User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2442 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 22, 2012
    5
    As others have said - this is indeed the same old game albeit with a new coat of paint. I feel gamers, especially those interested in competitive FPS have come along way since CS and its days of glory. I don't think this is so much a game of skill anymore, but a dated classic that isn't terribly relevant these days. Still, for the price it's fast, accessible and fun, but there is muchAs others have said - this is indeed the same old game albeit with a new coat of paint. I feel gamers, especially those interested in competitive FPS have come along way since CS and its days of glory. I don't think this is so much a game of skill anymore, but a dated classic that isn't terribly relevant these days. Still, for the price it's fast, accessible and fun, but there is much better out there... Expand
  2. Aug 21, 2012
    7
    Pretty ok. I was kinda hoping for something different, but it's the same exact thing as the previous games. If you like counterstrike, you'll probably like this. I prefer BF3.
  3. Aug 22, 2012
    7
    To start out: I have mainly played quake/ut style games since '96 and while I've dabbled in CS through LANs and such back in the day, my interest was very weak. Mainly because the game is very slow paced and favors 2 tactics: mobbing and camping down a thin avenue of approach. This combined with bullet spray mechanic when moving makes aggression a weak and stupid tactic. I don't likeTo start out: I have mainly played quake/ut style games since '96 and while I've dabbled in CS through LANs and such back in the day, my interest was very weak. Mainly because the game is very slow paced and favors 2 tactics: mobbing and camping down a thin avenue of approach. This combined with bullet spray mechanic when moving makes aggression a weak and stupid tactic. I don't like playing this style game, but gave it a chance when valve released cs:s. Again, the same, but bullet spray and poor hit detection seemed amplified and I gave it up fairly quickly. Now we have CS:GO. To begin, the game is gorgeous and has more infrastructure to it than any CS before. It DOES have matchmaking which is annoying, but there is also the option to play dedicated so who cares? The bullet spray is either tighter or the netcode better, I dunno which. Overall it's still the same gameplay. The purchase interface is wanky, but most players will bind the relevant options and never use it anyway. If you love CS of any flavor, there is no reason you won't like this one. On the other hand, if you think CS gameplay is stale and want to see it mixed up so that aggression and and precision are rewarded rather than penalized, look elsewhere. This is classic CS with a beautiful engine on top. I think the game is a 4 gameplay wise, but I give it a 7 as most people reading this are probably CS players, and I think it's an accurate representation of what a CS player would award this game. Expand
  4. May 19, 2013
    7
    When this game got released, I was able to see the community "splitted": one who complained that CS was perfect as it was, and the other that it was a great innovation. I personally don't care which side is right, because, to me, this game is basically what the original CS should have done. And that is, to be more user friendly. Yes I also played the original CS (although just CS:S) and IWhen this game got released, I was able to see the community "splitted": one who complained that CS was perfect as it was, and the other that it was a great innovation. I personally don't care which side is right, because, to me, this game is basically what the original CS should have done. And that is, to be more user friendly. Yes I also played the original CS (although just CS:S) and I knew why it was good: it required skills in aiming, in timing and you needed team work, but it failed on the learning curve which was INSANE. Most of the matches were "Arena" based (there was also demolition but I rarely did it, while gungame was rare), and this was how I played: I entered, I walked in, I died from a headshot from an Ak-47 from an enemy at the other side of the map, I waited for my team to lose so I could respawn....this wasn't funny. Did I suck? Yeah of course, but I had no way to learn since I would die once I was alive! That's what this game did right: you finally can learn how to play, you can FINALLY play without fearing of dying after 10 seconds you've stepped in...and I started to enjoy! While this might be a rant in a way, what I'm trying to point out is that while it has no real innovation (just graphics and the interfaces), it's also much easier to learn and even newbies like me can go in, play and just try to have fun without being obsessively scared of dying! Of course, you can still play the original method as well, but it's all up to you to choose and you can easily try it once you've mastered it enough. Aside the fact of the innovation, it has also other benefits anyway: the maps are still good to this day, with almost no possibility for camping or hide perfectly, both because it requires a HUGE amount of aming, and in Deathmatch the respawns are random, so you can easily die anytime if you don't move. I believe we got less weapons now, but more "balanced" in a way, although I can't be totally sure since in the original game I couldn't buy due to the my lack income of money. For flaws, in my opinion, I still hate the hitboxes being clunky and very sporadic to hit (like I said, I might suck on this...but I would miss enemies even at blank point range, while for some reasons I was able to headshot with my shotgun. From the other side of the map!!!) and some weapons aren't exactly perfect and in the end people use few of them in total. All in all, I really enjoyed this game and for the first time I was able to play a Counter Strike game and have fun, without however neglecting the old community and giving us all the modes we used to play, plus some customizations. I might be a bad CS player for liking the "friendly" way this game approaches...but personally, if a game isn't fun and it's just made of frustration and constant complaining, it's not worth of my time and I easily quit it. A good remake, with a good learning curve this time. Expand
  5. Apr 26, 2015
    5
    - average graphics
    - no killcam
    - mostly the same maps - camping is rewarded (except in deathmatch maybe) - AWP seems OP - something is wrong with netcode/spread when firing from short distance I prefer CSS. I've started playing CS1.3 15 years ago and I liked the graphic improvements and new maps in CSS but I don't really get why CS:GO seems popular. As of 2015, you can get BF3/BF4
    - average graphics
    - no killcam
    - mostly the same maps
    - camping is rewarded (except in deathmatch maybe)
    - AWP seems OP
    - something is wrong with netcode/spread when firing from short distance

