Talk:Counter-Strike: Global Offensive/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GAN?

@Zzzoom: Why did you nominate this for Good Article status without informing anyone? You've made three ten or so edits to the article and there are three people with over 100 edits: me (215), Player017 (131, though they haven't edited it for 2 years), and Ferret (125). The opening paragraph of WP:GAN/I says the following: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.

Here's why I hadn't nominated this article for GA yet (including some new issues I noticed moments ago):

• Development and release is tiny. Such a popular game would have received a very extensive range of sources, meaning we'd probably be able to cover the majority of the development. At the moment we've got 2 paragraphs.
• Reception is very early-release focused.
• Though you removed the dot-point about strategy from the to do list, it still needs to be expanded. What about buy strategies? We've mentioned "eco" rushes but not what "eco"s are.
• PCGamesN is unreliable, and Dexerto and eSports Pro are questionable (aren't listed on WP:VG/RS.
• Two references are barelinks (I believe I did that though, so that's my fault)
• The sources you added here haven't been archived and fully expanded. They also use the wrong dateformat.

There are also some issues listed on the peer review and both Czar and Izno implied the article was not yet ready for a GAN. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise you previously went under the username Epicandrew1220, so you have contributed more than I thought, but it's still not at the stage whereby it'd successfully pass a GAN (and contacting the main contributors would have still been courteous). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Firstly, I would say that I agree with some of your points, and I'm glad that you have pointed out some of these things. There are some things, though, that I would like to address:

• Most of the development of this game has occurred after it's release. It is what has really shaped the game as a whole, and the game was still very incomplete a year after its release.
• The reception is very early-release focused because all of the major review and game sites reviewed the game as a whole when it released, and you can't expect them to update or re-review the game once a year. The last critic review on Metacritic was in late 2012.
• I do fully agree with, and support, expanding the strategy portion of the article. Also we never mentioned the word "eco".
• If I'm not mistaken, PCGamesN is reliable, so I don't know where you got that from. We have not yet determined if Dexerto and eSports Pro are reliable yet, so we might need to address that.
• Your last two points can be easily corrected with a few minutes of work, which I will work on.

It has certainly been a few months since the peer review, and I personally thought the article was ready. I'm sure it will be more ready once we add upon the strategies and fix the few errors. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the nomination (I also apologize for not notifying any of you prior, as I have bumped a draft of the Perfect World section a few times and mentioned it a couple times previously. I decided to add it and then decided that there was a sufficient amount of content in development and all around to nominate it for GA status, so there's my explanation).Zoom (talk page) 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll try to cover the dotpoints you mentioned above.

• Development doesn't just mean when content was added

• Was the game influenced by anything?
• Who were the lead developers?
• When did development start?

• How long did it take?

• Who made the soundtrack?
• It's easy to say "development began in March 2010, and was revealed to the public on August 12, 2011" but there must have been updates throughout that year, and especially before the beta started.

• Metacritic isn't the only way to find reviews and reception isn't only about "I give this game a 4/5". So many articles get published about CS:GO each month so I guarantee some of them are updated reviews.
• Eco is a colloquialism for low money/poor buy rounds (source). The article mentions money struggles with "This strategy is used commonly when one of the teams has a lack of money to buy weapons". Given PCGamer has written an article about eco rounds and we don't mention the term, it's fair to say the page is missing some strategy information.
• I must have missed this discussion because I've been basing my opinion on PCGamesN off this. Disregard.

My main concern is simply that after having worked on the article for around a year, adding 40,000 bytes, I found it surprising that it had been nominated to become a GA without seeking anyone's opinion first. I don't want to come across like I own the article and I'm by no means discrediting your work (you've added the 2nd most amount of content), but it's as though you've found a decent article, added a few paragraphs, and then nominated it, somewhat taking the credit for its development. I do not think, in its current state, the article will pass a GA review. On top of the quite major issues already raised, the article needs a copyedit and a check that everything is up to date. The professional competition also needs an overhaul, using Dota 2 as an example. CS:GO's competitive scene gets enough coverage that something like that is possible (when did the professional scene start? Give "majors" its own subsection and give the audience more information about them. Discuss its coverage in another section (Turner Broadcasting, etc). At the moment it's all over the shop).

