When comparing Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel vs Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, the Slant community recommends Counter-Strike: Global Offensive for most people. In the question“What are the best games on Linux?” Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is ranked 13th while Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is ranked 59th. The most important reason people chose Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is:
Each round of CS feels more like a game driven more by careful tactics than a frivolous fast-paced and lethal paintball arena of which too many modern First-Person Shooters are guilty of. Positioning, timing and thinking are key ingredients of a successful game and cooperation is crucial if you want to win.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Low gravity effects
The new low gravity effects work quite well, giving players more of a chance to put distance between themselves and their targets. This makes sniping a lot more viable than in previous Borderlands titles.
Pro Four new playable characters each with different acting special abilities
Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel has four new playable characters in the game, each with action skills that feel completely different from one another. The action skill trees add further levels of customization depending on what areas in the tree you choose to level up.
Pro End game takes advantage of all players’ skills and weapons
The end game is the best part of Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel as it requires the player to make the most of their skill and experience while utilizing all of their abilities and weapons. It is quite a balancing act, and when you pull it off it’s very exhilarating.
Pro Driven by tactics and cooperation
Each round of CS feels more like a game driven more by careful tactics than a frivolous fast-paced and lethal paintball arena of which too many modern First-Person Shooters are guilty of.
Positioning, timing and thinking are key ingredients of a successful game and cooperation is crucial if you want to win.
Pro Will be familiar to CS 1.6 and CS: Source players
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive builds on the strengths of its predecessors, even though those predecessors have been constantly improving for over a decade now.
Nonetheless, Counter-Strike veterans will feel right at home in Global Offensive, albeit with some minor differences. The MP5 is now the MP7, The TMP has left its place to the MP9 and you can't attach a suppressor to the M4.
Pro Carefully-executed changes to existing maps
The updates and improvements made to existing maps have been pretty clever and useful.
For example, cracked glass is more opaque, making it harder to go on a sniping rampage. Or the stairway which was added to the bottom of de_dust made the route more viable for the Terrorists, while keeping the original purpose of that area serving as a bottleneck.
Pro Runs well on most hardware and even on older hardware
It's a very optimized game and runs smoothly on even outdated hardware.
Even if you complete all of the side quests, the game only lasts about 25 hours. Purchasing DLCs or playing through additional times with other characters can extend this considerably.
Con Poor writing
The writing in Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is nowhere near as good as in Borderlands 2. The jokes often fall flat or seem like total non sequiturs. Some players may also object to the prevalence that the writing gives to social issues; this has been described as pandering to a certain audience by some critics.
Con Loot feels limited
Unlike past Bordelands games, the loot in Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel feels very limited. Legendary items are almost impossible to find in chests or from enemies; it’s more likely you will find them in an item shop. This means you may have to spend hours grinding for cash in order to purchase the weapons that never drop.
Con Side missions all the same
The side missions of the game are all very similar: Travel to an area on the map, use a key, and maybe kill some bad guys while accomplishing this mundane task.
Con New maps and modes feel pretty mediocre
Even tough old maps have been revisited and improved by a wide margin, new maps and modes released with CS:GO are pretty mediocre.
Half of the maps available are locked under Arms Race (which is a re-imagining of the original community-created GunGame) and Demolition (GunGame without insta-respawn and bomb defusal) modes.
These game modes feel pretty safe and unimaginative, especially for veterans who have played their predecessor.
Some of the new maps are pretty compact and designed to act as instant-action meat-grinders akin to modern FPS (like Call of Duty) instead of requiring any tactics to win.
Con Less time spent playing a game
This is a feature that makes kills and hits (no health regeneration) more impactful, but also a lot less time is spent playing the game, especially if you die early to a sniper peek. Newbies will be playing a lot less of the game than more experienced players.
Con Has a large skill gap
Since it's a pretty old game, most players are veterans at this point and have been playing for a long time. This may make it hard for newer players to jump in and play.
Con Can have a bad community
As it is a large game, it should come as no surprise that the community just won't be up to par. You may be kicked for strange reasons (like bottom scoring or the all too common random hacking accusation) and many could give you a 7 day ban. It can be very frustrating as missions in the mission system require you to play certain things while crossing your fingers.
Con Hard to see if you are hitting someone
One of the things that were changed in CS:GO is firing feedback.
When someone is shot in GO, they don't wince, there's only a small amount of blood and audio that conveys the information that you are actually hitting someone. But omitting wince animation from character models makes it harder to see if you are actually hitting another player, especially at distance.