Battlefield 3 vs Crysis 2 (DX11) Graphics Comparison (1080p)

[IAmJawz]

But in BF's defense, the Battlefield maps are way bigger than those of Crysis, meaning you need way more power to get that quality.

[IAmJawz]

Crysis 2 DX11, looks better than BF3 DX11.

[JerrYReaPPer]

1:12 Where are the shadows from the soldiers? :D obviously... nothing's perfect :P

[CitrusPredator]

does anyone else hear cod black ops music in the backround

[MuscleGainer411]

-__- The thing I hate is that Cryengine 3 is not even used by hardly no companies...

[TheMetalSgt]

Crysis 2 looked better in everything, except for the close up textures. But it had way better water, better tessellation, better atmosphere, equal lighting (but more colourful) and my god it just looks amazing. And you can tell by looking at the trees, that crysis 2 just is better haha, People are going to argue, but thats how i see it imo. Either way guys, these are both the best looking games out there (except for arguably crisis 1, which looks better than both C2 & BF3 in a lot of places.

[TheMetalSgt]

@TheMetalSgt oh and duke nukem forever. It also looks better than both of these titles. Those guys know how its done :P

[ATFCOBRA]

Great video

[Hecticsausagedog]

keen 4 farcry 3



[Hecticsausagedog]

crysis 2 has more stable gfx but bf3 does have better textures



[MrZeuz666]

Battlefield looks more lifelike or "right" and it's a better game overall both engine wise and gameplay wise. That's all I'm saying!

[gnert1111]

FB2 doesn't have bump mapping.The collision detection is just horrible at terrains with the rocks,seems that it's not per-poly detection on curved surfaces.Parallax occlusion is just weak compared to CE3.And DICE,y no use volumetric sounds?

And CE3 has SDK,not alike FB2.CE3 had geniuses working on that,but consoles ruined best engine :( To be honest at first I tough BF3 looks like it has CE2( 6 years old engine ).

[yogijyogesh]

Crysis 2 has a realistic environment and better water tessellation.

bf3 beats it in every other department though.From Bloom to photorealism,BF3 Owns Crysis 2.

If only Crysis 1 had a dx11 patch,it'd be awesome

[berzu21]

crysis2 - campaign

bf3 - multiplayer

visuals - both kick ass in their own way.

[kikflip1234]

cryengine 3 = better water

[123dragonballz321]

black ops song is just so emotional

[sparkie1j]

@PCgamingTech I was not comparing it to crysis 1 fool i was comparing it to the console version of battlefield 3!!! And i waas not aware that you had the texture pack when shiped on pc

[PCgamingTech]

@sparkie1j I didn't say you were, I was saying that it looked even worse than Crysis 1 on release. And I stand by my assertion that BF3 maxed on PC blows Crysis 2 on consoles out of the water.

[sparkie1j]

Crysis 2 doesnt need texture packs and everything and auto looks fantastic battlefield 3 needs to be played on pc at highest possible settings to look as good as crysis 2 on xbox or ps3

[PCgamingTech]

@sparkie1j Funny you should say that considering that on release, Crysis 2 looked practically worse than Crysis 1, and shipped with DX9. It also requires the high res texture pack to match even the original game, and the DX11 patch wasn't released until months later. Battlefield, on the other hand, came DX11 ready at launch and with good textures (on PC at least). Also, Battlefield 3 on PC kicks Crysis 2 on consoles in the ass.

[MrJonnara]

Crysis 2 is much more realistic when it comes to environment, texture, characters and the thing that there is always spoken to you.. gives some extra feelings of reality.

Battlefield 3 is probably better at multiplayer, but when it comes to graphics... there is a sure winner.

[CapnKhater]

effin black ops theme at 3:15 haha xD

[PCgamingTech]

@CapnKhater Yeah, it's a bit ironic in this context :D. It fits the theme of the video fairly well though.

[iGamingRecon]

Both games have the graphics to even make NASA Supercomputers lag.

Ok?

[MrThewowplayer]

These are my opinion and Fact.

Graphics: Battlefield 3. Crysis 2 have texturepacks and downloadable DX11 pack. Bf3 doesnt need that.

Multiplayer: Battlefield 3 to 100%

Story: Well It's a tie.

A,I: Battlefield 3.

