With the 'Beta' 1.1 patch, which enables us to set detail level to Extreme, Batman AC dx11 beats them both, sure not by much, the PhysX used in this game, the art direction(on par with C2), the open world, seeing is believing, best booking you Rig a place in comp. rehab before installing, polished next-gen material, yes SIR!

Catwoman *Meow
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... lation.jpg

I still hold my position that STALKER has the best graphics

So there's still something fundamentally wrong with your argument: you're trying to tell me something based on aesthetic appeal which is subject to personal opinion AND at the the same time your proof is: "ask anyone, and they'll agree." This is worse than the original post.

GTFO

SDub is right, as always. Most of you guys try to compare game engines based primarily on the aesthetics of certain games; let me remind you that "quality" of such engines doesn't begin and end with the visuals it's able to produce. There are things like performance, optimization, scalability, ease of deployment, toolchain and editors available, mod support and last but not least, licenses, fees and terms of use. Making comparisons based on art direction and personal taste is irrelevant.

And no, I have no idea which engine is superior.

atm, it is only possible to analyze the cryengine. Simply because there we got parts of the sdk and an editor.

Personally I like the look (and gameplay) of crysis2 more. I will give bf3 a second chance today, but it feels like i wasted already 120 hours...

He is right. First of all even IGN says that Battlefield 3 is the crysis of 2011.Plus none of you have used frostbite 2 just because DICE advertises about the game and not the engine and crytek advertises about both without using both we are coming to the true potential. Thats why i have said dont compare the true potential untill you have used both the engines

Thanks Bearded Mosquito!



1. Crysis 2, is the Crysis of 2011, not sure if you realized but Crysis 2 was released in 2011.
2. You haven't used Frosbite 2 either, so you're only once again comparing what the game looks like in regards to personal opinion, which is something you cannot quantitatively measure.

BeardedMosquito had an awesome comprehensive list of things you can actually compare.

What the point in bitching which engine is better and which is worser.Both engines are awesome in their own right.Cry engine may be technically superior than frostbite engine since it uses full dx11 goodies.But crysis2 is a bad showcase of this engine's true capability.Engine was hold back becoz crysis2 is console port at its root while bf3 inspite of not using tessellation looks absolutely stunning becoz its a pc game not a **** console port.Cry engine may look better than frostbite engine if some developers uses it to make pc only game but currently bf3 graphics smokes crysis2 in every aspect.Except water rendering.

And OP there is no point in starting a thread like this asking such a subjective question in a forum where 90% guys are cry engine fanboys.If you start a thread in bf3 forums telling cry engine is better than frostbite it will not take long before people start bashing you left and right.

lemme ask ya'll this:
If Crytek were given unlimited access to Frostbite2 and told there would be a prize of a zillion dollars to make Crysis 2 Ultra on it(same looks & same feel) you think it could be done? IMO - no
If DICE were given the same challenge, to make BF3 using the CryEngine3 you think that could be done? IMO - chit of course.

We haven't seen the full potential of the CryEngine 3 yet, so things might change in the future.
Technically and (I think) in every aspect except graphics the CryEngine is better.
But it is difficult to form an opinion when I haven't worked with Frostbite 2 yet (and I won't do this in the future, because they don't offer a free SDK) ;)

Imo CE3 wins, but that's just my opinion.