    I prefer CSS. I've started playing CS1.3 15 years ago and I liked the graphic improvements and new maps in CSS but I don't really get why CS:GO seems popular. As of 2015, you can get BF3/BF4 for almost the same price as CS:GO. I can understand that CS:GO can be more competitive since it's infantry only, etc. It's probably the only good point in my humble opinion. The graphics look outdated, the UI is so-so, people are still playing the same maps 15 years later ... I don't get it. I'm pretty sure if you take the time to search, you can find some interesting modes and maps in this game but I've not found any. Personally I prefer Battlefield and Titanfall, sold at the same price currently. There is no killcam, come on. The casual mode is the one I prefer so far, I hate friendly fire. This FPS rewards camping too much when compared because of the size of the maps, the weapon available and the spread when moving.
    Expand
  6. Aug 31, 2012
    5
    Quite honestly, mediocre and unnecessary. All it is, is counter-strike source with an updated source engine, and a few re modeled guns. This in no way had to be a new game, it brings nothing new to the counter-strike series, and it in no way should be praised as a revolution of the genre. This is coming from a counter-strike veteran who's played CS since 1.3, and also played CSS. I alsoQuite honestly, mediocre and unnecessary. All it is, is counter-strike source with an updated source engine, and a few re modeled guns. This in no way had to be a new game, it brings nothing new to the counter-strike series, and it in no way should be praised as a revolution of the genre. This is coming from a counter-strike veteran who's played CS since 1.3, and also played CSS. I also got into the CS:GO beta quite early and immediately i noticed it was quite lack luster. Kind of a shame that they didn't try to do anything new or fresh with the genre. It's just a new coat of paint on the same car. Expand
  7. Aug 21, 2012
    6
    It's an improvement over the original CS in terms of accessibility and game modes, but make no mistake, it's still the same game with a new coat of paint. This is either a good or bad thing depending on how you felt about CS in the first place, but I will say that it's showing its age.
  8. Jun 23, 2013
    7
    This may be the best version of Counterstrike, but by no means is it a perfect game.

    I personally am not a big fan of the Counterstrike series, as the game is a good example of "the rich get richer". newbies often have little chance of doing well, as many seasoned players can almost instantly headshot you as you are running on the other side of the map. my opinion of this game is,
    This may be the best version of Counterstrike, but by no means is it a perfect game.

