An Hour Of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Europe 1, America 0. Probably.

Last time we brought you news of Counter-Strike: GO (go go!), we were able to show you nine new images from the game. Nine! That’s a lot of global offense. This time, prepare for an offensive overload because there is over an hour of footage waiting for you below, in the form of a competitive match between the United States and Europe. I wouldn’t spoil the ending even if I had managed to watch the whole thing, but I have found myself riveted to it for a while – partly to stroke my chin and pretend I’m picking up on every difference, no matter how minute, but also because I’m keen for the Old World to represent itself well in the ancient and storied sport of man-shooting. Scarves, rattles and chants at the ready…

Truly a clash of civilisations. I’d last less than three seconds against those people because I’d be too busy trying to get in character. That, along with my withered reflexes, is why I am terrible at competitive shooters.

There’s another, shorter match, which I’ll slot in below primarily because Valve’s own Chet Faliszek provides some commentary, giving a stronger insight into what Global Offensive is all about.


  1. Squishpoke says:

    If nobody told me otherwise, I would have thought that was CS:S.

    Then again, I’m not a huge fan of Counterstrike and thus only played two hours of it at the most.

    • jonfitt says:

      Yes. I’ve played a lot of CS -> CS:S and my first thought was “Oh it’s just flashy looking CS”.
      With this and DOTA2 I’m a little disappointed. Are the cows now so sacred that we’re saying these games are the best they can ever be?
      I’m just glad TFC was given a sterner treatment otherwise we wouldn’t have the TF2 we have today.

    • Roshin says:

      I expected much more from this, especially better graphics. This looks quite dull and cheap to me, I’m afraid.

  2. Xtinction says:

    Will they charge money for this or will it be more of a team fortress 2 type deal where we’ll have to pay for skins?

  3. dartt says:

    It seems that they have addressed at least one criticism with CS 1.6 / CS:S in that a much broader variety of weapons are viable for use in a competitive game, either due to changes to pricing or the effectiveness of the weapons. You can see the FAMAS and the automatic sniper rifles seeing some heavy use alongside the common M4s and AKs.

  4. WebFusion says:

    2007 called. They want their graphics back.

    • PoulWrist says:

      No point in fancy graphics in competitive games.

    • Serge says:

      No point in REreleasing CSS as a new standalone game and ask its price for a few UI gimmicks.

    • Item! says:

      Weird! I just got off the phone with 2047.

      It wanted to assure me that despite the catastrophic collapse of human society as we know it and the abject misery under which the remaining scraps of civilisation “live”, the glib and utterly tired idiom “year X called, it wants its Y back” has fallen through the cracks of history and instead, people actually make constructive, example based arguments in order to communicate criticisms to their peers.


    • Dawngreeter says:

      Dude. 2010 called. It wants its “I just got off the phone with 2047” bit back.

    • Mirqy says:

      Unfortunately 2048 called and said they’ve revived the practise. Also cockroach stew tastes surprisingly good.

    • Item! says:


      I guess this could just go on forever couldn’t it?

      Can we just agree to assume that I came back with something suitably pithy and allow me to claim the moral victory?

    • Was Neurotic says:

      I thought WebFusion nailed it, myself. No point being clever-clever when you can make your point quickly and simply, with or without cliché.

    • lijenstina says:

      Year 1929 just telegraphed in. Wants it’s Economic crisis back.

    • Dom_01 says:

      I will never understand people who complain about graphics. Does every game have to look like Crysis or The Witcher 2 to get their attention? If so, they might just play one or two games a year.

      Counter-Strike has never been about the shiny graphics. It’s about giving a precise indicator on where the enemy is, whether he is a CT or T, and if he’s looking at you or not. As long as they provide that information clearly, everything else is secondary in this type of e-sport game.

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Weird, I got a call from December 2011 and all I could hear was a lot of screaming and something about “the clamps”.

    • The Colonel says:

      Can’t wait for year X.

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      This might blow your mind, but guess what? Competitive players always turn everything down graphics-wise to get the best performance. A shinier CS would be pointless.

