what's the second best looking pc game?

obviously, the best looking pc game is crysis. what's the second best looking pc game?

there are many contenders, and the gs forum's limit is just unfortunate. so i left out the usual 'other' as one of the 5 choices. if you don't think it's one of the 5 listed, then just write out your opinions. i tried to pick the 5 most representative of the candidates, but i'm sure many will disagree with the chocies. like i do, in fact; i think the second best looking game is gears of war. what do you guys think?

Why is TF2 on there, it's got great style but it's far from best lookingToriko42

well, style goes a long way to how a game looks, imo.

For me it's a tie between Assassin's Creed, Unreal Tournament 3, and World in Conflict. GodLovesDead

you totally missed the point of choosing THE second best looking game by copping out and choosing three on the list. :P

Team Fortress 2. Screw your megaflops and your bumpy mapping and your real time dyna-wotsit shadows, Team Fortress 2 is art. It's truly beautiful and completely enjoyable to look at.

With most other games, especially the great looking games, it's easy to spot flaws. Unreal Tournament 3 has small environments and weird skyboxes, Assassin's Creed has terrible shadows. When you're looking at a perfect face, it's easy to spot flaws.

But when you look at a face that embraces its own imperfections, I find it much, much easier to see true beauty. I love you, Team Fortress 2.

I have never played another game that I like looking at as much as TF2. It should win every graphics award for the next fifty nine billion years.

Edit: I voted Assassin's Creed by mistake :cry:

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Why is TF2 on there, it's got great style but it's far from best lookingfireandcloud

well, style goes a long way to how a game looks, imo.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]For me it's a tie between Assassin's Creed, Unreal Tournament 3, and World in Conflict. fireandcloud

you totally missed the point of choosing THE second best looking game by copping out and choosing three on the list. :P

They all have their certain advantages. World in Conflict is the best looking RTS, UT3 looks amazing and is amazingly optimized, and Assassin's Creed just comes together to look amazing. If I had to choose, I guess I'd say World in Conflict because it looks realy damn great.

None of the above. I'd go with Bioshock, best art direction, best lighting, best water effects. All the rest you listed are pretty, but I don't see how you overlooked Bioshock, absolutely stunning and a good bit of fun to just walk around looking at the posters and such.Crzy1

Where have you been all my life!! :D

None of the above. I'd go with Bioshock, best art direction, best lighting, best water effects. All the rest you listed are pretty, but I don't see how you overlooked Bioshock, absolutely stunning and a good bit of fun to just walk around looking at the posters and such.Crzy1

yeah, it was between bioshock and cod4 for the 5th spot. i personally don't think either cod4 or bioshock can compete with ut3, wic, as's creed, and tf2; i think the four are breathtakingly beautiful, while i wasn't completely blown away by either cod4 or bioshock.

plus, bioshock is pretty in a lot of places, but it has a kind of cartoonish look, which goes nicely with the loony feel the place has but makes it tougher to take the creepiness aspect of the game seriously. i feel it fails to strike a good balance between the two, so i left it out in favor of the other games that i feel strike the right style while pulling off very aesthetically pleasing visuals.

[QUOTE="Crzy1"]None of the above. I'd go with Bioshock, best art direction, best lighting, best water effects. All the rest you listed are pretty, but I don't see how you overlooked Bioshock, absolutely stunning and a good bit of fun to just walk around looking at the posters and such.fireandcloud

yeah, it was between bioshock and cod4 for the 5th spot. i personally don't think either cod4 or bioshock can compete with ut3, wic, and tf2; i think the three are breathtakingly beautiful, while i wasn't completely blown away by either cod4 or bioshock.

plus, bioshock is pretty in a lot of places, but it has a kind of cartoonish look, which goes nicely with the loony feel the place has but makes it tougher to take the creepiness aspect of the game seriously. i feel it fails to strike a good balance between the two, so i left it out in favor of the other games that i feel strike the right style while pulling off very aesthetically pleasing visuals.

UTIII is good looking and possibly the ugliest game I've ever played at the same time, the bump mapping and normal mapping were not put to good use and the coronas around every light in the game add a terrible "glare" that ruins it for me.

World in Conflict wasn't a major leap in any direction imo, it's great to look at when everything starts to go boom, but beyond that it didn't bring anything to the table that really made me stop and stare.

TF2 was nice to look at, but everthing about it was limited, the maps look the same and the same textures are rehashed over and over, definitely wins in the "fun" section, but cel-shading is nothing new.

