Obviously the unreal version needs tweaks to the lighting to make it playable. There is too much bloom, and the HDR effect is se up too intense. Some materials are also too shiny. This can all be tweaked in unreal editor. But in terms of light, when it's correct, it's much better then source 2, because the light actually bounces more.
I don't know why people who make UE4/5 ports of games just can't help but crank every graphical settings up to the max for no reason, like how exactly does making your character have sensitive eyes make it look "realistic".
I bet if u compare performance, source 2 and source 1 will have way higher fps than its unreal counterpart, and its impressive to see how source 2 outputs such good graphics with little toll on fps.
They had to optimize the crap out of the engine for HL:A a VR game that has to render two perspectives. I'm glad to finally be able to touch this engine for a FPS on a flat screen.
Source is just downright charming to look at honestly. It doesn't necessarily look realistic, but has this really uncanny vibe to it that I really dig.
Definitely one of the best engines out there from a gameplay perspective (though not from a technical one lmfao) Rightfully a lot of people's favorite "game engine" if that makes sense mine included
Art and graphics can look the same anywhere, it just depends on how long the artist wants to spend with the given toolset to get the desired effect. The Unreal example was probably built by a single guy over a couple of days, the Source example was built by 10s of professional developers over years. Obviously, the Source versions have been tweaked to better result. The real comparison here should be how long it takes to build out a game on a specific engine. Here is the real test of an engines prowess, though I doubt anybody would be crazy to try and do this: Take all of the raw assets that were exported to make the Unreal Engine version (raw textures, animations, meshes) and reimport them into Source 2 and rebuild the assets to look like the Source 2 version using the Source 2 toolset. See how long that takes and compare that to how long it took to build the Unreal Version. My guess is it would take you weeks to accomplish a baseline with the Source 2 toolset to even begin comparison while it took you a couple of days to do the Unreal Engine baseline which already looks pretty close. I am not coming to these assuptions from nowhere, I have been developing games for 20 years now and worked with Source 1 for about 5 of those years and have reviewed the Source 2 toolset a couple of times.
Before crapping on Unreal Engine, know that the CS in Unreal Engine has been probably made by someone as a pet project, whereas the CS in source 2 has been tweaked, handled and managed by a multi Billion dollars corporation.
Source 2 looks so good I prefer source 1 than Unreal Engine, it doesn’t have a personality, but it’s a very powerful motor and many games look incredible with it
Unfortunately, it's sad to see people who have no basic knowledge about games, but explaining this Unreal Engine video is literally nothing, man. The guy just took the CS map and put it in Unreal and changed the lighting, shadows, and shaders to give it a different look. Modders have been doing this for a long time. Firstly, I think this video greatly discredits Unreal Engine 5 because its world-creation capabilities are extremely superior to what is shown in the video. Secondly, Unreal Engine focuses on single-player games precisely to create incredibly detailed worlds, which makes it impractical to create worlds for multiplayer since there couldn't be as many details due to lag, and the engine itself doesn't work well with anti-cheats. Is it possible? Of course, but it's not worth doing, and the proof is the fact that there are no popular online games made in Unreal. This CS in Unreal is a big joke.
Source 2 is genuinely insane. Amazing graphics at super high framerates on low end hardware. Meanwhile UE5 games struggle to run on lowest settings on those kinds of systems. Honestly Epic and Unreal are ruining the definition of a game; gameplay should always be more important than graphics.
Fun fact: 99% of "Ultra Realistic Unreal Ports" are just ports with default post-processing effects set to maximum, to the point where it becomes unviable for any game to look like this because it lacks any visual balance and runs like shit in any PC.
whoever made the unreal test went way too overboard with effects, to try to show how much 'better' it can look but just ends up being a flashy mess. S2 looks like the same game as S1with a bit better lighting, which is what it should be.