    • hosndosn says:

      You know what? Graphics quality is actually a valid point. Sure, gameplay comes first, but they remade all the maps. Why do they look like, actually, not even 2007 more like 2004 graphics? I actually have a good idea why: Just like CS:S (which also had horrible looking levels for its time), this is outsourced. This doesn’t have Valve’s art directors working on the maps and it shows! I doubt it’s a technical/engine thing (although the lack of a sharp real-time shadow layer feels a bit outdated as well) but more so a question of texturing, lighting… those floors look horribly empty. You can say what you want about CoD & Co but they know how to texture!

      It’s odd since this is mainly a modernization update, so a visual upgrade is a very reasonable part of the package. And it utterly fails at that. Reminds me of L4D’s level art before Valve took over for Turtlerock and gave it a lighting pass. Night and day. I bet something similar will happen in the coming months.

    • Faxmachinen says:

      The Colonel says:
      Can’t wait for year X.

      Hate to piss on yovr parade dvde, but that was MMI years ago.

    • Donjo says:

      Year Zero called. Everything is wonderous, the fields are bountiful with crop and the animals are fattened to bursting. Rivers run with milk and the wells draw honey, hail the glorious Leader Pol of the Pots.

    • P4p3Rc1iP says:

      Am I the only one who thinks it actually looks really pretty?

  5. reticulate says:

    I used to play quite a bit of CS back in the day, but hopping on a pub server nowadays is an exercise in being schooled by teenagers.

    Either my old man reflexes aren’t up to the challenge, or my heart just isn’t in it. I suspect a bit of both.

    • sneetch says:

      Blame the net-code, “damn Valve, they couldn’t write net-code to save their lives!”

      That way it’s their fault for doing a bad job and not ours that we’re getting older. :)

    • Potunka says:

      In my case, at 26, I found after about 7 1-2 hour sessions over 2 weeks, I finally started playing CS better again after quite the hiatus.

    • passingstranger says:

      Valve’s netcode gets progressively more unacceptable the worse I do in a game.

  6. kyrieee says:

    Why is Chet running around presenting all Valve’s games? Can’t they find someone more charismatic?

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I’d rather have Chet than some smarmy PR fuck delivering his best snake oil sales pitch.

    • Dath says:

      Have to agree, I hate listening to sleazy PR people talking about a game they don’t really know that much about.

    • Wunce says:

      “smarmy PR fuck”

      Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      Also what is with the word “dynamic” being used by every PR guy these days?

    • McCool says:

      Incidentally, Chet’s best snake oil sales pitch is quite good.

    • hosndosn says:

      “We wanted to enhance the experience while finding new audiences and keeping the core features our fans love! Accessibility and a cross-platform appeal were our main intentions. Hopefully, we can expand the IP and find new player bases. That’s why we turned X-Com into a first person shooter.”

    • Donjo says:

      “Bringing Gaming©® into the future as a Social Media Service.”

  7. McCool says:

    Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. Am I going to watch an hour of other people playing an unfinished build of a game I’ve never played? Yes.

  8. Alexnader says:

    Is the audio off sync in the second video for anyone else?

  9. fenriz says:

    Is that “global offensive”? So the new “game” is just a different engine with the same old shit maps and gameplay?

    In any case, the physics lost the original feeling of realistic heaviness and kind of gravity to it that made CS good.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Also with new equipment, changes to the weapons to make them all a bit different. Changes to the map to change how they play (the scaffolding covernig an approach to B on dust 2 for example. Changes to how the guns work.

      So yeah its just a nwe engine nothign else has changed!!!!

    • fenriz says:

      That’s horrible!

      Why, why do i always trust a hope?

      And me thinking stuff like, i dunno, some ingenious next-gen way to include bits of story-telling into the action to, or, affect the objectives and force players to meet to discuss, hah, ethical issues. Or like politics, hell, maybe even a counterstrike global world.

      But no, skin change and little changes to weapons and bombs, to better kill norwegian commie students.

      “Global offensive!!!” broooom!

      And what’s with the title, is it supposed to encourage world wars? I don’t want violent titles in my games, call the game counter-awesome-discussions-and-philisophic-proposals.

    • Potunka says:

      IIRC, it’s actually still the Source engine. The developers just have more tricks up their sleeves after working with Source for years.

    • elfbarf says:

      There are countless people who would disagree with your claim of CS(:S) having “shit maps and gameplay”.

