Battlefield 3 VS Crysis 2 (Graphically) Which is better?

[Jose_49]

Hi guys. Recently I've started a dispute, in which game does look better, Crysis 2 or Battlefield 3.

I personally told him, that Battlefield 3 DOES look good, and can actually catch up on how good does it look to Crysis 2. In other words, I stated that the frostbite engine 2 can be compared and can actually compete to the CryEngine 3.

My friend on the other hand stated that Crysis 2 was better graphical looking and that Battlefield 3 wasn't near the toes (graphically) over Crysis 2.

He made the comparison with an Xbox 360, since he doesn't have enough computing power to run any of them. He even stated that Battlefied 3 wasn't that graphically astonishing and he was plainly disappointed by all of the hype created for the game.

For being assured, I told him If he actually installed the Campaign disc into his hard drive, since the Texture pack came preloaded in there, but refuted my argument once more saying that he did.

I told him something... If a god damn *****ng game demands a darned Quad Core and a 560 GTX as recommended, how the hell will it not look good, so I'm just asking you guys, what do you think about this?

[djdanster]

Honestly, these two games where always going to look MUCH better on a PC with decent specs.

From my experience the graphics look much better in battlefield 3 than crysis 2!

[Pupik]

Moded Crysis 1 beats them all. But if to say my opinion on the matter of BF3 and Crysis 2, then definitely BF3.

Was developed mainly for the PC and didn't really suffer of the consoles limitation, unlike Crysis 2.

[Ayepecks]

Moded Crysis 1 beats them all. But if to say my opinion on the matter of BF3 and Crysis 2, then definitely BF3.

Was developed mainly for the PC and didn't really suffer of the consoles limitation, unlike Crysis 2.

Modded Crysis 2 beats modded Crysis 1.

[Pupik]

Modded Crysis 2 beats modded Crysis 1.

Not even the high-resolution textures pack that was released about a month (can't remember for sure) after release didn't make Crysis 2 look better than modded Crysis 1.

And there were mods released for Crysis 2 :o ?

[Ayepecks]

Not even the high-resolution textures pack that was released about a month (can't remember for sure) after release didn't make Crysis 2 look better than modded Crysis 1.

And there were modds released for Crysis 2 :o ?

Modded settings and features, no actual mods (total conversions) as of yet that I know of.

[Ironman273]

[Jose_49]

Hahahah, nice pic :D

[Slammers]

BF3 NO CONTEST!

edit: arguing with a console gamer about graphics is pointless and will always lead to frustration!!

[:: Lyon ::]

Even with my GTX 560, the game struggles and I was running on windowed mode of 1680x1050 :(

But considering Battlefield 3 can render big maps l like the Caspian Border, I'm pretty sure the engine's performance is better than Crysis'

[Zain Adeel]

Im sorry

There are some years to FrostBite till i consider it comparable to cryengine 3

I just played the game

It runs like Sh** on my PC :(

u can see my specs in my sig

I played Crysis 2 without a problem. And at the settings.. it played and looked WAY BETTER than Battlefield 3. Remember. Crysis 2 didnt add so many flashy effects like smoke or places like Iran. Else you would really see how well it wouldve done.

Other thing. On the physics front. There is no compare!.. Cryengine is way ahead of Frostbite.. .Everything is scripted. And poorly done. The animations are good. But still. Nothing compares to Crysis 2. Also. The facial animations sucked!.. Play Crysis 2 again ull see what im talking about.

I am disappointed not because it doesnt look better. But the fact that on the same system this game performs so bad!... i Get around 30 to 35 frames.. but it still laggy at places. Crysis 2 was a breeze!!!!!!!!!! also. The gameplay i am not so impressed with. I liked how it was in BC2. They tweaked it alot. I prefer MWs mouse senstivity or whatever it is called.

But i have to say The textures in BF3 look really good.

but still disappointed at how inefficient this engine is.

[SirEvan]

Im sorry

There are some years to FrostBite till i consider it comparable to cryengine 3

I just played the game

It runs like Sh** on my PC :(

u can see my specs in my sig

I played Crysis 2 without a problem. And at the settings.. it played and looked WAY BETTER than Battlefield 3. Remember. Crysis 2 didnt add so many flashy effects like smoke or places like Iran. Else you would really see how well it wouldve done.

