Battlefield 3 vs crysis 2 which is graphically better?

after playing both games, i would say these 2 games are on par, i like crysis 2 aesthetically build graphics, and at the same time battlefield 3 shaders are really top of the line, the Tod is a bit better than crysis 2 ,more realistic, frostbite 2 is even more efficient in geometry, meaning objects keep their detail at higher distance better, well i feel they are neck and neck all in all, have your say...

 

They both look like crap in my opinion...everything is way to blurry/soft.

BF3 is the worst though.. players in the distance just blend in with their surroundings.

 

and then you can also talk about how Crysis2 is mostly indoors or small outdoor area's and BF3 has enormous maps.

 

Both games have different art styles, BF3 leaning more toward photo-realism - making direct comparisons difficult but if we're talking engines here and what they're capable of doing then I'd say BF3's Frostbite 2 just has the edge over Crysis 2's CryEngine 3, especially the lighting and shadows which looks more natural in BF3 (though it may be just an artistic choice).

 

The art direction is more or less the same in my opinion, they look very much alike.
Both look blurry if you don't disable the default post-AA but Crysis has much more detail once you crank up the settings.
It's true that it has mostly inside areas or smaller areas but at least they're filled with lots of stuff, some of the sp levels are also quite large (at least large enough for me). BF3 has bigger maps but also features bigger empty spaces

 

i hope you dont try to decide which one to buy with this thread, because gameplay/fun-wise BF3 cannot be compared to Crysis2 AT ALL. Its not in the same leaque, its not even playing on the same ****in planet.

 

Both games have blur AA that you can turn off, with Crysis 2 you type r_postmsaa 0 in console, with BF3 you turn off post AA in the settings

 

Both look really nice imo, different styles though bf3 has a really cold feel to it with the filters it uses while crysis has a warm look too it.

 

Their both ugly really...

 

BF3 has particles/smokes shadowed (but not levels of dark/colours smoke) and tessellation for terrain while C2 has tessellation for wall, walls, sea... I think that BF3 is a bit better.

 

Personally I think BF3...by miles. Crysis 2 has nice lighting, but the glare, oh the glare. Everywhere. Hey, that rhymes!

Anyways, I think BF3's lighting system is superior anyways. WAY higher resolution textures and higher-poly models. Tessellation happens less, but they overdid it in Crysis 2 to a point where it just looks...unnatural. Check out the tessellated bricks. It's just weird.

Also, I think that Crysis 2 is a snooze-fest, and that BF3 is one of the best games I've played. Please don't judge them by graphics.

- PR-0927

 

Overall Crysis 2 "WOW" me more than BF3. But right now, a modded skyrim have this effect.

 

Just for correction sakes Cryengine 3 does have shadow producing particles and shadow on particles. It was added in the DX11 update. Check out their dx11 slides:

http://www.mycrysis.com/sites/default/files/support/download/c2_dx11_ultra_upgrade.pdf

Page 21

 

aah! sorry, I forget that. C2 is a bit better than BF3.

 

to me, Crysis 2 with the high textures and dx11.

i've seen BF3 maxed out and wasn't impressed at all.

 

BF3 is better looking for me. Crysis 2 is real good for photo finish but BF3 once you´re playing looks a bit better.

For those who say that both games are ugly or crap looking I wonder what´s a good looking game for them?

 

+1 me too.

 

Bf3.

 

With DirectX 11 and HD Texture patch Crysis 2 beats Battlefield 3 in every single category.
But for vanilla versions Battlefield 3 is better than Crysis 2.
Also Battlefield 3 has more natural color palette than Crysis 2 somehow.

For engines;
Cryengine 3 is better than Frostbite 2. Especially for developers.
But I guess new Unreal Engine will be beat all of them

 

BF3 and by far.