Source2 looking more realistic because, if you look on Unreal 5, it will look soapy, but on Source2 it look clearly than on Unreal 5. And we have to understand that for shooter so quality graphics don't need, or all too lagging
@@n9ne a lot of that is now natively available in UE5.4, and there were custom solutions before. The thing with UE5 vs Source 2 is that source 2 games are currently (basically) only valve games and valve themselves are masters of design, Unreal Engine is available to ANYONE and can be modified in any way, so people can make terrible scenes/games in unreal and unrivalled ones. The tools themselves are good but really it’s just about who is using it
Epic’s Unreal Engine has the best visuals and especially lightning but it is not suitable for competitive gaming. Hence Source 2’s smokes and overall graphics are the best for ongoing community of Counteratrike 2.
Unreal Engine 5 :) It will require an average rtx4070ti graphics card. This type of game engines do business in direct proportion with graphic card companies. The success of CS is in offering low system requirements. An update with high system requirements will reduce the number of instant players by at least half.
U5 is just too bright, like tunnels doesn’t even feel like tunnels because of how bright it is. S2 strikes a perfect balance of bright enough to be very visible and not distracting at least for me
@@ayanokoji42069 well it isn't exactly the engine used, but how you use it. You can very likely replicate the Unreal Engine footage shown here by using Source 2, but it comes at the heavy cost of performance, competitive integrity, and visibility. Look at HL:Alyx for instance, that uses the Source 2 engine but still looks leagues better then CS2 looks. It is a smart design decision to prioritize CS2's competitive integrity and accessibility rather then its graphics
Source engine ( Thanks to Original Quake ) is the Godfather of FPS GENRE. Cause the Shooting is super crisp and Movement is very responsive, fast paced and there is some unique feeling into it which you won't feel in another.....Unreal is great for Single player but we have played load of games used this engine for so many years it feels now very generic. I still believe Engine wise 1- Rage ( Rockstar) 2- Source 3- Unreal
True, the Unreal Engine CSGO has probably made by someone as a pet Project. Whereas the Source CSGO has been made by a multi Billion dollar corporation. People sometimes shid before thinking 🗿☕
Whoever created the UE5 one really just focused on how it looks. I get that it's to show off what CS coulddd look like, but good god all the lighting is blinding me rather than just flashes.
Yeah the explosions are all huge "Hollywood" ones which is a style choice. Plus like you said the lighting was cranked up a ton. Also was it annoying the clips would change engine order every section?
@@nick-mf7fe what the fuck are you talking about? It has nothing to do with the engine, it's bright and pastel because the soyboy devs think that daycare-core style looks good and has more mass appeal. Engines don't make scenes brighter or darker lmao that's a deliberate choice by the artists
Source 2 looks like an actual game with art direction you won't really notice but will remember, meanwhile U5 seems like one of those tech demos made by a "NINTENDO HIRE THIS MAN" team that looks neat at first but gets old after a while & lacks soul
Source 2 does a good job simulating human eyes. Unreal simulates a crappy camera. The problem is our screens can't show the full range of lighting we can see. Unreal makes it look real by clipping out the lighter frequencies to "look real" but Source 2 is the most realistic
It always makes me cringe seeing that people still think that "more shiny" = "Realistic" everything in UE isn't changed they simply made everything bright and shiny!
To me Unreal always seemed like it was overcompensating when it came to lighting, it tries too hard to look realistic and as a result, looks hyper-realistic and fake, like it's Cyberpunk in the desert. Video games shouldn't look like Blender renders 24/7, and if UE5 was used in CS, it'd make flashbangs useless.
Once again, an UE4/UE5 port is overdone. Just like graphics mods. I can appreciate the effort, but people don't pay attention to stylizing things in those. It's just lens flares, blood and oversaturated colors. Source 2 just looks REAL. There's something to it, even though it's cartoonish, it looks and feels real.
I'm "obsessed" with that people who compared Unreal Engine 5 with Source/Source 2 engine knowing that fact what UE5 will be a head taller :) Leave Source/Source 2 alone
Cs is not a simulation, so there is no need for realistic graphics. Topics such as gameplay and optimization are more important. Source 2 is the best at this.
The Unreal engine version is so unrealistic when it comes to multiplayer. You take a turn and your own gun's reflection is only blinding you, you throw your own molly but dont know what the range is so you only die in it, You try to defuse and the DOF doesn't tell you if an enemy is there.