Other thing. On the physics front. There is no compare!.. Cryengine is way ahead of Frostbite.. .Everything is scripted. And poorly done. The animations are good. But still. Nothing compares to Crysis 2. Also. The facial animations sucked!.. Play Crysis 2 again ull see what im talking about.

I am disappointed not because it doesnt look better. But the fact that on the same system this game performs so bad!... i Get around 30 to 35 frames.. but it still laggy at places. Crysis 2 was a breeze!!!!!!!!!! also. The gameplay i am not so impressed with. I liked how it was in BC2. They tweaked it alot. I prefer MWs mouse senstivity or whatever it is called.

But i have to say The textures in BF3 look really good.

but still disappointed at how inefficient this engine is.

No offense, but you should upgrade your system. BF3 was fairly playable on my Q6600, 8GB ram EVGA GTX 260 SSC I'm still upgrading my video card when my order arrives next week, but 2GB of ram? come on... I'm not sure your specs would meet the recommended minimums :)o

oh...and BF3 hands down.

[Xerax]

BF3 NO CONTEST!

edit: arguing with a console gamer about graphics is pointless and will always lead to frustration!!

I'm a console gamer, I know graphics are better on PC, and I also know BF3 > Crysis2 with graphics. And finally I choose console > PC, because i can keep a console for 5-6 years, rather than having to go out and buy new CPU's/GPU's every 6-8 months because I can't play the best games on top settings anymore.

Get off your high horse, everyone has their own opinions/reasons.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Im sorry

There are some years to FrostBite till i consider it comparable to cryengine 3

I just played the game

It runs like Sh** on my PC :(

u can see my specs in my sig

I played Crysis 2 without a problem. And at the settings.. it played and looked WAY BETTER than Battlefield 3. Remember. Crysis 2 didnt add so many flashy effects like smoke or places like Iran. Else you would really see how well it wouldve done.

You're running a dual-core system with incredibly dated graphics and just 2GB of system RAM. Of course it runs poorly! Your system is BARELY above minimum specs and not even close to the recommended specs. BF3 is optimised for 64bit systems with DX11 graphics. I don't understand how you expect to make a worthwhile comparison when you can even run the games anywhere close to maxed out. Heck, even just in Windows my system uses about 3-4GB of RAM and in games my usage can top 6GB.

So please, don't trash a game just because you can't run it.

[neo158]

You're running a dual-core system with incredibly dated graphics and just 2GB of system RAM. Of course it runs poorly! Your system is BARELY above minimum specs and not even close to the recommended specs. BF3 is optimised for 64bit systems with DX11 graphics. I don't understand how you expect to make a worthwhile comparison when you can even run the games anywhere close to maxed out. Heck, even just in Windows my system uses about 3-4GB of RAM and in games my usage can top 6GB.

So please, don't trash a game just because you can't run it.

Having said that I use the same graphics card in the system in my sig and BF3 runs perfectly fine, I should also point out that it's optimised for DX10 & 11 not just DX11. You're right though, a dual core system with 2GB RAM is NOT going to run Battlefield 3 at a resonable frame rate at all.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Having said that I use the same graphics card in the system in my sig and BF3 run perfectly fine. You're right though, a dual core system with 2GB RAM is NOT going to run Battlefield 3 at a resonable frame rate at all.

You have a much beefier CPU and RAM. Still, the GTS 250 is considerably below the recommended specs for the game - it doesn't support DX11. Plus, I notice your card is the 1GB model - the other poster doesn't mention the VRAM, meaning it could be 512MB.

[neo158]

You have a much beefier CPU and RAM. Still, the GTS 250 is considerably below the recommended specs for the game - it doesn't support DX11. Plus, I notice your card is the 1GB model - the other poster doesn't mention the VRAM, meaning it could be 512MB.

True, but it still runs it perfectly well and at a decent frame rate. I might have a beefier CPU and RAM, if the game was running badly then the GPU would be the problem, but it isn't.

[scaramonga]

BF3 all on ULTRA here :) smooth as butter, now I have it working, but that was due to Origin/EA :D

[Zain Adeel]

what are you guys smoking???? No offence. But did anybody even read what i wrote?

I will trash the game.

We are comparing it to Crysis 2 here. So i was actually talking on the topic and not the system requirments of BF3

I have played almost every damn game there is and i have this beef with many game makers.

For example Compare GTA4 to Mafia 2... Look at the graphics. Look at the physics. I ran the latter WITH PHYSX and almost all High settings without AA at a comfy 50fps.

