as the topic..
mind to state ur view?

It's a bit hard to differentiate between two engines built for different types of games...

Both games not officially out yet..but judged from the video n demo..i will go for frostbite 2.0..

me too

bila BF3 mau out aya mau beli

lolz..still lama lagi bro...ujung taun nnt..im waiting for the pre-order beta..

i like frostbite

from my POV, frostbite more to destruction and dust effect..superb
and crytek engine known for very nice environment like HDR, blooming etc..
1st time ever introduced in far cry i think

both engine have their pros

This post has been edited by MjMax15: Mar 6 2011, 11:15 PM

well said!
for immersion, i'd love frostbite 2.0 personally. cryengine 3 would be the visual

Both game engine is great! Its just the matters of how the game developed.

My personal opinion so far would be,

Crysis 2, great graphics, gameplay just so so..

Battlefield 3, great gameplay with great graphics.

If just comparing the products (games), i'll go for Battlefield 3. I want to play great game. Impact of gameplay really give a hit rather than just good looking graphics

Crysis 2 only runs on DX9, am I right?

crysis 2 dx9 upon release. dx11 later.

frostbite 2.0 for destructible enviroments.

true...great graphics is to compliment great gameplay.

LOL
currently crysis 2 using dx9
no wonder gameplay very smooth

er i tot crysis 2 also got destructible enviroments?

most of the videos shown are on the x360 running at 60fps. their engine is refine to run smoothly on any machines and to showing off that they make do with hardware limitations.

@seraph8660
demo dont show any destructible enviroments similar to bfbc, only cosmetic destruction.

in crysis we cannot shoot rpg/nubetube through walls

so far as i know, Red Faction can beat frostbite engine hahaha..
but no many knows this volition engine..

I'll let you all be the judge.
CryEngine 3.0


vs.

Frostbite 2.0

must.....must...work harder to get both :|

Wow..thx for the share..both looks awesome..!

wonder how a game will become when Frostbite and Cryengine combine sure dam heavy on graphics and proc but sure dam beautiful and fun to play

But that CryEngine 3.0 demo was meant for Cinema, not for realtime gaming. You need a supercomputer to do the rendering.

This post has been edited by avex|mode: Mar 8 2011, 12:11 PM

We buy the products (games), not the game engine

like Avatar....great engine. But i walked out the cinema after 15 minutes.

Looking at those videos, and then I look outside the window. Eh why the graphics outside looks worst? How do i upgrade the gfx outside to look as nice as these videos?

i think u need to build a new world *ahem* TRON ??

Reality bites harder

Anyway... I'm wondering if my PC will withstand BF3. *sigh*

i think cryengine focuses more on gc processing while frostbite is more towards processor

but cryengine 3 is an exception bcoz its also optimized for consoles, which is good news for those who hav outdated rigs like me.and dun be surprised if the recommended spec for frostbite 2.0 is another quad core,although i hope the developers will further optimize the engine to be resource friendly

This post has been edited by ZeneticX: Mar 8 2011, 11:20 PM

if recommend spec is quadcore then my laptop cannot play already

Yep....
More recent games needs atleast a good quad core CPU to run smooth....

And what good to bring when bulldozer is coming in June

Where'd he get CryEngine3 Lingshan from?

its jut their demo coz its the most beautiful scene in crysis. so they remade and compare it with cryengine 2. tbh it is the most beautiful scene in the entire game.

See this some Battlefield 3 Scans they said they uesd Deferred rendering which is same as killzone tech and which i think is really amazing.

http://gamenyusu.com/component/content/art...looks-good.html

i would have to say cryengine 3 is the winner hands down

This post has been edited by fat cat: Mar 30 2011, 05:01 PM

in term of what criteria?

graphics and realistic destruction.

i wont say that anymore. graphics....i would have to say bf3 will take it away just by looking at the trailer. destruction? there are more destruction in the 1st crysis than the 2nd one. besides bfbc2 have more destruction than crysis 2 and crysis combined. to me frostbite engine is the clear winner.

realistic destruction?
btw crytek really good at rendering these
im amaze


for destruction frostbite so far prove alot in BC2 and better than ''cosmetic'' crack here n there

but spec wise, it seems frostbite2 need more power rig to run it well unlike crytek (tried b4 playing crysis2 MP, can easily tune all max setting, dunno SP yet)
but again, these two engines cannot be compared like this.
all have its own pros

This post has been edited by MjMax15: Mar 31 2011, 10:29 PM

i feel like crytek pro in rendering realistic environment

while frostbite pro in rendering effects and interaction

somehow i dont seem to like crysis 2 a lot, prefer to old crysis where there are more free roam and more destructible

talking about destructible, crysis is far behind bc2

Battlefield 3 also releasing for consoles too right? So is it gonna pull off another crysis 2 cry engine 3 stunt? meaning if its console friendly then it shouldnt be such a resource hog?

its being developed on the PC 1st. thn port it to the consoles

Crytek apparently said crysis 2 was also developed on pc as well then port to pc so is B3 following same trend?

lol...i thought they develop crysis 2 for console first then port to pc

You can't develop a game on consoles , you need a stable platform for designing and those weird number stuffs from the Matrix movie

but is it..?

apperantly they never said that. they said they will go multiplatform. and looking at all the demos they showed before the launch. those were all console gameplay. so it is safe to assume it is ported from consoles to pc. while on the other hand, dice official said on their interview that it will be produced on the pc than ported to consoles. all trailers u saw for bf3 are all pc gameplay. that gave u faith that dice was doing pc gamers a big favor. i wouldnt jumped to conclusion that fast like you as it is still very early.

ok, just my experience as normal gamer, while playing crysis2 still feeling like "COD Modern World" except some upgrade like super sharp texture (unlike BC2, which more focus on dust), more cosmetic minor destruction and surprisingly can running well on my HD4770. DX9 maybe?

the outdoor scenery is nicely done

so it boils down to the question...will frosbite 2 be like what crysis 1 was to hardware last time? ultimate resource hog?

should be as many people complained that crysis 2 was not pushing the limits graphics wise so bf3 should make use of current gen hardware.

i sure hope so bro! the trailers released so far look amazing!

I've heard about the BF3 trailer was prerendered, though. But i might be wrong.

Now, while we are debating about Frostbite VS CryEngine, remember this. CryEngine 3, when used in Crysis 2, are greatly limited...toned down, for Consoles' sake.

The real power of CryEngine 3 comes from easy cross-platform development, intergration with other programs namely, Maya, and such.

If you want to judge CryEngine 3, dont go for Crysis 2. Go for the CryEngine 3 trailer that showcases the Crytek Car or something.

Judging from current looks, FrostBite are pushing the hardware limits, too. Facial expression, dust, and various other realistic effects are all there. CryEngine 2 did this in Crysis 1, and for all those who werent fortunate to own a $2000 PC, Its epic lag day at all Max.

On the other hand...the new Unreal engine showcases are... damn. Awesome.

My votes still goes for CryEngine 3, though.

pre rended..uh-oh
don't wanna its end like operation flashpoint2
trailer so hot, end of the time, u can judge yourself.

but yeah.
i think farcry2 is better than crysis2, in term of graphic and physics
they using same engine right?
oh waiiii..after a while i just remembered- sorry btw farcry2 using Dunia engine
and i still remembered crysis1, damn really awesome hardware requirement and those trees are not invincible like planted in NY LOL

p/s: wow now unreal engine also upgraded..yeah!

This post has been edited by MjMax15: Apr 7 2011, 01:25 AM

Call me square but I never liked any Cry engines. I personally didn't really like the Crysis graphics that much, I thought at the time Gears of War and Bioshock looked way more amazing.
At the moment I'm playing Crysis Warhead at 1080p, no AA at high(I haven't finished it yet LOL) and idk, it just doesn't amaze me much. Yes I'm taking into account this is a game from 2008, so what. Gears of War from 2006 surpassed it guys, come on.
Especially with Unreal Engine 3, even today with Bulletstorm and stuff, is incredibly light on just about any computer I can think of.

Back to Frostbite though... I don't know enough about it :B
All I know was that BC2 looked way cleaner than Crysis imho, so that wins just based on that >_<

But my all time favourite engine is still Source

Crysis 2, in an untrained eyes, are super special awesome on low hardware.

For us graphic fanatics who can see vegetation,FPS,AA/AI,texture quality with naked eye.... Crysis 2 is truly inferior.

Not to mention the lack of the UI to tweak everything like Crysis 1.

But the real potential are to be released, hopefully soon =3

lol
actually crysis2 also no bad lah,
good HDR especially from blended smoke and lighting save the day
and bonus: soundtrack from hans zimmer

soundtrack from hans zimmer : Why i play MW2.

Eitherway, CryEngine 3 itself isnt bad. Whats bad is Crysis 2. Its spamming HDR and Bloom every given chance lol.

The bright side is, CryEngine 3, from the looks of it, can be optimized to use "Fake High Quality". Good news for those without a PC strong enough to run console ports.

*le preorder*

frostbite 2.0 got the destructive engines, while crytek destructive is in smalller scope as i know