Battlefield 3 vs Crysis 2 — best looking game of 2011?

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Every year, superior titles are developed that deliver visual heaven at such an extreme level that it leaves us gamers wondering if it’ll ever get any better than this? It’s a question I often ask myself and it almost feels like year after year, developers manage to answer it by showing off the latest title with the newest engine that just blows you away. From the days of when Madden used to look like cardboard cut-outs running up the field to 2010 when we have full-on masterpieces like Heavy Rain engaging us within an experience — the visuals of games have always played a detrimental role in a title’s success.

This year, gamers have the opportunity to play two titles that are going to push the boundaries of visuals in every way possible. I’m, of course, talking about Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2. It’s not secret that the Crysis franchise (dating back to 2007) has always been regarded as one of the best looking franchises to date (even when compared to the original). However, with the latest trailers and screens delivered by Electronic Arts, it looks as though Crytek has a run for its money when it comes to the complete visual orgasm on offer.

We’ve put together eight comparison shots below that compare similar situations within each game (and some we tried to get as close as possible). To be honest, it’s hard to pick a winner. Both titles are surprisingly great looking — so the bottom line comes down to, which game do you think looks best?

Continued on the next page….

Readers Comments (55)

  1. Battlefield 3 will be better, since the Crysis 2 demo for consoles at the moment are visually poor.

  2. lsdkjfosjfoew March 17, 2011 @ 14:43

    So you are comparing a game that makes the most use of dx11 to date (bf3) to a game that only ships with dx9 (crisis 2)….It should be CLEAR what game looks better…crisis 2 is just a beefed up console game (graphics wise) and bf3 is the best reason in years to upgrade your pc….

  3. me buying so many games, makes graphics fell unimportant cuz they dont make the game play any better and they sertenetly dont compensate for the story being shit, the only visuals that impres me are artstile and animations
    and if i had to point a finger at an upcoming game that does it best, than id be pointing at uncharted3

    but im sure many of you dont understand why i admire vibrant caracters and enviroments over polished aliens and guys in uniforms and/or robot costumes…
    so go ahead and minus click my comment for disagreing with youre personal opinion

  4. At best directx10 will be displayed by Microsoft on the Xbox 360 because ultimately that’s what it was created to do, although as of yet Microsoft has been playing with there cards very close to their chest.Anything above that is certainly a PC’s world.

  5. Sorry but the 360 and ps3 can only do dx9.

  6. Battlefield 3 is miles ahead. I’m sure Uncharted 3 would be a good for contender for this as well.

  7. The third “Crysis 2” screenshot is actually a screenshot from the first Crysis.

  8. uncharted will be better than both of them both graphically and story wise.

  9. victorgodamnsullivan March 17, 2011 @ 23:20

    Battlefield 3 is better then Crysis 2 on PC. Not sure about consoles though.

  10. Splitting Void March 18, 2011 @ 00:58

    The Crysis2 demo graphics are OK, but BF3 does look better, but then again the visuals might have been compressed for the demo. What bothers me is that the Crysis 2 multiplayer gameplay is disappointing. The energy bar to use abilities is eaten up easily while sprinting. The network structure is like CoD so if you have lag (which I commonly do in games like CoD), the game won’t do much about it. The melee is really weak too, and it practically renders melee moot, you’d be better off shooting an enemy at point blank. The rear executions don’t respond all the time and I often end up hitting the enemy in the back with a regular weak melee when it was supposed to perform an execution, losing my invisibility, and getting shot by other enemies. It takes like 2-3 melee shots to kill people and lag only makes this harder. Really disappointing gameplay. If they the energy system and melee were improved, Crysis 2 could be pretty good, but otherwise it’s mainly riding on graphics. I’m beginning to question why PC gamers made such a big deal about this.

  11. All i can see in battlefield 3 is grayish brown nothing breath taken , as for crysis 2 they try to add more colors

  12. I know this is obviously PC focused however I feel Killzone 3 should be in this list especially as far as consoles are concerned. It more then holds it’s own againt these two. Even by PC standards Killzone 3 looks good; if you deny that you’re clearly biased.
    Rage should also be in this list because it’s looking visually strong too.
    Battlefield 3 looks good bit in all fairness to Crysis 2 it’s easier to base a game on the real world, on things that exist (khaki colours left-right and centre). The other 3 are very much over the top but maintain a sense of realism that Battlefield gains from where it’s set.

