So I go back and play HALF LIFE 2

[Reasonable]

ZenfoldorVGI said:

leo-j said:

 

Replay it, it definately looks better than BIOSHOCK (whose textures are comparable to ps2 games when up close), COD4 (let not even talk about the textures, since its more of a huge pixel), and the best looking game of the 3 "R2" id say they are on par, but HL2 takes it for the fact it is so smooth.

I diagree with that, actually. I think Bioshock has much better graphics than HL2. Especially on PC, and I think CoD4, in PC, or console, is on par or above Bioshock.

That said, it's really all opinion. HL2 has a very cool realistic outdoorsy feel, which I like.

It does depend how you judge it, for example, played on max settings, overall I still find HL2 superior to Bioshock, CoD4 and others as it overall is more cohesive, and doesn't limit you as obviously.  CoD4 has terrible physics for example, which i dislike visually as you throw a grenade in a room and apart from particle effects almost nothing moves, in HL2, with its far superior phyics, everything not nailed down goes flying.  Bioshock looks lovely, but pays for it in small levels, poor exterior views (apart from a view clearly given lots of effort) and relatively poor character models.  Again, physics in Bioshock are hobbled for resolution and fps.

The other big thing about Hl2 (or Source really) is how well optimized it is.  As an engine is just performs better, relative to what's on the screen and the physics being handled at the same time, vs more recent engines.

So while Bioshock, etc look better in a still image, in movement, in comabt, I still prefer HL2 due to the better balance of visual balance, physics and great indoors/outdoors support.