Character moving: Battlefield 3

So battlefield 3 is better than Crysis 2. But they are very same. But battlefield is better. I like them both and so should you to do. Two great games but each and other got its flaws and upsides.

[ViggyNash]

I feel like Frostbite focuses too heavily on texturing. The problem is that much of the quality in the texturing could have been done with normal mapping, which would have really shown off their lighting effects.

[GamerPointZero]

Dont want to be a asshole / fanboy but crysis 2 is pretty much better in my opinion, crysis 2 was meant to be realistic and BF3 was like , "OK we'll put out a game they will play ."Also game companies can make games that can make you feel really similar to real life but if they do so their further games will have no customers. Note: Crysis 2 came out before BF3 and its soundtrack is kickass.

[Jewifer333x2]

The thing to keep in mind about these game's graphics is that BF3 is meant to be the more realistic game while Crysis is supposed to be the prettier game.

[TheMsdos25]

for realism Crysis 2 wins in graphics. BF3 in most other aspects

[MySniperRifle]

Bf wins hands down, and this is from an ex crysis fanboy

[gaterin1998]

not fair you should compare battlefield 3 with minecraft

[gaterin1998]

@gaterin1998 naaaaa just joking

[madkillerabdo]

Toughest comparison I can witness. When it comes to particle effects, Crysis 2 is no doubt the victor i.e Water and Fire. However, the rest goes for BF3; Lightning, Textures, Destruction and all that. The lightning in Crysis is NOT BAD but whenever I look at both games' lightning, BF3 has this sense of REALISM, While in Crysis, I can tell that it's a game...

[zoeid]

cryengine has the best water effect.

[Penjonasis]

kind of hard comparing these two games cause there is quite a different scenery with quite different TOD setup. To be honest i asume c2 story is better but multiplayer is better on bf3. I quite miss the huge maps on c1.

Best way to compare them is to say: in bf3 you destroy stuff, in c2 stuff is beeing destroyied. And btw the physics Dice wanted to achive is a little spaced and i dont think they are quite realistic.

The only thing to settle this is to see both engines doing the same scene.

[GearsOfElderScrolls3]

bf3 has better graphics then crysis 2 !

[Morihay]

Both games are amazing. Can't really compare em.

Nice video.

[jenova993]

Both amazing games, can't really compare gameplay

[AussieTroopa]

Crysis 2 wins this.

[burninwftf44]

in terms of graphics, i have to go with crysis 2. bf3 does a good job with effects and lighting, but it looks overdone at times and it was actually quite hard to see throughout most of the campaign. textures look great but shadows seem to lack detail. crysis 2 on the other hand has amazing shadows, particles and texture res, but can give my radeon 6870 a challenge @ 1080p on ultra with dx11 & hd textures. bf3 runs fine 30+fps on 1080p with everything maxed ( except msaa, set to 2x)

[amilcalful]

bf3

[Latvietis96]

actually crysis 2 graphics were so stunning to me i even couldnt properly play the game i just had to look around lmao.. hardcore settings ftw

[789123456789]

Battlefield is more suited for consoles in terms of graphics, the frostbite engine has lots of jagged edges, a lack of detail, especially in textures, and objects dont appear realistic most of the time. Particularly curved objects.

Crysis 2 looks great even on consoles, but the PC version is on a whole new level. Battlefield on consoles runs badly though.

[harley7777777]

battlefield 3 huge upgrade from bc2 crysis 2 a minor upgrade from 1 could have been so much more

[Dynastywarrior00]

GET TO COVER GAMMA BURST INCOMING XD

[extremeons]

Frosbite isnt designed for console

[SuperFileList]

bf 3 great crysis 2 great its very nice two games!

[McMIxTER]

crysis 2 optimization is fucking retardedly good!

[TheParkourWolf]

I think at some points Frostbite looks more realistic. But at some points, CryEngine have so much atmosphere and colors.

[789123456789]

@TheParkourWolf Battlefield has good art direction and lighting, but often its just shiny and uses a lot of bokeh, which creates an illusion of detail. Look closely and you see its rough spots easily. Crysis doesnt go for the blurred out look, and proudly shows its detail.

[ViggyNash]

Also, Frostbite is designed for console, unlike cryengine which gets downgraded for console

[PCgamingTech]

@ViggyNash That isn't correct. Frostbite 2 was primarily written for PC.

