Uh I know what it all does. Mankind Divided uses tessellation too but it chooses to use POM for surface instead and while ROTR uses tessellation for surface and snow deformation to provide depth the application is not as liberal as the POM you see in MD...if it did then that would cause performance issues. It's like apples to oranges here. I get that POM is an illusion and tessellation isn't but that's a different story, I am instead talking about one high end shader feature used everywhere vs one high end geometry modifying feature used (comparatively) less liberally.
ROTR also has a broken PBR and it does not use volumetric lights as much as MD. There's also the fact about geometric density and moveable objects... ROTR simply does not compare here. And then you have pure hair, which again while not as advanced as the hair solution in ROTR is atleast used liberally again on everyone whereas only Lara had the special hair treatment.
I'd also say the SSR seen in MD is the best I've seen in any game...and that includes ROTR ofcourse.
After re-reading your last reply to me (^above^), I realized I may have been hasty in my response to you yesterday, and am going to try to amend it; while I sometimes attempt to correct others, I don't mind correcting myself when possible.
So, let's try this again (warning: minor wall of text incoming)...
Point #1: Yes, MD uses tessellation for character models only. It also currently creates smearing and unintended transparency on certain NPC face models. When compared to RotTR's use of tessellation, it is
not technically impressive, as it doesn't function as intended (although it can and hopefully will be amended in a future patch).
Point #2: Yes, MD uses POM for surfaces in place of tessellation. This is
not technically impressive, no matter how many surfaces it is applied to, or how good it looks, since it is virtually
free performance-wise in this game. RotTR uses physically-based tessellation for every surface that is deformed (EDIT: or more clearly, uses tessellation to geometrically deform surfaces), and thus
is technically impressive. This is not "like apples to oranges here"; POM is the cheaper alternative to tessellation in this case, and thus directly compares to it at a technical level, tessellation being the more
technically impressive.
Point #3: Ive seen nothing about RotTR having "broken PBR." Please provide a source when making claims like that.
Point #4: Volumetric lighting is used just as much, if not more frequently in RotTR when directly compared to MD, and at the very least, matches the quality.
Point #5: This is where I realized where we were miscommunicating. When you say "There's also the fact about geometric density and moveable objects...ROTR simply does not compare here," you're getting "technical" mixed up with "design." First of all, when you're referring to "geometric density," I can only assume you mean the amount of detail in the MD's objects strewn throughout the environment, and I can only agree; I've never seen so much detail in every single pedestrian object I've come across in any other game when directly compared to MD. It is impressive, just not on a technical level. Any decent engine can do this if it prioritizes object detail within small, condensed areas, as opposed to RotTR, with it's priority on larger environments in a 3rd person perspective.
That is comparing apples and oranges; It doesn't take more geometry to achieve this, just a shift in priority. Thus, it isn't, you guessed it,
technically impressive, but instead, an excellent design choice for this specific game.
Point #6: Your point on moveable objects, is again, a design feature, not a technical one. MD, RotTR, and The Witcher 3 all have physics system. And I don't know if you've actually played RotTR, but several of the tombs have puzzles where you have to
move crates, or break them open with your ice pick for parts. Just because MD uses its physics system in a creative way (Half-Life 2 did this over a decade ago), does
not make it more
technically impressive than the physics systems featured in RotTR or The Witcher 3.
Point #7: Yes, the PureHair in RotTR is used only on Lara. I don't know the name of the hair tech being used in MD, and I don't know for a fact it is being used on every single character model. I think we can both agree, while it's more than adequate in MD, it isn't as
technically impressive as RotTR's PureHair.
Point #8: While MD's SSR is arguably used on more surfaces, I don't yet see how it's better than RotTR's. Without further investigation, I'd call it a wash.
Finally, to wrap up what you didn't address, MD's AO solution simply doesn't compare to RotTR's HBAO+ and VXAO solutions, nor does its cheaper DoF when compared to RotTR's bokeh effect. That, and MD's CHS, Very High Shadows, and Very High AO settings aren't functioning as intended, currently (in many, but not all scenarios) making the game look worse than on lower settings. And I'm not even going to get into MD's animations issues during conversations, since RotTR comes nowhere close to using that format in-game. On the flipside, RotTR has very poor post-processing AA solutions when directly compared to MD's TAA, MD arguably has above average texture work, and I'll admit it, paired with TAA, MD's PBR does look very nice.
I'm not even saying RotTR is a great looking game, it doesn't even have to be in order to be technically impressive. Heck, I don't really even like it personally. My point is, when it comes to future-proofed, proprietary effects that function impressively on a behind-the-scenes, number-crunching technical level, RotTR simply wins.
That said, sans the inferior AO and DoF, I find MD every bit as visually attractive, if not more so than RotTR. And, personally, on a story/gameplay/design front, there is no comparison here; MD wins.
Clearer?