BF3(DX11) vs Crysis2(DX11) for PC graphic king which is your pick?

As topic, IMHO the only two heavy weight titles to be the PC best graphic 2011 contenders, or best graphic in PC gaming history even. I originally had high hope for rage but unfortunately that game has some visual style but doesn't survive a close up texture check.

So After crysis2's jaw-dropping Dx11 patch, BF3 is another stunner, what a huge leap from BC2, FB engine 2.0 proved it's rendering quality from vary department to to be one of the best graphic PC.

I want keep this comparison fair so i will put crysis2 mods out of this. still it's too tough for me to decide, so my verdict........a tie. :cool:

(I believe GS will give best graphic of the year 2011 to either BF3 PC or UC3 because I don't think they will re-review Crysis2's graphic at Dx11 state)

your thoughts?

BF3

crysis2

BF3 destruction

Crysis 2 destruction (not the best example)

They both look very good. Personally, i think BF3 looks better.

Why not just title it best graphics of the year? It's not like any console game could even compare.

I prefer the look of Crysis 2.SaltyMeatballs

same do I:).

Crysis 2 looks better imo, but BF3 runs better. Might be because I heard tessellation is especially bad for ATI cards.

Crysis 2 looks better imo, but BF3 runs better. Might be because I heard tessellation is especially bad for ATI cards.

Grawse

I believe the architectures of Nvidia GPUs allow DX11 to run better then their AMD counter parts

I think C2 looks better in some areas, while BF3's best areas beat C2's best.

Crysis 2, especially if you count MaLDo's texture pack. Battlefield surpasses it in a couple specific fields, but I think Crysis 2 still trumps it.

Crysis 2, havent we seen what the cryengine can do already!

Crysis 2 with mods.

Based off of those screens? Metro 2033. Those are horrible pictures to demonstrate those games' graphics. Overall BF3 probably looks better.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Crysis 2 looks better imo, but BF3 runs better. Might be because I heard tessellation is especially bad for ATI cards.

NoodleFighter

I believe the architectures of Nvidia GPUs allow DX11 to run better then their AMD counter parts

I think Crysis 2 looks better but the environments are static. I'm not voting because BF3 isn't better looking than Crysis 2 but Crysis 2 has fewer dynamic objects than the original Crysis.

Battlefield 3 is an incredibly amazing looking game. No other game looks better.

I can't believe im saying this but Crysis 2> BF3. BF3 was EXTREMLEY inconsistent with its visuals. Crysis still looks the best IMO, but Cryengine 3 has more potential than either FB2 or CE2

Battlefield 3 is an incredibly amazing looking game. No other game looks better.

Wasdie

No. Have you really looked at the textures up close? BF3 looks very good but it is mostly due to very high level lighting. While the lighting is some of the most impressive I have seen, it really hides a very bland texture base. I always think textures are the basis for any graphically good game. If you look at old source games like CS:S or DoD, you still have a very clean looking game that is only dated due to lack of postprocessing and advanced lighting. But the textures are still solid and therefore pleasing to the eye. Crysis has the best textures I have seen with metro close behind and therefore are much better looking games overall than BF3. BF3 just has such amazing lighting and sound it can overcome some texture shortcomings. When I first started playing BF3 I thought it was by FAR the best looking game. However, when my eyes adjusted to the art style and lighting, I could not get over the very bland looking textures.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Battlefield 3 is an incredibly amazing looking game. No other game looks better.

Dave_NBF

No. Have you really looked at the textures up close? BF3 looks very good but it is mostly due to very high level lighting. While the lighting is some of the most impressive I have seen, it really hides a very bland texture base. I always think textures are the basis for any graphically good game. If you look at old source games like CS:S or DoD, you still have a very clean looking game that is only dated due to lack of postprocessing and advanced lighting. But the textures are still solid and therefore pleasing to the eye. Crysis has the best textures I have seen with metro close behind and therefore are much better looking games overall than BF3. BF3 just has such amazing lighting and sound it can overcome some texture shortcomings. When I first started playing BF3 I thought it was by FAR the best looking game. However, when my eyes adjusted to the art style and lighting, I could not get over the very bland looking textures.

Crysis also has really bad textures too at times, I would say it does everything but textures perfectly.

mitu123

I vote for the witcher 2.

It obviously doesn't come close to C2 or BF3 in technical graphics,but I think it looks better.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Crysis also has really bad textures too at times, I would say it does everything but textures perfectly.

Inconsistancy

Those screens don't do BF3 justice.dramaybaz

It WAS beautiful, but they just... morons.

