Crysis 2 vs BF3.. Which game represents DX11 the most?

[Carfax83]

For graphics whores, which game do you think looks better, and which game do you think makes the most of DX11? While both games look phenomenal, I'd have to give the nod to Crysis 2 DX11 Ultra....primarily due to it's amazing lighting and shadows.

The lighting effects in Crysis 2 seems much more realistic and natural than in BF3, which can appear overdone at times. Also the shadows are much better. Crysis 2 DX11 Ultra uses the new SSDO (the first title to do so I believe) to produce smoother and better looking contact shadows, as adversed to BF3's HBAO which I thought wasn't very noticeable in it's effect.

Then there's tessellation. While Crysis 2 has very apparent tessellation effects, BF3's was a lot more subtle. Some would say that BF3's approach was better, since the performance hit was negligible, while Crysis 2's approach was heavy handed and over done resulting in a much larger performance hit.

As for textures, both games come up short in that respect imo....but there are a number of amazing mods out for Crysis 2 which manage to address this issue quite well.

Maldo's texture mod in combination with the blackfire TOD/texture mod makes Crysis 2 appear practically photo realistic, easily making it the best looking shooter ever imo.

If anyone wants to see the effects of these mods, download and install them, click here.

Also here's a youtube trailer of the mod.

I tried it out myself, and I was pretty amazed to say the least. Here's a few screenshots @ 2560x1600:

 

[Carfax83]

Man, 120+ views and not one comment

As often as graphics is discussed on this forum, I thought I would get at least a few replies.

At any rate, I change my mind about the blackfire mod. It looks nice for a while, but the longer you play, the more annoying the excessive contrast becomes.

The standard DX11 Ultra TOD looks a lot more natural.

 

[akahoovy]

Honestly I think that there isn't a game yet that has been gone over with a fine comb to polish it up for DX11 specifically. I think Crysis 2 is the better representative right now, but it's not quite a shining example of what I bet DX11 could do.

 

[Arkaign]

Crysis 2 is prettier, and a better single-player game by most standards, but BF3 is a much better product imho if you're into MP gaming.

 

[Stringjam]

I had the same issue with the BlackFire Mod.....too much contrast and over-saturation. It gets fatiguing after awhile.

I do, however, like the MaLDoHD mod.

At this point, I don't know about "representation," but Crysis2 gets my nod for best looking of the two right now. Better models, reflections, and object quality (there are some ridiculously low-poly models in BF3...they're littered everywhere).

I think the lighting looks good in both....and I like some of the dramatic use of lighting in BF3 - - sure, its not terribly realistic at times, but realism is overrated....I'll take artistic for the win.

The cut-scene animation in BF3 is killer though....finally starting to see facial skin moving in a way that looks more natural. I just wish they would have built a decent SP campaign around the tech, because it is one of the worst I've ever played. I guessed that going in (got it for the MP anyway), but it's just really.....terrible.

I think Crysis2 does a better job in the physics department.....but it seems like CryEngine2 did a better job than either of the new engines.

 

[s44]

Seems a bit unfair, since Crysis 2 wasn't exactly designed to handle 64-player MP modes.

 

[BrightCandle]

The problem is both games are console ports to a greater and less extent. So while they use DX11 neither do so to the full extent you would expect from a PC exclusive specifically trying to utilize everything fully, because they are scaling down to entry level hardware from 2005.

We haven't seen what a modern graphics card can do yet, its being limited by the market situation.

 

[lopri]

I don't know.. I was totally let down by Crysis 2's graphics. I was expecting improvement and optimization over original Crysis. Haven't had a chance to play BF3 cause I'm not really a fan of multiplayer shooters. Looking forward to Skyrim.

 

[llee]

I think Battlefield 3 looks better because of its lighting.

 

[pcslookout]

I think Battlefield 3 looks better because of its lighting.

As do I.

 

[Carfax83]

The problem is both games are console ports to a greater and less extent. So while they use DX11 neither do so to the full extent you would expect from a PC exclusive specifically trying to utilize everything fully, because they are scaling down to entry level hardware from 2005.

While Crysis 2 was obviously consolized, I don't think you can say the same thing about BF3.

I think in the case of BF3, the developers intentionally decided to tone down the potential IQ enhancements, for performance reasons.

As s44 mentioned, the BF3 engine is designed to handle massive playable areas with lots of players, so they could only "pretty it up" so much. If they had gone all out a la Crytek in the original Crysis, only the high end rigs would be able to play at max settings.

 

[Carfax83]

I don't know.. I was totally let down by Crysis 2's graphics. I was expecting improvement and optimization over original Crysis. Haven't had a chance to play BF3 cause I'm not really a fan of multiplayer shooters. Looking forward to Skyrim.

I was too as well. While I think the gameplay was a step up over the original, I couldn't believe that Crytek would release a DX9 only title; especially with such poor texture quality.

But I think Crytek redeemed themselves with the release of the DX11 upgrade and high rez texture pack. Crysis 2 in DX11 Ultra mode is definitely much better looking than any previous Crysis game; and probably any other FPS game when you consider the fairly large and diverse environments (unlike Metro 2033 which is a corridor shooter).

