Dekstar
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 11
[br]The long-awaited Counter-Strike: Global Offensive beta was finally released on the 30th of November, which means those of us with beta-keys have had a little while to kick the tyres of Valve and Hidden Path Entertainment's latest iteration of one of the most played FPS games of all time. We'll get to our impressions in a bit, but first there are a few things you should know:[br]Global Offensive is not CS2; it's more like Counter-Strike: Source 1.6, with bits from both previous games mashed together. Valve saw that Source never got the same competitive backing that 1.6 received due to a number of sad factors, such as the failed DWP (Dynamic Weapon Pricing) system that ended up removing ammo buying altogether, or rampant netcode issues that made the game feel unfinished. More recently, Valve hired Hidden Path Entertainment to try and bring Source into a new era (and engine), and for the most part they have done a very fine job, though it is showing its age.[br]So now there's GO. Valve have refined and streamlined practically everything in an effort to bring the game to consoles as well as the PC while providing a consistent experience between the two.[br]
Frames-Per-Second (FPS) has always been an important aspect of the Counter-Strike series. Part of that is what is keeping 1.6 so popular, as even those with low-end computers can still take part in a very popular game with a thriving online community. In Source, it used to determine how quickly your crosshair expanded and contracted (though didn't actually affect recoil or bullet spread). This was later fixed, but there was still a huge psychological difference to how weapons handled.[br]Dekstar: The game looks gorgeous, even though I'm not exactly running at the highest settings, and I still get 60+ FPS for the most part, which isn't bad considering my laptop's specs. I do get a slight dip when viewing molotov fires, and immediately after being flashed, but otherwise the game runs smoothly.[br]One small detail to note that I do think is awesome (even though it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay) is pools of blood will seep out of dead bodies onto the floor, which adds a nice touch of realism. Also blood-sprays seem a lot more realistic this time around.[br]What I wish Valve will take on board, now that they have forced certain graphical settings (such as bloom and dust) among clients, is making use of these features for tactical advantages and disadvantages. Say a long tunnel section of a map was unbalanced slightly in one team's favour, adding glare into the eyes of that team, slightly blinding them from the other side could even those odds. I have already noticed the dust outside double-doors at A on de_dust is partially obstructing spotting enemy Cts in the sniper nest, which is interesting, as it adds another skill-factor for higher-level players to take into account.[br]Smash: The graphics are rendered beautifully. It?s running on the Dota 2 Source engine build, so it also runs great across a wide range of PC hardware. If you compare CS:GO to the older games, it?s definitely more detailed and shiny. But is that what the 1.6 players want?
[br]
Competitive 1.6 players will argue that detail can detract too much away from gameplay and affects strategic elements. In this case, I can see clearly where a player is at all times, but there?s still an issue of identifying who is friend or foe, which I think is mostly due to the depth fog ? At times you can only see the silhouette of a character from a distance while the details in their clothes are lost. Also, player models are able to hide behind this fog, and the farther they are from you, the easier it is for them to blend in with their background.