BF3 has the best lighting and physics but the textures are all flat, i.e they have no depth so leaves on the ground etc. are just pasted on instead of actually there. Crysis is still the best when it comes to textures (including mods) and it's physics were better than Crysis 2.gamebreakerz__

good feedbacks, keep it going

What I don't understand is 80% replied posts says crysis2 has better graphic and yet BF3 still edge out on the poll? come on, you get back up your claim.

I think Crysis 2 has better modeling and some better texture work but overall BF3 looks better to me. Lighting is king and Dice knows that. The game really feels alive and believeable thanks to their fantastic lighting engine. I mean most shots just look so outstandingly beautiful that you can't really give it to any other game. That said, the modeling is smoother overall in Crysis 2 and it has less hard edges.

I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well.

Play all three games. Take a good look at the texture-work, the water, the skies, the foliage, the lighting, etc. Crytek completely pushed the envelope with Crysis 1, and they weren't afraid to test higher end computers. Crysis 2 was a bit scaled down to work better with console hardware and Battlefield 3 could've probably looked better as well.

I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well. KHAndAnime

BF3 for me. It looks better and runs better, but both are great games and engines.

Overall I'd say BF3 has higher quality art, and is a lot smarter about how they use their tech. They also did a better job of catering to their 3 platforms.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well. ferret-gamer

Not trying to dispute anyone's opinion on which is better looking game between BF3 and C2, but saying BF3's texture looks horrible from time to time is beyond the truth.

I don't know how it looks on none maxed out rig, but came across many screenshots from some other BF3 players, I noticed more than handful horrible geometry and poorly done texture which not at all exist in the DX11 max out version I played, and I'm a person play alot attention to details. just had 2 play through in SP and some hours in MP, I assure you that texture department is well covered in most places in BF3 and it's more consist than most PC games out there(that includes crysis1) especially considerate the scale of BF3, it's an amazing achievement.

Back to topic, texture vs texture is a draw between BF3 and vanilla crysis2, but moded crysis2 texture is the champion of the universe.

BF3 SP texture, note: i'm not picking specfic spots, just random place I walk by.

BF3 MP texture, again, no cheap spots.

crysis 2 vanilla texture

Crysis 2 moded texture

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Crysis 2 looks better imo, but BF3 runs better. Might be because I heard tessellation is especially bad for ATI cards.

ferret-gamer

I believe the architectures of Nvidia GPUs allow DX11 to run better then their AMD counter parts

Speaking of which, I disabled tessellation in my drivers so I could keep my crysis 2 settings maxed and keep POM(by the looks of things, that's what most objects in the game use anyways).

Looks and runs great, but kind of adds more fuel to the "why did they put insane tessellation meshes on objects" fire imo.

I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well.

Play all three games. Take a good look at the texture-work, the water, the skies, the foliage, the lighting, etc. Crytek completely pushed the envelope with Crysis 1, and they weren't afraid to test higher end computers. Crysis 2 was a bit scaled down to work better with console hardware and Battlefield 3 could've probably looked better as well.

KHAndAnime

wow I'm in shock, are you even serious? crysis1 was the best looking game for 2 years before metro2033, but as now, it has no place in graphic king contest, those department you named, except foliage crysis1 come in second place(which CE2 does the best) everything else CE2 is lightyear behind CE3 and FB2, the gap is so huge is not even funny.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well. KHAndAnime

water flat in Crysis2? lol! wake up, even crysis's DX9 water beats crysis1 with ease. crysis1's water is the worst of all 3, crysis2's water after dx11 patch actually interact with all the physics activity whether is human, any objects, bullets and explosion. ---->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibPN9e1SZY

like the other person said, crysis's graphic has no place in this competition. and yes, I played all big crysis mods.

anyway good topic TC, it's a tough call, but I have to give it to BF3.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]I still prefer Crysis 1 to both of those games graphically. The technology behind it is better and was built from the ground up for the PC. It really comes across as a lot more realistic looking and feeling to Crysis 2 and BF3. I'd like to think Crysis has better physics than both of these games as well. KHAndAnime

Crysis 2 looks alot better, Metro 2033 looks alot better than BF3 aswell

BF3 has horrible textures and uses alot of bloom and blur to cover it up

Crysis 1 water does have interactivity with objects. Try walking backwards or firing into water. But, yup. I too now prefer Crysis 2 DX11 to Crysis 1 DX10. I can't say much about BF3 since I don't have it yet.

Crysis 2 looks better imo, but BF3 runs better. Might be because I heard tessellation is especially bad for ATI cards.

Grawse

Crysis 1 water does have interactivity with objects. Try walking backwards or firing into water. But, yup. I too now prefer Crysis 2 DX11 to Crysis 1 DX10. I can't say much about BF3 since I don't have it yet.

jun_aka_pekto