The standard high rez texture pack isn't as good as it should be, but readily available mods more than make up for it.

 

[tigersty1e]

BF3 was much better.

Crysis 2 had cheap add-ons that any developer could add to "pretty up" the game. Tesselation is one of those things where you can just add globs of it everywhere to make the game more demanding and pretty looking.

 

[McWatt]

I actually think Half Life 2 with the FakeFactory mod (yes, I know how ridiculous it is overall) looks more photorealistic than Crysis 2. It may just be because of the art choices, but Crysis 2 NYC looks like a cartoon to me. It's a great looking cartoon, but isn't aiming for realism.

 

[Stringjam]

I'm not a big fan of photo-realism. It just isn't very interesting.

That's why even movies aren't filmed to be "photo-realistic".....could you imagine watching something like 300 or Lord of the Rings without dramatic lighting and post-processing? It would look boring as hell.

The pursuit of photo-realism in games, IMO, takes a back seat to the pursuit of superior artistic direction.

There's nothing realistic about Mirror's Edge, but it is an intriguing environment, which is far more interesting to me.

 

[MustangSVT]

crysis one

 

[The Boston Dangler]

it's "more", not "most".

 

[Red Hawk]

Disclaimer: I've never played either game. So I don't know what they look like aside from screenshots and Flash videos. But I'm going to give my opinion anyways.

Battlefield 3 makes better use of DirectX 11. This stems from the fact that BF3 is DirectX 10/11 exclusive; it's not made for DirectX 9. On the other hand, Crysis 2 wasn't even released with DirectX 11 support; it had to be patched in later. This results in Battlefield 3 doing a lot with DirectX 10/11 with relatively little performance loss while Crysis 2 in DirectX 11 mode chugs compared to its DirectX 9 mode.

As for visuals, I can't judge, but I will say that the idea of using mod textures to say a game looks better isn't fair. If we allow that, plenty of moddable games can end up with textures looking that good. When comparing games, the version out of the box or with the latest official updates should be used.

 

[Grooveriding]

BF3 is far more impressive than Crysis 2.

Crysis 2, I can't say it looked horrible, but given how demanding the game is and how much better Crysis 1 looks than Crysis 2; Crysis 2 is horrible :whiste:

Battlefield 3 has better graphics than Crysis 2 and takes second spot to Crysis 1.

Look at these awesome videos comparing Crysis 1 & Crysis 2 PC vs 360 versions.

Crysis 1 PC vs 360
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_1mcnH2yQ&feature=feedu

Crysis 2 PC vs 360
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtHA...yQ&annotation_id=annotation_595424&feature=iv

Crysis 2 was definitely a console port. Look at the drastic differences between Crysis 1 on the PC and the 360 and how similar Crysis 2 looks on PC and 360.

 

[mirandu04]

i also think that BF 3 is the way to go with DX11; this happens also because of the later release and some late tweaking

 

[Vdubchaos]

I think BF3 looks little better. But I mean LITTLE.

I also don't think that ANY game past 3-4 years has reached Crysis type of Graphical milestone.

I don't think BF3 is it...

few more years I guess?

 

[Carfax83]

Look at these awesome videos comparing Crysis 1 & Crysis 2 PC vs 360 versions.

Crysis 1 PC vs 360
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_1mcnH2yQ&feature=feedu

Crysis 2 PC vs 360
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtHA...yQ&annotation_id=annotation_595424&feature=iv

Crysis 2 was definitely a console port. Look at the drastic differences between Crysis 1 on the PC and the 360 and how similar Crysis 2 looks on PC and 360.

Come on now. Thats obviously Crysis 2 DX9 in the videos. Crysis 2 DX11 Ultra is a different beast entirely, and is a drastic upgrade over DX9 Extreme, much less the consoles.

Video showing the difference between DX11 Ultra and DX9 Extreme.

Crysis 2 DX11 trailer

 

[Matthiasa]

Hmm the difference is the bricks, while not flat anymore, stick out way way to much.
And the textures weren't changed when that was done. Also the mortar was lost.
Sure other stuff looked better but that just looked bad.

 

[jordanecmusic]

crysis 2=more attention to graphics
battlefield 3=more attention to gameplay (frostbite 2.0)

 

[Maximilian]

Disclaimer: I've never played either game. So I don't know what they look like aside from screenshots and Flash videos. But I'm going to give my opinion anyways.

Battlefield 3 makes better use of DirectX 11. This stems from the fact that BF3 is DirectX 10/11 exclusive; it's not made for DirectX 9. On the other hand, Crysis 2 wasn't even released with DirectX 11 support; it had to be patched in later. This results in Battlefield 3 doing a lot with DirectX 10/11 with relatively little performance loss while Crysis 2 in DirectX 11 mode chugs compared to its DirectX 9 mode.

As for visuals, I can't judge, but I will say that the idea of using mod textures to say a game looks better isn't fair. If we allow that, plenty of moddable games can end up with textures looking that good. When comparing games, the version out of the box or with the latest official updates should be used.

This --^