Now i face the same problem with Rage. The game looks like **** compared to crysis or crysis 2. But it needs all that RAM to render the textures without looking like a game from the 90ies.. And i still had Blue textures everywhere.

So please dont tell me that my system barely meets the requirments of BF3. I am comparing two graphic engines here. I know my System is not enough for todays standards. But if i get a quad with 4gb ram and better graphics for eg like GTX550.. i then expect a game to look almost TWICE as good as Crysis 2 did. But what will i get?? Playable framerates in BF3

I wasnt just talking about Graphics if anybody cared to read what i wrote. I was talking about the animations. Cut scenes. And facial animations and all those details. They are not done well. Also i dont quite like the gameplay mech in this one better than BC2. And all this has nothing to do with my system as i tested the physics portion by lowering the settings so i got like above 40 min FPS.

So please. And i did install the latest drivers and all that just to make sure there wasnt some optimisation thingy. Seems im stuck with this build for a year. I expected it to atleast run games like BF3. I didnt realise they were lazy enough to bump the requirments and not optimise their engine. And sticking to the topic. I was comparing it with Crysis 2. And i played both on this same system.

[Zain Adeel]

True, but it still runs it perfectly well and at a decent frame rate. I might have a beefier CPU and RAM, if the game was running badly then the GPU would be the problem, but it isn't.

Are you using the latest Drivers or some other ones?

i may be having a problem..

Coz the framerates DIP even in places where there shouldnt be much load at all.

I guess it may be a system problem on my side. Or maybe the game just needs alot of RAM basically. I see you have 8gb RAM and i guess mayb it needs to load massive amounts of textures or other things and they are responsible for the DIPs..

i was looking forward to atleast playing it on Medium settings with no AA.

[Guest xiphi]

From a console standpoint, and since I only played the Beta, I'd say Crysis 2 by far. Hopefully, I can get a chance to play it soon so I can make a proper assessment between the game games and their respective engines.

[Slammers]

I'm a console gamer, I know graphics are better on PC, and I also know BF3 > Crysis2 with graphics. And finally I choose console > PC, because i can keep a console for 5-6 years, rather than having to go out and buy new CPU's/GPU's every 6-8 months because I can't play the best games on top settings anymore.

Get off your high horse, everyone has their own opinions/reasons.

That makes no sense, you can keep a pc for 6 years and the graphics would still be better than the consoles even if you never upgraded. You'd just have to lower the game settings more and more as the years went by but it's not like the pc system is slowly getting less powerful than the console during those six years

[theyarecomingforyou]

what are you guys smoking???? No offence. But did anybody even read what i wrote?

I will trash the game.

Yes, I did. The problem is that you're trashing a game that you can't even run properly. You don't meet the recommended specs.

We are comparing it to Crysis 2 here. So i was actually talking on the topic and not the system requirments of BF3

The trouble is that you can't run Crysis 2 at even close to max, as you're lacking a DX11 card. Crysis 2 is demanding even on my machine (4.6GHz quad-core, 12GB RAM, overclocked HD5970 2GB), which means you're running much lower settings that I am - you're not even seeing it as it was intended. And BF3 was designed for much higher spec systems, so obviously you're not going to get the most out of it.

So please dont tell me that my system barely meets the requirments of BF3. I am comparing two graphic engines here. I know my System is not enough for todays standards. But if i get a quad with 4gb ram and better graphics for eg like GTX550.. i then expect a game to look almost TWICE as good as Crysis 2 did. But what will i get?? Playable framerates in BF3

I wasnt just talking about Graphics if anybody cared to read what i wrote. I was talking about the animations. Cut scenes. And facial animations and all those details. They are not done well. Also i dont quite like the gameplay mech in this one better than BC2. And all this has nothing to do with my system as i tested the physics portion by lowering the settings so i got like above 40 min FPS.

So please. And i did install the latest drivers and all that just to make sure there wasnt some optimisation thingy. Seems im stuck with this build for a year. I expected it to atleast run games like BF3. I didnt realise they were lazy enough to bump the requirments and not optimise their engine. And sticking to the topic. I was comparing it with Crysis 2. And i played both on this same system.