I’ll say Source 2 is better in first person games so the blur doesn’t ruined the view while you’re aiming, for example CSGO While Unreal is better in third person games for example Stray
If you think about it, They are technically the same thing, abstraction over DirectX/Vulkan/OpenGL API. Just the toolsets, development tools, community support, and scripting/programming languages differentiate both (I believe in this case, UE has the upper hand). You can make an unoptimized Source 2, vice versa. It is up to the developers.
Engines are not abstractions over Graphics specification sets, they're way more than that. They provide a renderer, material handler, input, entity component system, physics, transformations, particle systems, behaviour scripting system, packing assets, lightning etc.
@@donsk324 Engines are abstractions over graphics APIs. Any library used to make games and interacts with the operating environment can be called an engine. High level example of an engine: Assets include custom information for each game, like scripts, and data. Systems include everything needed for running the game, like scripting system, rendering, and physics. - Startup: 1. Setup systems. 2. Get assets. 3. Setup assets. - Loop: Step 2 and 3 are optional since they only need to happen when new assets are needed. 1. Render last tick. 2. Get new assets. 3. Setup new assets. 4. Tick systems.
@@nbhjbhyvgbhyuvbhuynnjbhu I know what a game engine is. Any library used to make games that interacts with the operating system is not an engine. In that logic, SDL, GLFW, and SFML are all game engines, which is plain false. Graphics API Abstraction layers are also a different thing, not to be confused with game engines. These can be used for a variety of purposes such as for a desktop or mobile app, a web app, and of course, for games and game engines.
UE5 looks amazing but probably runs terrible and isnt optimized for players playing or for the gameplay of CS. OFC source2 is slightly less beautiful but optimized for some mid tier pcs and such.
thats just volumetric fog/lighting, source 2 can do that as good as Unreal, The problem is that Cs is a competitive game, people dont want to be flashbanged with graphics
I'd just say that Source 2 has less dynamic range in the lighting and is flat looking. It also doesn't look as sharp as Source 1. Source 2 looks a little more cartoonish to me - a little less realistic. Unreal was similar to Source 2 but a little more of all of the above.
To be honest, source 1 molotov and smoke looks the most realistic. I dont like source 2 smoke and fire, its looks so fake and superimposed... unreal engine is the worse, its overly dramatic and looks too cartoonish.
1. Theres no point in arguing about lighting, Source and Source 2 lighting is baked in but its using either Radiosity or Ray tracing to bake it. So it will always look correct but not as dynamic i guess. Still it will always look better when theres nothing moving on the scene (background). 2. Source and Source 2 doesnt have plastic texture problem Unreal still has(but it keeps getting better). Textures are straight up better because Valve engines use to use uncompressed close to source TGA files as source(lossless) and now these are pbr. I guess you could argue normal maps etc are better on Unreal but thats again only relevant if you take "dynamic" lighting into account. 3. Source and Source 2 are straight up BETTER OPTIMIZED. To the point that ancient pc's can run this game at 100+ fps. Thats a major positive. 4. Unreal has bunch of fancy "next-gen" tech added on top of everything. A lot of it is just post-processing of all kinds. You could say a lot of it is unnecessary but used creatively its an advantage. We could argue Valve has kept the engine really clean on their part and stayed away from things that dont really add much to their games atleast. 5. Unreals only "real" advantage is its asset management and community. Source 2 has advanced that massively since the Half-Life 2 days but its still probably not as good.
UE5 with properly optimised materials and lighting will look much better than this comparison. Source 1/2 versions are professionally developed products, UE5 version - fan made I guess.
Source 2 looks so clean, and actually realistic.
Not at all. CS2 is hard in the cartoony art style that CSGO has slowly become over the years.
@@friendofp.24 Imagine, swapping filter as "Cartoony art style" smh
Do you mean unreal engine? Source 2 doesn't look that much realistic but unreal engine does
@@friendofp.24 lol its really not that cartoony compared to games like tf2 or valorant
@@ashour89
Ah yes, I forgot, drowning out the visuals with bloom is "realistic".