[ViggyNash]

@PCgamingTech Really? Huh, don't know why I thought is was designed for consoles, now that I think about it.

[JustDenDimi]

@PCgamingTech In the middle of creation of the engine, they swiched to Console as their primarary platform

[PCgamingTech]

@ViggyNash That isn't correct. Frostbite 2 was primarily written for PC.

[yuriXdanieru]

@ViggyNash your fucking retarded cryengine was upgraded allot and is better on console because pcs cant handle that stuff console graphics are way better in every way and crysis is obviously bettet than battlefield 3

[PCgamingTech]

@yuriXdanieru I'm not sure if you're just trolling here, but Crysis on consoles will never come close to Crysis on PC.

[ViggyNash]

@PCgamingTech Thanks for the reply to that idiot. I didn't want to have to respond to that level of ignorance.

[sLHakon]

@yuriXdanieru Ehm, your the fucking retard here. Console graphics will NEVER beat PC graphics.

[MW2watchyourback09]

@yuriXdanieru Consoles are for poor little kids who cant afford a PC. PC's will always have better graphics than consoles because consoles have 5-6 year old hardware.. I really hope you were trolling, Either that or you have the brain power of an Xbox....

[ViggyNash]

It doesn;t look like b3 has all that much in terms of normal maps, but overall lighting effect belong to b3 i think. I still think I like cryengine better than frostbite.

[Zsavage1]

I think they both look great.. each has it's own highs and lows.. I would have to say they are very close . I like them both about the same.. maybe I am leaning alittle more toward Crysis 2 and I am a BF fanboy for long time from 1941.. I like the game play in Crysis 2 in MP.. and the weps aren't nerf'd like some in BF3 .. but it is new and they are tweeking it all the time.. hopefully soon they will get it fine tuned. my 2cents worth.. THE Z oh ya and nice video comparsion PCgametech

[THENOVEXRUS]

Battlefield 3 >= Crysis 2 > Minecraft > 240p > MW3

[xMUHANNADx94]

crysis 2 theme song > battlefield 3 theme song

[eltonlu1]

Non-bias Opinion:

Battlefield 3 wins

[MegaMark0000]

For graphics, Crysis 2 wins i think. But BF3 is better for the multiplayer

[XxscarxXx]

I like both games but Crysis 2 is the game I like more, whos with me

[TripleJShow1]

@XxscarxXx me

[smsjrtato]

both games look stunning.

[filadelfija6]

Ili imas AMD ili si ljubitelj battlefilda.....Crysis ima teselaciju za oskara..serem tise na ovo sto si napravio...jebo te battlefild

[ASSASSINWAR6]

frostbite 2 has 2 problems : 1:dx11 isn't used good enough. 2:textures are low res

[itayvaisblum102]

by the way :black ops music , in background of dice games comparing

[moviemaker310]

@itayvaisblum102 It is not you dumbass, its Crysis 2 music.

[itayvaisblum102]

bf3 water sucks



[Ozzavala]

2:19 yeah, Tesselation Wait... what the??

it is reviving, or is a scene of necrophilia?

[stupidfanboyftw]

both games are really good in graphics, but at the end of the day crysis 2 wins

[starrevan38]

i think crysis 2 has better graphics. battlefield 3 has better gameplay

[filippolippi02]

Minecraft wins!

[florisaartsen]

@filippolippi02 minecraft whit good graphics thats not i want bad graphics ftw

[sspecialairsservice]

@filippolippi02 just what i was gonna wright!!!!!!! :), but that was weird...

[kikflip1234]

cryengine 3 have beter water

[pegorino1000]

@kikflip1234 xD it's just water

[dragonxanimation]

kind of weird how when a building is in place and the sun is behind it and there's water in the shadow the sun can still have a reflection of the water in bf3......

[dragonxanimation]

crysis 2 wins

[Potencialiscsimbi]

Wow, this is a stupid comparison imho. I mean I love the whole Battlefield series better but I know that Cryengine can do much better. Just look at the CryEngine 3 demos. Beautiful.