    I personally am not a big fan of the Counterstrike series, as the game is a good example of "the rich get richer". newbies often have little chance of doing well, as many seasoned players can almost instantly headshot you as you are running on the other side of the map.

    my opinion of this game is, its a fun distraction if you play against bots, dont expect to do good, as long-time players are the norm online... and the community isnt very friendly either... with people continually trolling and being annoying using the voip.
    Expand
  9. Nov 21, 2015
    6
    The hitboxes and the way the weapons shoots now makes the game boring for me. Its more battlefield like now, and I dont like that. Maybe its more realistic, but for me a game should not be realistic to be good. I prefer Cs:s and global offensive is no improvement for me.
  10. Sep 7, 2012
    6
    Lets be honest people if this was a CoD game it would be ripped apart for being the same game with new graphics. An excellent shooter, controls are tight, still fun but really it is the same as the last ones. If the internet didn't love Valve so much it would be ripped apart.
  11. Oct 3, 2012
    7
    CS:GO is ok, the graphics are good, new and better gun designs and a whole new refined experience, If you are a hard-core CS:S player then you might to think before buying this. In my opinion, this game has lost the 'Counter-Strike' charm that made it so popular in the first place. The good things about this is the new buying menu, where you move the mouse onto each slot, instead ofCS:GO is ok, the graphics are good, new and better gun designs and a whole new refined experience, If you are a hard-core CS:S player then you might to think before buying this. In my opinion, this game has lost the 'Counter-Strike' charm that made it so popular in the first place. The good things about this is the new buying menu, where you move the mouse onto each slot, instead of clicking, scrolling and getting shot before you even purchase your weapon. The game is also incredibly cheap ($15) on Steam. If you are new to the CS universe then get this, but if you are a CS:S player, you might need to reconsider. Expand
  12. Aug 24, 2012
    6
    I'm giving this game a 6/10 because it feels incomplete. There's only 16 maps in the game currently, and Assault isn't one of them, which is kinda like making a Mario game and leaving out Luigi. Matchmaking is another huge problem in this game. I often party up with 4-6 people (to noobstomp ofc) and matchmaking always tries to join full servers or servers with inadequate slots for ourI'm giving this game a 6/10 because it feels incomplete. There's only 16 maps in the game currently, and Assault isn't one of them, which is kinda like making a Mario game and leaving out Luigi. Matchmaking is another huge problem in this game. I often party up with 4-6 people (to noobstomp ofc) and matchmaking always tries to join full servers or servers with inadequate slots for our party. Then we always have to remake and this happens all the time. CS1.6 is still better than GO atm, but GO is definitely a step up from Source. Valve has a long way to go if they want to make it a classic because this game still feels like a beta. Expand
  13. Dec 29, 2013
    7
    A solid upgrade to the Counter-Strike series. GO contains basically just revamped maps, weapons, and UI elements along with a store for you to buy cosmetic items. This isn't a sequel so it doesn't offer much innovation, but it is priced appropriately. The core mechanics still need to be tuned up to bring this series into its next generation.
  14. Sep 13, 2012
    7
    This is a primitive shooter. PRIMITIVE. I understand the viewpoint that some games shouldn't be updated, I can't argue against that, but there's a good reason why it costs 15 bucks. As an FPS experience it comes no where near to standing up next to its contemporaries. If it weren't for it's low price tag, this would be a zero. But at 15 dollars, it's a nice trip down memory lane. AndThis is a primitive shooter. PRIMITIVE. I understand the viewpoint that some games shouldn't be updated, I can't argue against that, but there's a good reason why it costs 15 bucks. As an FPS experience it comes no where near to standing up next to its contemporaries. If it weren't for it's low price tag, this would be a zero. But at 15 dollars, it's a nice trip down memory lane. And that's it. Expand
  15. Dec 11, 2012
    7
    For those wanting a back-to-basics multiplayer shooter or a more polished version of Counter-Strike: Source, CS:GO might be right up your alley. If you're looking for drastic changes over the previous Counter-Strikes or you enjoy unlocking weapon and perk unlocks, then don't bother.
  16. Aug 21, 2012
    5
    Quite simply, this feels like a reskin of CS:S. Sure some backend stuff may have changed but to me as a player, it feels the same. This leaves the game in an awkward sort of limbo between old and new with fancy graphics that, if anything, make the outdated gameplay stand out more than ever. This may be hard to picture, so I will liken it to this: imagine your dad rocking up to yourQuite simply, this feels like a reskin of CS:S. Sure some backend stuff may have changed but to me as a player, it feels the same. This leaves the game in an awkward sort of limbo between old and new with fancy graphics that, if anything, make the outdated gameplay stand out more than ever. This may be hard to picture, so I will liken it to this: imagine your dad rocking up to your birthday party, dressed like all your friends. The cover can only last so long which is, in this case, until the moment after you buy the game and play your first match.

