Crytek's Crysis 2 DX11 Bullshit Tessellation

As you can see some objects are so heavily tessellated but the amount of detail you NOTICE IN GAME is pretty much ZERO. Especially those alien-shields and the big chunks of stone and rubble. You barely see them up so close at ALL... So what is the reason for the heavy tessellation? The alien tentacles are tessellated but still they are EDGY on some points, like that big hose/tube in the middle of them - it has EDGES, so why the thousands of polygons for gods sake?

Crytek should have chosen a better distance and a MUCH MUCH LOWER tessellation factor. Looking at HEAVEN Benchmark a proper road with bricks can be acchieved easily with 8x Tessellation. On many OTHER objects some POM would have done MUCH better than fucking tessellation, like the white wall inside the one room with the light. POM would have done better performance-wise. But nooo, we gotta kill the performance with DX11... Fucks sake crytek....

MUCH MORE IMPORTANT STUFF like characters and plants are not tessellated at all. Tessellation in Crysis 2 is a good idea but it is being used not really to show how pretty a game can look with more detail but to fuck up the performance for ATI users. I cant find another explanation for some objects being tessellated as heavy as that.


Screw fucking NVIDIA, screw fucking Crytek's lies about developing for the people. The SDKs are a good way to recruit people and maybe find a better way to do something. If people end up selling their stuff Crytek gets paid for the license.

God damn fucking stone-cold-hearted moneymakers... :(

Category:

Gaming

Tags:

• crytek
• crysis
• tesselation
• displacement
• mapping
• fake
• ressources
• Ressource
• waste
• useless

[ShotaCanvas]

holy cow, and I thought the Heaven benchmark used an awfully unnecessary amount of polygons....

what was crytek thinking when they put 2x more polygons on a flat floor than on the characters!?

[M3G4G0TH]

@ShotaCanvas they simply did not use "optimized models for tesselation". they used the normal models and that obviously creates a TON of polygons when tesselated.

i read somewhere that for proper tesselation you wanna use pretty much low-poly models (like distant LOD models look like) and then the tesselation does its job best.

[Destroyer12101]

Tessellation is a broken technology, it has been ever since it was introduced in the Xbox 360. When models are lightly tessellated it creates massive artifacting, with stray polys exploding in odd triangular spikes all over the object. The only way to solve this is to over tessellate, it makes the spiking so small you can't see it, although it IS still there. Problem is it requires way too much GPU power to be worth while, so when Crytek decides to use it, people accuse them of being anti-AMD.

[M3G4G0TH]

@Destroyer12101 roger.

but take a look at battlefield 3. it's terrain is tesselated, but not as heavy as anything in crysis 2. very very great detail, very good performance/visual ratio.

i know what you are saying - if tessellated just a bit it creates artifacts but a factor of lets say 16 is enough to have all the detail you need. crysis' factor is way over x64

[morphmee]

Crysis 2 runs great on today's hardware, so quit whining about your imaginary performance issues. In case you haven't notice the LoD is adaptive so it's not like you have some heavily tessellated objects far in the background. C1 required a high end PC, but the graphics justified it. This game after all these years still has one of the best graphics ever. CE3 was a big step forward in terms of technology. You should be grateful that C2 runs and looks that good

[M3G4G0TH]

@morphmee could you please take the time to note that in the video i show objects from a far distance to show that there is a "pop" where the objects get swapped out with tesselated versions which are not optimized at all, causing millions and millions of tris.

there are so many articles on crysis'2 bullshit tesselation, how can you say something else? use google my friend.

[sorwis]

Wow. That's fucking insane amount of tris in simple objects. A total overkill. With all of those, they could've tesselated the skyscrapers to have idividual windows and stuff. It would've made much larger impact to the visuals compared to the extremelly heavy tesselation of flat surfaces.

Looking at the polycount in this rather small environment... That's more polys than in ANY Crysis 1 level you'll find while playing. It's hilarious that a small indoor environment has that many polys.

[M3G4G0TH]

@sorwis finally someone who gets my point...

yeah man. in the end they just made the game run shitty without delivering the same GFX eye candy that crysis 1 did. ofc CE3 is more optimized, but still...overall C1 looked better in my opinion. but since now C2 runs as shitty as C1 did, "everyone" who does not know shit about software/hardware thinks that C2 GFX are better. more performance cost = more graphics? ;)

crytek man... crytek... really a good business, but not a good, true heart. :(

[WNxAtlas]

@minxamo *Coughloltrollcough*

[WNxAtlas]

Yea, Crysis 2 with DX11 is downright unplayable with my HD Radeon 5970, which is should not be. Without DX11 enabled, I can play it at aprox 60 FPS with a 3rd party HD texturepack at 1080p.

[minxamo]

Fucking PC gamers, holding back the industry by making devs waste time on this shit...

[Destroyer12101]

@M3G4G0TH A factor of 16 is only enough if you're using an alternative algorithm of some kind to mitigate the majority of the artifacts. It's a much more complex implementation of tessellation, one that takes a much larger amount of math and programming skill, not to mention a deep understanding of the architecture. Crytek chose the simple solution with their implementation, letting the gamer buy better DX11 cards as they become available, it's exactly what they did in the first Crysis.