Frostbite 2 was one of the first engines released to support DirectX 11 technology debuting with DICE's blockbuster Battlefield 3.
This is not a very good engine. It is claimed to be very difficult to use, which is totally inconvenient. It took one DICE employee a week to compile a map in this engine. What good is an engine if it's only good for the consumer. Not to mention other game engines are far more powerful and superior than this. This engine does not have real-time destruction, in fact all it is prescripted animations. Even the Source Engine is fully capable of real time destructible envronnments Not to mention that games that are powered by them don't look very good. Battlefield 3 "superior" graphics consist of a lot of "shine" and unrealistic lighting. There is no colour in the game. BF3's colour scheme consists of semen white (The new Medal Of Honor is no exception and suffers from the same thing). How can BF3 have the best graphics when it has a terrible art design. Truth be told, Bad Company 2 looks a lot better than BF3. I would go as far as to say that the new Counter Strike looks a lot better than Battlefield 3. The only reason why the game has so much hype is because sheep like Angry Joe and gamers a like keep following each other, praising the graphics so much when the game doesn't look better than The Witcher 2 and Crysis 1 and 2. I would go as far as to say the The Call of Duty series has a better art style than BF3 and MOH:WF, and that this is a very sub par engine.