[PCgamingTech]

@Potencialiscsimbi Considering that they are the two best looking FPS games to date, it seems like an appropriate comparison to me. Also, Battlefield 3 puts up a very good fight. I'll admit that I think Crysis 2 is more advanced graphically, but having played through both games, BF3 is very close behind it, and IMHO looks more life like.

[GamesYouHaveToPlay]

@PCgamingTech omg two XFX 6870. lol you have a strong pc. i can run bf3 at 1920x1080 rez, ultra settings, exept anti alising which is on 2x.

but you film at that graphic, how much money costed the graphic cards?

[PCgamingTech]

@GamesYouHaveToPlay Thanks, I've had very good results with these cards. I recorded BF3 with everything at max settings (full post and deferred AA). I believe I spent about $400.00 for both the cards, and $1000.00 total for the PC. If you're interested in seeing more benchmarks on this rig, check out my other video "2GB 6870 Crossfire Benchmarks:"

/watch?v=cC3_Q-uie14

[peruvianguy94]

cryengine has always been superior since the days of crysis 1, no game yet can take away the crown for graphics against the cryengine.

[iPansophitus]

@peruvianguy94 Well, not to be a know it all, but the first game to use the Cryengine was Far Cry (not Ubisoft's Far Cry 2), rather than Crysis. At the time, it was good looking game, but Half Life 2, running on Valve's source was a bit better looking. Then, Cryengine 2 and Crysis took visuals to a new level, and now we have Crysis 2 and Cryengine 3, which is also very good.

[niggersshouldburn]

battlefield 3 looks better

[Jeroenneman]

Both are grey urban games. Crysis 1 was a beautiful rich color jungle environment, which switched to icey environments later on.

Crysis 1 is still my fav game in the graphics department. Must be because it didn't have to account for console limits ><

[ATLracing]

@Jeroenneman BF3 is admittedly a bit grey, but it also is going for a realistic look, and I think it looks the most lifelike of any game to date, despite being technically inferior to Crysis 2 in some regards. Crysis 2 is very colorful though, much like Crysis 1. I agree that the jungle island setting is hard to beat though, although Crytek has used it quite a lot with Far Cry, Crysis, and Crysis Warhead, so they really needed to move on.

[Kakaroti]

Crysis 2 simply offers a much more complete package, and lacks in very few areas. It is the king when it comes to visuals. Crysis 2 with DX11 everything on Ultra + high res textures is unbeatable. I have both games and I run them on max DX11 settings. CryEngine 3 is just more flexible.

[awesomeiguy]

@Kakaroti Agreed, But no matter which game you get, you will have alot of fun!!

[therichyification]

crysis 2 FTW!!! crysis 2 has better graphics game play multiplayer storyline weapons enemys upgrades and everything else

[MrAirbusMechanic]

@therichyification crysis 2 has a good story but bf3 multiplayer is much better

[sadwhale57]

@therichyification your a fanboy i admit that crysis has better campaign and ghraphics but BF3 wins when it come to multiplayers and bf3 has no upgrades... unless you mean accessories for you gun bf3 still wins but crysis2 does put up a ok fight

[therichyification]

fine:

graphics:crysis 2

multiplayer:battle field 3

story:i guess a tie

game play:tie

[789123456789]

@therichyification  Music: Crysis wins.

[Liberal93eye]

@therichyification >>>Graphics Comparison<<<

[1stMoraProductions]

They should have compared it to Crysis 1. Crysis 2 is a console port.

[PCgamingTech]

@1stMoraProductions Don't get me wrong, because I adore Crysis 1, but this just doesn't make sense. Crysis had incredible graphics in it's day, but that was five years ago. It has no DX11 features, like tessellation, worse geometric detail, lower res textures, and older ambient occlusion. It wouldn't stand a chance against BF3.

[1stMoraProductions]

@PCgamingTech Actually no, Crysis 2 has lower resolution textures then its predecessor. Geometric detail? im not so sure about that. The lighting is worse yes due to the engine updates. If you ask me Crysis 2 is not really suitable to compare it with BF3. The engine however is.

Still i prefer the Cryengine because of its simplicity and great power.