  13. @lsdkjfosjfoew
    the reason y C2 is in directx 9 is so xbox and ps3 ppl can play it.
    I’m a BIG Crysis fanbut, to be honest, i relly dont know which looks better. BF3 is more realistic than C2, BUT C2 has way more variety.

    u cant compare the demo to the gameplay of BF3….

    Excuse me??? No way will BF3 look better than Crysis 2 on PC, Crytek beats all the other game studios when it comes down to PC. Look at the original Crysis, its still considered to be the best looking game on PC, Crytek will obviously try and make Crysis 2 look even better….they’ve been working on Crysis 2 for 4 years, how bout BF3?? I’m guessing 2 years max

    I agree with killa and Splitting Void

  14. Crysis 2 is currently in DX9 mode whereas the gameplay trailer for Battlefield 3 is that of DX11 😡
    Crysis 2 will be supporting DX11 “soon”, but hopefully with Battlefield 3 looming around the horizon, Crytek will release the DX11 patch/update soon D:

  15. @H3llo, wow, what an ignorant fool you are…

    Bf3 has been in development for the last 6 years, Crytek will not beat Dice, full stop, Crytek have taken a step in a bad direction by giving the consoles a large amount of attention, a full PC game should be Made for PC 100%, then ‘dumbed down’ to consoles, that is what DICE have made such a big deal about with BF3 and are doing right now, while on the other hand, Crytek have made it 50% and 50%. Other evidence of this is how they shipped Crysis2 with DrectX9, DIRECTX9!!! thats bloody old, even if they port it to DirectX11, it wasn’t made on it, and will never be as good, now Battlefield 3. oh ho, its being MADE on directx11, that means that rendering will be twice as advanced than any other game not made on directx11 (even if it was ported to it, it still would never be as good), because the game is so graphically enhanced on directx11, this means that it WILL NOT WORK on Directx9, in other words, the game WILL NOT WORK ON WINDOWS XP, so if crysis 1 and 2 can, that means they haven’t got even close to the leap battlefield 3 has taken to future video game graphics.

    Battlefield 3, unlike crysis 2, is being Made for pc, from bottom to top, this game will be made with the intentions of the best hardware for pc around (to play it on high), this wont just be ‘better graphics’, this is an update in graphics development, being able to create a game to use the best pc gaming hardware has never been done before

    so yes, to all those out there who think “crysis 2 WILL be the best if it gets ported to DirectX11” well, you’ll be very disappointed

  16. I love the story about crysis and I hope they will make the campaign very LONG in crysis 2. BF3 looks really awesome tbh, i will buy crysis when released in sweden 24/03/11 and then i will ofc buy BF3 when its released because i have seen some trailers from in-game and it looks too awesome. But i wouldt say that crysis 2 cant be compared to BF3, because crysis is an awesome game too with good story line and good graphics.

  17. @incorectcomments
    thech requirements dont mean sh**, example: the 360 has a better gpu engine than the ps3, yet ps3 games look like cgi
    so the question here would be witch studio is gona make a more eficient software code for its game,
    i beliewe that betwen these 2 games batlefield will do it better
    but there are some wery obvious other games coming out this year, one of them surely from the ingame trailers graphicly shits all ower these 2 candidates
    i beliewe that the author of this articel for obvious reasons felt that icluding uncharted3 to the list would be a bit unfair…

  18. Battlefield 3 looks good because its first developed on the PC, and then ported/created on the console, means the console will not hold back the PC, since BF3 Is targeted to Destruction and gameplay, it isn’t much about the graphics, since they done what they needed to do.
    So this is my opinion

    PC X
    XBOX X
    PS3 X

  19. Interesting that you use Crysis 2 when Killzone 3 looks better.

  20. Every Crysis 2 image you posted is from Crysis ONE or from Crysis 2 multiplayer, WTF??????

  21. Crysis 2 can’t be compared with BF3 ,both r 2 different games. In terms of graphics, both have diff visuals acc to their storyline.

  22. very close but i have to give it to BF3;; wow; incredible; with fully destructible environment aswell (im guessing not sure)? Awesome job DICE; always knew they’d pull off something epic; -( not that they already havn’t)

    dont get me wrong; i don’t think many other games come close to crysis 1/2 graphically.

  23. Belgiumarthur June 13, 2011 @ 17:25

    Graphics from crysis 2 are better in my opinion. The minimum
    requirements are very high(i mean: minimum graphicscard: 8800gt wtf? in BF3: 256mb). I tested these 2 games on my pc and crysis has beter graphics, but if your pc isn’t very strong, the graphics of BF3 are gonna be better.
    btw: picture “comp3” is crysis warhead , not crysis2.

    • But Battlefield 3 isn’t out yet. How can you have tested a game on your computer when it is still in production?

      • Graphics requirements are a little lower due to the new streaming engine for textures.

  24. Belgiumarthur June 13, 2011 @ 17:26

    comp7 also

  25. Battlefield 3 shits on crysis 2. Crysis 2 is a Console port. looks like shit. Compare it to Crysis 1 and with Photo realism or Amazon Mod.

  26. @JD7 yeah i guess ur right about the game dumbing it down 50% and 50% and it wont look as good as if its dx11. But do keep in mind that CryEngine is so advanced that the US military is willing to pay $57 million to do a real time simulation to train its soldiers, dont believe me? google it

  27. am a huge fan of crysis and cryengine 3 but BF3 looks @_@ damn am not comparing cause u cant but BF3 looks epic a standard of its own 🙂 2 games are a masterpiece

  28. Honestly I find it hard to compare fantasy or sci-fi games to games that take place now. So Battlefield

  29. In terms of visuals, Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 are pretty much in the same category. Remember, the game is developed to be easily ported to the consoles. That’s not saying there won’t be any differences. Bad Company 2’s visuals were increased with the ability to render more items, textures, and draw space on the PC. Compare BC2’s visuals on the PC to the console. Where Battlefield 3 beats Crysis 2, there will be far more advanced sequences, simulations, physics calculations, etc. Majority of Crysis 2 was scripted, and poorly too lest we not forget those substandard AI that always seemed to glitch, to provide a stunning experience without sacrifice of other necessary game elements. Battlefield 3, however, will stress the average gaming PC. PC users will get their challenge and ability to boast their pride in the rig that sees them through their online gaming experience of combat in an intense virtual war scenario. It is safe to say that Frostbite 2.0 is a far superior gaming engine than CryEngine 3.0 ever was with enhanced visuals and an illustrious destruction system.

  30. Battlefield, because under extreme stress — like multiple (32) random vehicles the engine still holds up bigger, better period – Ha!

  31. Ive havent played bw2 on my ps3. yeh maybe ps3 cant compare two very good looking games that look even better on pc, but the beta is close, so what i know fron my knowledge is that crisis 2 looks better almost in every way. Ive played crisis 2 on my ps3. Im not done with game and I already think its better looking. cryengine3.0 is more advanced than frostbite 2.0. Remember this is all from knowledge and experience. I already pre ordered BF3 b/c its amazing but, Im just borowing crisis2. I fell in love with crisis 2. Remember im a console player but iam a pc fan

  32. This website is complete crap, I wonder how old the idiots who go on it are. The retarded editor just takes random screenshots and compares them, 1 of the shots isn’t even in-game, 2 of the shots aren’t even crysis 2 (they’re crysis 1).

  33. After playing the BF3 beta at ultra settings (which no one is sure right now if they are going to be the same ultra settings that the final product will ship with) and after playing crysis 2 at max settings with the high res texture update and DX11 rendering, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that BF3 has superior graphics.

    There is far too much inconsistency with the graphics in Crysis 2. There are still a lot of blurry low res textures and the lighting bloom in BF3 is more realistic and not as annoying or fake looking.

    Perhaps the modding community can fix the graphical shortcomings of crysis 2 with the dev kit. From a fun factor though, Crysis 2 doesn’t disappoint.

  34. Unfortunately, none of them look well on the PS3. Washed out textures and no antialiasing.

  35. Both look absolutely stunning. Lightning, detail and so on. =) I can’t decide who wins this comparision. I will have to see both games in action on a PC with a strong graphicscard before i decide.

  36. Too many fanboys, too many lol/wtf/u mad?/?!?!?!?!?!?!????111’s.

    First off, only ignorant people think crysis 2 looks better than crysis 1. Its so painfully obvious it hurts. As mentioned several times, Crysis 2 was basically made for consoles, and like the game Rage – suffers because of it.

    I had never played a battlefield game before, but downloaded the beta for 3, put everything up to ‘ultra’, and listened to my computer spill absorb the towns power.

    My conclusion… Battlefield three mostly looks better – as in more realistic. Guns look more realistic, colors are more natural, character models similar, with better faces – though the eyes seem worse, and most objects look better, with higher res images.

    However crysis had some graphical wins; almost every not very interactive item has been somewhat ignored in battlefield – including random street junk, and some signs.

