In simple words i believe yes. Guys this is only a comparision between what has been achieved by them till now. I am not talking about true potential as i dont know which is better in that.

Here is a video proving frostbite 2 better than cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/user/motherboardsorg#p/u/22/8UoZ27MXt_0
This video is not made by me and is a video by motherboards.org


Battlefield 3 has better than crysis 2. C in crysis 2 is small because i dont respect crysis 2. But this proves Battlefield 3 graphics are superior to Crysis 1 as at 2560x1600 with a system having 2 mars 2,48gb ram, intel 990x which can run Crysis at full but when it runs Battlefield 3 it comes to its knees. So till now with what has been made by the two engines proves that Frostbite 2 is far superieor to cryengine 3 in everything

In simple words i believe yes. Guys this is only a comparision between what has been achieved by them till now. I am not talking about true potential as i dont know which is better in that.

Here is a video proving frostbite 2 better than cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/user/motherboardsorg#p/u/22/8UoZ27MXt_0
This video is not made by me and is a video by motherboards.org


Battlefield 3 has better than crysis 2. C in crysis 2 is small because i dont respect crysis 2. But this proves Battlefield 3 graphics are superior to Crysis 1 as at 2560x1600 with a system having 2 mars 2,48gb ram, intel 990x which can run Crysis at full but when it runs Battlefield 3 it comes to its knees. So till now with what has been made by the two engines proves that Frostbite 2 is far superieor to cryengine 3 in everything

We dont care about battlefield 3.. this is a CRYSIS 2 forum.

Any by the way that proves nothing everyone will tell you cryengine 3 is still far superior than frostbite 2.

Battlefield 3 has better than crysis 2. C in crysis 2 is small because i dont respect crysis 2. But this proves Battlefield 3 graphics are superior to Crysis 1 as at 2560x1600 with a system having 2 mars 2,48gb ram, intel 990x which can run Crysis at full but when it runs Battlefield 3 it comes to its knees. So till now with what has been made by the two engines proves that Frostbite 2 is far superieor to cryengine 3 in everything


I made a simular post to this that I never got the chance to post video vs video and pic vs pic

I play both game., Cryengine 3 has better water and agriculture redering. BF3 for a fact yes has better character CG animation rendering.

as for environment rendering cryengine 3 is more detailed and the "concept" is far better.

By the way my 2 X GTX580 dont even break sweat on these game on all Ultra setting plus maximized in the nVidia 3D settings console. SO in other words those Mars VCs he is using svck ass big time if BF3 is making them cry

Here is a video proving frostbite 2 better than cryengine 3

I just want to focus on this statement. How do you prove something that is based off of aesthetic opinion?

Second question, more related to the video. If this video came anywhere near the word: "prove," shouldn't the video contain some comparison to Crysis 2 and not JUST be about BF3?

Your post is so entirely ignorant that it's making me rage all the way over here in the US.

This topic is sooo stoopid.

1.- You're saying that BF3 is better than C2, then you start comparing BF3 to C1.
2.- You even failed to post a quality video of FB2's graphics, not talking about the total lack of CE3 videos.

Also, Crysis 2 is spelled with a capital C. Saying you ''don't respect it so you write it with c'' is just retarded.


Your post is making me rage all the way over here in the US.
The OP's post is making me headdesk all the way over here in the EU.

Read the comments, most of them say that their able to play with 5770 ultra with constant 50 fps.. Moral of the story: Always read the comments before posting a stupid thread like this.. His comp was probably too OP. xP

When i play i don't use AA, AF, Blur, nor ambient occlusion, neither in Crysis 2 nor BF3.
Crysis 2 (especially the SP) i used 2x 580s, when i moved to BF3 i was able to remove one(it's currently under the bed hybernating till WarFace) and max the game easy with just the one.
Anyways there's a general agreement between gamers that the CryEngine3 looks better and is more demanding.
It's funny, even on the BF3 forums now that the game's been released folks generally agree : CryEngine3 >FrostBite2.
*I need WarFace yesterday.

Great, now you proved that the graphics in Crysis 2 are much more complicated.
The overall C2 rendering is much more complicated, especcialy on DX11.
But still this is two great game engines.
And by the way I have HD5770 and I run Crysis 2 on Ultra(without DX11) with a great FPS and a just a little smooth.

Crysis 2 has better water rendering
Battlefield 3 has better textures

People i want you to remember two things. First that the resolution in the video was 2560x1600
Second i wanted you to remember that compare the two engines only in what has been achieved by them and not what can be achieved by them.
Third that 10k system can run crysis on 2560x1600 with everything maxed out

EDITED

Third that 10k system can run crysis on 2560x1600 with everything maxed out

1. That wasn't shown anywhere in the video. Either you're assuming, citing a source that doesn't exist, or citing a source that you didn't post in your original topic.

