Best looking game of 2004

Why is Far Cry at only 10%?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, I mean, I do get it. Source looks incredible even today. Surprised to see Doom 3 get more votes than Far Cry.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because far cry 1 is hideous.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's engine is the most advanced out of all three allowing you to make open worlds and has the most impressive tech for both outdoor and indoors I've ever seen in 2004.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and no one cares, game looks like ass

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and the game is HIDEOUS.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kino

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because every poll is a popularity contest, and nobody votes based on objective truth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There’s no such thing as objective truth in regards to art-style or aesthetic. Only subjective tastes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Character models were kind of ass, plus it was mostly the same environments, certainly when compared to Doom and Half Life. The texture work was so fucking good in half life compared to anything else out there.

      Mostly this though.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >half life 2 beating doom 3
    ?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doom 3 is shit, get over it already.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doom 3 looks like shit, everything looks like it's made out of cheap plastic and rubber

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you disagree with this you weren't old enough at the time to understand. You should have seen the techdemo island level HL2 shipped with.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lost Coast didn't ship with HL2.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where’s Prime 2 and Zero Mission?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Far Cry graphics didn't age well. Even Doom 3 looked better in some respects.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do the HL2 facial animations still rival and even surpass modern facial animations? I can't tell if it's because Valve was just THAT good at them, or if it's because modern devs suck at it... or both?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They hired scientists and Hollywood animators specifically for that. Gabe mentioned how the developers programmed things from specific facial gestures, lip-sync down to the eye movement.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They hired scientists and Hollywood animators specifically for that. Gabe mentioned how the developers programmed things from specific facial gestures, lip-sync down to the eye movement.

      >A huge number of details go into creating a character like the G-Man: his eyes glint based on a radiosity calculation of the local illumination (they self-shadow and follow you as you move), he has 40 separate muscles in his face, and his emotions are based on a taxonomy of facial expressions created by Dr. Paul Ekman, a research psychiatrist. This same system that gives him--allows him to speak. And he can do it just as easily in any other language as English.
      From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ddJ1OKV63Q
      I guess that means the facial animations depend less on things like motion capture or handmade animations, but rather mathematical algorithms based scientific research from people such a this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman
      Most large developers just use mocap in combination with handmade animations, but I usually find it lacking. Like it doesn't capture everything, it might have the correct lip movements, but messes up the eyes for example. Too many games with characters that have a thousand-yard stare.
      I think L.A. Noire did something interesting things in this area, but their technology wasn't scalable and had too many limitations in general.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Painkiller had the best looking levels from an artistic standpoint.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember my friends and I soifacing over HL2 trailers, and Advent Children.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doom 3 looked better than all of those combined.

    Zoomies are retarded.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Far Cry's focus was on scale, and doesn't give the same immediate impressions that Doom 3 and HL2 do.
    Also most people tend to judge things like this purely through the lens of screenshots/videos, and you really to be playing Far Cry yourself to really see the wow factor of it.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Half Life 2 is one that has aged badly. Monotonous presentation and generic assets everywhere. The whole game feels exactly like a tech demo. Worst engine ever.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As much as I like HL2, Far Cry was much more impressive from a technological standpoint. It made way to Crisis that only released 3 years later, which is impossible to do nowadays. A game from 2019 looks and plays the same (but most times worse) as a game from 2022.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People really think that Half life 2 in 2004 looked as good as it does now?

    Orange box update made it look better but I would take Doom 3 or Far Cry for better looking game even though HL2 was more fun game for me

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I managed to play disc retail version of HL2 recently and it kinda holds up actually. The differences i noticed is that the Vorts look more scaly and some of the lighting don't work.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because far cry was very impressive at the time, but it aged worse than the others due to the meh art direction, whereas hl2 and doom have great art

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    less people play it and Valve has a huge fanbase

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Best looking isn't all graphics. It has a lot to do with visual design and style, and HL2 had that in abundance.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *