Battlefield 3 versus Crysis 2: 1080P HD Screenshot Comparison

Posted By | On 27th, Apr. 2011 Under Feature, Slider | Follow This Author @GamingBoltTweet


Page 1 of 4

Battlefield 3 is promising to be a very strong contender for the best first person shooter of 2011.  With an updated Frostbite engine, players can expect some real mayhem when it hits this holiday season. Battlefield 3 also looks way better than its predecessors but how does it compare with Crysis 2?   Check out our gallery below.

Up Close


Up Close

Even though on first impression the gun's details look better in Battlefield 3, there is again a noticeable lack of shadow overlapping. The guns in Crysis 2 have individual objects overlapping their shadows on others.

As you can see Crysis 2 holds the edge for now, but given the fact that this is pre alpha screens the difference will be much closer as we approach the launch date.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

Next Slide


Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Thatruth86

    zz lmao nice comparison but no BF3 still looks better bc its still in development

  • If BF3 turns out to be a “PS3 Port” I am seriously going to give up GAMING!!! I take it these pictures are XBOX 360? My PS3 Crysis 2 was GD HORRIBLE!! No indoor shadowing…shadowing when there was NO light source!! Silent/boring grenade animation… PS3 is getting hand-me-downs and it’s all the DEVELOPERS FAULT! Maybe I’ll dust off my 360 and my 3yr old can have my PSWii.

    • the leading platform is pc, theyve stressed that a lot.

    • It’s not the developers fault , crytek wanted to make the best game-engine with the best graphics but a ps3 isn’t strong enough to run the entire game-engine.

  • Really? I think bf3 looks better in this pic. It looks like a photo, while crysis looks like a videogame. Besides, bf3 is in pre-alpha

  • This comparison sucks!!!!!!!!

  • It is the lighting, not shadows in BF3 that makes the difference. It is VERY realistic. Also dont forget that in BF3 you can destroy almost anything…

  • Wow

    Hahaha, hand shadows? Really? You mean those shadows that you don’t even notice in the crysis picture. I’m not saying your wrong, and I’m just gathering thus from the pictures but… In the bf3 shot the light is coming from the left, while the crysis shot has the light coming from the right, of course your gonna get shadows on the hand! Very bad example pictures. Crysis looks so cartooney in the picture, while bf3 looks realistic. I can’t vouch for the first person look of the gun, but environment wise, bf3 is the winner. The gun in crysis looks so shitty in this picture too. Some games only look good when moving, crysis is not one of them. At least not on the level at which I am comparing these two games. Howabout killzone 3 comparison’s? I think their view of a gun is the best.

  • Wow

    **Crysis IS one of them**

  • Crysis 2 looks good for now, but should look better with the DX11 patch. By the time BF3 is released it may have some direct competition with Crysis 2. We’ll just have to wait.

  • My thoughts… The ground comparison is a bad choice, you are comparing dirt with pavement. also the pavement looks like pavement and the dirt looks like poo with weird things in it (really?) I have a feeling BF3 dirt will look better. also the shadow on the weapons… no shadow on Crysis 2 arm(what the hell r u talking about?) and bad pics to compare again. BF3 pick has the sun and lighting on top of the character, not to the left of him? so if it had those shadows it wouldn’t make any sense!(watch the scene when they run through the alley with the dog and eat your words up. In case you are ignorant here, make sure to look at the GUN…)). The explosions seemed to be the only good comparison but idk what part the BF3 explosion is from but the crYsis one does look more attractive on that part. I bet it’s just because the sources of the explosion are different since you use different scenery of pics so yea, didnt like this comparison (no offence)

  • N1m

    The BF3 SS is 720p. The YT vid is 720 scaled up. Nice try but inaccurate data comparison.

    BC2 @ DX11 1600p 8xSSAA Max settings =

    http://img861.imageshack.us/i/brownsugar1.jpg/

    VS

    Crysis2 @ DX9 1600p Max settings

    http://img707.imageshack.us/i/111je.jpg/

    BC2 still takes the cake…. by a long shot………… Rashid stick to consoles

    Gameel Gamal milosh misal

  • IK

    Crysis 2 has a lot of cheap effects that make it look like it has better graphics than it does. I have it for PC (just finished it, actually). This is especially evident in still images. BF3 will destroy Crysis 2 in graphics when it finally comes out. And unlike Crysis 2 it won’t be a half-assed console port.

  • Look B3 Does Beat Crysis 2 In Comparison Crysis is alot like Halo with the more Fantasy/Animation Against B3 Realistic/Animation. But what do expect its SCI/FI but none the less you can Squabber and argue about Crysis 2 versus B3 Pc/Xbox/PS3 But In all Honesty Crysis 1 Kills Them Both In Ever Way B3 is like a Nitendo WII to Crysis 1 only because Crysis 1 was all made up pretty for the PC but when Crytex had to make Crysis 2 for XboxPS3 They had to downscale it to fit more Evenley. as Does Battlefield 3 because its all on Plateforms I would Love to See Battlefield just as a PC Game only and see how it competes agianst the Behemoth Crysis 1 so Till Then I would say battlefield 3 wins The Console War with Crytek, By The way i Personal Think Halo Reach looks Better Then Both Crysis 2 and battlefield 3 alot of fans misjudge Halo:Reach Graphics its actuall Perfectly Done with 100%anti alaysin with Smooth Polished Enviroments Characters Vehicals weponary And Halo Reach didnt even use all of the Xbox 360,s Power. not trying to start a Flame War just my Opinion.

    • Wow

      Bf3 was/is made for the pc, and is effectively being scaled to ports, or “ported” TO consoles not FROM. Bf3 is made with the highest visual technology for pc’s. So, your wrong. Crysis was made with the then best visual technology. Bf3 beats crysis 1, 2, and (haha) “halo”. I’ll admit Halo looks pretty good, but comparing it to the likes of bf3 is plain silly. Halo is like a HIGH resolution picture of a LOW detail picture, of course it looks great for the detail of the picture. At that point your just comparing the ratio of resolution to detail, and even though it’s good in those terms doesn’t mean it actually is that good. I find call of duty is LOW resolution pictures of HIGH detail pictures. It makes it look great from a distance and with your eyes squinted to blur a little bit, but in reality it sucks. Bf3 is HIGH resolution pictures of HIGH detail pictures, and that my friend… Is true visual quality.

  • The character’s hand on that screenshot lacks shadows because the sun was behind him= no shadows. Frostbite 2 engine is a superior one because they can pull off those amazing graphics, make destruction and they don’t need to bump it down so it can work on consoles.


 

Copyright © 2009-2017 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.