    • fenriz says:

      forgive my swearing there, i played dust for years, i loved it.

      but you see, the most delicious cake is turned into shit. The most beautiful body decays into shit, both because of the passing of time.

      This to say that to me everything old is shit, if re-proposed as a new dish.

  10. coldvvvave says:

    After watching this video I so want to run on a treadmill for an hour. Or more.

  11. zeroskill says:

    Im glad one of the all time favorites of competitive gaming gets a little makeover here. As Valve stated, this wont be a full priced game, I guess we are looking at about maybe 20€ at most. As I take from the comments on this site here, I understand kids nowadays are kinda helpless when confronted with games like Counter-strike or Quake 3, comments like “bad graphics” and “same old shit maps” show that to me. This isnt about warporn.
    That said, I really wished Quake 3 would get a similar treatment, as I was more into Quake 3 at that time in general, even tho I also played a fair share of Counter-strike. But ID dont seem to be interested in such a thing.

    • Outright Villainy says:

      Well, Quake live is pretty good, it has to be said, and free too. I play it now and again, particularly if I want to brush up on my skills for other games, because it’s basically the the most intense multiplayer shooter you can play right now.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      Yeah, I don’t really know what benefit there would be in updating Quake 3’s graphics. I still play Quake Live and it actually holds up amazingly well.

    • zeroskill says:

      You are right, I still play Quake Live too, that doesnt mean there isnt value in remaking Quake 3 in ID tech 5, especially for people like me that arent exactly new to Quake 3. Ive been playing Quake 3 since it first was released, and its pretty much the same thing. I even have the PS2 version of it! On top of that, Quake Live is an closed down system, no modding involved whatsoever, as far as I know.
      To me its just a lazy job by ID and I have somewhat lost hope that ID will come back to its roots, which is competitive gaming. Quake 3 fans just can look with jealousy over to Valve and the treatment they give to games such as Team Fortress 2, Dota 2 or Counter-strike in comparison. Workshop for modders, proper replay tools, solid server architecture that fully supports server side mods. Just imagine how Quake 3 would profit from such things…

    • Shooop says:

      While Valve’s become the golden boy of the industry, iD is still struggling to redefine themselves. Rage is proof of this.

      It probably wouldn’t be a good idea to re-skin one of their old games while being accused of simply riding on their past reputation.

    • Dervish says:

      value in remaking Quake 3 in ID tech 5

      What would be the value, exactly? Megatextures in a game where a substantial percentage of players lower texture quality almost to the point of nonexistence? Also consider the implications for making and downloading custom maps.

    • zeroskill says:

      Im pretty sure ID tech 5 doesnt just consist of megatextures, and those, infact, are not necessary for a Quake Arena game. I really dont see why someone would argue aggressively over this, Im just voicing my personal opinion and that of all the people that I play Quake with today. And those people would definitely be excited to play a Quake Arena game that looks like its made in 2011, and has features that have become the standard for competitive games in this day and age, like proper replay tools. Valve has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that competitive game concepts of the late 90ties and early 2000 very well have a market and that there in fact is value for ID to tap that market.
      Dont forget: Quake used to be the most popular competitive game on the planet, and I really cant see how remaking that for todays market wouldnt be value for everybody involved. The players, and ID.

  12. Daniel Klein says:

    That the ESL’s Joe Miller shoutcasting, who is an awesome dude.

  13. Stupoider says:

    Cool it with the criticisms folks. We shouldn’t be looking at this as anything other than CS:S on consoles. They’ve tidied it up a bit for the big release, but ultimately it’s the console audience that they’re concerned with. Valve are just giving us this so we don’t complain that the consoles are getting everything new these days.

    I’m not saying that’s the case. I’m just saying that knowing the community these days, the hyperbole-machine would see it as that.

  14. Film11 says:

    I hope I’m not the only one who giggled a bit at this: link to

  15. Yazoo says:


    They changed the opening of the B door
    original = link to
    New = link to

    I mean …
    seriously …

    WHAT THE FUCK ?!?!?

  16. Vandell says:

    And this is why I can’t tolerate watching competitive FPS games: the camera switching is so painful, you don’t get a sense of the continuity of the match.

    Starcraft II for life.