[PCgamingTech]

@1stMoraProductions Crysis 2 with high res textures is as good, and in many cases better textures than Crysis 1. The geometry is far better, do you even know what tessalation is!? The lighting is worse? Crysis 2 uses SSDO, real time local reflections, shadows with variable penumbra (very realistic), high quality HDR MOTION BLUR, and the same volumetric lighting effects that made Crysis 1 famous. Crysis 2 also has parralax occlusion mapping, sprite based brokeh DOF, and improved particle effects

[jediboi1]

@PCgamingTech You pawned that bitch

[rdejano3]

@PCgamingTech Crysis 2 i mean bf3 is more realistic but Crysis 2 is more graphical so Crysis 2 wins...

[PCgamingTech]

@rdejano3 That's pretty much exactly what I said. However, which game "wins" is a matter of opinion.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Sorry, but that's bull. It can hold its own, especially since the most visible DX11 trait is tesselation, and one of the reasons Crysis ran so bad at max is because they put enough polys in the object and character models to match a mid-range tessellated character in DX11 at least. And BF3's shaders, especially for vegetation don't even come close. CE3 IS CE2 with some enhancements. The engines are almost identical which is why C1 so easily beats C2 in graphics.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech and Crysis 2 with DX11 changing a ton of objects may look good, but without tesselation C1's assets and textures are loads better then 90% of games today. BF3 looks extremely good, but it still doesn't have nearly the amount of detail or the same quality of shaders. The only thing that it really stomps Crysis in is AO, since BF3 has HBAO which is much better then SSAO. There's a reason both BF3 and Crysis require new hardware to get similar performance.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech In fact it's a miracle they were able to release it back at the end of 07 when they did, somehow they managed to make a system that allows tens of thousands of vegetation objects on a map at once and still have it playable. BF3 doesn't have nearly as many objects at once and if you were to make a level in Crysis comparable to BF3's largest map, the Gulf of Oman remake with a similar amount of vegetation, the Crysis version would probably end up running better.

[PCgamingTech]

@jackoneill45 I appreciate lengthy and well punctuated responses, but much of your information is incorrect. For one, shaders are responsible for such a broad range of tasks, that just claiming that they are better in a certain game doesn't really make sense. Crysis objects do not have anywhere near the amount of geometric detail as a DX11 tesselated object, and Crysis 2 in DX10 even has, for the most part, better geometry than Crysis 1.

[PCgamingTech]

@PCgamingTech On the topic of AO, both Crysis 2 and BF3 have much better AO than Crysis 1, which was the first game to ever use SSAO. BF3 uses HBAO, and Crysis 2 uses SSDO. Both are much better, and it makes a big difference. Crysis 2 and BF3 both also have higher res textures and better normal mapping than Crysis 1, which is important. Finally, since you seem to think that DX11's only notable feature is tesselation, I'll list off a few DX11 features that Crysis 2 utilizes, which are noticeable.

[PCgamingTech]

@PCgamingTech Some improvements include Parallax Occlusion Mapping, which I admit is subtle, but important. New high quality shadows with variable penumbra, which look amazing, and are a huge step forward. High quality HDR motion blur, which avoids blurring the objects that aren't moving. Sprite based Brokeh DOF, new DX11 particle improvements, and water which looks truly amazing due to tesselation. Also, RLR lighting, while not DX11 exclusive, looks great and was not available in Crysis 1.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech I already mentioned that BF3's HBAO trumps Crysis's, but it should be noted that you can upgrade Crysis 1's shaders to make many of them like Crysis 2's anyway, and one such improves the SSAO greatly - but it still doesn't beat HBAO of course. I wasn't saying that Crysis 1 beats Crysis 2 though, I was saying that it beats BF3, because for the most part, it does. BF3 doesn't have individual physics based particle effects that are affected by wind and other explosions,

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Mountain trees are simple 2D sprites that are static, not 3D models that vary between a hq sprite and a model (you can go up in the mountain in Kharg to see this) The water in BF3 is a simple shader with modeled 3D overlays for waves that don't effect anything in the water, the water does not have real time reflections, there's no Physics used in calculating destruction - it's all pre-defined points, with smaller objects like debris calculated client-side, aside from

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech large trees which become static once they fall, etc. BF3 also lacks POM in any form, instead replacing them with textures or small rocks that were modelled, instead of using POM like Crysis and Crysis 2, also Crysis supported full syncing of Physics across a server for all users in DX10, etc. It might be outdated, but it is still very comparable, especially when you consider BF3's engine is probably the only other engine that really pushes the limits of current tech

[PCgamingTech]

@jackoneill45 Also, honestly, I was more buy debating Crysis 2 vs Crysis 1. I haven't actually played all that much BF3 yet. I realize that destruction isn't physics based, as that would be far to intense to sync for 64 player battles. Crysis may have supported syncing phsyics, but it didn't support as many players. Besides which, Garry's mod can do that with hundreds of props, and it's from 2004. Crysis and BF3 both have advantages over each other.

