anirocks263 wrote: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
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
TSAndrey wrote:Battlefield 3 has better graphics then Crysis 2, but that doesn't mean that Frostbite 2 is better then Cryengine 3
Hi Andrey, sure you're probably right BF3 is better lookin' than Crysis 2, but it sure as hell ain't better lookin than C2 dx11 Ultra, come on now! ;P the particles have there own shadows ffs! :p At the risk of sounding like a complete dick you gotta see both games maxed to judge.
anirocks263 wrote:Third that 10k system can run crysis on 2560x1600 with everything maxed out
1. That wasn't shown anywhere in the video. Either you're assuming, citing a source that doesn't exist, or citing a source that you didn't post in your original topic.
2. Even if #1 was true, that means nothing and this is why: Engines like CE3 and Frostbite 2 can be inefficient to a certain degree. CE3 I know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows, netbooks have horrible hardware. So there's a completely obvious assumption that Frostbite 2 was just coded poorly and stresses your system more. Where's your proof against that?
I still am raging in the US.
It is said in the video "Come on guys this is a $10k system" See the video carefully and read the synopsis about it. And " know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows" this is wrong crysis 2 does not run on a netbook giving 30+fps. And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing. I am not just going on the fps.
Youve got to be kidding?
know for a fact is a massively efficient engine because it can run 30 FPS+ on netbooks, and as everyone knows" this is wrong crysis 2 does not run on a netbook giving 30+fps
it cant be...
And truly Battlefield 3;s graphics are amazing. I am not just going on the fps.
are you joking??
and because you were uberly fail ill give you this cookie bro..
Hi everyone, I know you must all be a little butthurt, but while cryengine is amazing, frostbite 2 can indeed acheive much more, and DOES produce better graphics. At least Battlefield 3 on a good PC, has better graphics than cryengine. Before you start spamming me, the graphics are better, but not by THAT much at all. Battlefield 3 is currently THE BEST GRAPHIC GAME TO DATE, and that's a fact, ask anyone( who isn't on this site, 'cause they like crysis, so obviously they'll defend it) and they'll agree. The only real graphical advantage, isn't really grapghics related, but in battlefield 3, you can't see your own shadow. Crytek will have to make another new engine to reclaim their title as the king of graphics. And remember, I love crysis just as much as anyone else here. (well except for it's few bugs, or at least the few bugs I have) But cryengine MIGHT have better lighting...