WH2 looks better than WH3

[Batariel]

I recently played both WH2 and WH3 and for some reason WH2 looks much better visually than WH3 both on Campaign map and in Battle and my setting is everything on Ultra in WH2 and everything on High/Ultra in WH3 and still WH3 seems like washed out bland and cheaper version of WH2 while running worse than WH2. Just wanted to ask if it is just me or anyone else noticed this.

[Captain Baldy]

Absolutely disagree. I loved WH2 and still do but (IN MY OPINION) WH3 is much better looking and the performance (now) is better too
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2981565274
I rememeber WH2 missing a certain depth even when using reshade, perhaps it was the lighting but whatever it was, it tended to degrade the immersion. With WH3 I find that reshade really brings out the details. The cartoon look I'm just not seeing but that could just be my eyes and what looks great to me looks mediocre to someone else. If anything WH3 is closest in my opinion to actual painted metal figures (from 80's and 90's), and I love that vibe.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2981736140

[kilen]

WH3 map looks much better tbh.
Visually but also changing settlements locations and shores, or which goes in which provinces and so on.
For 3D battles I got used to wh3 and I like it. But I also loved wh2 back last year and years before, soo…
Maybe if I play a wh2 now I would feel it like it aged compared to wh3, but overall both are great and like wh3 is the natural evolution of wh2, I am fine with it as it is.(visually/graphically speaking I mean…)
… for the rest there is a lot still yet to do, like fixing those godadoudamn mechanics/abilities/buffs/debuffs not working properly, but that’s an other story.

[45]

i dont like 3's overworld map, its noisy. wh2 was more mechanically serviceable.

[Falaris]

Using any visual mods or anything on WH2? Sure, it looks good, but WH3 looks better.

HOWEVER

Putting everything to max IS going to make things look a bit washed out. Turn down fog, depth of field and turn on sharpening if you want sharper graphics.

[Walter White]

Originally posted by Batariel:

I recently played both WH2 and WH3 and for some reason WH2 looks much better visually than WH3 both on Campaign map and in Battle and my setting is everything on Ultra in WH2 and everything on High/Ultra in WH3 and still WH3 seems like washed out bland and cheaper version of WH2 while running worse than WH2. Just wanted to ask if it is just me or anyone else noticed this.

drop the pipe bro, its making you a bit slow

[Commisar Jon Fuklaw]

Originally posted by Batariel:

snip

I would suggest an optometrist, but I'm worried about the consequences of letting you find your way to their office unattended.

[Amereth]

At release Wh3 Lighting was off the chart and i did prefer wh2 visual overall.

But adjusting settings and lowering the overall lighting helped a lot.

I would say Textures and the overall shape of most models look better in wh3. You can compare this by putting a wh3 faction with a wh2 faction side by side. Some factions still need an update visually like the vampire counts ( wh1 ).

Wh3 does feel a bit more cartoonish than wh2, so it is fine if you prefer wh2.

I know there is a way to use shaders and make the game better. I do not use them personally.

Some people are too weak to come up with proper arguments as to why they prefer wh3 over wh2, just ignore them. They aren't worth your time.

[placeforpets]

Sorry but no it is not supposed so and it might be a problem with your pc so good luck to you

[Batariel]

Originally posted by Amereth:

At release Wh3 Lighting was off the chart and i did prefer wh2 visual overall.

But adjusting settings and lowering the overall lighting helped a lot.

I would say Textures and the overall shape of most models look better in wh3. You can compare this by putting a wh3 faction with a wh2 faction side by side. Some factions still need an update visually like the vampire counts ( wh1 ).

Wh3 does feel a bit more cartoonish than wh2, so it is fine if you prefer wh2.

I know there is a way to use shaders and make the game better. I do not use them personally.

Some people are too weak to come up with proper arguments as to why they prefer wh3 over wh2, just ignore them. They aren't worth your time.

It is fine, some of those manchilds in the comments are funny, but i think that might be the problem with WH3 for me, it is as you said, it is cartoonish looking, i just played WH2 yesterday again to compare the map and battles, and WH2 just looks more natural.

[EvilNando]

wh3 needs a desaturation mod or something, its too cartoonish looking
that being said overall the graphics are better in 3, from the 3d models to the texturing and lighting

[Verchial]

I prefer the look of WH2 over WH3. 3 is very cartoonish and cheap looking to me. 2 looked more gritty and “warhammerish”. The cardboard 2d trees on the campaign map are especially cheap and show a level of IDGAF thats kinda puzzling to me.

And the battle maps in 3 with goofy clumps of trees where it makes no sense and invisible terrain is just annoying. The battle maps in 2 were better and weren’t as distractingly weird.

[Batariel]

Originally posted by Verchial:

I prefer the look of WH2 over WH3. 3 is very cartoonish and cheap looking to me. 2 looked more gritty and “warhammerish”. The cardboard 2d trees on the campaign map are especially cheap and show a level of IDGAF thats kinda puzzling to me.

And the battle maps in 3 with goofy clumps of trees where it makes no sense and invisible terrain is just annoying. The battle maps in 2 were better and weren’t as distractingly weird.

Totally agree with you, global map ugly trees were the 1st thing i noticed in WH3.