Battlefield 4 vs Crysis 3

The most demanding game ever(in terms of gpu calculations consumption) is Metro 2033. max settings @ 1080p it bends down cards like 780.
With 680 sli you will have no problem to max the game graphics @1080p.
Even if the developers were able to make such a demanding game, it would be unprofitable to sell the best product(aka game with maxed out graphics) to those who have spend over 800$ only
for their gpu

i get twice the fps in metro ll compared to crysis 3, just no aa, the aa in metro is extreme.

Metro last light (aka metro 2) did simplyfy a few things from metro 2033.
Btw, metro 2033 was not only meant for players who spent 800 bucks. You can lower the graphics...

I also think that we should clearly stage that we are talking "non-moded" games.

I think both battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 are very heavy on effects that are not actually common in real life (blur for example), to hide the imperfections of the engine itself.

Its very easy to add light effects and high resolution textures to make up for an engine lack of power, but its very hard to actually notice it.

In this game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Faction) there were already compleatly destrucible environments, as well as partially it carried on with a few titles like the Original Crysis.

If you look at Battlefield 3 for example (im talking about the campaign, dont know much about the multiplayer), the actual graphics of the environment and the interaction you have with it is very limited (even F.E.A.R 1 had better bullet tracing on walls).

I wasent interested in crysis 3 at all after crysis 2, so im not so sure how well the engine works there, but after playing crysis 2, I assume, its not that good either).

Those are still amazing looking games, but the engines arent as powerfull as they try to make it look.

A final thing to look at is the "Engines Eficiency".

When Crytek said that Crysis 3 would melt your PC, the forgot to add that it will do so becouse we will make the engine go slow for no reason.

Here is some proof:
Compare the scaling of the GPU in both games and see how well metro 2033 can use the improvment in the GPU (and metro 2033 is well known for having a lot of problems with that!) compared to Crysis :

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_hd_7850_and_7870_review,16.html

You can clearly see how the scaling goes in both games when it comes to GPU power.

EDIT: If i remmber right, i was mostly impressed with X-Ray engine (stalker series), thou it had weak work on the models, but the tech used was very nice.

Here are some benchmarks in case you want to test your PC:
http://www.guru3d.com/files_categories/benchmarks_demos.html

Battlefield 3 is really not that demanding as long as you play single player campaign, it's in multiplayer where Battlefield 3 is hogging your resources because of all the effects and player activitiy going on all over the map. I don't expect BF4 to be much more demanding than BF3 in single player campaign really. I definetely think that Crysis 3 and Metro 2033 will still be more demanding than BF4 single player.

Are you using DoF and tesselation in Metro 2033?

As i said before, crysis 3 uses a very poor engine in terms of efficiency.