Join BootHammer.com as we take a look at these two impressive graphic engines.
They're both impressive engines.
I say frostbite 2 is better just from what I have seen. Devs will like the game engine that is easier to develop for and that might bet he cryengine 3. @meetajhu 1.that is off topic 2.idtech 5 sucks(at least on consoles) 3.apsndfiansodgqbewklrjbgasud g
"2.idtech 5 sucks(at least on consoles)" How so? It's like... one of the few engines that runs at 60fps while still boasting decent visuals. ... and RAGE hasn't released yet.
When it comes to consoles the best that I have seen from screenshots/videos is IDtech5. For the PC it would appear that FB2.0 is better if you are aiming for realism because of the lighting.
The Cryengine 3 is very awesome and does many things right but i see the CE3 being the new unreal engine and becoming very generic for video games. Frostbite 2.0 with it's destruction and physics is very awesome and it doesn't support DX9 which i love. I've played Crysis 2 DX11 and although BF3 is not out yet.....I'm gonna give the edge to Fostbite 2.0 cause the BF3 blows Crysis 2 DX11 out the water. but it's a tough call.
the engine used in haze
Can't really tell at this point. Both have cutting edge real time lighting and global illumination. Both have deep roots with DirectX 11. Both can render incredibly large maps. Both can have amazing teams behind them. FB2 has its awesome world destruction. CE3 has its amazing modding capability.
Agree.. First you started with the similarities which makes them excellent then you could go on to their individual strength which makes them both great in their own ways.
if i had to be fair, I think cry engine 3 is more amazing, just their own developers don't know how to make a game out of it. We all played crysis 2
Yea, it was pretty awesome.
The best engine with regards to visuals is probably the Real Virtuality engine used by Bohemia Interactive for Arma games, you only have to look at the new Arma III screens to see that.
I disagree, Arma 3 may look great with the draw distances but the visuals overall and in normal view are not on par with B3/Crysis 2
It's not looking bad considering the games not due for a year though.
Probally frostbite, because even cryengine 2 looked better then crisis 2 did butt i haven't tried the dx 11 though
No it didn't... CE2 didn't have the amazing lighting or reflections, or fancy DX11 features that CE3 has.
Like I said haven't tried the dx11 feature but I saw a gamespot comparison video and something looked worst in crisis 2 than the last one
Even in DX9, Crysis 2 looks way better (apart from the foliage)
the physics looked better in the original crysis and warhead. pretty much everything had physics in cryengine2 but from what I've seen a lot of stuff doesn't in crysis2.(like they're stuck to the floor)
Killzone 3 beat easily both engines IMO. but at least it's still .... Both games look great engines though.
Lol, you think a console engine beats two of the most technologically advanced PC engines? Does KZ3 have tessellation? No. Does KZ3 have real time lighting w/ GI? No. Does KZ3 have real time surface reflections? No. Does KZ3 have enormous map rendering capabilities? No Does KZ3 have anything ground breaking or otherwise noteworthy? No. Please leave.
It's an engine that could Be upgraded to have such features ur3 did it so why not the killzone engine. How do you know, you don't work for guerilla games?
What the hell. Obviously we're talking about engines in the present. KZ3 has none of the features listed above.
Sure with its brown colour pallete
@chidori66 and thebudgetgamer They aren't propriatary engine. ND and GG are just messing/tinkering around w/ the Havoc engine; that engine has been out for quite sometime now. There are many games that used that engine include demon soul/ Ninja Blade for example. Similar to "Ubisoft engine" for Splinter Cell conviction where it actually just a tinkered version of Unreal engine. And no, it can't be compare to CRy3/frostbite engine. If you want to say so, then list what they have that is more technological advance? People on here are really into the habit of BS and not provide any concrete evidence to back them up.
i really don't care witch one is best as long as the end result is fun. just going for a goof.
Well, I'll take Frostbite 2.0 over CryEngine 3 any day. Dice have showed they can make great visuals and keep a steady 30 fps with their first Frostbite engine, while CryEngine 3's frame rate was all over the place in Crysis 2. That's on console though, on PC we'll have to see when BF3 comes out...
Why do ppl don appreciate the 4A engine ..... ????
Huge maps+destruction+vehicles+awes ome animation,sound, and lighting = Awesome fucking engine.
SO far, in this generation, only Frosbite and Cry engine are the best engine, than unreal technology of epic games...
Destructible environments, great looking visuals, vehicules, "ANT" animation software implemented (Used to make fifa soccer players move fluidly), Jets, and more than 12 to 13 guns....... I'll go with Frostbite 2.0....... And oh yeah I forgot....... Earthquakes.......
Well CryEngine doesn't work well on consoles (sub 30 FPS, sub-HD, line/grain bug) so I think Frostbite 2 will win by default.
because consoles are WEAK and outdated. We are yet to see cryengine 3s full potential because crysis 2 pc was a console port remember ? wasn't built from the ground up for pc first ten ported down. Most cryengine 3 features just like frostbite 2 CANNOT be enabled THIS generation of consoles. both frostbite 2 and cryengine 3 are NEXT generation engines. if crytek didn't have to consider the limitations of consoles when deveoping crysis 2, crysis 2 would have been even more open, with much larger environments than crysis 1 and crysis warhead. environmental interaction and destructibility would also have blown crysis 1 and warhead out of the water. crysis 2 on extreme does look better than crysis 1 and warhead anyways, using the ultra and directx 11 patch makes it look even better but the visuals are not as impressive as he previous crysis games because of the drastically reduced environment size and environmental interaction. battlefield 3 on ps3 is also sub-hd haven't heard a thing about the 360 version . aside from that there are also games on consoles that are sub hd such as alan wake,call of duty games, red faction Armageddon, halo reach(1152*720 with custom AA) and resistance 3 which runs at (960*704 with QAA which is much lower than crysis 2 which runs 1152*720 on 360 don't know about ps3 with a custom AA technique). Some console games end up being sub hd because of memory and memory bandwidth limitations . on 360 it happens sometimes because the 10mb edram(which has a massive 256gb/s internal bandwidth) can sometimes be too small to hold a hd(at least 720p framebuffer) with MSAA enabled especially when devs choose to use some of the edram bandwidth to get free HDR,global illumination and other lighting effects such as god rays(which are usually bandwidth intensive if done in realtime) etc.
I like the Pac-Man engine more simply because no other engine can eat balls like this one.
both engines looks great for games..who cares about specs
I doubt Frostbite will have a bug where large rectangular blocks/artifacts overlay the image and lines travel across the screen on 360 halfway through the game - sort of like bad cable reception. Crytek admitted to this the presence of this bug on their forum, there's a 113 page thread on it but Crytek can't/won't to fix it. Gears 2 already runs better than Crysis 2, Gears 3 will look even better. Killzone 3 already runs and looks better than Crysis 2. And the alleged 'open environments' weren't very open - Halo has open environments, Far Cry 2 had a sand box, Crysis 2 is very streamlined.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.