    If you really love CS, but for some reason cannot play CS:S without improved graphics, get this. If you are new to the series, don't buy it or you will just end up feeling lost, hurt and confused like that first girl at the party to approach your dad.
    Expand
  17. Jan 19, 2014
    5
    This is a great CS game, with some serious infrastructure problems.
    1. This game feels like source with upgraded graphics and a better rewards system, competitive play, items etc which is awesome 9/10
    2. There are huge infrastructure problems such as an update takes place and right away wait times for games increase to 10 minutes and something even 2 - 3 hours. This is terrible and the
    This is a great CS game, with some serious infrastructure problems.
    1. This game feels like source with upgraded graphics and a better rewards system, competitive play, items etc which is awesome 9/10
    2. There are huge infrastructure problems such as an update takes place and right away wait times for games increase to 10 minutes and something even 2 - 3 hours. This is terrible and the worst part is that there is no real outlet to direct your frustration to because valve doesn't really care about its players. No one ever responds to you on the steam support forums, the issue is ignored when/until it fixes itself. This is a real problem that Valve has to deal with, as a customer that bought their game I expect them to support me, if they don't, I will gladly go to play Call of Duty or battlefield... 2/10
    Therefore I give it 5/10, awesome game and very bad infrastructure, what a combo....
    Expand
  18. Sep 19, 2012
    7
    A very good refresh of the classic game. On one hand, there's minimal innovation -- its primarily a graphical update with some tighter game controls and some new modes of play. On the other hand, why mess with perfection? One great thing about Valve is that it doesn't milk its customers, they recongize that this is a revamp of an older game and they charge accordingly...$15 for a very goodA very good refresh of the classic game. On one hand, there's minimal innovation -- its primarily a graphical update with some tighter game controls and some new modes of play. On the other hand, why mess with perfection? One great thing about Valve is that it doesn't milk its customers, they recongize that this is a revamp of an older game and they charge accordingly...$15 for a very good first person shooter. At the moment I'm rating it a 7/10, primarily because there's nothing really new here and the modding community hasn't taken off (yet). This is a title that will grow over time, and potentially can become an 8 or 9 out of 10 i think. Why pay $60-80 a year for the latest ModernBattlefield of Duty when this $15 is all you need?. Expand
  19. Sep 27, 2012
    5
    Its CS:Source with not as clean graphics. There's almost zero reason to get this over 1.6 or source (because both are better games than GO) GO tries to merge the two communities and earn a buck in the process but this game is to cluttered to make it to the big stage imo. A lot of stuff has been reused, like sounds, certain objects is directly takes from cs source which makes the game feelIts CS:Source with not as clean graphics. There's almost zero reason to get this over 1.6 or source (because both are better games than GO) GO tries to merge the two communities and earn a buck in the process but this game is to cluttered to make it to the big stage imo. A lot of stuff has been reused, like sounds, certain objects is directly takes from cs source which makes the game feel old already. If you must have a "new" fps experience, then sure why not, its still CS but I would recommend something else. Expand
  20. Dec 11, 2013
    5
    The graphics are cool, gameplay is nice, but the services are terrible. The game crashes for me, and doesn't matters how many fixes I look for on the internet, the crashes never stop. This has been a known problem for a long while, and Valve never cared to look at it. The Competitive Matchmaking can sometimes take nearly 20 minutes, and can sometimes can throw you in a server on anotherThe graphics are cool, gameplay is nice, but the services are terrible. The game crashes for me, and doesn't matters how many fixes I look for on the internet, the crashes never stop. This has been a known problem for a long while, and Valve never cared to look at it. The Competitive Matchmaking can sometimes take nearly 20 minutes, and can sometimes can throw you in a server on another country with a ping of 200, if the server has hackers or too high ping you can't leave it because the penalties for leaving a competitive game are atrocious (even if it was not your fault, like if the power went down or something like that happened. Yeah, the system can't see a difference if you were disconnected due an external influence, or if was your decision to click on the Exit Game button). The game has a lot of potential, but I am frustrated enough that I could ask Valve for a refund, if I could. Expand
  21. Jan 19, 2013
    5
    The only thing good about CSGO are the slightly improved graphics and easy game find function, but that is all. CS1.6 was amazing when it came out. Then CSS was weird at first but eventually was just awesome. Finally CSGO comes out and I don't get it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some parts of this game but overall the gameplay feels like a broken CSS.
  22. Sep 9, 2012
    6
    CS: GO ; Ultimately its lack of any ambition at all makes this a disappointing upgrade after waiting for so long however it does stay true to the Counter Strike formula - perhaps too true!

