We all know which game will actually look better due to an INTERESTING art direction.

would someone from crytek care to comment if they are keep on keeping the graphics crown with the dx11 patch. That means superior to bf3 too
Crysis 1 never held the graphics crown, STALKER Clear Sky/Call of Pripyat and Metro 2033 blew it out of the water. Crysis 1 only looks "photorealistic" when it has mods. And quite frankly, the STALKER complete mods absolutely demolish anything Crytek has ever done.

You're kidding right? Might want to try and SSAA and nothing still comes close to Crysis 1. Crysis 1 was a 2006 game, which looks even better now with playable SSAA(super sampling AA) and the extreme config.

BF3 is turning out to be a joke. Those multiplayer videos were epic disappointment as the game is essentially BC2 update 2.0. What a waste of a new frostbite engine. It looks pretty much like a reskin rehashed version of BC2. Ironic that Dice is essentially copying COD model and just reskinning a game that came out a couple years ago and calling it new. Just check any of the twitter feeds from E3 all the people demoing the MP say it plays and feels exactly like BC2, epic disappointment.
You're stupid. Judging the whole damn game simply because they were playing Rush mode. Also, no it's not reskinned. Get informed. "HURR DURR GRAPHICS LOOKS SAME, RESKIN, I AM DUMB" Oh and I suppose that if it feels like BC2 it's bad? No, conquest is there too.

Also, I highly doubt a patch that is introduced later in the game can look better than a game that is built on DX11 already. I mean the details are so amazing in BF3. But, who am I to judge. I love both games visually and also gameplay.

Guys get over it. Crysis 2 is a god damn console game, don't expect a small dx11 patch(if there even is one) to change that. They have been working with BF3 for almost 4 years, leaving dx9 completely out and pushing the dx10 and dx11. They will fully use the dx11 and all the extra stuff that the pc's can offer.

Also bare in mind that the game is still in pre-alpha, meaning that alot of stuff is gonna get better.
Patrick Bach also stated that a pc that can run BF3 fully maxed is yet to be built.
That means that we got our TRUE Crysis 2 here, not some consolized p.o.s.

If you would know anything about tech, and had done research on C2 and BF3 you would know that BF3 absolutely burries Crysis 2, on the PC side. That is all.
Honestly I think that he is just talking crap. I highly doubt that they built an engine to be used on future hardware.

The Usual collection of foes in here biching about how Crysis2 is teh worst game evah, BF3 totally >>>>>> Crysis MWAH - I expect will be the same crowd who will be on the BF3 forums in 5 months biching about how BF3 is teh worst game evah MWAH they said it'd have this n it neva n OMFG how much motion blur is on it MWAH. I don't understand the people who come back week after week, month after month to bich and whine. Just don't play and **** off.

Personally I think Crysis2 turned out to be a great game with some incredible visuals, also I saw the tank rush trailer for BF3 last night and it looks good. I am a veteran of BF2 & BF2142 so I really hope it's not all hype and BF3 is a real successor to these titles and not just more BC crap. I'll know when I buy it in October.

Crysis2's problem is art & design side. Not technology. If Crytek want to make much better graphics, they must change many assets, map design, lighting design, etc. Crytek is still amateur in art & design side.

Crysis2's problem is art & design side. Not technology. If Crytek want to make much better graphics, they must change many assets, map design, lighting design, etc. Crytek is still amateur in art & design side.
art and design??? theres nothing wrong with design and art in crysis 2. It looks just as it looks in RL exept not as realistic graphics. crysis 2 has the best lighting so far. just cut the crap dude.

Just no. If you think so, you're ignorant(sorry). Crytek's work is far from best. And best lighting? No. Tech-side, one of the best. Yes, it's true. But art & desig-side, not good. Crytek is well known in tech-side. Not art & design side. Crytek wasn't praised in art & design side. There are many better developers in art & design-side right now. Crytek is five years late behind them.

Art & design quality is a subjective opinion so calling someone ignorant for not having the same view as you is pure arrogance.

for me it was hard to notice textures on the BF3 demo since it was a stream

i guess we'll get to know that once we can play the game on 1080p

hopefully BF3 has DX11 integrated right this time, BC2's DX11 gave us soft shadows, while DX10 ones looked choppy, even though Crysis 1 had soft shadows even on DX9

I believe it's to early to get into conclusions, since Crysis 2 DX11 nor BF3 has been released yet

FrostBite 2 is DX10/DX11 only. AKA you can run the game with a DX10 GPU w/o the added features of DX11. You may as well call it a DX11 exclusive engine and game.

