Tessellation in BF3

[Carfax83]

Metro2033 beats them both I would say

While Metro 2033 is a great looking game in and of itself, I don't think it's comparable to Crysis 2 or BF3, because it's much smaller in size and scope.

Metro 2033 is basically a corridor shooter, while Crysis 2 and BF3 both have very large open area environments.

The few times you go to the surface in Metro 2033, didn't leave me too impressed with how the game engine rendered it compared to the sub surface areas.

 

[Silverforce11]

Nothing in Crysis 2 impresses me as much as in BF3, in a dark tunnel, blowing up an enemy tank with an RPG, as the RPG travels it lights up the entire tunnel and enemies nearby.. and the wow factor, the exhaust particles of the RPG lingers and is lit up by the flames in a realistic manner.

Finally, the tank explodes into a huge flaming wreck with smoke particles spewing up and around, reflecting any light source nearby, from burning embers floating, sparks and even gunfire.

Then add in the destruction, see that street concrete barrier some guy is hiding behind? A grenade and it explodes breaking apart. Or concentrated gunfire slowly chips away at the concrete revealing the target behind. Or a building with enemies camping inside, an RPG into the walls and it explodes killing them with the fragments, leaving a gap in the wall that matches the size of the explosion. In other fps, none of this is possible. Those objects are still there looking perfect no matter how much punishment they receive. They look completely wrong.

I dont need to get into a screenshot war (on a side note, you are comparing a modded crysis 2 vs retail BF3), you just need to play BF3 in MP itself to appreciate how awesome this game looks AND feel.

 

[Carfax83]

Then add in the destruction, see that street concrete barrier some guy is hiding behind? A grenade and it explodes breaking apart. Or concentrated gunfire slowly chips away at the concrete revealing the target behind.

Crysis 2 has this..

Or a building with enemies camping inside, an RPG into the walls and it explodes killing them with the fragments, leaving a gap in the wall that matches the size of the explosion. In other fps, none of this is possible. Those objects are still there looking perfect no matter how much punishment they receive. They look completely wrong.

You do realize that a lot of the destruction effects in BF3 are canned right? That makes it a lot less impressive to me..

I dont need to get into a screenshot war (on a side note, you are comparing a modded crysis 2 vs retail BF3), you just need to play BF3 in MP itself to appreciate how awesome this game looks AND feel.

I'm only running one mod, and it's a texture mod, so the standard DX11 effects (lighting, shadows, tessellation etc) are all stock.

 

[Grooveriding]

This really comes down to opinion.

Because those Crysis 2 screenshots don't look all that good at all. I could post some Crysis 1 shots that really lay waste to those screenshots, and they are done in DX10 with none of the what is going on in C2.

Also, BF3 to my eyes looks much better than those shots of C2. C2 looks consolely and arcadish. BF3 really hits it out of the park in achieving realism and a rich environment that is reactionary. Crysis 2 really failed and strayed from Crysis 1 in delivering an environment that you could alter to increase immersion in the game world.

 

[SirPauly]

Crysis 1 has had some time with a lot of Mods and Crysis 2 hasn't had that time or future patches yet.

 

[SirPauly]

BF3 really hits it out of the park in achieving realism and a rich environment that is reactionary. Crysis 2 really failed and strayed from Crysis 1 in delivering an environment that you could alter to increase immersion in the game world.

I think BF3 multi-play is the key to their success and it was nice to see some PC goodness in there. Crysis 2 didn't fail and did well, but one can make the point that CryTech strayed from their PC roots though -- However, the DirectX 11 upgrade and the addition of Stereo3d, especially the small performance hit, really creates more immersion than just the original release, all most console version that was DirectX 9.

I can understand why developers go multi-platform though.

 

[Carfax83]

This really comes down to opinion.

Because those Crysis 2 screenshots don't look all that good at all. I could post some Crysis 1 shots that really lay waste to those screenshots, and they are done in DX10 with none of the what is going on in C2.

By all means go ahead. I love looking at screenshots! Even with mods, Crysis can't touch Crysis 2 DX11. The only thing Crysis has over Crysis 2 is the island scenery.

Graphics wise though, it's not up to par; particularly the lighting, shadows, and how the water is rendered.