[PCgamingTech]

@PCgamingTech We can keep going back and forth listing effects that each have, which the other is missing, but I think we should simply agree to disagree :D.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Well that's because the HL2 engine was designed with physics in mind - you can't have the grav gun in DM if theres no multiplayer physics - also the physics aren't done on a separate core, so it runs much worse with a ton of props in gmod even if you have a great computer. And Crysis 1 supported 32 players by default, and 40 in it's current state which is pretty high, with synced physics including all the vehicles, and the physics-based particles and ballistics system

[PCgamingTech]

@jackoneill45 Great, but I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Source has better physics than CE2, I'm noting that syncing physics props in a multiplayer gamemode is nothing special. More importantly, physics are irrelevant to a graphics debate. Also, most particle effects in Crysis have no interactive physics properties without mods. Lack of POM and even normal mapping in some sections of BF3's environments are disappointing, but forgivable IMO.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Though frostbite 2 is definitely impressive in it's own right, and I think as a multiplayer large-scale game BF3 destroys Crysis, just the engines themselves, even CE2 being 4+ years old, are pretty much in the same league is all, especially when you look at a mod like MWLL for Crysis, with it's massive warzones and large player count.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Well first off, you mean DX9, not DX10 and Crysis 2's default geometry was either on par or lower poly in default except for the main characters. While there are a limited # of polys on both default enemy models in the games, if you look at a wireframe, C1 koreans have way more tris then C2 Crynet models, but props are around the same. And Tessellation is not even used correctly in C2, half the objects sporting it don't make use of it - they end up with similar

[PCgamingTech]

@jackoneill45 I don't think that's true. I know that most of the models are much higher polly in Crysis 2, especially the main characters. Furthermore, the terrain and map geometric detail is much better. Tessellation is used very well in Crysis 2. Some objects don't use it perfectly, but environments make great use of it. No, it isn't utilized perfectly, but no other game does it better, so I appreciate it.

[PCgamingTech]

@PCgamingTech As far as water goes, whether or not CE1 is more efficient in rendering water, you have to admit that Crysis 2's water is stunning. As for BF3 vs Crysis 1, I still think that BF3 wins. The player model geometry is amazing, the HBAO looks fantastic, the textures are excellent, the animations are incredible, and it does utilize many DX11 features and has really good GI. It's an interesting debate, which we could probably continue for a long time. Like I said though, I love Crysis.

[PCgamingTech]

@PCgamingTech Crysis is a much better game than either BF3 or Crysis 2 in my opinion. I just think that the visuals are not quite as good due to their age. One interesting thing to remember also is that BF3 was actually written primarily for PC, which is rare these days.

[jackoneill45]

@PCgamingTech Jagged edges because they didn't rework everything to use it right, but for some reason they applied it to everything. It's a needless waste of performance rendering millions of tris in a scene where only half the objects change. Add on top of that the fact that Crysis 2's tessellated water doesn't make use of the culling system that the first one did for the ocean - it's rendered anywhere in the level, even with no water in sight simply because it's "underneath"

[XcrazyX10]

@PCgamingTech It's more to graphics than tech.. 

[TheAwesomeBomb]

@1stMoraProductions clearly you haven't tried out the high res texture pack or the dx11 features, which actually makes it the best looking game I've ever seen.

[thatsphreshish]

Black ops looks way better than these I reckon

[TheNaruto117]

Crysis 2 has better graphics, but bf3 takes much more (on PC) .... i dont get it

[PCgamingTech]

@TheNaruto117 If you're referring to system requirements, I'd say Crysis 2 is definitely more demanding. My system can max out BF3 at around 60 FPS with minimal stutter, but Crysis 2 with DX11 and high res textures slows to a crawl during some scenes.