COD4 is a good looking game that runs really well, that's about it.

As for Bioshock, I never thought the game was trying to be "creepy", and it nailed the "Ruined Utopia" look that it was trying to achieve without a doubt. Don't really see the "cartoonish" thing either except in the aspect of the lighting. Didn't feel the big daddies were all that cartoony nor the splicers even if they wore the funny party masks. For me, it's the only game in a long time that's really given me the feeling of being there in quite some time, and that's more than I can say even for Crysis.

World in Confilct on full quality looks outstanding.

However once STALKER Clear Sky comes out, I won't know what will be best looking game out.

UTIII is good looking and possibly the ugliest game I've ever played at the same time, the bump mapping and normal mapping were not put to good use and the coronas around every light in the game add a terrible "glare" that ruins it for me.

World in Conflict wasn't a major leap in any direction imo, it's great to look at when everything starts to go boom, but beyond that it didn't bring anything to the table that really made me stop and stare.

TF2 was nice to look at, but everthing about it was limited, the maps look the same and the same textures are rehashed over and over, definitely wins in the "fun" section, but cel-shading is nothing new.

COD4 is a good looking game that runs really well, that's about it.

As for Bioshock, I never thought the game was trying to be "creepy", and it nailed the "Ruined Utopia" look that it was trying to achieve without a doubt. Don't really see the "cartoonish" thing either except in the aspect of the lighting. Didn't feel the big daddies were all that cartoony nor the splicers even if they wore the funny party masks. For me, it's the only game in a long time that's really given me the feeling of being there in quite some time, and that's more than I can say even for Crysis.

Crzy1

Medieval 2

Medieval 2

Tuzolord

i thought about putting it up there, but i didn't think many people know this game well enough for it to garner the votes to compete with the others. but i must say, that screenshot looks absolutely stunning.

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]

Medieval 2

fireandcloud

i thought about putting it up there, but i didn't think many people know this game well enough for it to garner the votes to compete with the others.

I woulda voted for it. After Crysis, it's easily the best looking PC game out there. And it runs alarmingly well, as well. If Egyptian polytheism had survived, I am sure Creative Assembly would be God of PC gaming.

Edit: I voted Assassin's Creed by mistake :cry:

fatshodan

lol. a freudian slip, perhaps? ;)

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Edit: I voted Assassin's Creed by mistake :cry:

fireandcloud

lol. maybe a freudian slip, perhaps? ;)

I always was more of an ass man.

by ut3, i actually meant gears, which i think nails the feel of the atmosphere with its visuals. but since most would pick ut3 over gears because it improves on the gears look, i chose ut3 for the poll.

and you don't think wic looks great, especially for an rts? i pulled the very first picture off gamespot (so i didn't even look for the best example), and i think it looks terrific. and tf2's st yle (don't know why i'm forced to spell st yle in this way...) is just absolutely perfect for the game; i can't think of another game that does it so right. plus, everything is so smooth and feels very refined - it's really pretty to look at, imo.

bioshock has tremendous atmosphere, to be sure. i don't disagree with you there. it does nail that retro 40s look perfectly.

but the game is trying to be creepy with all those crazy people with their disfigured and scarred faces muttering to themselves and yelling at you as they charge you. i can't think of any reason to do that except to creep you out (which is supposed to be part of the overall feel).

and it looks cartoonish because, well, everything's so extremely glossy and blue and green and other light, almost-pastel colors; plus, the characters themselves have kind of a cartoon villain look. they even act a bit cartoonish with the over-the-top, almost outlandish, yelling. plus, they run kind of cartoonish - don't know how else to describe how they behave but to call it cartoonish. everything looks like...hard candy (like real, eatable candy - like you could take one of the npcs and bite into him). sorry, i'm not doing a good job explaining it, unfortunately. but even the main character has plump sausage fingers, which adds to the cartoonish feel.

anyway, just my opinion, of course.fireandcloud

Hope that cut the double quote and picture out. EDIT: It didn't get everything right, but close enough.

I agree that WiC was a really great looking game, but when you're in the top-down "playing the game" camera, it's not that impressive, all the low and tight "watching the game" shots look fantastic but that's not what you're going to see on a normal play through unless you spend all your time looking at your tanks while you infantry gets pounded elsewhere.