It's not possible to make an objective comparison when the framerate is so much lower. Responsiveness makes a huge difference to one's impression of the game and obviously you're not going to get a good impression if you have to turn settings down just to get above 40fps. Of course it would be nice if all games could scale down to systems as low spec as yours but at some point developers have to draw the line.Don't forget, BF3 has destructible environments which are considerably more demanding on CPU, RAM and GPU - it also features much larger maps, fast moving vehicles and 64-player multiplayer support. The nVidia 2xx series is over 3yrs old which is a bottleneck enough but your system RAM and processor are also behind the times.

I understand your frustration. At the end of the day Crysis 2 plays fine for you but BF3 doesn't. However, in order to add more features for higher spec users they had to make compromises for lower spec users. At least you're able to run it - all the people stuck on XP and DX9 aren't even able to do that! Unfortunately if you want to keep up with PC gaming you need to keep your system up to date and yours, especially your RAM, really isn't. As I said, when Windows idles at between 3 and 4GB on the desktop it's asking for too much to run a demanding game on just 2GB.

[Arceles]

I'm playing it on my laptop AMD A6 3410MX crossfirex 6750m with 6520G, I must admit that everything is on low... and still, the game looks awesome (but with very nice framerates :D)

[CGar]

This is a bit of a toughie. As a graphics engine enthusiast, I think that both engines bring a lot to the plate, but there are some key differences between the engines that should be brought up. My overall opinion is that CryEngine 3 is a better looking engine overall, but Battlefield 3 uses more of Frostbite 2's potential.

CryEngine 3.0

+Because of the whole console-ification craze, Crytek spent a lot of time optimizing the engine, and it is a well oiled machine. CryEngine scales to lower end machines better without a minor loss in visual fidelity.

+Not only is Crysis 2 moddable, but there is a free (relatively) SDK to work with, and the engine is extremely customizable and I hear is easy to work with. You can mod things to be mistakeable for real life pictures

+The physics engine in CryEngine 3.0 seems to be a little more realistic (destroyed vehicle/tree/walls physics in BF3 are pretty laughable)

+Amazing post-processing and particle effects

+Lots of technology unused in Crysis 2 (I really wish geometry/model deformation was in Crysis 2)

+Great scalability (being used to develop multiple MMOs)

-Lack of destructability

-The visuals feel kind of "grainy"

-The 3D technology used isn't really that good, however it has very little performance loss

Frostbite 2.0

+The engine's knight in shining armor, the amazing lighting system with realtime radiosity looks phenomenal

+The engine supports EA's sports animation framework which makes for devilishly realistic animations

+Very smooth and polished feel, toggling graphics settings is almost immediate

+Lots of destructability

+Very awesome 3D support

-Vegetation is pretty poor looking

-There is so much emphasis on the realistic lighting, but I feel like something is missing... the geometry or something doesn't look so nice.

Neutral points

-Crysis 2 did NOT push the CryEngine 3.0 to its limits as far as large scale environments goes, as well as texture work

-I think Battlefield 3 also has some unused map size potential, the maps just aren't as big as in the past

-Both engines support DX11, however CryEngine 3's support was patched in, and Frostbite 2 was built around it. I feel like Frostbite 2 has a better implementation, but Crysis 2 offers more overall DX11 features

-I don't know if it's just me, but have rain effects in games gotten worse?

-Both games offered amazing lifelike-ness in their screenshots/trailers, but these are a lie since there are so many post-processing effects added.

Crysis 2

+The amount of geometry in Crysis 2 is staggering sometimes. I'm very impressed with how much geometry is used not only in the character models, but the densely detailed environments

+The water + tesellation = bliss

+All of the environments are full of detail and life

-There are a lot of low resolution textures and un-tesellated/POM'd surfaces (I recommend checking out the MaLDoHD texture mod http://maldotex.blogspot.com/)

-The environments, while fun and full of detail, are ultimately small.

Battlefield 3

+The most realistic lighting to date, period.

+Extremely realistic animations, even outside of cutscenes.

+The attention to micro detail on weapons/vehicles is impeccable, everything feels authentic.

+Even though audio is not part of the graphics, I think it deserves an honorable mention for being amazing.

-The environments lack a lot of detail.

-The color palette is washed out, and the emphasis on a blindingly bright sun and ridiculous lens flares is infuriating

Well this list ended up being much longer than anticipated. I loved both games and I love both engines! I really wish both of the games were PC exclusives though, I can guarantee both games would have come out much more visually impressive if they were PC exclusives.