Obviously the unreal version needs tweaks to the lighting to make it playable. There is too much bloom, and the HDR effect is se up too intense. Some materials are also too shiny.
This can all be tweaked in unreal editor. But in terms of light, when it's correct, it's much better then source 2, because the light actually bounces more.
I don't know why people who make UE4/5 ports of games just can't help but crank every graphical settings up to the max for no reason, like how exactly does making your character have sensitive eyes make it look "realistic".
@@gibleyman Because they can, it's an artistic choice. If you don't like it make it yourself ig
@@gibleyman source 2 is literally source 1 with 1000% saturation
yes
@@kookysagittarius this is completely incorrect.
I bet if u compare performance, source 2 and source 1 will have way higher fps than its unreal counterpart, and its impressive to see how source 2 outputs such good graphics with little toll on fps.
This is true
They had to optimize the crap out of the engine for HL:A a VR game that has to render two perspectives.
I'm glad to finally be able to touch this engine for a FPS on a flat screen.
These were EXACTLY my thoughts even before clicking on the video
iirc source 2 maps have their lighting calculated in advance
@Max_ZK optimization is key with consoles, so why not PC's?
Developers not optimising there games for PC is disappointing.
there is something about source 1 that just makes me enjoy it more than others
for me, its the dark shadows and darkness overall
Source is just downright charming to look at honestly.
It doesn't necessarily look realistic, but has this really uncanny vibe to it that I really dig.
It's gloomy and it's nostalgic you know
Definitely one of the best engines out there from a gameplay perspective (though not from a technical one lmfao)
Rightfully a lot of people's favorite "game engine" if that makes sense mine included
@@malif1279 goldsrc my beloved
1:06 Finally I can see the character legs in csgo
Art and graphics can look the same anywhere, it just depends on how long the artist wants to spend with the given toolset to get the desired effect. The Unreal example was probably built by a single guy over a couple of days, the Source example was built by 10s of professional developers over years. Obviously, the Source versions have been tweaked to better result.
The real comparison here should be how long it takes to build out a game on a specific engine.
Here is the real test of an engines prowess, though I doubt anybody would be crazy to try and do this:
Take all of the raw assets that were exported to make the Unreal Engine version (raw textures, animations, meshes) and reimport them into Source 2 and rebuild the assets to look like the Source 2 version using the Source 2 toolset. See how long that takes and compare that to how long it took to build the Unreal Version. My guess is it would take you weeks to accomplish a baseline with the Source 2 toolset to even begin comparison while it took you a couple of days to do the Unreal Engine baseline which already looks pretty close.
I am not coming to these assuptions from nowhere, I have been developing games for 20 years now and worked with Source 1 for about 5 of those years and have reviewed the Source 2 toolset a couple of times.
Вопрос, где вы взяли Counter-Strike на Unreal engine? Сами нарисовали? Тогда сравнение просто офигеть какое "справедливое"
Unreal очень контрастный из за чего не кажется реалистичным, а слишком ярким. Поэтому лучше всего смотрится Source 2 и 1
Before crapping on Unreal Engine, know that the CS in Unreal Engine has been probably made by someone as a pet project, whereas the CS in source 2 has been tweaked, handled and managed by a multi Billion dollars corporation.
Source 2 looks so good
I prefer source 1 than Unreal Engine, it doesn’t have a personality, but it’s a very powerful motor and many games look incredible with it
UR5 parece que se esfuerza demasiado en verse bien.
Y Source 2 pues simplemente se ve limpio y detalles realistas.
Tambien recuerda que los graficos de cs2 son DEMASIADO buenos para su optimizacion
El cs2 corre muchisimo mejor que la version de unreal
Unfortunately, it's sad to see people who have no basic knowledge about games, but explaining this Unreal Engine video is literally nothing, man. The guy just took the CS map and put it in Unreal and changed the lighting, shadows, and shaders to give it a different look. Modders have been doing this for a long time. Firstly, I think this video greatly discredits Unreal Engine 5 because its world-creation capabilities are extremely superior to what is shown in the video. Secondly, Unreal Engine focuses on single-player games precisely to create incredibly detailed worlds, which makes it impractical to create worlds for multiplayer since there couldn't be as many details due to lag, and the engine itself doesn't work well with anti-cheats. Is it possible? Of course, but it's not worth doing, and the proof is the fact that there are no popular online games made in Unreal. This CS in Unreal is a big joke.
