Vertigo has been part of the game for twenty years now! Can you actually imagine that? It seems like the youngest map, but it’s in fact as old as Dust 2. The CS.MONEY blog decided to find out which one is cooler: Vertigo or Cobblestone?
Size
Cobblestone seems like a huge map. Perhaps the buggy from Half-Life 2 would play well on it. In reality, however, it’s not huge at all. Cobble seems so big due to its abundant “extra” space. If you only count the playing area, the map isn’t even in the top 3 size-wise.
Youtuber TemA has already measured everything for us in special units. Turns out, Nuke is almost double the size of Cobble, and Overpass and Dust 2 are a third larger. By comparison, Vertigo is almost twenty percent smaller. It was Mirage that came closest to Cobble in terms of size. It doesn’t feel that way, right?
As far as Cobble is concerned, size has always been an issue. Whole chunks have already been removed from the map. For instance, the corner behind B Site. Well, actually, “corner” might not be the best word. Such was the size of that chunk that the map still isn’t centered in images. After that, almost another third of the map was removed into the bargain. And it still feels huge!
On the contrary, Vertigo successfully combines closed and open spaces. Thanks to a multitude of varying heights, the number of floors, and the set of passages, the map feels small and very “thing-packed” at the same time.
Layout
You may have already wondered: if Cobble and Mirage are roughly the same size, why do they feel so different? We asked ourselves the same question. We came to the conclusion that the map layout is one of the problems.
Cobble looks like a huge triangle. Its vertices are A Site, B Site, and the attack spawn. They are connected by long corridors of varying widths. This greatly affects the overall impression. The transition between Sites seems huge, even though, say, Mirage makes you cover approximately the same distances.
This also causes another problem. Namely, there are no options for a quick repositioning on the map. You have to pick a site and launch an all-out attack. Going to B Site along the long gut. Long dozens of meters. Almost no cover. Sound like fun? Definitely not! And while Inferno uses a similar layout, there are no such problems there.
Vertigo is riddled with passages and transitions. Teams can change their tactics on the fly, both in defense and attack. By occupying the center of the map, a split to either of the sites is possible. It’s not perfect, sure, but clearly, it’s much better than Cobble.
Appearance
It’s all about the looks, isn’t it? Cobble’s appearance is already a bit outdated. There’s no color coding, and all the walls are the same, except for that mural area. The grass and trees look dull too, like old embers. We are used to it and it seems like everything is fine, but the same happened to Dust 2.
Remember your impression of the updated version? How much brighter and nicer it became. The dev team vented the stuffy and dark tunnels, tweaked the houses, and covered the box in the center of the map. They were minor changes, yet the map was unrecognizable. We’re sure that after a similar rehaul, Cobble will shine anew as well.
Vertigo has already undergone this procedure. There are many clear landmarks on the map. Behind the red boxes, behind the cement, at the forklift, under the yellow wall — you don’t even have to learn the call-outs! You just say what you see, and you’re sure to get the message through. That won’t work on Cobble.
Conclusions
There’s no point in comparing Vertigo and Cobblestone anymore. The skyscraper map looks better, plays equally well, and is easier to read. Despite all the time it’s been in the game, Cobble has never managed to transform from an ugly duckling into a swan-that’s-at-least-not-crippled.
We’ve lived without Cobblestone for years now, and there is almost no hope for the return of this map to the competitive pool. We are forced to state: the best thing Cobblestone has brought to the history of the game is AWP Dragon Lore. Which is awesome.
Do you agree with our conclusion? If not, tell us in the comments where we were wrong and why.