    • Starky says:

      Agreed – the only time I’ve really enjoyed watching FPS games compeitivly are when they’ve been edited and post produced to include things like action replays, and multi-vantage views, and slow motion.

    • MD says:

      Have you got any links to videos like that, Starky? I’ve only ever watched FPS games recorded straight from a live stream, and I’d be interested to see some of what you describe.

  17. yourgrandma says:

    I think it’s a great idea to remake cs every few years with some graphic improvements…. but this really doesn’t look better than cs:s at all. The animations and some of the weapons actually look worse and the level design is showing its age with gigantic crates everywhere… they could definitively go with something more creative than crates.

  18. yourgrandma says:


  19. Jengaman says:

    I really want to be excited about this…. But it looks like theres nothing to be excited about.
    I hope theres more improvements to come

  20. blackjackshelak says:

    Out of all the things to complain about, why choose graphics? Several people have already made the point that competitive games don’t need them, and in fact they can work against you at higher levels of play. With that in mind, what developer would create a game aimed at the competitive market that had a high performance requirement (i.e. fancy high-end graphics)? Valve want a game that runs smoothly on just about everybody’s system, and the focus of this game when it comes to changes is maps and equipment. When’s the last time Valve expected you to upgrade just to play their games?

    I’m surprised that so little of the new items were discussed in that second video. Both sides have a new SMG and shotgun, the SSG-550 has been replaced, there’s a brand new pistol and LMG as well. That’s not even mentioning the decoy grenade and Molotov Cocktail. Existing weapons have (according to this video) been reworked to increase viability as well. That’s a decent amount of stuff.

    Out of all these things however, I’m left with one very important question. Has the MP5 been removed? I spent the majority of my games with one of those or a pump-shotgun in hand, as they were both cheap enough for me to afford them most rounds and I got pretty good with them. I know the new pump is the Nova (no complaints there) but where’s my MP5? I can see tweaking/replacing/adding equipment as a good thing, but when an item I really like is straight up removed I’m not exactly happy about it.

    • zeroskill says:

      Not 100% sure but I think I have been reading something about the MP5 is going to be replaced by the more modern MP7. Dont now if the handling will be the same, but then again, they are reworking the handling of most weapons anyway.

    • blackjackshelak says:

      That’s the weird thing. I only question the lack of an MP5 based on what I’ve seen on the CS wikia site. If the MP7 is a “replacement” for the MP5 though, than that’s a little odd. Both the MP-7 and the PP-19 are being added in CS:GO and those are team-specific weapons. The nice thing about the MP5 is that I could get it on either team. I liked that it was something I always had access to, and it seemed very well balanced to me as well. Nothing horribly impressive about it, but everything just right for a low-mid tier weapon in my opinion. If it really is replaced by the new bottom-tier SMGs I’ll be a little disappointed.

  21. blackjackshelak says:

    Wow… that double-post took forever to happen.
    I was almost certain the second one hadn’t gone through.

  22. Tyrone Slothrop. says:

    Who is this going to satisfy? Was there anyone clamouring for a milquetoaste update to CS? The sheer quantity of people who still play 1.6 and won’t migrate to Source still amazes me. Okay, some semi-professional or hardcore player will explain all about just enormous differences in recoil patterns, physics and other bullshit but how does even more radically changing the game appease those who enjoy 1.6 and what will that do to Source?

    This feels like a really poor half-measure. Counter-Strike is supremely (and unfortunately) irrelevant due to neglect, fear of change and Valve’s famously abhorrent time-management. Also the maps are horrible in comparison to contemporary shooters, two or three paths, a couple of chokepoints, little verticality, no dynamism, no expansive areas and no reactivity.

    Someone will probably be aghast that I say Bad Company 2 is a incomparably better game, noting they’re different as if two online shooters can’t be assessed in terms of overall achievement and execution, but as formerly a fan of Counter-Strike, I can’t help but feel sad at its lack of evolution or ambition.

    I wish the next Counter-Strike has full-modelled segments of city areas, entirely non-linear, gadgets that allow doors to be breached or fortified by terrorist or counter-terrorist, dynamic destruction to clear walls, or entire floors. Terrorists could choose any floor of a 23-storey building to hold themselves up in causing immense tension as counter-terrorists search each floor, avoid traps, use fibre optics to try to draw nearer to their objective. Till then CS:GO is just embarrassing.