Unreal engine has the worst bloom ever, even digital foundry complained about that.
its not source 1 its just source (although it makes more sense as source 1)
anyways nice vid :)
Source 2 here is optimized for a light fast shooting game, so we can't really compare them in this game.
Personal take:
Particle effects: S2 > S1 > U5
Weapon model: S2 > U5 > S1
Lighting: S2 > U5 > S1
both u5 and source 1 have same models
No, I don't want my cs looking like insurgency sandstorm
Source 2 wins easily, because it didn't need a lot of beautiful effects and tricks to make up for the visuals and still looks fantastic.
UE5 classic 2005-2009 games, bloom is at 100000% and calls it a day
Source 2 is genuinely insane. Amazing graphics at super high framerates on low end hardware. Meanwhile UE5 games struggle to run on lowest settings on those kinds of systems. Honestly Epic and Unreal are ruining the definition of a game; gameplay should always be more important than graphics.
Fun fact:
99% of "Ultra Realistic Unreal Ports" are just ports with default post-processing effects set to maximum, to the point where it becomes unviable for any game to look like this because it lacks any visual balance and runs like shit in any PC.
I don't like how small the guns in the Unreal Engine look compared to Source 1 and 2, doesn't feel like there's much power to it
Source 2 look like a high quality moblie game
whoever made the unreal test went way too overboard with effects, to try to show how much 'better' it can look but just ends up being a flashy mess. S2 looks like the same game as S1with a bit better lighting, which is what it should be.
Source2 looking more realistic because, if you look on Unreal 5, it will look soapy, but on Source2 it look clearly than on Unreal 5. And we have to understand that for shooter so quality graphics don't need, or all too lagging
Source2 physics and Animations are just way ahead of what UE5 is capable of in real time.
Physics yes but animations no
@@sinelacico823 also animations from what i have seen. look up half life alyx animations valve commentary.
@@n9ne a lot of that is now natively available in UE5.4, and there were custom solutions before. The thing with UE5 vs Source 2 is that source 2 games are currently (basically) only valve games and valve themselves are masters of design, Unreal Engine is available to ANYONE and can be modified in any way, so people can make terrible scenes/games in unreal and unrivalled ones. The tools themselves are good but really it’s just about who is using it
Epic’s Unreal Engine has the best visuals and especially lightning but it is not suitable for competitive gaming. Hence Source 2’s smokes and overall graphics are the best for ongoing community of Counteratrike 2.
Unreal Engine 5 :) It will require an average rtx4070ti graphics card. This type of game engines do business in direct proportion with graphic card companies. The success of CS is in offering low system requirements. An update with high system requirements will reduce the number of instant players by at least half.
Thank god we didn’t get unreal engine. Visibility is absolutely awful
No way they used the MSR sfx for the AWP in UE lol that's sick!
come to think of it. Ever since i got the early acces for cs2 source1 just looks weird now
U5 is just too bright, like tunnels doesn’t even feel like tunnels because of how bright it is. S2 strikes a perfect balance of bright enough to be very visible and not distracting at least for me
U can just tweak down the effects. The guy here made everything max
UE5 is better, that guy just made everything max. But actually you can tweak everything
to be fair tunnels has a giant hole in the roof
But on Unreal 5 you can make better CS:GO
@@xGARIDx what does that have to do with it? It still has a big hole in the roof
Unreal looks like a mobile game
Its trying to hard
Source 2 literaly looks like standoff lol
@@sedioz7175 no it doesnt
@@sedioz7175 it doesn't, standoff looks horrible.