[PCgamingTech]

@TheNaruto117 If you're referring to system requirements, I'd say Crysis 2 is definitely more demanding. My system can max out BF3 at around 60 FPS with minimal stutter, but Crysis 2 with DX11 and high res textures slows to a crawl during some scenes.

[TheNaruto117]

@PCgamingTech oh okay , for me its just the opposite. But typ in "can you run it " in google .. and you will see that bf 3 needs better graphics .... i have the gtx 550 ti .. its not the best i know but crysis 2 with patch works perfectly ... and bf 3 laggs (sorry for bad english )

[ATLMember]

@TheNaruto117 Because you didn't download the DX11 and high res content separately. Crysis is much easier to run if you don't download those add ons.

[ronvnkl232]

@TheNaruto117 i think thats because the fully destructaeable envirement of bf3

[iPansophitus]

@ronvnkl232 I don't think so (especially considering that BF3 has pretty minimal destruction). He almost certainly doesn't have the DX11 patch.

[ronvnkl232]

@iPansophitus in the multiplayer bf3 is fully destructeable

[iPansophitus]

@ronvnkl232 I don't think the ability to blow holes in a few walls qualifies as it as "fully destructible.

[ronvnkl232]

@iPansophitus bad company 2 is fully destructable and as far as i know so is bf3

[iPansophitus]

@ronvnkl232 I own both games, unfortunately DICE scaled back destructibility a lot in BF3.

[ronvnkl232]

@iPansophitus oh than that kinda sucks

[Most1166]

The Cry-Engine 3 is such an AWESOME one! Love it, thank u Crytec for this GREAT Game!

[hugoboss992]

Now i understud how much perfect graphics have Crysis 2

[1337vIKz]

Its somewhat hard to compare them both because BF3 is a more realistic FPS, set on a realistic cenario like Iran. Of course Crysis 2 will look " better" with all the sparkly sun shafts and trees and unicorns and bla bla bla. So yeah, its got better art direction, but Frostbite 2 is still miles ahead of any engine today, specially in what comes to lighting

[DarkLevi97]

Crysis 2 ROCKS! :D

[RedRock1145]

Both EA games anyway, so they're teammates. Both look good for me, but yeah, Crysis 1 is just. AMAZING.

[Juunasd]

Crysis 2 takes the price

[BuhnanaFone]

crysis 2 is no where close to bf3 graphics.. but if we are talking bout crysis 1 thats a whole different story. get your fact right people.. crysis 2 was nerfed down for consoles. bf3 wasnt nerfed just like crysis 2 was, sure its nerfed on the consoles but on pc nope.

[iPansophitus]

@BuhnanaFone This is wrong for a number of reasons. First, Crysis 1 looks great, but it's 5 years old. It has no DX11 support, relatively low resolution textures, much poorer geometric detail than Crysis 2, old SSAO (not HBAO),and the list goes on. Crysis 2 has full on DX11 features like tesselation, which provides far better geometric detail than BF3, look at 1:46-2:26. BF3 is also bland and has washed out colors.

[ATLMember]

BF3 looks more realistic, but Crysis 2 is technically superior and, in my opinion, has better art direction.

[Emski222]

Crysis 2 is the clear winner :)

[rivengle]

Crysis 2 has amazing graphics. If BF3 wasn't restricted to console console limitations, I'm sure its graphics would be even better on PC. Would it be better than CryEngine 3? Maybe.

[DoomTheSpaceMarine]

Crysis 2 will take a shit on Battlefield 3, yet Battlefield 3 has maybe a bit more action then showing off graphics too much, because the people who made BF3 wanted it really more about the action than the graphics, but yea they are pretty cool !

[leogets2006]

Battlefield is slightly better and thats with sandbox and destruction.so technically its a superior engine.only better thing on crysis is the water.

[InsanelyOrange]

1. Mute this video.

2. /watch?v=KoziHnR-sio

3. ????

4. profit.

[iPansophitus]

Crysis 2 is, for the most part, slightly superior to Battlefield 3 technically. I also think it has a much better aesthetic, and some really great art direction. It's also a much better game if you want a good single player experience, although Battlefield has excellent multiplayer. Battlefield 3 looks the most realistic, and it runs very well (DX11 Crysis 2 takes a super computer to get decent frames). The bottom line: they both look amazing.