Counter Strike: Global Offensive, what do you want in it?

[ToastiestZombie]

Valve has announced today, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, a sequel of sorts to source. It ahs been announced for XBLA, playstation network, pc and mac. Valve have said that it will feature matchmaking, new maps, remastered versions of old maps and new gameplay modes. They have also confirmed defuse and hostage game types to be in it. So what do you think and what would you personally want to be changed/improved/added?

[EDIT] Got ninja'd by the Escapist in this announcement, darn it.

 

[Legion IV]

I want it to be good! Source is AWFUL!!! Every one who plays CS competivly HATES Source, Make it like 1.6 and boom instant cash.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

More guns.
More guns.
More guns.
More guns.
More guns.

And a better crosshair.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Support for the console versions even though I know that won't happen.

Valve will do what they always do: Release a game then update it once or twice before stopping and blaming Microsoft like they have been since 2007 whilst they work day and night designing new hats for their PC players.

 

[James Crook]

A movie recorder like the one in Team Fortress 2, more guns, and no AWPs. This overpowered "so prrooooo skillz man oshit 4man one hit so coool dood" piece of shit gun ruined the games competitively for me.
EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. I get reverse spawn-camped by a bunch of pricks with AWPs. Even worse are the servers where no one's allowed to use AWPs except donators.

 

[vermin_]

Fix the awfull bullet spread. Yes i know, recoil etc. But realy, its so stupidly unrealistic in CSS. I have to pull the gun down while spraying to aim for the head. Aiming for the feet to get the head, yeah, that's boss.

Other then that: more weapons. Maybe some little destruction?

 

[Coranico]

Support for the console versions even though I know that won't happen.

Valve will do what they always do: Release a game then update it once or twice before stopping and blaming Microsoft like they have been since 2007 whilst they work day and night designing new hats for their PC players.

Providing the PS3 version uses steamworks (which i'm assuming it will) it will be supported and recieve updates around the same time as the PC and Mac versions if not a little later due to coding for the PS3 being a wee bit more difficult.

And i understand why Microsoft would be to blame, they are much more restrictive on the sizes of patches and i doubt they'd let Valve constantly pump out free content like they want to.

OT: I want a polished shooter that shares more with 1.6 than source not because source is bad but because 1.6 was more of its own thing and is a lot more competetive.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Hmmm...

- Include leaning, Deus Ex style.
- More guns.
- No I-Win Button, in other words the AWP. Just remove sniper rifles altogether, they don't fit in the setting.
- Ironsights, and a realistic usage of guns overal.
- 'Realistic' damage model.

I'd like the new CS to expand on the small-scale, tactical gameplay. CS:S has sort-of devolved into a high-speed twitch shooter where you use sniper rifles in close quarters. Kinda sorta misses the point.

I'd like the new CS to become, basically, the small-scale, indoor ARMA or Operation Flashpoint.

No ironsights.

Y'know, I always thought that CS:S is the perfect game for iron sights. I mean, it's supposed to be an extremely tactical, sorta realistic FPS. That's exactly where having ironsights would fit, as a tactical choice, a trade-off between accuracy, mobility and awareness.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Y'know, I always thought that CS:S is the perfect game for iron sights. I mean, it's supposed to be an extremely tactical, sorta realistic FPS. That's exactly where having ironsights would fit, as a tactical choice, a trade-off between accuracy, mobility and awareness.

You already have this tradeoff. For perfect accuracy you must walk or stand still. And btw, this one is already confirmed. No ironsights in CS:GO baby!

True, but it's not exactly realistic weapon handeling, and that's what I'd like the new CS to be. As I described, basically the ARMA of small scale combat, to actually set it apart from all the shooters out there.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I wonder if they will make destructible environments. Imagine that. Sweet, sweet Source based physics in Counter Strike. That would be like a dream come true.

 

[chocolatekeith]

Having a button that magically reduces recoil and increases accuracy never did a game any justice.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Um, read the topic title, this is about what you want from the game. And, well, yeah, that's what I want from the game.

It's funny that you call modern FPS' slow, because the first thing I noticed when playing MW2 and Black Ops for the first time was "This sorta feels like CS:S with ironsights" because just as CS:S it's a twitch based run&gun shooter.

And that's exactly why I want that change of pace, the sort of gameplay CS:S had has become the standard, even with the money system as load-outs have pretty much taken on that role. If it wants to stand out and find it niché again it should evolve, and I think for CS:S the best way to do so is expand on it's theme, make a true counter-terrorism game in which you really play like a counter-terrorism unit.

It's evolve or die in the saturated FPS market, and what the new CS could do has only been done on a few occasions. I can't see the series end well if it'll just refuse to adapt to a new market. And fact is, when it comes to twitch based run&gun shooters, CS can't really keep up any more.

It's also quite obvious that it wasn't meant to be a run&gun shooter, it's just that the metagame has developed that way.

