Counter-Strike Gets a Facelift in Global Offensive

looks good to me! i'm always happy for more CS. though then again, i didn't beat Episode 2 yet, so i share no frustration with anyone who's waiting for episode 3 

looks like a game

@crusader8463 said:

EVERYONE knows you run faster with the knife.  Can't wait to play this against the console guys.

If ranked is cross platform that would be retarded.

IT'S DIFFERENT!!! ASRWARRRRAAAAAAAAWRRRRRRRRSADSADSAASfsfsafasf!243aa

1 hour after release, Asians master the game in it's entirety.  In retaliation, a bunch of dicks find a handful of exploits to level the playing field.  The resulting aftermath renders the game unplayable in it's entirety to 95% of the human race

Wow. Maps look exactly the same, game looks the same. So it's CS:S with better graphics = worse performance =  probably shitty net code. No thanks. It's gonna fail hard if it places graphics before gameplay, but I think, honestly, I'm done with CS to begin with, so I don't think I'll enjoy it either way. 

I'm pretty sure the first Counter Strike was in HD.

There doesn't appear to be enough of an improvement to really justify this. I know it's strange thikning that they need to Justify making a new game, but we're talking about Counter-Strike here and I still remember the uproar the community had over the split between 1.6 and CS:S. If you're going to add a new game into the franchise shouldn't you do more than a graphical update and new guns?

I always imagined the next Counter-Strike to be something more of a game-changer. The only way I see this making sense is if it's going to be a F2P on PC and Valve are hoping to attract people that way. But I haven't played in a long time so maybe the players will be more willing to move than I think.

The bomb has been planted!

@smiddy: From a PC perspective perhaps, but I think this is Valve trying to get in the console market.

I look forward to not playing this,

Gun models look like turd.

"Now you can rage quit Counter-Strike in HD!"
 
Now you can rage in the comments for ... something.

Cross platform success will all depend on whether or not consoles get aim-assist. Can already see it being a huge factor, other than that, sign me up, love me some Counter Strike

I'd give it a shot.

Everyone knows you run faster with a hat.

Well I am at least happy to see that it movea like counter-strike and didn't try and smooth it out and try and make it a cover-based shooter or anything!

Counter Strike in HD... as opposed to the previous versions which totally couldn't go up to 1080.

Cross-platform play better not mean PC versus consoles, or there at least better be an option.

I can't wait to try this out.

"In 2000 Counter Strike is released. It becomes the #1 Online Action game in the WORLD!"
 
"In 2004 Counter Strike: Source is released..."  ---> NOTHING! HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Source SUCKS!

MORE MAPS!...even though you'll still just play the dusty one

You might wanna download that trailer from Steam and reupload it. That GT watermark is making GB look bad ='<

Could be pretty cool

@Kyle said:

@Hero_Swe said:

I don't see much improvement on the maps. I don't agree that more clutter or the more exaggerated cartoony style of the maps make it better. S'a a more a taste thing than anything, but it's definitely not a facelift. If you want a facelift. Compare Freespace 2 with Freespace SCP. or Operation Flashpoint (The real one) with Arma 2.

Exaggerated cartoony style? Where are you getting that from? There's just more detail in the textures and environments, but not cartoony at all.

That aside, it doesn't look quite as good as I would have hoped. I guess you have to keep the system requirements low considering that's what CS players are used to and a lot of them only have low-end machines, but it's still a little disappointing.

"In 2000 Counter Strike is released. It becomes the #1 Online Action game in the WORLD!"  "In 2004 Counter Strike: Source is released..."  ---> NOTHING! HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Source SUCKS!

@Branthog said:

@fisk0 said:

@Branthog said:

@Hero_Swe said:

Really? I saw literally no improvement, if anything it looks worse now.

It looks better, but the player models don't look particularly fantastic. There is definitely far less improvement between CS:S and CS:GS than there was between CS and CS:S. The vital thing will be the gameplay improvements (which I'm sure will be raged against by the community for a long time, first).

I guess that the way they've quadrupled the polygon count and added a bunch of shaders, while still seemingly using model animations from 1999 makes the horrible looking stuff stand out more against the semi-modern stuff than in original CS or CS:S where everything was consistently pretty bad looking.

