO looks like garbage compared to even Crysis 2, BF3, H4...

[metro.]

Not looking forward to another generation of hitbox lag.

And it's 2012. Let's be honest, CS:GO looks like garbage compared to even Crysis 2, BF3, H4...

It looks like crap, and it doesn't compare gameplay wise to Source, as well as a bunch of the modding community will take time to transfer, and even then it will be quite ineffectual as many have switched over.

And they killed bhopping, which was one of the only reason I played that game like crazy a few years back.