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a massive game with a huge audience and fan-base with news coverage being released every single day. Getting this article to GA is just the first step. Keeping it there will prove to be difficult, too (look what happened to Team Fortress 2). Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I'll try to also cover your points in your latest response.

• Because Post-Release is tied in with Development, I think it's safe to assume that it's part of the development.

• The game is clearly influenced by Counter-Strike: Source, as they tried to port the game over but then decided to make it a full game and expand it.
• I don't think the lead developers are too clearly mentioned anywhere, but I think that Jess Cliffe contributed to the game. Though, there is some recent controversy involving him, so there may be more information regarding him.
• We already have a date for the beginning of development, March 2010, as you mentioned.

• It took from March 2010 to likely the public release in 2012.

• I could not find any information on the soundtrack.

• I tried to find more updated reviews this morning but couldn't find much of anything.
• I'll also work on that section today or tomorrow.

I had no intention at all to come across an already established article, adding on it, then nominating it as if it were my own. It is a bit insulting, actually, that you believe this. I was passionate, and still am passionate, about Counter-Strike. I even created a separate related article where I have contributed to over 70% of the current page. Yes, currently the competitive scene is going strong and it would be wise to expand on that section, but at this point, it would be more logical to have a separate page on it, such as Competition in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive or something similar. There is a possibility that this will pass GA review, and if not, it's a learning experience for us. Side note, if I misinterpret something you said while writing this, my apologies, I'm a bit low on time. Another note in your original criticism, you said that you would like something on buy rounds, but I fear that the section will fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE if that happens. For example: if I said An ideal buy round for the CTs may consist of two CTs buying AWPs, and the rest with AK-47s. They would also purchase full head and body armor along with utility. It feels like a guide or instructions on a good buy round as a opposed to terms and general strategies. I could say A buy round usually consists of the team purchasing rifles along with armor and utility, and it could work, but I'll look for more to add. Zoom (talk page) 14:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why not rescind the nomination, work together on any remaining improvements, and nominate once everyone is happy? I don't see any downsides to that. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to force you into withdrawing the GA nomination, I just think there's a very high chance it doesn't pass given the issues (and Czar raises a good idea ((edit conflict)). With this said, it might have been a better idea to open a peer review to get an idea as to whether or not it'd pass in its current state. Here are some responses:

• Development and post-release are, while related, very different. They both cover different information. Take a look at No Man's Sky for instance. They've managed to make a whole new article for the development. Same with Grand Theft Auto V.
• The article mentions the mere basics of the development. These ideas may already be in the article, but just off the top of my head, here's what I try to include in a development section:

• Inspiration/concept (why did they make it)
• How it was made (who made it, how long, what engine, was anything based off real-world stuff, etc)
• The makers of the soundtrack (if there's no information, that's fine, but there's probably info on at least who made it)

• Platform information (what platforms was it on, were any discontinued, was it released onto more later)
• Masem may be able to give more specific examples.

• You're correct, there is a fine line between a gameplay section and a gameguide, but I think the new info added is fine.
• I'm not entirely sure a whole new article for CSGO competitive is warranted, to be honest. There's not much that can be discussed that couldn't be added into this article (if I'm missing anything, please inform me).