[br]
There?s also the issue of the default FOV for the first-person player weapon models. It?s too low. The screen space is slightly obscured because my AK-47 is taking up a quarter of it. You can see why this would be a problem. Here?s a quick comparison of the default FOV from CS:GO to 1.6:[br]
[br]Audio[br]Dekstar: An odd thing about GO is that there seems to be music in casual mode (though not in the proper match mode, thankfully), which is a fairly weird addition, though it doesn't interfere with the round, and only appears in places like round-end.[br]What I do love is the atmosphere. Valve and HPE have really set the bar high this time, making the relatively small maps like de_dust sound much grander in scale. Looking out from double-doors into A, gunfights that were happening around snipers nest had that very bassy far away feel, making it all sound like a real warzone.[br] For Source players, most of the sounds will be incredibly familiar (especially bots, who currently occupy any empty slots on the 5v5 servers), though footsteps do seem a little quiet compared with other sounds. As footsteps and location-awareness is very important in this game, this could turn out to be a good or bad thing. I'd much rather not be deafened by AWP-fire just to be able to hear someone rounding a corner. It is more realistic, however, so I'll leave that opinion for you to decide on.[br]Smash: The ambient portion of the audio is great. It adds immersion to the maps and gives them life.[br] In regards to gameplay, there are a few details to note. When there's a firefight going on in the map, you know just how far it is from your position thanks to the audio, and this is also why decoy grenades are actually pretty useful. And if you are a CT half a map away from a bomb site, you can be sure that you?ll hear the terrorist punching in the arming code as he sets up the bomb. Footsteps are too quiet quiet, in my opinion. The footsteps get lost in the ambient noises and it?s sometimes hard to track them, therefore it's hard to track where your next potential victim might be. In 1.6, footsteps are a signature game feature and they significantly help players with their tactical decision making.[br]Recoil and Weapon Handling[br]Dekstar: I'm actually a bit confused about how the weapons currently feel. I just can't put my finger on it, but they feel a bit weaker, almost like toys. Whether it's because weapons like the AK and M4 don't seem to animate as much during firing, or the physical reaction (or lack thereof) by enemies being shot, but the bullets don't seem to make as much impact. Yeah it's psychological, but it can have an affect on how well you play as a result. Of course, as of writing there isn't a great deal of choice for weaponry, so it's hard to say if this will be true of all guns, so we'll see.[br]One controversial change is to how scopes on sniper rifles work. Basically, when you zoom in using sniper rifles and strafe (commonly in and out of cover) the screen blurs and the scope visibly moves slightly to imitate real-life inaccuracy. My initial thoughts were rather negative of this change, because I thought it detracted from the absolute skill-based previous versions of scopes which just assumed you were some sort of super human whose only faults were with the player using the mouse. After a bit more playing, however, it does kind of make sense. The blur is useful because it tells you visually how inaccurate you're going to be if you fire at that moment, replacing the crosshairs on other weapons. In Source and 1.6, you can't tell when you're going to be most accurate, it is something you have to learn by practice. This makes it not necessarily easier, but more obvious when you should and shouldn't be firing.[br]Another minor irritation (though there are work-arounds) is the size of the weapons. They take up a fair chunk of screen real-estate, and love getting in the way as you're reloading. With the AK47, it almost entirely covers your view as you're switching clips:[br][br]There are console commands which can fix this, luckily, but I do prefer the size and placement of the old Source weapons.[br]One odd thing I have noticed is that it seemed that during the alpha that was being played by the 'pro' teams, they had more weapons options than we currently do. The current beta is for server stress-testing which explains the bareness of the system, but I still find it odd that HPE and Valve decided to lock it down further for the beta's beginning.[br]Smash: Right now some of the weapons feel like cap guns, especially the USP. This could also fall under audio: I think the reason for how cheap they feel is due to their sound effects, and not the recoil itself. This is subjective, but I had better accuracy when I had the game on mute.[br]Also, I?m not a fan of the new crosshair. I can?t put my finger on it, but when I switched it back to classic I let out a sigh of relief.[br]Buying and Menus[br][br]Dekstar: This is a hard one to gauge, because Valve and HPE have said that they're focusing on the console UI first, given that any changes will have to go through Microsoft and Sony once the game is released on consoles. That said, it doesn't seem very keyboard/mouse friendly. The buy menu is radial (seen above) which benefits the stick-based system greatly, but the keyboard shortcuts are, at least for the purposes of this feedback, so different from 1.6 and Source that it's difficult to get used to them. Of course, the new system has its positives. Mainly, the menus now stay open, meaning you don't have to repeat pressing B after buying something, so where buying a deagle and grenade used to be B14B64, the new system makes it B3441. With the new system you also don't need to let go of the mouse, just right click to close the menu after you're done buying.