A trailer of a mobile game you mean😂
Between Source 2 and Unreal 5, seeing them side by side it feels like U5 is trying too hard, even though it was out before S2, at least S2 for CS
Unreal 5 came out after source 2 tho
@@nrnjn8547 thats what he said
@@acrobro5912 he said before lmao. Not after
@@nrnjn8547 I think the OP comment edited it
It's not the engine its the game
Source 1> Unreal , unreal is probably good for non-competitve games
valorant uses unreal
@@MenderSlen579 but it uses unreal engine 4 and not unreal engine 5 right,
@@MenderSlen579 skill issue
@@ayanokoji42069 well it isn't exactly the engine used, but how you use it. You can very likely replicate the Unreal Engine footage shown here by using Source 2, but it comes at the heavy cost of performance, competitive integrity, and visibility. Look at HL:Alyx for instance, that uses the Source 2 engine but still looks leagues better then CS2 looks. It is a smart design decision to prioritize CS2's competitive integrity and accessibility rather then its graphics
Source engine ( Thanks to Original Quake ) is the Godfather of FPS GENRE. Cause the Shooting is super crisp and Movement is very responsive, fast paced and there is some unique feeling into it which you won't feel in another.....Unreal is great for Single player but we have played load of games used this engine for so many years it feels now very generic.
I still believe Engine wise
1- Rage ( Rockstar)
2- Source
3- Unreal
Source csgo vs badly made unreal csgo
True, the Unreal Engine CSGO has probably made by someone as a pet Project.
Whereas the Source CSGO has been made by a multi Billion dollar corporation.
People sometimes shid before thinking 🗿☕
@@ZOCCOK you dont need a billion dollars to reduce all that bloom
Think I’m good on source. Most big games using Unreal don’t care to optimize for PC, with that shader stuttering bs so prevalent on that engine.
Whoever created the UE5 one really just focused on how it looks. I get that it's to show off what CS coulddd look like, but good god all the lighting is blinding me rather than just flashes.
Yeah the explosions are all huge "Hollywood" ones which is a style choice. Plus like you said the lighting was cranked up a ton. Also was it annoying the clips would change engine order every section?
I really liked the depressing look of Source 1. Not sure what I think of Source 2 yet
ye we are all gonna miss it but its def not the case for the newer fps players cuz the cs2 clearly increased player count
Source 2 is unnecessarily bright
@@wc5502 Yes 100% right choice for the masses. Maybe an attempt to appeal to valorant players
@@nick-mf7fe what the fuck are you talking about? It has nothing to do with the engine, it's bright and pastel because the soyboy devs think that daycare-core style looks good and has more mass appeal. Engines don't make scenes brighter or darker lmao that's a deliberate choice by the artists
@@jdg1251 Source 1 is Incredibly grim, I’m glad we finally added something to make locations appealing
That's impressive, very nice
Now let's see the frame rate
Source 2 is definitely winning that one xD
Ugh UE shader stutters too? No thx.
Impressive, very nice. Let's see Paul Allen's framerate
Unreal Engine fans praising unreal while their game runs at 5 fps average
source runs smoothly on an Arm virtual machine 💀
God bless valve for not making source 2 not look like unreal engine where everything looks plastic (at least in most games🤣)
Unreal Engine feels like someone shining a spot light directly into my eyes
Thats most ue games
HE Grenade looks most realistic at source 1, in reality there is no big flame when grenade is exploading, it hits the target with metal fragments :)
Sadly the throwing Player is get no damage in that short distance of explosion. Thats not realistic.
Source 2 looks like an actual game with art direction you won't really notice but will remember, meanwhile U5 seems like one of those tech demos made by a "NINTENDO HIRE THIS MAN" team that looks neat at first but gets old after a while & lacks soul
Source 2 does a good job simulating human eyes. Unreal simulates a crappy camera. The problem is our screens can't show the full range of lighting we can see. Unreal makes it look real by clipping out the lighter frequencies to "look real" but Source 2 is the most realistic
I bet if epic made it it would shit on source 2 without trouble , the unreal version seen here is probably made by a modder
I sometimes wonder if the people saying that cs2 looks cartoony just regained their eye sight after being blind for many years..
It always makes me cringe seeing that people still think that "more shiny" = "Realistic" everything in UE isn't changed they simply made everything bright and shiny!