    All in all…
    I’m waiting for doom 4.

  37. Very unimpressed with battlefield 3 graphics. Chracter models look a little cartoonish and I was expecting more. Crysis 2 wins IMO. Crysis 2 Dx9 even wins against battlefield 3s dx11

  38. I got the bf3 and i have to say that Crysis 2 have better graphics. i would probably agreed with you about bf3 and crysis 2 being equal, only if crysis 2 didn’t have dx11 and ultra texture packs installed. otherwise i check bf3, there was no tessellation and other details. and i do have to say they improved their graphics in each bf series though. i do enjoy the game bf3.

    • yup. Even PC BF3 isnt as good as Crysis2 even with dx11 enabled. And it require better hardware to run it to achieve about 80% of what Crysis2 can do.

      Its just bullshit marketing PR.

  39. bf3 alreddy won the title best looking game award so why doing this later

  40. for my opinion. crysis 2 have better gfx than bf 3.. well
    if its requirts ments are hight thats not mean its gfx is aweosme..
    when its looks awesome in visual than you can say its an awesome gfx game.. and one moore thing about the game engine cry engine 3 is better than Frostbite 2.. coz Frostbite 2 is already occurred a prb for core 2 duo users.. game is going smoothly but audio is repiting again and again.. but when you select one core than its runs without any problem .. ………… well i am also a battlefield fan .. i hope ea will fix it. though bf 3 is a great game cuz after all its won the title best looking game award .. 😉

  41. I’ve got a PS3 but I played both these games on the PC on full settings, maximum graphics, maximum resolution, the works. Crysis 2 is far superior, the close up graphics in BF3 look horrendous. There is a serious lack of detail for textures of the ground, stones, walls, trees, leaves everything.

    That and the fact that BF3 is a very linear game (as is Crysis 2 by Crysis standards but no where as bad as BF3), and BF3 is very far behind the Crysis series in terms of graphics.

    It’s a shame Crytek created a DX9 version of Crysis 2 for the Xbox and then ported it to the PC; they since rectified it by releasing a advanced graphics patch with DX11 to increase detail to very high levels.

    Crytek have blown away all competitors regarding graphics with their Crysis series. BF3 and COD MW3 don’t even beat Crysis 1, released in 2007.

  42. Sure, MW3 can’t beat Crysis 1 or 2!
    But Bf3 looks very realistic!
    I think in the vegetation Crysis is better, but in my opinion the Frostbite 2 engine is the best ever created!

  43. some of this are marketing screenshots, you don`t have to compare them – they`re always beautiful in every single title you encounter.

  44. your missing the hole point here. yes i believe crysis 2 looks a bit better then bf3. But in bf3 anything and everything can be exploded and destroyed which makes it a very fun and realistic play and forgot to say have you seen bf3 sound system. IT IS THE MOST REALISTIC SOUND I HAVE HAVE ENCOUNTERED

  45. BF3 is very impressive. There are very impressive in-game cut-scenes such as when parashuting or taking off in a Hornet from an aircraft carrier. Also, the water in BF3 has waves crashing in and some very impressive wet-surface shading. Finally I would say that it has awesome drawdistance and some very nice “you are in a LARGE world” kind af effects – even though all areas are not reachable due to the “get back into the combat area” messages.

    Both games offer very high-poly scenes, but the DX11 tesselation effects in Crysis 2 probably make Crysis 2 a bit superior there.

    I’d say that sunlight and shadows are of comparable quality in the two games.

    BF3 scenery is more destructible which is nice – on the other hand Crysis 2 levels are larger and less linear.

    On the downside BF3 has some texture-resolution issues – such as low-res tree textures. I also find that trees seem to sway a bit too much. It always seems to be VERY windy.

    Crysis 2 has better and more high-res texturing (which will eat up 1,5 GB of video memory when running with the high-res texture pack and the DX11 patch combined).

    So all in all it is very difficult to decide. I’d probably give the two games about the same score overall.

  46. Crysis 1 screens are in here….??

  47. bf 3 has much more stability compared to crysis.The frame rate on all crysis games are bad especially the first one.This was because of the highly textured vegetation would cause instability.And bf3 is much more fun.Crysis 2 also produces ALOT of heat.So it sucks.

  48. i can play crysis on hardcore but bf3 on only high. so its obvious bf3 is better

  49. Very good info. Lucky me I discovered your site by accident (stumbleupon). I’ve saved it for later!

Comments are closed.