As far as UT3 being superior to Gears, I'd agree on the technical side, large environments, better modeling, etc. In terms of aesthetics it's a definite step backwards. I think Gears looks great, but I played it on the 360 nearly a year before it hit the PC so it didn't do anything for me other than provide a new benchmark for a while.

I like the look of TF2, but it's technically unimpressive and since there's really no story the characters didn't make a lot of sense to me (I loved TF and I think the cartoon approach in TF2 was a sad step backwards for the series).

I can agree that a lot of the surfaces in Bioshock were "glossy" (never noticed any characters having any type of sheen to them), but it worked for me since the majority of the environments are metallic in nature and would have a hard shiny coat of paint on them and there is an excessive amount of neon lighting that would give the pastel look at the beginning. All that ended after Fort Frolic which I wouldn't even consider a half-way mark and things slowly but surely start to look grittier as you move along to the areas that were most affected by the revolts and that really started to show how much work went into the art direction as posters turn from advertisements to propaganda (and it gives a great feel of plunging further into the insanity of Rapture).

And just a last opinion, I think you're mistaking the "dementia" aspect of the game for "creepy". For me it was a look at the insanity that slowly destroyed Rapture and so anything that might have seemed "cartoony" at first I would now consider the effect of the people of Rapture losing their minds (cartoon villain looks, masks, strange behavior, muttering, yelling, etc.) as a result of ADAM. It's all in the eye of the beholder, but just feel like Bioshock easily trumps anything that isn't Crysis in terms of looks.

Hope that cut the double quote and picture out.

I agree that WiC was a really great looking game, but when you're in the top-down "playing the game" camera, it's not that impressive, all the low and tight "watching the game" shots look fantastic but that's not what you're going to see on a normal play through unless you spend all your time looking at your tanks while you infantry gets pounded elsewhere.

As far as UT3 being superior to Gears, I'd agree on the technical side, large environments, better modeling, etc. In terms of aesthetics it's a definite step backwards. I think Gears looks great, but I played it on the 360 nearly a year before it hit the PC so it didn't do anything for me other than provide a new benchmark for a while.

I like the look of TF2, but it's technically unimpressive and since there's really no story the characters didn't make a lot of sense to me (I loved TF and I think the cartoon approach in TF2 was a sad step backwards for the series).

I can agree that a lot of the surfaces in Bioshock were "glossy" (never noticed any characters having any type of sheen to them), but it worked for me since the majority of the environments are metallic in nature and would have a hard shiny coat of paint on them and there is an excessive amount of neon lighting that would give the pastel look at the beginning. All that ended after Fort Frolic which I wouldn't even consider a half-way mark and things slowly but surely start to look grittier as you move along to the areas that were most affected by the revolts and that really started to show how much work went into the art direction as posters turn from advertisements to propaganda (and it gives a great feel of plunging further into the insanity of Rapture).

And just a last opinion, I think you're mistaking the "dementia" aspect of the game for "creepy". For me it was a look at the insanity that slowly destroyed Rapture and so anything that might have seemed "cartoony" at first I would now consider the effect of the people of Rapture losing their minds (cartoon villain looks, masks, strange behavior, muttering, yelling, etc.) as a result of ADAM. It's all in the eye of the beholder, but just feel like Bioshock easily trumps anything that is Crysis in terms of looks.

Crzy1

good points all. just differing viewpoints, i think.

i always am impressed when an rts with zoom in feature looks really nice up close. i think that's where coh and dow suffer in terms of visuals; they both just don't look as nice up close.

i think gears looks better than ut3. that much we agree on.

i think you have to look at tf2 as a separate entity from tf, at least to a point, cuz they did go a whole different way with the series in terms of style. i don't think you'd look at it so negatively if it were called team arcade or something. anyway, it's definitely not technically impressive, but i think the game is all the better for it because of its style.

and as for bioshock, yes, the game does try to look grittier later on, but it didn't feel gritty at all, imo; just a lot of debris all over the place.

and i always thought insane people were kind of creepy; just my thing, i understand. but i didn't feel creeped out at all by the insane people in bioshock, which detracted from the experience for me, cuz, well, i want to be creeped out by crazy people, not find them humorous.

Episode Two anyone? :D Hehe. biggest_loser

i thought ep 2 looked quite good. i do think those trees were really ugly though, especially up close.

Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total WarLonelynight

hmm... that's three for medieval 2. maybe i should have put it up there instead of ut3, which has only 2 votes. but then again, cod4 is winning, so i don't know how seriously i can take the very poll i created.

Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total WarLonelynight

Yes COH is a really amazing looking game so I would second that.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total Warfireandcloud

hmm... that's three for medieval 2. maybe i should have put it up there instead of ut3, which has only 2 votes. but then again, cod4 is winning, so i don't know how seriously i can take the very poll i created.

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total WarLonelynight

hmm... that's three for medieval 2. maybe i should have put it up there instead of ut3, which has only 2 votes. but then again, cod4 is winning, so i don't know how seriously i can take the very poll i created.

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

Me neither. I would put it bottom of the above list.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total WarLonelynight

hmm... that's three for medieval 2. maybe i should have put it up there instead of ut3, which has only 2 votes. but then again, cod4 is winning, so i don't know how seriously i can take the very poll i created.

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

the reason i chose cod4 over other games is because it was leading in another poll (non-gamestop) that i perused to see what the general opinion is; since this poll isn't really for me, i thought i'd try to put the 5 most representative (which is why i didn't put my personal choice, gears of war) up there. and which is why medieval 2 was omitted, because i thought that most people didn't know much about the game and it wouldn't garner many votes; i obviously underestimated gamespotters. i agree with you on medieval 2; it does look nicer than cod4 (though i still think gears looks nicer).

Company of Heroes or Medieval 2 Total WarLonelynight

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

Lonelynight

C'mon man: the smoke effects, lighting, real time shadows? No good?

I voted Team Fortress 2 because of its unique cartoon style, but admittedly, the best looking game has to be Assassin's Creed. All those characters, the crowded city, the architecture - its all amazing. CoD 4 is awesome and all, but the realistic warfare genre has so many alternatives, including Crysis.

Anyways, graphics don't make the game. I never get games just because they look good. If i want to just see it, I'll download the demo or watch it on youtube. I get games because of the gameplay.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

biggest_loser

C'mon man: the smoke effects, lighting, real time shadows? No good?

The environments are static, there are hardly any physics, rag doll sucks, small maps.

Not saying it looks bad though, still looks great

Crysis in my opinion is not the best looking game on PC platform. Great looking game but it's more technically impressive. Crysis from an art perspective is very weak let alone performance can't even compete with any of those games on the list. When you say "best looking game" I think more of appeal to the eyes rather then technical technologies. Best looking game on PC platform is World of Warcraft from the immersing looking world and unique looking characters to such a great color palette scheme and all the rest of the terminologies. Blizzard really is a company pack with marvelous artist. Second best looking PC game will be Team Fortress 2. Team Fortress 2 art design is some of the best on this platform. It's very diverse from other products.

For the record for people commonly representing Team Fortress 2 as Cell shading for the love of the Gingerbread man please do some research or ask someone. Please stop throwing words out there. Team Fortress 2 is "not" Cell shaded in fact the style use is related to Phong shading.

well i wouldn't really compare fps and strategy graphics but if i had to choose it would definetly be assasins creed, then ut3

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

I don't think thast CoD 4 is really that technically impressive.

biggest_loser

C'mon man: the smoke effects, lighting, real time shadows? No good?

Call of Duty 4 doens't look much better than COD2, it shouldn't be on that list.

Medival 2 looks has horrible graphics :P

Ok it looks great from distance but zoom it to ground level like crysis close and it looks like a game from 1999. Zoom crysis that far and it looks like real life.

But yes CoD4 has the best graphics after Crysis.

i voted WIC, but it was pretty much a tie with assasins creed. although i havent played it, it looks fantastic from the screenshots.

COD4, while it had really nice lighting, seemed to be lacking high res textures.

to be perfectly honest, i would have chosen Timeshift to be my #2. i though it looked amazing, it had some of the best textures i've ever seen, the lighting and specular was fantastics, the shadowing effects were amazing, the only area where it lacked a tin bit was in the character models, but even they were decent enough.

Medival 2 looks has horrible graphics :P

Ok it looks great from distance but zoom it to ground level like crysis close and it looks like a game from 1999. Zoom crysis that far and it looks like real life.

But yes CoD4 has the best graphics after Crysis.

Pessu

UT3 gets my vote. I like the look to that game.smokeydabear076

Well since i own both...Company of heroes is better than wic...Both are great games...Coh though is far better visuals...If you go up close the men an the tanks are great looking..Its also a far better game online..Gladestone1

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]UT3 gets my vote. I like the look to that game.DivergeUnify

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]UT3 gets my vote. I like the look to that game.smokeydabear076