CS looks better than BF2

[ConscriptVirus]

i mean really, ive been playing more cs lately and i get a good average of 72fps and theres a lot more detail on the guns and modesl (i use custom models) and it looks pretty nice (no Aliasing at all or very little) and bf2..blurry textures, lots of alisaing, low fps...but my main question is ..why doesnt cs have that much aliasing

[Rayzn]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

smaller game can use a better engine without the performance suffering too much. Look at how much battlefield 2 suffers already.

[DoubleVee]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

Answer = Steam have been working on the HL2 engine for 5-6 years(I believe) and DICE worked on BF2 for 2-3 years.

[NoSoup4You]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

BF2's worlds are also much larger, take that into consideration. You can put more detail into a smaller space. I think BF2 has a very good balance of world size and graphics. The only other thing I will say is this. Mods will look better because there is much more talent in the mod community for skinning then EA could possible have.

[Talus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

LOL .. why do people always insist on comparing apples to oranges?

If somebody were to create a BF2 game with the source engine...it would SUCK!

So, until these games are similar (and boy, am I glad they're not), arguing this makes no sense.

[JCFast]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

Well I have pondered this question myself too.
But it's just the Valve's input, they didn't have EA pushing their backs to get it out as soon as possible.
Both of the engines are pretty. But I also think the Source engine is prettier and works better than the BF2 engine.

[Talus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

Well I have pondered this question myself too.
But it's just the Valve's input, they didn't have EA pushing their backs to get it out as soon as possible.
Both of the engines are pretty. But I also think the Source engine is prettier and works better than the BF2 engine.

For what is DOES...YES...you are correct. It is a better engine.

But it does NOT do 'what the BF2 engine does' better. See the difference?

apples vs orange

[JCFast]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

For what is DOES...YES...you are correct. It is a better engine.

But it does NOT do 'what the BF2 engine does' better. See the difference?

apples vs orange

Yup, but the main thing still is that Source engine is better performing and still looks awesome compared to BF2's engine. So overall I'd prefer Source engine.

[Talus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

Right you are...and I agreed with you. Source IS a better engine. BY FAR!

But if you were to use the Source engine to create a BF2 clone..it would perform and look terrible.

[sackynut]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

cs does not look better, even though it looks good. I like big maps too.

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

oh btw, i was talkign about 1.6, even tho it mite not have better textures and stuff, theres no aliasing in it (or very little) and theres a lot more detail on custom models (if u look carefully on mine, u can see the manufaturing information)

[$kelet0r]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

woah you really think cs1.6 looks better than Battlefield 2?

http://media.putfile.com/hl2net-teaser

vs

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6363993105173135337&q=cs

get your head out of the gutter son

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

i was talking about low quality bf2 + custom (higher poly) models for cs1.6

[Talus]

Re: CS looks better than BF2

ROFL ... man I thought you were talking about SOURCE!

LOL...BF2 on all-low looks like CRAP!!

CS 1.6 is OLD CRAPPY TECH meant to run well on OLD CRAPPY TECH!