2. Even if #1 was true, that means nothing and this is why: Engines like CE3 and Frostbite 2 can be inefficient to a certain degree. CE3 I know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows, netbooks have horrible hardware. So there's a completely obvious assumption that Frostbite 2 was just coded poorly and stresses your system more. Where's your proof against that?

I still am raging in the US.

You can't compare those two engines with comparing 2 different games and their impact on hardware, because C2 has smaller maps and it's optimized for consoles (let's not start about that one), and BF3 has bigger maps, more open, etc...

That impact of engine/game on hardware is not indicator of superior engine/game and never was. There were some games in the past that had horrible impact on hardware and not so pleasant graphics...

Don't let the hype brainwash you

Third that 10k system can run crysis on 2560x1600 with everything maxed out

1. That wasn't shown anywhere in the video. Either you're assuming, citing a source that doesn't exist, or citing a source that you didn't post in your original topic.

2. Even if #1 was true, that means nothing and this is why: Engines like CE3 and Frostbite 2 can be inefficient to a certain degree. CE3 I know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows, netbooks have horrible hardware. So there's a completely obvious assumption that Frostbite 2 was just coded poorly and stresses your system more. Where's your proof against that?

I still am raging in the US.


It is said in the video "Come on guys this is a $10k system"
See the video carefully and read the synopsis about it. And " know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows" this is wrong crysis 2 does not run on a netbook giving 30+fps. And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing.
I am not just going on the fps.

And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing.
I am not just going on the fps.

Amazing? Doncha mean washed out?
Here, this is what amazing looks like>

Just because a game runs slower on a system doesn't necessarily make it a more capable engine
Comparing BF3 and Crysis 2 - BF3 has better lighting and animation (textures are slightly better but still terrible, but at least you can read the text). But apart from that Crysis 2 looks superior in nearly every way. In fact, on the outskirts of some maps in BF3, there are 2D trees! 2D pixellated blurry trees that rotate to face your direction, seriously! Last time I saw that was in Doom.

And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing.
I am not just going on the fps.

Amazing? Doncha mean washed out?
Here, this is what amazing looks like>

ok.. if anyone saying bf3 has better graphics than C2 they are either comparing console C2 runs on Dx9 to pc bf3 or their ego makes them so blind and dumb lol
Except for the destruction on bf3, C2 has superior graphic aspects in every way - note: I'm talking about C2 with dx11 and high res pack on.

Cryengine is better.

ok.. if anyone saying bf3 has better graphics than C2 they are either comparing console C2 runs on Dx9 to pc bf3 or their ego makes them so blind and dumb lol
Except for the destruction on bf3, C2 has superior graphic aspects in every way - note: I'm talking about C2 with dx11 and high res pack on.

and if they were sayin that Frostbite 2 is better than CryEngine 3
they are friggin :motherofgod: wrong..
you must have known that Frostbite 2 is not been published to publicity(pardon ma spelin ) because they had a hard setting for the engine, instead o' CryEngine 3 that has a benefit of easy modding and rendering capability for noob humans. lol

In simple words i believe yes. Guys this is only a comparision between what has been achieved by them till now. I am not talking about true potential as i dont know which is better in that.

Here is a video proving frostbite 2 better than cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/user/motherboardsorg#p/u/22/8UoZ27MXt_0
This video is not made by me and is a video by motherboards.org


Battlefield 3 has better than crysis 2. C in crysis 2 is small because i dont respect crysis 2. But this proves Battlefield 3 graphics are superior to Crysis 1 as at 2560x1600 with a system having 2 mars 2,48gb ram, intel 990x which can run Crysis at full but when it runs Battlefield 3 it comes to its knees. So till now with what has been made by the two engines proves that Frostbite 2 is far superieor to cryengine 3 in everything

Battlefield 3 - Art Direction Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHW4cILaIeI
For the LOLZ.

And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing.
I am not just going on the fps.

Amazing? Doncha mean washed out?
Here, this is what amazing looks like>



:O...

In simple words i believe yes. Guys this is only a comparision between what has been achieved by them till now. I am not talking about true potential as i dont know which is better in that.

Here is a video proving frostbite 2 better than cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/user/motherboardsorg#p/u/22/8UoZ27MXt_0
This video is not made by me and is a video by motherboards.org


Battlefield 3 has better than crysis 2. C in crysis 2 is small because i dont respect crysis 2. But this proves Battlefield 3 graphics are superior to Crysis 1 as at 2560x1600 with a system having 2 mars 2,48gb ram, intel 990x which can run Crysis at full but when it runs Battlefield 3 it comes to its knees. So till now with what has been made by the two engines proves that Frostbite 2 is far superieor to cryengine 3 in everything





BATTLEFIELD 3 HAS BETTER THAN CRYSIS 2??






DO YOU WANNA DDIIIIEEEE????





LOL JK JK

Battlefield 3 has better graphics then Crysis 2, but that doesn't mean that Frostbite 2 is better then Cryengine 3