    CS: GO is a small fine tuning release - its clear they had a mission of taking the Counter Strike 1.6 formula and making it look a little bit better than CS: Source. Largely this is true although I
    CS: GO ; Ultimately its lack of any ambition at all makes this a disappointing upgrade after waiting for so long however it does stay true to the Counter Strike formula - perhaps too true!

    CS: GO is a small fine tuning release - its clear they had a mission of taking the Counter Strike 1.6 formula and making it look a little bit better than CS: Source. Largely this is true although I have yet to be in a game where player's did not make fun of the "mushroom head" looking counter terrorist hats (who signed off on THAT decision?)

    But the over all level design quality, the lighting, the HDR effects, the model details, gun details are one notch better than CS: Source ; and I do mean ONE notch. And this speaks to the primary reason this reviewer doesn't score CS: GO higher than a 6 ; for a company as large as Valve and as popular of an online game as Counter Strike is ; to shoot for the floor for this upgrade is not impressive.

    Gameplay in Counter Strike is largely enshrined by the online community and the competitive community as well. However this doesn't mean that many online FPS game's haven't made clear that certain improvements are necessary for balance.

    In Counter Strike the team that wins the first match is often likely to win the majority (and some times all) of the remaining matches due to their demanding cash lead in the second round. The cash system which was once innovative is now punishing. Other shooters present leveling system present more persistent systems where the player can advance and earn better gear and weapons that allow the player to not be instantly dominated because the other team was able to afford AWP's across the board in the second or third round! This out dated model from the 90's would have been an extremely welcome upgrade but was utterly ignored (yet again). Players will have to either mod their own play mode or wait another decade for Valve to drink from the clue cup on this one.

    Similarly long over due for review was the gun balance and "realism" (note the quotes around realism) of the combat model in Counter Strike.

    I can not count the number of times players have done a jumping AWP head shot either on me, or while I watched a team mate do it to the other side.