Hope this helps. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Since there has been no action on these items, I recommend rescinding the nom until the article is ready czar 11:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, let's also open up a peer review, like was mentioned by @Anarchyte: thanks for the idea. Zoom (talk page) 13:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Final game

When is it approprate to acknowledge an installment as the final one in the series? I don't think "sources" are necessary as developers don't always bother to make announcements. If a new installment hasn't been released for many years and there hasn't been any news about one, shouldn't that be enough? Rattatast (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't, unless the developer ever states it. Beyond the fact it can't be sourced, it also simply isn't necessary. We wouldn't claim that Skyrim was the last TES game just because Bethesda hasn't announced the sixth officially. -- ferret (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In early 2018 Valve made plans to port the game from source 1 to source 2 since the games popularity was still rising and it would be a bad idea to make a new Counter Strike game on source 2.

Gabe Newell, owner of the Valve corporation is planning on porting this game in early 2018, but as statistics have shown over years, it will come later than "expected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Mr Jangoon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

add something that says that vale plans to port csgo to source 2 since valve has confirmed it and then link them to the page which describes the source 2 engine in the steam dev wiki which has info on what i just told Not Mr Jangoon (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Zoom (talk page) 17:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

Change amount of gamemodes from 6 to 5. There is Deathmatch, Wargames, Casual, Wingman, and competitive. Or depending how you look at the gamemodes, there could be, Deathmatch, Arms Race, Demolition, Flying Scoutsman,Casual, Wingman, Compeitive, and then community servers. So make it either 5 or 7, depending how your grading them. Tyler9400 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done It already says this: "Global Offensive contains eight main game modes: Competitive, Casual, Deathmatch, Arms Race, Demolition, Wingman, Flying Scoutsman, and Weapons Course". I guess the lead was just inconsistent. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Add publisher and release time in China

publisher = {{vgr|WW|[[Valve Corporation]|CHN|完美世界}}

released =

• WW: August 21, 2012
• CHN: September 15, 2017

Wordlesswind (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC) publisher =

• WW: Valve Corporation
• CHN: Perfect World (company)

Wordlesswind (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Video_game_release Wordlesswind (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We only include China in the infobox if the Developer is from China. That is not the case here. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add the ratings to the description

Copy-paste from ru.wikipedia.org: ACB: MA15+ — Mature 15+ ESRB: M — Mature OFLC (NZ): R16 PEGI: 18 RARS: 18+ USK: 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:20C4:B200:7C7B:D2EE:55F9:8A80 (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not include ratings in the infobox on Enwiki, per long standing consensus. -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Csgo ranks are divided in 6 main category i.e Silver , Gold Nova , Master Guardian, Legendary Eagle, Supreme Master first class, Global Elite silver 1 (s1) --- first csgo rank, silver 2 (s2), silver 3 (s3), silver 4 (s4), silver elite (s5), silver elite master (s6), gold nova 1 (g1), gold nova 2 (g2), gold nova 3 (g3), gold nova master (g4), master guardian 1 (mg1), master guardian 2 (mg2), master guardian elite (mge), distinguished master guardian (dmg), legendary eagle (le), legendary eagle master (lem), supreme master first class (smfc), global elite (ge) --- final csgo rank. Csgo Rank plays a major role in a Csgo players life each rank defines player skill silver one being the very less skilled and Global elite refers to the best ingame

Ajsky (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reintroduction/addition of new weapons.

Should they be mentioned in a paragraph in Post-Release? There's plenty of coverage for every new weapon added to the game and its impact on the scene as a whole is pretty significant. The weapons are the M4A1-S, USP-S, CZ75-Auto, R8 Revolver, and the MP5-SD. Zoom (talk page) 14:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE we don't cover individual weapons in a game particularly in a game with lots of potential weapons to pick from. --Masem (t) 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

"Remove Category:Tactical shooter video games because it isn't tactical shooter. Ivan Bachynskyi (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Tactical shooter. "A tactical shooter is a subgenre of shooter game that covers both first-person shooters and third-person shooters genres. These games simulate realistic combat, thus making tactics and caution more important than quick reflexes in other action games." This game meets those criteria. General Ization ^Talk 15:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019

The MP5 and USP have been brought back to the game, and this is not mentioned on the article, which only says that they were removed from Counter-Strike: Source. I'd suggest " ,although both of the weapons have been added back in later updates." added to the line. MufcKalle (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

the mp5 and USP was added back with these articles though https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2013/08/7425/ https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2018/08/20849/ So, the guy is correct about them being added TurboSonic (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why the template does not have "Latest stable version" etc information?