    • blackjackshelak says:

      BF:BC2 is certainly a different game, though better is more a matter of preference (yes I realized you didn’t want to hear that exact thing). A lack of evolution or ambition can easily be said another way; “sticking to the formula”. How much can CS change before it ceases to be CS? CS is normally based around smaller maps with a limited amount of “verticality” and complexity. This is because of the nature of CS gameplay, and not because map designers are lazy bastards with no imagination.

      It sounds like you want CS to be more like Battlefield. Larger, more open maps, plenty of destructability/”dynamism” and a slower pace to the gameplay. While that might sound more appealing to you, it doesn’t sound like CS to me. You might not remember it, but CS did try the camera under the door gadget a ways back in something called Condition Zero, and I don’t hear people talking about that game all that much today. Certainly not enough to consider it successful.

      If you’re wondering who this game is designed for between the 1.6 and CS:S crowd, the word from Valve’s own lips is “both”. Trying to take lessons from two very popular and successful previous games and improving (if only marginally) on that formula is not something I’d consider lazy or “embarrassing”. I’d consider it a step forward. CS doesn’t need to measure itself against contemporary shooters, it’s already proven the strength of its own legacy, and it can build on that.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:


      The amount of changes between each Battlefield game; 1942; 2; 2142; The Bad Company games and 3 are pretty substantial; great additions, refinements, radically scenery shifts, necessary removals, etc. They don’t change the formula of massive infantry and vehicle combat but there is a great amount of experimentation and I don’t see that what so ever in how Valve has treated CS.

      I also don’t want CS:S to be Battlefield, I want it to be the best shooter it can be. I love some of the larger custom maps which I’ve played in CS where you can no longer set your watch to when you hit one of the same three choke points. The map design isn’t intentionally lazy but I couldn’t tell if it was to be frank. CS_Italy was an amazing map… in 1999, but it’s ‘cleanliness’ in design today feels like a hold-over from the limitations of Goldsrc mapping tools (which by the way, incredibly still fucking suck and are one of the worst problems with Source) and engine constraints. It’s also much harder to balance numerous approaches than three.

      Suggesting CS:CZ wasn’t popular due to -one- mechanic is entirely bizarre.

      CoD gets tonnes of deserved criticism, but the fact it has more emergence in mechanics than CS should give you pause. What should give you even greater pause is the fact for all the incredibly justified criticism of CoD gets for a lack of innovation, stagnation within 2 year development cycles there’s -quantifiably- far more difference between MW2 and {shudder} Black Ops than between each of the now, 3 Counter-Strike games with four and seven years of respective development between them, in terms of mechanics.

      If Call of Duty‘s iterations are lazy and embarrassing to the majority of readers here, then CS:GO is, to be intellectually consistent, even more lazy and embarrassing. You even imply that CS:GO is riding along the accomplishment that was CS in 1999 and it’s virtually identical retread (in before a semi-professional CS player complains about hitbox and recoil changes) in 2004, that’s not a step forward it’s Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard.

      Also none of this comments on the wisdom of designing your game around the wishes of the tiny minority who play the game at a competitive level.

    • blackjackshelak says:

      Since you actually took the time to respond to me I’ll try and address each point as it comes. Apologies in advance, but in case the first post didn’t make it clear, I can be pretty long-winded.

      In terms of experimentation and “sticking to the formula” as I mentioned it, I’d say that the Battlefield series arguably had more to work with in the first place. They could stand to play around a bit more with what they had because it was so complex. Yes, the Battlefield games have substantially more to them than CS ever had, and that’s a huge part of what makes them so good. I can also agree that the changes between 1.6 and CS:S pale in comparison to the differences between BF:1942 and BF2. There are definite changes there, and the split in the community illustrates that well, but they are nowhere near as broad as those made in the Battlefield series. I would argue that CS being a more “condensed” (maybe “smaller” is a better word) type of game leaves it less room to make similar changes. Battlefield has always painted with broader strokes. The differences in their settings alone speak to that. Huge battlefields with large numbers of soldiers and vehicles compared to small urban environments where a handful of men fight over a pair of bomb sites or some hostages.