Having a button that magically reduces recoil and increases accuracy never did a game any justice.

At the same time you loose peripheral vision and mobility. It's a trade-off that makes sense, and works like that in real life too. Nothing magical about it.

 

[Devious Boomer]

Source wasn't all THAT awful. Compared to 1.6 the movement just felt a little more imprecise as was the shooting's deviation at times (for example walking speed, three tap-fired AK shots to the chest at 1 meter, two miss). So it just plays somewhat differently and is prone to a bit more bullshit happening but it is by no means as bad as it's made out to be. Nitty-gritty issues here and there and Valve's unwillingness to fix some of these problems just make it less of a smooth, competitive game than CS1.6.

Whilst CS still has quite a strong following, the numbers are diminishing due to other games such as CoD and Battlefield taking the limelight. It also doesn't help that over the three western retail iterations, not much has changed over more than ten years. The initial steep learning curve and pure focus on gun-vs-gun engagements as well as de_dust2 being overplayed doesn't make the game fun for newcomers at all. All too often I see people try the game then proceed to criticise the fact that nothing they shoot hits their target and that the gameplay feels 'samey'.
You can retain the core mechanics of the CS we all know and love (with better hitreg and more consistent recoil than Source) whilst changing things up enough to make a difference:
-Wider variety of new stock maps playtested for balance as well as the fine tuning of the older stock maps such as de_train, de_prodigy and de_nuke. de_dust2 and cs_office get boring after your millionth game in either map. de_tuscan and de_cpl_mill scream to be included.
-Encouraging the use of weapons other than the usual DEag/MP5/AK/M4/AWP setups. In other words, you could have more weapons and buff some of the old ones nobody used such as the FN5-7, the Sig Sauer p228, the UMP and the Mac10. Maybe decrease crosshair recenter speed on the DEag by a fraction so that there is less spamming and more of a focus on making footwork/positioning and every shot count. The DEag's price should be raised to $700, whilst the prices of the Sig p228 and the FN5-7 could be lowered by to $550 and $600 respectively to make them viable options for ECO rushes with flashbang purchases. The initial pistol round would allow players to either go full power (DEag), full support (default + 2/3 nades) or a versatile mix of medium power and a single tac nade.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Support for the console versions even though I know that won't happen.

Valve will do what they always do: Release a game then update it once or twice before stopping and blaming Microsoft like they have been since 2007 whilst they work day and night designing new hats for their PC players.

And i understand why Microsoft would be to blame, they are much more restrictive on the sizes of patches and i doubt they'd let Valve constantly pump out free content like they want to.

I know all about MS restrictions. But I don't buy that Valve really has that much trouble getting stuff out. And as Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 have shown, Valve has no problem making console users pay for DLC. In fact, most console users aren't asking for free stuff, just some updates and content would be nice. We have money and we're willing to pay.

It's just that after so many years of using the same excuse for everything, you have to take a step back and and see that maybe it's not JUST Microsoft that's the problem here.

 

[Devious Boomer]

It's evolve or die in the saturated FPS market, and what the new CS could do has only been done on a few occasions. I can't see the series end well if it'll just refuse to adapt to a new market. And fact is, when it comes to twitch based run&gun shooters, CS can't really keep up any more.
It's also quite obvious that it wasn't meant to be a run&gun shooter, it's just that the metagame has developed that way.

Having a button that magically reduces recoil and increases accuracy never did a game any justice.

At the same time you loose peripheral vision and mobility. It's a trade-off that makes sense, and works like that in real life too. Nothing magical about it.

The thing is, CS is at its core a well-balanced game in which gun control and movement skill are directly related (ruling out ironsights usage as CS's deviation system directly counters that) and the gun-on-gun skirmishes remove to a large degree the 'bullshit!' factor that is found in less competitive games and at higher playercounts. Your movements must also be more cautious as there is no health regen or even a sprint button. When playing as a team, loadout selection strategy is a lot more important as everything costs precious ducats. This was even more evident in 1.6 where secondary ammo and was not given to you upon your purchase of a gun, forcing you to make the decision whether to play conservatively and possibly save more money for the next round, or play it safe and buy more ammo/or armour. There's a surpring amount of depth to the game - it just isn't apparent when playing on pub servers. Here's a page detailing a typical plan for a scrim:
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/Warstrats
A lot more detailed than say, CoD and even the Bad Company games. Very few games match up to the competitive standard required for eSports. It's because of its simple premise yet difficulty in mastering the range of skills required to play the game well that CS remains competitively played to this day. On the less competitive side of things, CS is highly customisable and has a dedicated community playing both the scrim maps and just mucking about on custom maps and game modes. CS certainly doesn't need to catch up with CoD - it would actually lose what sets it apart form today's 'twitch-based modern shooters' - tight weapon balance across the board dependent on the engagement range, the reliance on skill rather than cheap weapons or luck to succeed.