[br]It is important to note that these are probably going to change for PC users when they need to test those menus, but for now, at least with consoles in mind it does seem a lot more simplified.[br]Also of note is that with the simplified buying system, if you play on casual mode, armour is always pre-bought. Valve noted that anyone who knows how to play knows how important armour+helmet is to survivability, but a newer player doesn't necessarily know, so they're at an immediate disadvantage until they learn to buy armour. It has its benefits and drawbacks, but I personally think they balance each other out, so it's not so much of an issue.[br] What does seem an issue though is that defuse kits seem to be in a similar situation, although not everyone on CT starts with them. It seems two people will begin with defuse kits, and it will be up to the team to make sure those kits are well used, should the bomb be planted. It also has its drawbacks, but it would be nice to at least have the option for others to buy kits at their own expense. Obviously in 'match mode', kits will have to be bought just like the other games in the series.[br]Smash: The overall weapon purchasing system is nice. It took some getting used to, but the interface is clean and easy to use. One gripe I have is that the buying interface does not clear like it does in 1.6 after you?ve made a purchase. It sort of takes the fun out of pounding on your keyboard? B ?> 8 ?> 1, B ?> 8 ?> 2, etc. It would be cool if Valve and Hidden Path include a classic interface in the future.[br]Overall[br]Dekstar: Getting past the initial annoyance of the ice-skating and wiggle-walk, and the crashes that are few and far between, I'm actually enjoying the beta.[br]Smash: Overall Counter-Strike: Global Offensive feels very stable and is an enjoyable experience. For one thing it's on the Source engine and that engine has aged well - The graphics are beautiful and it runs fine on all sorts of different classes of hardware. The firefights are fun, but there?s obviously room for tweaking and improvements, but that?s what the beta is for![br]I'm also really interested to see how it plays when the ranking system is introduced, and I'm even more interested in what the cross platform experience is like. I'll be looking at those closely.[br]Conclusion and Final Thoughts[br]Dekstar: This beta already feels pretty solid. Sure there are features and weapons missing, but comparing to how Source began it's a huge step up. An extra map (one of the most popular; de_dust2), more model skins per team (and first-person sleeves that match the models!) and no huge issues like smaller first-person POVs mean it's already got a major head-start. I guess that's a positive of making it more of an expansion to an already pretty polished game. We will have to wait and see if Valve and HPE manage to make it a game that'll kick-start a new competitive game though, as it's too unfinished to tell at the moment.[br]Smash: Does Counter-Strike: Global Offensive have the potential to bridge the gap between CS 1.6 and CS:S players? Will it sell to console players? Well, it?s just too early to tell and I?m no psychic, but I am hopeful.[br]The next article in the series GOing Deep will focus on going in-depth on new updates, tactics, and more!
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hIv0VySk7uE" frame allowfullscreen></iframe>
[br]You can view the gameplay video above (provided by Halflife2.net's own Omnomnick), but here's a quick run-down of the main features:[br]Graphics settings are almost entirely locked down (DirectX 9.0 is the only supported DirectX, for instance) meaning players will be unable to exploit certain graphical quirks that plagued Source (e.g. seeing through doors and crates on lower DirectX levels), and while this does mean there is a higher barrier for entry from PC gamers, at least it will be very pretty and relatively unexploitable.[br]Matchmaking, which you have no doubt seen in any number of recent FPS games, has made an appearance. This button will instantly connect you to other players of your skill-level, meaning there will be fewer instances of being trounced by your enemy. As the game is coming to PS3 as well with cross-play between Mac, PC and PS3 gamers, those using controllers or the Playstation Move(tm) will find that they will be matched with others of similar skill-levels, and not be forced to play at a disadvantage (yes, it is controversial to say that, get over it). Also, Valve have plans for clan-based matches to be easier to find, especially in teams of 5v5.[br]Of interest is a new feature that shows HPE and Valve are interested in making sure players get as much play-time as possible. Should a player die in a casual game which has bots on their team, they have the option of 'possessing' that bot, taking control of it for the rest of the round, or until it dies. I love this idea, because it helps disperse some of the rage of being killed almost as soon as the round begins, having to sit the rest of it out. At least now you have the potential to keep playing. One unfortunate side-effect (which I've yet to see) is that cheaters who are team-killed in order to cut their griefing short now have another potential avenue to continue. Oh well, swings and roundabouts means I think it's a mostly positive change.[br]Weapons, Money, and Accessories have been looked at hard by Valve and HPE. New additions have been made to the arsenal, including molotovs and decoy grenades (which are currently in the beta), as well as some alterations to bring some of the older pistols up to date, and a new taser weapon that is both pricey and difficult to use, used as a 'show-off' weapon for players who want to make a point.