I just don't see why they don't put it off until the next engine. When Source came out, they released CS:S. So when the next engine (or engine revision) comes, do a new CS. Otherwise, I think they risk dilution of interest in that people who might otherwise be lured into it will just say "eew... nah" in a world full of flashy wild thrillpark multiplayer rides that they have open to them. When they really do roll out a beautiful new CS some day, those people will have been put off of the CS-taste.

Well, the source engine is pretty damn flexible, I think both Portal 2 and Left 4 Dead have shown that. But judging by what they show off in this trailer, it kinda looks like a community source mod. Of course, if it's going to be F2P, they'll want to make it work on a much wider selection of hardware, which means they probably have to cut some stuff in the visual department. I also guess this is pretty far from release still, so it'll probably get some improvements.

To update something like counterstrike, you certainly has to do a lot to appeal to the purists and long-time fans of it which is why you get weird old animations like that. It's the same "problem" Starcraft 2 had, which in my opinion felt ancient in the control aspect compared to stuff like Dawn of War.

Cross-platform play is going to open up the Controll-Versus-Mouse-and-Keyboard debate for a whole new generation. Or the kids will just keep playing CoD and it's a moot point.

de_Dust2 24/7 no noobs pro only

@markusespar: You can use mouse/kb on the PS3 version at least. Should give console guys an even chance.

Gametrailers watermark?

Retarded people play  Counter Strike (any version)

@phrosnite said:

"In 2000 Counter Strike is released. It becomes the #1 Online Action game in the WORLD!"  "In 2004 Counter Strike: Source is released..."  ---> NOTHING! HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Source SUCKS!

Oh, so you're one of those people.

It's funny i saw this at PAX and i thought it looked no different to original CS. Watching the trailer i see it's actually a pretty huge leap between the versions. Guess your memory of a game just updates with time if you don't play it long enough.

For those who are bitching about source engine wtf are you talking about? TF2 runs on source and it's one of the best looking games on the market still this many years on. Is it because you're running on a console or something and need your settings crippled?

@Protonguy said:

For those who are bitching about source engine wtf are you talking about? TF2 runs on source and it's one of the best looking games on the market still this many years on. Is it because you're running on a console or something and need your settings crippled?

While TF2 may be a very impressive game in the artistic visual design aesthetic, so far as raw technical prowess, saying it's "one of the best looking games on the market" is a pretty huge exaggeration.

It's just as if Bethesda were to release Skyrim on simply a modified Gamebyro engine, like New Vegas or Fallout 3, sure, it would work, and sure, it would probably look all right, but that engine has become dated and somewhat janky over the years. Furthermore, how much has your game improved? Why would I spend money to buy this new product when I already have the tried and true? If it's just a graphics update, on the engine that fuels the far less popular version of the game, what justifies spending my money on it?

Game Trailers! 
 
Also, no iron-sights, no sale >:(

@Wholemeal said:

Cross platform play? People are going to get owned on the ps3.

I am looking forward to that feature :).

The hand and arm holding the gun looks really awful

@Protonguy said:

For those who are bitching about source engine wtf are you talking about? TF2 runs on source and it's one of the best looking games on the market still this many years on. Is it because you're running on a console or something and need your settings crippled?

While TF2 may be a very impressive game in the artistic visual design aesthetic, so far as raw technical prowess, saying it's "one of the best looking games on the market" is a pretty huge exaggeration.

It's just as if Bethesda were to release Skyrim on simply a modified Gamebyro engine, like New Vegas or Fallout 3, sure, it would work, and sure, it would probably look all right, but that engine has become dated and somewhat janky over the years. Furthermore, how much has your game improved? Why would I spend money to buy this new product when I already have the tried and true? If it's just a graphics update, on the engine that fuels the far less popular version of the game, what justifies spending my money on it?

i lol'ed when cross-platform popped up.

is this supposed to have a gametrailers logo at the bottom?

Looks awful.. Also ripped GT.com trailer? ..

So the sniper rifle is the only gun you actually Aim Down Sights... still... in a FPS.

i like how the console fanboys in this thread are consistently and inadvertently admitting the PC has better controls for first person shooters

@Mr48 said:

.... if they price it at $10-$20 I think many people including myself will be happy to get it.

i thought it was gonna be free to play, did they not officially say that yet? pretty sure it is

This game looks ct sided