100% agreed

Question about DX11 implementation: I'm wondering if its so hard to actually get that, how is it that Crysis 2 had DX9 at the start but was patched months later? Can't they do the same with DX11

Just wondering btw, because this thread wasn't necessarily about what they should have done differently, but rather what they can do for the future to improve.


Art is different from technology sometimes. Witcher 2 could have had the same art and morrowind graphics and it would still have looked good but it looks better with more polygons and stuff to reflect that art.

In that sense, if tessellation wasn't such a resource hog it could also have made the game look better IMO.

And I repeat, this thread isn't to complain about what they didn't do, its to think about how they can improve for the future (whether for a revision of the game or for an expansion/sequel on this same engine)

MichiGen is another user of this forum and he use to end his posts with the phrase:
"Witcher 2 is awesome (but my english is not,sorry)".
It make me laugh the first time I read it so I'm using this "signature" and giving him credit.

You are rigth, DX11 doesn't mean that low-end computers won't be able to run the game. The problem for old PCs with old O.S. (as win XP) is the lack of support for DX9.
In general, when a game is made for DX11, the support for DX9 is bad or non existent.
So, make a game for DX9 and don't push users towards Vista o Windows 7 is a god thing to me.

I know that sooner or later the support for DX9 will be discarted in any new game development. I'm just glad that CD Projekt RED didn't do it this time.

It depends on how much time and money it would take and then having to see if they can fit it into their schedule based on what plans they have for their future.

Crytek is a very different company from CDProjekt. Crytek has tons of money and resources and is backed by the publishing power of EA. CDP is an independent studio that is alot smaller in size. And independent studios have to churn out games on a much more consistent basis in order to stay in business.

An American developer called Insomniac struggles with this all the time. It's why they don't go back and add stuff to their old games. Like adding trophy support to the first Resistance or their first PS3 Ratchet and Clank game. They couldn't afford to spend the time to go back. They had to keep moving forward with new games in order to stay in business.
And I happen to be one of those XP users who is glad that CDP didn't go the DX11 route as I would not be happy if I had to buy that resource hog of an operating system just to play this game.

most of you seem to not understand, that DX11 actually improves performance if used correctly. Most changes in DX11 are for improving performance, not for improving visuals. And I hope DX11 support will be added later, because I don't like playing with ~20-30 fps.
Those who don't believe - try for example WoW with DX9 and DX11 engine. No changes in visuals, but DX11 fps sometimes twice as much.

"If used correctly." That's an enormous "if". DX11 is more easily abused badly than used correctly. When it is abused, it is extremely wasteful of CPU, memory, and GPU resources, without adding significant artistic value or any value at all.

A team that can produce DX9 games with all the artistic content they intend really has little use for DX11 and would be much better off spending their limited resources doing more of the best work they can with what is good enough for the job.

There are minimum requirements and options to decrease/configure graphics so that it will run faster on a PC through customization.

As for WoW; it runs on very old game engine with simplistic graphical elements (lighting, Geometry and textures) and it doesn't used differential shading either...apart from that the traditional DX9 game itself runs very fast on 6 years OLD hardware.

It would be valid to check the difference in implementation in the latest games with complex graphics..Play Crysis 2 in DX9 and then in DX11 (without enabling DX11 graphics options), check if you get twice the FPS!.

it was just the example of good use of DX11 api. As for Crysis 2 (gameplay):
Extreme DX9 - avg 25 fps, max ~40 fps
Extreme DX11 - avg 30 fps, max ~65 fps
Ultra DX11 - avg 22 fps, max ~35 fps
Even though performance doesn't vary much I prefer DX11

And configuration doesn't help me, W2 is highly cpu dependant as far as i can tell, and I have slow CPU for w2 (Core i7 720QM 1.6GHz). I have the same fps on minimal settings as on ultra. So I better play on ultra with 20-30 fps, than on low with 20-45 fps :D But DX11 will help, because of DirectCompute - it allows using GPU instead of CPU for some calculations.

What will never know is if FPS diference is comes from DX11 being really superior to DX9. May be they didn't spend so much time optimizing Crysis 2 for running with DX9 as they did for DX11, we just don't know.

I currently using win7, so I can run DX11 games. I still think that is a good thing that winxp users get the same experience from TW2 that win7 users get and I applaud CD Projekt RED for that.

They optimized it for DX9. C2 didn't even have DX10 support; it was entirely built around DX9 so it could be released on consoles.

DX11 was added later, separately, because PC-gamers, especially C1 veterens, went: WTF!?