It is interesting to know the status of the game, what is going on with beta versions, testing, features, graphic engine and assets updates, etc. 93.185.27.64 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This usually isn't tracked in video game articles, as reliable sources rarely (if ever) report on this. IceWelder [✉] 12:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

HE GRENADE

well, I just wanted to say in the article it says the Hand grenade(HE), but in the actual game it's a High Explosive grenade Ememas07 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ememas07, good catch, I've made that change. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot

The screenshot used in #Gameplay is slightly outdated, as the game has updated UI type since then. I believe it should be switched out for a newer one. Rafplayz001^{(talk | contribs)} 18:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

My request is, on the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Development and Release topic, to change the quote "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is the sequel to the popular first-person shooter Counter-Strike: Source, developed by Valve" to "Counter-Strike: Source, popular first-person shooter developed my Valve, is the predecessor to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive." Reasoning behind that is because in no way is Counter-Strike: Global Offensive a sequel to Counter-Strike: Source. There is no backstory or plot behind it, and Valve, the company that developed both Global Offensive and Source have confirmed that "Counter-Strike: Source 2" is coming out, which is the sequel to "Counter-Strike: Source", not Global Offensive. Thank you. PS3 to PC (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It's pretty common for video game releases like this to be referred to as sequels despite the lack of a narrative. Additionally, "Counter-Strike: Source 2" is not "2" because it is the second CSS and a direct sequel, but because it will be using the "Source 2" engine. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

In the "Professional competition" part it the article states "The team was permanently banned from all Majors by Valve, although some other organizers eventually allowed the players to compete at their tournaments." Most people reading this part will believe that the team iBUYPOWER has been banned where in fact it was seven Counter Strike professionals that were banned for being involved in the scandal and not the entity itself called iBUYPOWER. So I reccomend saying "The seven professional players that were involved in the scandal have banned according to integrity and fair play laws set by Valve."

Gabigoloren (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

At the end of the Development and Release section, add this statement on the newest operation, Riptide:

In September 2021, Operation Riptide was released, adding gameplay and matchmaking changes, new maps, and new cosmetic items.

The other operations have been included, just looks nobody has gotten around to it yet for the new operation. 9yz (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

In November 2021, Dream and Nightmare case contest was announced. 17 contestants will receive from a prize pool of $1.7 million dollar. PatWin1 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done--I don't think we need to add each case unless it gets some coverage from other independent sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Championship - minor correction

Under "Most recent champion(s)", it lists Natus Vincere as the most recent major champion, as the team won PGL Stockholm 2021. However, the conclusion of the most recent major (PGL Antwerp 2022) hails that FaZe Clan would be the most recent champion. For the sake of accuracy, this should be changed. (A separate wikipedia article on Counter-strike: Global Offensive major championships was updated today to reflect FaZe being the most recent champion. This article was not.)

For any confusion, see the section in this article entitled "Professional Competition."

HLTV article: https://www.hltv.org/news/33882/faze-defeat-navi-2-0-to-win-pgl-major-antwerp — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroyunF (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Alyo (chat·edits) 02:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"CS:GO" in lede

@IceWelder undid this edit, so starting a discussion. Per my comment here, I think "CS:GO" is a significant alternate name per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Does anyone disagree? Sources (including Valve) pretty uniformly call the game "CS:GO" (again, see MOS:VG discussion) so I'm kinda wondering why we need to talk this out. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"CS:GO" absolutely needs to be presented as the common abbreviation, just as TF2 is to that game. Masem (t) 13:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