    The incredible over-powered one-shot instant kill power of this weapon should have been much more carefully tempered with a little bit of realism. Any player running or jumping should be given no chance at all to hit their target with a sniper rifle, and greatly reduced chances with reduced damage when walking. Other guns suffer from an array of problems from too wide of a spread (even when crouched) to too narrow and precise of a spread in all forms (AK-47 for example). With varying ranges of damage problems such as I shot a terrorist in the back with the FAMAS 5 times to have him turn around and head shot me with a Desert Eagle!

    Counter Strike: Global Offensive was an opportunity to raise the bar for skilled gameplay in a team environment. Instead a minor graphic overhaul is supposed to satisfy us for 10 more years.

    Thankfully the entry price was low enough it is still probably worth purchasing unless you are really enjoying your current version of COD then really this game's lack of maturity and modern balance leaves it desiring a lot more attention and may be worth skipping.
    Expand
  23. Sep 8, 2012
    6
    CS:GO off the bat is a nice update to CS (having played since CS 1.3).

    Pros: 1) Nice graphical tweaks to old and tired maps give the game a fresh feel. 2) A nice jump in and play system which makes it easy to get a server without the hassle of having to find one. 3) 2 new game modes off the bat, "Arms Race" is a simple gun game type scenario where as you kill, you get a new weapon,
    CS:GO off the bat is a nice update to CS (having played since CS 1.3).

    Pros:
    1) Nice graphical tweaks to old and tired maps give the game a fresh feel.
    2) A nice jump in and play system which makes it easy to get a server without the hassle of having to find one.
    3) 2 new game modes off the bat, "Arms Race" is a simple gun game type scenario where as you kill, you get a new weapon, this is using a deathmatch system as well, so you will instantly respawn. "Demolition" changes this by setting out guns you unlock by killing enemies with your current weapon, and you can get bonus grenades by performing well in the round. Both new games are fun, and I have spent most of my time in GO playing them!

    Cons:
    1) Locked down netcode! - Anyone who has played CS of any type in the past will have tweaked the netcode to suit their specific connection/computer/taste. Valve has locked the netcode down so much in GO that you cannot really fine tune your system. This is a big no no to me!
    2) Lack of maps - This may be something that will be addressed in the future through patches, but its the same old maps, and not many of them. You have Italy, Dust 1 & 2, Aztec, Office, Nuke & Train. In standard game play scenarios you will get bored of these pretty quickly! That said, the new game play modes have added rehashed versions of old maps (i.e a short version of train), but to me it feels like there isn't enough content on launch to keep the audience entertained.
    3) Ever changing models - As an old player of source, I got used to the colours of CT = blue, Terror = red (or brown!). However, with CS:GO each map changes the models, which isn't so bad in itself, however on some maps the models are so close in colour, you cannot tell them apart from any reasonable distance, which leaves me hovering over a player to ascertain whether they are on my own side or not....very frustrating!!
    4) The cross-hair - I like the old cross-hair, however I tried to use it and it seemed useless, so I now have to use the abomination that is the "new" cross-hair. You cannot change its colour (as far as I can tell) and it takes up so much room on the screen when your running around, its just annoying! It does seem to recognize friendlies, so that's why I'm using it. Overall, very poor!
    5) Clunky movement, and shocking physics - CSS may not have been the best 1st person shooter ever, but it felt fluid and smooth, however you come across GO and it seems very clunky, the players all run like they have a stick up their backsides and the physics are 10 years old (cannot shoot barrels now apparently!!).

    That all said, the game is certainly entertaining. Better than CSS? No, but its certainly enjoyable, and with a few tweaks of the engine, some new content I'm sure it will be here to stay.