[br]Physics are also simplified. When Valve were showing off Counter-Strike: Source before its release, they made a big deal about barrels and other physics objects, which could be affected by players and explosions. Unfortunately, in-game, said physics objects were more often a hindrance to players, who would often bounce off a barrel rather than run into it, causing a lot of irritation among players. Now, while physics objects such as barrels still absorb bullet damage, they are now completely static.[br]All of these changes are to put emphasis on the game being more for e-sports and teams, which is good if you want to play a well-balanced game with your friends.[br]But you've read all that already in our previous coverage of the game. What's it actually like? For this section, my opinions are from the perspective of a Source player. I've been playing regularly since the original Source beta was released in 2004, when there was an offer on that meant anyone who had Counter-Strike: Condition Zero on their Steam account. I've seen the game evolve over the last seven years, and have played both publicly and in leagues such as Enemy Down with the Halflife2.net|Clan.[br]The second opinion comes from Smash, who is a volunteer moderator on the Steampowered User Forums, and regular 1.6 player.[br]Between us, we cover a large range of the audience that Valve and HPE are trying to attract. Let's get to it.[br]Movement[br]Dekstar: There was a pretty game-breaking bug called the 'wiggle-walk' that allowed people to move faster than they should by merely tapping the strafe buttons as they were walking forward. Thankfully, that's been fixed now and movement seems a lot like Source to me, if not a little heavier. There is a bit more of a speed decrease after landing from a jump it seems, which is bad for bunnyhoppers, but good for anyone who hates bunnyhoppers. From a third-person perspective, model movements seem a lot more fluid too, especially falling from a height (for instance overpass on de_dust to underpass). The movement seems just like Source otherwise, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing.[br]Smash: When the beta was first released, the movement was very sketchy from the first-person perspective. It was too fast and almost uncontrollable at times. For example, in Dust inside bomb site B, if you tried to strafe fire down the tunnels from the outside, it was a lot harder to hit your mark because of your velocity and acceleration speeds. It almost felt like I was sliding on a sheet of ice.[br]The movement was adjusted a bit in a recent patch, and while it does feel a whole lot better, there?s still room for improvement. If Hidden Path Entertainment wants CS:GO to feel more like CS v1.6, then they need to tune down the velocity slightly still, and then it will be perfect.[br]Graphics and Performance[br]Frames-Per-Second (FPS) has always been an important aspect of the Counter-Strike series. Part of that is what is keeping 1.6 so popular, as even those with low-end computers can still take part in a very popular game with a thriving online community. In Source, it used to determine how quickly your crosshair expanded and contracted (though didn't actually affect recoil or bullet spread). This was later fixed, but there was still a huge psychological difference to how weapons handled.[br]Dekstar: The game looks gorgeous, even though I'm not exactly running at the highest settings, and I still get 60+ FPS for the most part, which isn't bad considering my laptop's specs. I do get a slight dip when viewing molotov fires, and immediately after being flashed, but otherwise the game runs smoothly.[br]One small detail to note that I do think is awesome (even though it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay) is pools of blood will seep out of dead bodies onto the floor, which adds a nice touch of realism. Also blood-sprays seem a lot more realistic this time around.[br]What I wish Valve will take on board, now that they have forced certain graphical settings (such as bloom and dust) among clients, is making use of these features for tactical advantages and disadvantages. Say a long tunnel section of a map was unbalanced slightly in one team's favour, adding glare into the eyes of that team, slightly blinding them from the other side could even those odds. I have already noticed the dust outside double-doors at A on de_dust is partially obstructing spotting enemy Cts in the sniper nest, which is interesting, as it adds another skill-factor for higher-level players to take into account.[br]Smash: The graphics are rendered beautifully. It?s running on the Dota 2 Source engine build, so it also runs great across a wide range of PC hardware. If you compare CS:GO to the older games, it?s definitely more detailed and shiny. But is that what the 1.6 players want?
[br]
Competitive 1.6 players will argue that detail can detract too much away from gameplay and affects strategic elements. In this case, I can see clearly where a player is at all times, but there?s still an issue of identifying who is friend or foe, which I think is mostly due to the depth fog ? At times you can only see the silhouette of a character from a distance while the details in their clothes are lost. Also, player models are able to hide behind this fog, and the farther they are from you, the easier it is for them to blend in with their background.
[br]
There?s also the issue of the default FOV for the first-person player weapon models. It?s too low. The screen space is slightly obscured because my AK-47 is taking up a quarter of it. You can see why this would be a problem. Here?s a quick comparison of the default FOV from CS:GO to 1.6:[br]