Source 2 is just so clean and natural looking. It looks so realistic, and visibility is so clear.
nice bot
@@Taburtsoff lol I'm a real human but admittedly a huge valve fanboy. I just think the game looks neat is all.
Cryengine right now does that as well, Crysis Remastered still blows my mind.
@@saricubra2867 Yeah, remasters look very good. Crysis 2 remastered is my favorite looking.
Source 1 : og game
Source 2 : remastered
Unreal engine 5 : trailers for the game vs the actual game
I kinda like source 1 🐐
Cant see shit in unreal xD
Grenades in unreal engine 5 is very very bad no realistic but in source two grenedes is very cool and realistic
To me Unreal always seemed like it was overcompensating when it came to lighting, it tries too hard to look realistic and as a result, looks hyper-realistic and fake, like it's Cyberpunk in the desert. Video games shouldn't look like Blender renders 24/7, and if UE5 was used in CS, it'd make flashbangs useless.
You should've compared it in a fixed order, source1 ->source2 -> unreal engine for example, not randomly. It'd make the video less chaotic.
Source 1 feels like home
Once again, an UE4/UE5 port is overdone. Just like graphics mods.
I can appreciate the effort, but people don't pay attention to stylizing things in those. It's just lens flares, blood and oversaturated colors.
Source 2 just looks REAL. There's something to it, even though it's cartoonish, it looks and feels real.
I'm "obsessed" with that people who compared Unreal Engine 5 with Source/Source 2 engine knowing that fact what UE5 will be a head taller :)
Leave Source/Source 2 alone
In Unreal it looks like you're being constantly flashbanged because of how damn bright the lighting is.
Being a dev I can say this doesn't matter, all can be made same
tbh I don't like Unreal that much. . . . I thought I would. Why is it so sparkly ? ? ? It's like what if Siegfried & Roy lead to terrorism.
Unreal Engine 5 ver not look so good simply cus that is not from official, It's just Fan Make Dust 2 by Unreal Engine 5.
UE5 Ver: Way too bright directional light, too much glossness, weird refraction effects.
only OGs will know the sniper sound at 0:40 is from the Mw3 MSR
Cs is not a simulation, so there is no need for realistic graphics. Topics such as gameplay and optimization are more important. Source 2 is the best at this.
who the fuck cranked the ue5 bloom up to meet god for no reason
HAHAHAHHAA This comment made me laugh. ROFL
The Unreal engine version is so unrealistic when it comes to multiplayer. You take a turn and your own gun's reflection is only blinding you, you throw your own molly but dont know what the range is so you only die in it, You try to defuse and the DOF doesn't tell you if an enemy is there.
I don't know how many people, but I liked sours 1 the most.
I like the look and feel of Source 1 engine in this Video the most
source 1 is better!
unreal engine is just flashy, good game doesnt need to have all possible god rays and reflections
UE5 is fucking soulless. I'll even take source 1 over that.
huh source 2 looks the best but i thought UE5 would look the best odd i was rong
"conspiracy - unreal engine 5 club" sticker coming?
UE5 with the MSR sound from MW3 for AWP
Source 2 wins again
Source 2 better than unreal
Unreal engine слишком реалистично, в реальной жизни не так
source 1 is still the winner but source 2 looks so crispy!
The unreal engine and source 2 are so good than each other at some scene. However, generally source 2 a little beatiful more than unreal engine ❤
Source 1 looks better by far, more realistic, not a bright cartoon
if you port the location from ue to source 2, there will be practically no differences.
UE is the textbook definition of "Bro used every single filter at once"
0:40 it haves the sound of 1.6 dual beretta lol
Unreal look unreal
UE5 looks like crap. The effects doesn't add anything substantial to the gameplay.
I’ll say Source 2 is better in first person games so the blur doesn’t ruined the view while you’re aiming, for example CSGO
While Unreal is better in third person games for example Stray
Ah yes strip away everything that makes counter strike's art style look good in a shitty unreal 5 build...
