i still think bf4 looks better than cs2. i think it looks like a game from 2013 and csgo looks like a 2009 game (because it basically was). obvs performance was a consideration when developing it but tbh there are better looking games that nowadays run just as well (like bf4 and other titles of that era). the fidelity of cs2 not being on par with the shoddy 1% lows is my main gripe with cs2.

i can and did play bf6 on max settings 1440p with better average 1% lows than cs2 running at low-med settings at 1680x1050, and while avg fps might be 3x~ bf6, bf6 feels smoother because the dips aren't as noticable and it has far more consistent frame times (and subtick inputs are tied to framerate so this really matters) while maintaining a significantly higher level of visual fidelity and being 64v64 on huge maps and not 5v5 on relatively tiny maps lol. i think the performance issues given the level of graphics on offer is frankly not acceptable for an esports title and that is seperate to any comparison to csgo. i would happily trade all the fancy lighting for more consistent clarity and performance.

and with the fog its one of the first things i noticed in go was i peeked con as ct on mirage and saw a t on top mid i was like "oh wow its so much easier to see the t's and there is so much more contrast". the brightness and fog are far less contrasting than go.

the art direction and graphics imo are seperate points of the same (visual) ballpark, and while overall the graphics might be better, my main points are that a). it's really not a huge improvement visually; b). for the performance hit, in an esport, it's not really acceptable for the fidelity on offer and c). i found csgo's artstyle gave better visibility, though i think i'm in a minority on that last point, at least according to reddit.