crysis 2 DX11 can top battlefield 3 for sure, from the rush video i saw it was a few tanks in the distance flat ground and a couple buildings and a couple far away people. battlefield looks nice but crysis 2 has a more imaginative design that has more potential in graphics. the question should be can battlefield 3 top crysis 2 as is because i like crysis 2 better so far.

honestly don't think DX11 is gonna turn garbage into gold)
I only read till ^. Why are you active in the C2 forums if C2 is "garbage"? If I play a game and dislike it in every aspect , I wouldn't go to the forums and tell the developer that they should fix something. I'd just go and search for another game. You sir, aren't a gamer, if you think everything is about graphics. (btw, graphics are great)

I want crytek to come up with a dx11 patch that blows bf3 out of water, but dont think its gonna happen. Crytek is not doing even a single thing right. The advance graphics option patch was a joke. No way to set AA or AF. And y would nvidia pay crytek money when they cannot support Nvidia's FXAA????

BF3 not bad, but not so good like C2....when dx 11 released 4 C2 it's awesome feature.

After seeing the tank gameplay movie I notices awesome smoke effects, awesome lighting and awesome particle effects and Textures were not bad either.

Crysis 2 gives u
-excessive bloomc
-unrealistic GI
-low rez textures
-blurry msaa
-dx9

Battlefield 3 will look better, but the things you point out:

- Excessive Bloom - BF3 has that too. And you can turn it off.

- Unrealistic GI - Console version doesn't even have GI. For now Crysis 2 PC is the only game with proper GI. And it isn't unrealistic by any stretch. We just can't see its beauty any more because Crytek disabled the day-night cycles that were available in the leaked beta, even in the multiplayer. I would like to ee a mod to re-enable it.

- Low res textures. Most textures in Crysis 2 are fine. But yes there are a lot of bad ones. I can assure you that Battlefield 3 will have a fair share or bad textures as well, just as Crysis 1 did. But regular textures, yes, will probably be higher resoution in BF3, unless Rygel's mod is epic.

- Blurry MSAA. If it pisses you off so much why don't you give SGSSAA a shot? They can't use FSAA because current graphics cards can't anti-aliase objects on FP16 rendering targets, which is required for the type of HDR Crysis 2 uses. Yes it is a bit blurrier than FSAA. But it looks fine IMO. Set the MSAA level to 1, the Very High level, not the Extreme one. Then it looks clearer.

-DX9. You're getting DirectX 11. Ok it wasn't there at launch. Maybe because it will be decent now? Do you want it to turn out like Crysis? Where DirectX 10 gave you better motion Blur and nothing else at all? Or like Bad Company 2 where DX11 added soft shadows that even MW2 had in DX9?

-bf3 has bloom but it does not annoy me like crysis 2
-consoles not having GI does not help me. ALso play dirt 2 and dirt 3 for a very good GI
-Fine textures for u means crappy textures for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HjWuvhIhs
-HDR is another cheap trick to make amateurs like you believe that the graphics are good. For me it makes the game look cartoony . So I dont need HDR just give me FXAA. U sound like an amd fanboy with 5770 so u might not know what it is
-I dont give a damn if mw2 was in dx9. I dont own that POS. DX11 is better than dx10 which was a failure. Crytek likes to think they are awesome. Here is a fun idea, why not prove it


And ipwn, ur a crytek fanboy so I dont expect you to accept that crytek is no longer the developers they used to be that respected their community and never hid the facts about their products.

Have fun worshiping crytek
-

Budget for BF 3 and Crysis 2 can't even be compared. From what I've seen BF3 is a Medal of Honour clone, not BC2. I hate it when idiots compare certain games. emperorCleon ur a BF3 fanboy so stfu. Your opinion is mute too. What Crytek achieved is amazing...it's not what we wanted but it is still amzing. BF3 hasn't been released, you can't say anything till the game is installed and you've played it. Whats the point of great use of tesselation if you need a tri sli setup to use it? So wait and see before comparing it.

50 percent of the comments of emperorCleon only talk about of BF3. Super Troll !

awww did i hurt ur feelings...have a cookie

50 percent of the comments of emperorCleon only talk about of BF3. Super Troll !

lol...just L@@K at his avatar! Hint Hint?

I am sooooo sorry for being a fan of developers who showcase their game on pc

I am sooooo sorry for being a fan of developers who showcase their game on pc

Fool....go watch the BF3 vids again...HD textures my ass...the walls, the surroundings...pfft what a load of jizz...Crysis 2 is visually more appealing than this bland imagineless title

yeah bf 3 is soo blurry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HINXnD7A5w&feature=player_detailpage#t=57s
and crysis 2 is awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HjWuvhIhs

u opened my eyes dude thanks