Unreal = 70 FPS
Source 2 = 300 FPS
Source 2 is way to bright, very unrealistic
If you think about it, They are technically the same thing, abstraction over DirectX/Vulkan/OpenGL API. Just the toolsets, development tools, community support, and scripting/programming languages differentiate both (I believe in this case, UE has the upper hand). You can make an unoptimized Source 2, vice versa. It is up to the developers.
Hope all the fun quirks of S1 are still in S2
Engines are not abstractions over Graphics specification sets, they're way more than that. They provide a renderer, material handler, input, entity component system, physics, transformations, particle systems, behaviour scripting system, packing assets, lightning etc.
@@donsk324 Engines are abstractions over graphics APIs. Any library used to make games and interacts with the operating environment can be called an engine.
High level example of an engine:
Assets include custom information for each game, like scripts, and data. Systems include everything needed for running the game, like scripting system, rendering, and physics.
- Startup:
1. Setup systems.
2. Get assets.
3. Setup assets.
- Loop:
Step 2 and 3 are optional since they only need to happen when new assets are needed.
1. Render last tick.
2. Get new assets.
3. Setup new assets.
4. Tick systems.
@@nbhjbhyvgbhyuvbhuynnjbhu they are more than that lol, i agree with Donsk.
@@nbhjbhyvgbhyuvbhuynnjbhu I know what a game engine is. Any library used to make games that interacts with the operating system is not an engine. In that logic, SDL, GLFW, and SFML are all game engines, which is plain false. Graphics API Abstraction layers are also a different thing, not to be confused with game engines. These can be used for a variety of purposes such as for a desktop or mobile app, a web app, and of course, for games and game engines.
Unreal engine 5 is mult no realistic in ureal engine 5 grenedes is mult
havent played CSGO few years. Source 2 update made me nostalgic, so will wait for that and play again
Source 2 won because unreal Engine 5 no releastic
UE5 looks amazing but probably runs terrible and isnt optimized for players playing or for the gameplay of CS. OFC source2 is slightly less beautiful but optimized for some mid tier pcs and such.
thats just volumetric fog/lighting, source 2 can do that as good as Unreal, The problem is that Cs is a competitive game, people dont want to be flashbanged with graphics
düşünsenize artık tüm oyunlar artık unreal engine 5.3 oyun motoru ile geliyor muş 😁
I'd just say that Source 2 has less dynamic range in the lighting and is flat looking. It also doesn't look as sharp as Source 1. Source 2 looks a little more cartoonish to me - a little less realistic. Unreal was similar to Source 2 but a little more of all of the above.
To be honest, source 1 molotov and smoke looks the most realistic. I dont like source 2 smoke and fire, its looks so fake and superimposed... unreal engine is the worse, its overly dramatic and looks too cartoonish.
Source 2 looks like a mobile game
Honestly, Source 1 looks better. Source 2 looks cartoony and more bright. That's it
1. Theres no point in arguing about lighting, Source and Source 2 lighting is baked in but its using either Radiosity or Ray tracing to bake it. So it will always look correct but not as dynamic i guess. Still it will always look better when theres nothing moving on the scene (background).
2. Source and Source 2 doesnt have plastic texture problem Unreal still has(but it keeps getting better). Textures are straight up better because Valve engines use to use uncompressed close to source TGA files as source(lossless) and now these are pbr. I guess you could argue normal maps etc are better on Unreal but thats again only relevant if you take "dynamic" lighting into account.
3. Source and Source 2 are straight up BETTER OPTIMIZED. To the point that ancient pc's can run this game at 100+ fps. Thats a major positive.
4. Unreal has bunch of fancy "next-gen" tech added on top of everything. A lot of it is just post-processing of all kinds. You could say a lot of it is unnecessary but used creatively its an advantage. We could argue Valve has kept the engine really clean on their part and stayed away from things that dont really add much to their games atleast.
5. Unreals only "real" advantage is its asset management and community. Source 2 has advanced that massively since the Half-Life 2 days but its still probably not as good.
UE5 with properly optimised materials and lighting will look much better than this comparison.
Source 1/2 versions are professionally developed products, UE5 version - fan made I guess.
u5 has betterfire, that's all