      Well it sounds like you solved one of the problems yourself here. The larger maps you played before weren’t “release” maps, and there’s room for the community to make them all over again. I know I enjoyed a good number of the custom maps in 1.6 quite a bit myself. I was never a huge fan of surfing (never really figured it out) but I can still remember rats and minidust (if that’s the name) fondly today. I doubt that we’ll ever see your multi-level building complex idea (which does sound interesting if a bit larger scale than I think makes sense), but that’s not to say that larger maps won’t be made. The smaller, tighter maps just work a lot better for competitive play, and they’re easier to design/learn as well, as you’ve pointed out yourself.

      It wasn’t my intention to point to the fiber-optic camera as the linchpin in the popularity of CS:CZ, but it was an item you brought up as something you were interested in seeing. Perhaps some correlation is there, and most people weren’t quite as keen on peeking under doors (or had other games that did it better). I can’t honestly say, and didn’t intend to apply that was the sole factor involved.

      Well here’s where I have to say that I’m not trying to represent a group any larger than myself. I am not one of those people that looks at every CoD game as a worthless rehash. Neither do I praise them for their innovation, but I do see changes when they occur, and I note the successes and pitfalls along the way. I also own both 1.6 and CS:S (and BF:1942+BF:BC2) and have played both a fair amount, though I’ve played neither in several years now. So I’m much more likely to be the guy pointing out what changes exist than one of those railing along the lines of “this isn’t different enough for me”. What it comes down to (for me at least) is a question of whether or not all the pieces put together in the end product interest me. If some of those pieces are borrowed from an older game for good reason, I see no problem. There ARE changes here, and even more of them than there were in CS:S. The numbers on that list may be small, but they are present, and they are an improvement to an existing formula that’s worked very well so far. That’s enough for me (for now).

      I guess my statement that both audiences (1.6&CS:S) were being targeted didn’t speak at all to the idea of pro vs casual. From what I can see, they aren’t focused solely on the pro level, only primarily. Balancing a game around the demands of competitive play is not a new idea, and it doesn’t have to steer away casual players either. A game can be as friendly as it wants to newer players, but the higher end of the skill ceiling needs to look balanced and polished. A casual fanbase will sell copies, but a competitive fanbase will keep a game running for years. If 1.6 didn’t have the presence it does in the competitive scene, I highly doubt it would have anywhere near its player count today.

      I guess if I had to summarize my thoughts on this game, I’d go with something along the lines of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, but a tune up every now and again would be nice”. The biggest problems I had with 1.6 were fixed in Source, and this game is seeing a little extra polish and a few additions on top of that. Is it an entirely “NEW” game? I would agree with you and say no. It is however (or appears to be so far) a good game with some notable changes over the previous version. That’s enough to at least earn my interest, and I won’t be complaining about a lack of changes any time soon.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:


      And I wish to thank you for you lengthy reply and state you have no need to apologise. You have made some compelling points and wish to say I much enjoyed your responses. I would still personally wish for more fundamental changes since there are two very dedicated fanbases to the existing games and tacitly dislike this direction but I nonetheless respect your opinion, think it is most well reasoned and the manner in which you presented it.

  23. Muppet says:

    This is good guys. It’s on consoles. New weapons. New Maps. New netcode. Still keep all the good things about CS (hopefully). More people into this awsome game. Matchmaking system. New graphics. New portal 2 source engine. A decent price.

    Quit bitching.

  24. WotevahMang says:

    The intro music combines the Inception sound with hippity hop. Awesome.

    Have the 12 year olds who used to scream on voip back in the day grown up also? They’d be what…24 or so now?

  25. spcd says:

    I dont want to play dust2 ever again, but I want to play a game with this gameplay again. but not the same maps dust train etc… i need new maps! and only new maps

  26. eryynlhanu says:

    I saw see this coming, Unreal Tournament 3 also had M+KB support, which means that is up to the devs if their game can use them. It would be stupid to taunt cross-platform gaming if the ps3 can’t use m+kb, they would get decimated. Currently, Dust 514 is slated to use the Dual Shock 3 as the only input method on the PS3. It’d be awesome if they patched it to include mouse and keyboard because it means that it is a step away from being released for the PC.seo service