Also, BF3 to my eyes looks much better than those shots of C2. C2 looks consolely and arcadish. BF3 really hits it out of the park in achieving realism and a rich environment that is reactionary. Crysis 2 really failed and strayed from Crysis 1 in delivering an environment that you could alter to increase immersion in the game world.

Like I said earlier, art is subjective, but graphics is not. BF3 will always look better to you, and Crysis 2 will look better to me because thats where our opinions lie.

But when measuring raw graphics, Crysis 2 definitely has the edge, and this is not subjective. It uses more DX11 features to enhance image quality than BF3, and uses them more profusely.

 

[Grooveriding]

But when measuring raw graphics, Crysis 2 definitely has the edge, and this is not subjective. It uses more DX11 features to enhance image quality than BF3, and uses them more profusely.

I'll post some shots later when I'm home.

Just because C2 uses more features doesn't mean anything in terms of it looking better than BF3. It's profuse use of features is its achilles heel, because it runs so poorly for all that tessellation.

I'm not even sure it is using features BF3 is not, I would have to read up on it. It may just be using them to a greater extent.

I don't know that a game using more modern technology or features another does not translates into better graphics, simply the technology behind the game is different. That is not really relevant to me, I play games, and appreciate what I see on my screen. I don't worry too much about what is it getting there, beyond the hardware I use to run it.

As a whole Crysis looks much better than Crysis 2, there are scenes in Crysis where you are just amazed these are graphics of a game you are playing. There was nothing like that in C2 for me. The only thing I found better done was the lighting, but the bloom and HDR was too over the top and ruined it for me.

Here is something for now from a thread in the PC gaming forums, this alone is better than anything I saw in C2. With my modded C1 at home I have some imagery that is better than this.

 

[Carfax83]

I'll post some shots later when I'm home.

Just because C2 uses more features doesn't mean anything in terms of it looking better than BF3. It's profuse use of features is its achilles heel, because it runs so poorly for all that tessellation.

I highly recommend using the Maldo texture mod, as Maldo cleans up the overuse of tessellation in many of the objects.

I'm not even sure it is using features BF3 is not, I would have to read up on it. It may just be using them to a greater extent.

Crysis 2 uses SSDO (the latest and most accurate form of ambient occlusion) and BF3 uses HBAO. Crysis 2 also has real time local reflections, which BF3 to my knowledge does not. Crysis 2 also has variable penumbra, while BF3 doesn't I'm sure. Plus, there's bokeh DoF, and widespread use of tessellation including a very large body of water.

Both titles are similar in the lighting effects however..

As a whole Crysis looks much better than Crysis 2, there are scenes in Crysis where you are just amazed these are graphics of a game you are playing. There was nothing like that in C2 for me. The only thing I found better done was the lighting, but the bloom and HDR was too over the top and ruined it for me.

I think a lot of what impressed people with Crysis was the setting. The realistic depiction of jungles, sandy beaches, clear blue water, lush vegetation etc stirs people the same way as if they were to visit such a place themself.....in a way at least.

Here is something for now from a thread in the PC gaming forums, this alone is better than anything I saw in C2. With my modded C1 at home I have some imagery that is better than this.

That screenshot is too small to really see anything..

 

[cmdrdredd]

So is tesselation on by default in the ATI drivers? I have mine set to AMD optimized.
Or do I have to uncheck that and set the slider to 64x?

It's on.

AMD Optimized means if AMD has a profile for that game's use of tessellation, that's what the driver will tell the card to use. If the game has no profile in the driver it will default to whatever the game engine uses.

 

[jordanecmusic]

so no one is going to mention that crysis 2 has the rails of the weapons cut out but bf3 doesn't?

 

[Imouto]

http://screenshotcomparison.com/

You're welcome.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I thought Crysis 2 was the best looking game of 2011.

I was really disappointed with the destruction in BF3, it was so canned it wasn't even funny, and half the stuff doesn't even blow up. The worst part was the fact that destruction was a step backwards compared to BFBC2.


I think both games have their pros and cons, BF3 overall feels flat though after playing Crysis 2. It also eats up resources for no apparent reason, I actually upgraded to 12GB (2x2 to 2x2x4x4) during beta and was seeing 5+GB of usage.

Subjective subject is subjective though. I thought Crysis 2 looked better, but BF3 had better SP. Crysis 2 MP is like a constant DM while there is more content in BF3 MP.