    For the £12 I spent, I don't regret it, but if you are happy in CSS now, I would see the need to rush over immediately.
    Expand
  24. Sep 9, 2012
    6
    So many expectations were about this game. Even i was thinking, it can be something more than regular CS game. But it's still the same. Graphics were improved, few guns, and maps were added, but nothing special at all. Yes, some changes were added, official gun-game for example, but CS still needs something special, like a completely new game modes. Yes, this game is good, but expectationsSo many expectations were about this game. Even i was thinking, it can be something more than regular CS game. But it's still the same. Graphics were improved, few guns, and maps were added, but nothing special at all. Yes, some changes were added, official gun-game for example, but CS still needs something special, like a completely new game modes. Yes, this game is good, but expectations weren't realized. New buying menu isn't very comfortable. Gameplay hasn't changed since CS 1.6, what is a downside. Because if i want to play CS 1.6 with better graphics, i better play CS 1.6, and won't lost my 15 bux for the remake. if you guys think, it's an excellent successor to CS: S, you're wrong, because sequel must has something new. CS: GO, unfortunately hasn't. Expand
  25. Sep 28, 2012
    6
    Definitely the weakest counter-strike game i've ever played. The movement is weak and frustrating at some points. The maps are bland and uninspired. The guns don't feel much different from one another besides the fact that a few of them are downright broken.

    After playing this game for 5 hours i have absolutely no desire to revisit it again at any point in time. If you want to play a
    Definitely the weakest counter-strike game i've ever played. The movement is weak and frustrating at some points. The maps are bland and uninspired. The guns don't feel much different from one another besides the fact that a few of them are downright broken.

    After playing this game for 5 hours i have absolutely no desire to revisit it again at any point in time.

    If you want to play a counter-strike game i recommend just playing source.
    Expand
  26. Oct 9, 2012
    7
    A fun new spin on an old classic, revamped graphics, hit registry and weapons at such a low price really does make it a must for any counter strike veteran and non counter strike veteran alike.
  27. Nov 12, 2012
    7
    Never played the original. The game is exceptionally fun, but seems to have a lot of issues. First off, having a high ping seems to make the game exceptionally easier, which is unfair to other players. Next I haven't been able to get into the competitive matchmaking, huge shame there. Finally for a competitive title the leaderboard seems messed up. Not up to Valves typical quality.
  28. Nov 13, 2012
    7
    The game is much more harder compared to source. I'm not quite sure about the graphical update. Still, it remains a true Counter Strike game, it's just not that important compared to 1.6 and Source.
  29. Sep 4, 2013
    7
    While the game is fun and addicting, it seems way too different that CS: Source and CS 1.6, if you're going to play a CS game for the first time, go with CS: Source, then pick this up and compare.
  30. Nov 22, 2012
    6
    CS:GO was a response to CS:S being outdated, but I don't see the work in the many years of development in this game. The graphics are absolutely astonishing, and so is the gameplay. However, I don't see any new mechanics that weren't in the old Counter Strike. A helicopter flying away for a couple seconds on de_dust means "new graphic visuals", I guess. The game isn't too re-playableCS:GO was a response to CS:S being outdated, but I don't see the work in the many years of development in this game. The graphics are absolutely astonishing, and so is the gameplay. However, I don't see any new mechanics that weren't in the old Counter Strike. A helicopter flying away for a couple seconds on de_dust means "new graphic visuals", I guess. The game isn't too re-playable either, I got rather bored of it within a couple weeks. There is a severe lack of maps, and most of the maps are graphic updates to maps we have had since 1.6. This game isn't going to change anyone 's minds; if you were a fan of CS in the first place, you will like it. If you are looking for something new, you won't find it. But besides the point, CS:GO updates the Counter Strike community and is well worth the money, just don't be surprised if you don't find too many changes. Expand
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Oct 29, 2012
    90
    Brilliant old-school shooter has convinced us that Counter-Strike franchise is in no way to be retired or forgotten. [Oct 2012]
  2. CD-Action
    Oct 24, 2012
    85
    A fast, demanding shooter with a huge potential for the future. It's basically CS: Source, but the maps are more polished and the game looks better. [11/2012, p.64]
  3. Pelit (Finland)
    Oct 14, 2012
    84
    For a non-professional Counter-Striker, Global Offensive is just a cosmetic facelift, with re-run levels. [Sept 2012]