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.

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 suck ass big time if BF3 is making them cry

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.



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