When I performed the revert, the MOS discussion was less than a day old. I have no issue with the abbreviation per se, but as a MOS change, it should attain consensus first, therefore such a discussion would need some time for more potential comments. IceWelder [✉] 17:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just didn't see this as a real MOS change, as there was no discussion that led to "CSGO" being referenced in the MOS back in 2018--a single editor just happened to thing it was a decent example at the time. (edit: Dissident has since said there may have been a discussion somewhere, although it doesn't appear to have been on that MOS talk page) Alyo (chat·edits) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Change all instances of 'is' to 'was', as the game has now been shutdown and replaced by Counter-Strike 2. Petmav (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not done. The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of this game are still online, meaning the game is, in some form, still playable.

Requested move 29 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Near unanimous consensus that it's too early to make such a move. Regarding splitting, while there is also a consensus for it, splits are outside of the scope of the RM process, and should be handled in a different discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) — MaterialWorks 10:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive → Counter-Strike 2 – Counter-Strike: Global Offensive no longer exists except on a few consoles. I propose moving this page to refer to the new game, Counter-Strike 2. Since this would be a disruptive change (and right now, Counter-Strike 2 redirects *here*) , it needs discussion before doing so. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is FAR too early given the discussion above about whether to spin off CS 2 to its own article. --Masem (t) 02:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 No. There's already a discussion to split CS2 off into its own article and CSGO is still technically playable. NegativeMP1 03:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Split instead of moving. Although it seems on the surface that CS2 is an updated version of CS:GO, that doesn't mean the two have to share a page. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Wait -- all of the usual factors that we would use to determine a move aren't settled yet. There's no rush, give this a few more days before starting the discussion so we can see how sources (and Valve) discuss CS2. Alyo (chat·edits) 05:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Split, it's clear that Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Counter-Strike 2 are two different things Flash2025 (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Split into two articles. Perhaps Final Fantasy XIV (2010 video game) and Final Fantasy XIV is somewhat similar: there is a ton of sources on the original, it wouldn't make sense just to update it and get rid of the original. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Split: Counter-Strike 2 is a separate product that literally overwrites Global Offensive. It's neither a sequel nor new installment, but an update. BOTTO _(T•C) 13:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Split. The situation is identical to the one of Overwatch vs. Overwatch 2. فره ور تیش (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Split. – should we eg. combine iphone 13 and 14 because they are "basically the same" as well? Or merge all counter-strike games into half life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.201.80 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. Unlike in the case of Overwatch 2, CS2 is not a sequel but an update. And neither is it a separate product since all current installations of CSGO were updated to CS2. We should wait for more clarity first. CoolingGibbon (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  You say "Unlike in the case of Overwatch 2" but Overwatch 2 was also (to use your words even if I disagree) "an update" that replaced all installations of Overwatch 1 so CS2 should be treated the same. Split. DunnyWasTaken (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  It was well know way ahead of OW2's release what plans there were for it (some which did fail to come out), as well as an intention that OW1 was to be kept alongside OW2. Thus we were able to go into much depth about OW2's development wholly separate from OW1. CS2 was launched as a surprise with little much said from Valve beyond being a Source 2 update for CS. It likely will need its own article in the future but there's too little right now to justify it. Masem (t) 01:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, but favour a split (per what's already been said above). Anarchyte (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Split as the two games are distinct.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Split, CS:GO has had 10 years of history, CS2 is a new chapter in the game's history. 9yz (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Split. After following this for the five days, I'm now satisfied that CS2 is sufficiently different to warrant its own article. Moonreach (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm curious if you could enumerate what changed in the last five days? No new sourcing or arguments have really been presented. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  It may not be enough quite yet, but I've been putting together sourcing that can be used for a Reception section under the CS:GO replacement discussion, being about nine current sources. It currently consists of discussion of the missing features, two full fledged reviews, commentary on the Steam reviews, server overloads, and Steam Deck performance. As well as this, at least one more source is making a review soon (though I don't remember which one). NegativeMP1 17:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  My change of heart is cumulative. CS2 is receiving the kind of coverage that new games normally do, as NegativeMP1 pointed out. But to put it another way, would we even be having this conversation if Valve had said "here's Counter-Strike 2" and released it as a separate title instead of replacing CS:GO? Another point is my realization that Wikipedia happily accepts new pages for other types of software with iterative design, like macOS or Microsoft Office, that directly displace prior versions and feature iterative changes, as happened with CS:GO and CS2. Moonreach (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  would we even be having this conversation if Valve had said "here's Counter-Strike 2" and released it as a separate title instead of replacing CS:GO?. No, we wouldn't. But that's because it changes the entire context. Valve didn't do that. They instead said "this is an update for CSGO", then updated CS:GO to be CS2. They did similar to Dota 2 Reborn, and we did not split those. So this is a very relevant and valid discussion. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know Dota 2 well enough to know whether I'd agree or disagree with the comparison you're making. Wikipedia doesn't seem to always handle this issue one way. Half-Life: Source doesn't have its own page but Black Mesa does; both are derived from Half-Life, one with significantly more changes than the other. Dota 2 Reborn doesn't get a page; Overwatch 2 does. Age of Empires II HD doesn't; Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition does. It's a gray area, I agree, but in my mind the balance of evidence suggests a new page. Moonreach (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  We are looking for their being enough "new" material, which includes changes in gameplay, development specific to this update, and a reasonably full reception section. This is so the possible new article is weighed in balance of new stuff than just regurgitating old material. So a simple HD upgrade may not get one, but a full remaster likely will. Masem (t) 14:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are currently five critic reviews and a Metacritic listing with a current score of 80. There is also plenty of sources for features that were removed and changes made to gameplay. It isn't a whole lot, but I think some form of Reception section could be crafted now to warrant a split, even if CS2 is simply considered an update. NegativeMP1 17:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  A small additional point in favor of splitting: Metacritic treats CS:GO (here) and CS2 (here) as separate games. Moonreach (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that the reasons for CS2 just being a Steam update for CS:GO may not matter from a Wikipedia article point of view but I think it is important to get across that Valve themselves likely considers CS2 a new entry in the Counter-Strike series and not just a CS:GO update but chose to replace CS:GO instead of releasing CS2 under a new Steam app ID and leaving CS:GO intact because of the complicated issue of moving every CS:GO inventory item (skins, stickers, cases, etc) to a different Steam app. I think it was just easier for them to do it this way since Valve have championed game preservation in the past with all of their games still available to buy on the Steam platform today and games like 'Half-Life' staying on Steam after the Source engine port 'Half-Life: Source' released. There had to have been a big reason for them to abandon game preservation of CS:GO and I believe skins was the reason.

  The Counter-Strike website (here) calls CS2 "The largest technical leap in Counter-Strike history.", I think that is Valve illustrating that CS2 is a new entry in the Counter-Strike series. DunnyWasTaken (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Split. Tamazinoe89 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not just make a new article for Counter-Strike 2, it’s basically a sequel to CS:GO even if Valve deleted CS:GO to force people to play it instead. 2601:984:8102:23F0:F5BF:112E:94D8:AB52 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that the current section on CS2 is only two sentences long, that's functionally what a split would be. Moonreach (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A few people had asked about this while working on their own drafts of a separate article, and every time I suggested expanding the section in this article to help demonstrate a due weight need, no one took it up. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've just done some expanding, and I'll do more later if I have time. Moonreach (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rockstone[ Br meast (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Split. I've brought up several sources to use for a unique gameplay and reception section; we need to bring WP:DUE into this. Keeping the two in the same article is not warranted, they are two separate entities running on two different engines with content differences. Even some reviews are treating it as more than just a simple update, and a Metacritic score has been processed to treat it and CS:GO as separate entities. It could also confuse readers as to why two different things are in the same article when both are discussed separately and the material exists for a split. NegativeMP1 17:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.