Mafia 2 PhysX demo trailer

[mingsoup]

LOL>

It looks like Max Payne 2. and guess what, those "phsyics" are gonna cost you.
big time.

 

[Wag]

If it adds to the game, I don't see why so many people are complaining (other than the fact that they won't be able to use it). Even if you will I imagine there will be different levels of selectable performance like in Arkham Asylum.

I'm more than happy to have these added features and if there's such a huge performance hit (which I don't forsee happening) I will just turn it off.

 

[SirPauly]

I thought the force field explosions were very impressive as virtually everything was effected.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yes it did, go play the game again and refresh yourself.

Environmental flying debris from firefights a la John Woo? Did it.

Waving trenchcoat? Did it.

Exploding vehicles? Did it.

Like I said, nine years later and nothing substantial has changed.

Using that same level of insight, nothing substantial changed between Unreal and Crysis. Think I'm overstating things-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56LEzKVhVyE

That is what you are saying is comparable. Great cloth and particle system there.

It looks like Max Payne 2.

Very slightly less absurd-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDo0-mA0eMI

Seriously people, you add so much more weight to your viewpoint if you don't state things that make you look outright foolish

 

[MrK6]

Using that same level of insight, nothing substantial changed between Unreal and Crysis. Think I'm overstating things-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56LEzKVhVyE

That is what you are saying is comparable. Great cloth and particle system there.

Very slightly less absurd-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDo0-mA0eMI

Seriously people, you add so much more weight to your viewpoint if you don't state things that make you look outright foolish

Yes, you are absurd, thanks for pointing it out. If you're going to tout effects like they're worth something, don't link to videos that prove my point. Sure, graphics improve over time, but this is nothing revolutionary or awesome, especially not like they're making it out to be. Personally, I'd be more impressed if they could make PhysX not completely tank performance on a single GPU.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Unreal and Crysis.

Really, that sums it up.

 

[SirPauly]

Watching those Max Payne videos are perfect examples why improved Physics are needed, imho!

 

[MrK6]

Unreal and Crysis.

Really, that sums it up.

In your mind, I bet it does.

 

[Voo]

If you're going to tout effects like they're worth something, don't link to videos that prove my point.

So you're saying you can't see any difference between the physics effects in Max Payne2 and Mafia2? Really? Wow, you're either blind or blinded.

Max Payne2: The trenchcoat just moves exactly the same motion again and again and again, got boring after the first half minute.
Mafia 2: Much more realistic movements, imho shows perfectly fine that we need better physics. Looks much more interesting (and noticeable) than in ME or Batman.

But don't worry, as soon as Ati has some kind of physics engine (let it be havok or what else), I'm sure you'll be all over it as well..

 

[thilanliyan]

I thought the force field explosions were very impressive as virtually everything was effected.

Except when the player was near a couple...the baddies seemed to be affected by them though.

 

[MrK6]

So you're saying you can't see any difference between the physics effects in Max Payne2 and Mafia2? Really? Wow, you're either blind or blinded.

Max Payne2: The trenchcoat just moves exactly the same motion again and again and again, got boring after the first half minute.
Mafia 2: Much more realistic movements, imho shows perfectly fine that we need better physics. Looks much more interesting (and noticeable) than in ME or Batman.

Hey, if you play games to watch how many different ways a character's trench coat moves, you have fun doing that; I actually play them.

But don't worry, as soon as Ati has some kind of physics engine (let it be havok or what else), I'm sure you'll be all over it as well..

Yes, that must be it. Please cry elsewhere.

 

[Voo]

Hey, if you play games to watch how many different ways a character's trench coat moves, you have fun doing that; I actually play them.

Ah so you don't look at the characters? Must be kinda hard to play that way. Also this means you don't need AA, AF or higher resolutions as well, right? Seems like you're part of a really small minority there.

 

[MrK6]

Ah so you don't look at the characters? Must be kinda hard to play that way. Also this means you don't need AA, AF or higher resolutions as well, right? Seems like you're part of a really small minority there.

Yes, that must be it. Please cry elsewhere.

:hmm:

 

[JSt0rm]

not into the bodyfalls either. And the flame effects are lacking oomph

 

[motsm]

not into the bodyfalls either. And the flame effects are lacking oomph

Funny, I was thinking the rag dolls were some of the best I've seen.

 

[Voo]

:hmm:

Ah that's a great counterargument, thanks for sharing your insights.

If you'd like to elaborate why you think we don't need better graphics (let it be better looking models or more realistic movements), I'd love to hear it, but so far your only argument was that it's unimportant if something looks better or not, which in a forum whose whole reason of existance is exactly that is kinda strange.

 

[MrK6]

Ah that's a great counterargument, thanks for sharing your insights.

If you'd like to elaborate why you think we don't need better graphics (let it be better looking models or more realistic movements), I'd love to hear it, but so far your only argument was that it's unimportant if something looks better or not, which in a forum whose whole reason of existance is exactly that is kinda strange.

Where did I say any of that beyond in your fanboy rage-clouded imagination? When you try to put words in my mouth or set up a straw man argument, I'm going to dismiss you. Learn to discuss things like an adult, and we can have a conversation.

 

[SirPauly]

I don't know, maybe it is how strongly you dismissed the video with your comparison of Max Payne. It seems too extreme for some, one may imagine.

 

[taltamir]

i never saw the need for "more debries"...

I want first order physics improvement, something that physX promised but no game delivers

 

[Voo]

Where did I say any of that beyond in your fanboy rage-clouded imagination? When you try to put words in my mouth or set up a straw man argument, I'm going to dismiss you. Learn to discuss things like an adult, and we can have a conversation.

Hey, if you play games to watch how many different ways a character's trench coat moves

So if you didn't find an interesting new way to look at the character WITHOUT noticing the movement of the trenchcoat, then it seems you don't think it's important how it looks. You're either saying that you can't notice the difference between the two models (which is hardly believeable) or that you don't care about how it looks. In both cases that brings up some questions.
We get more and more processing power and if that gets us some more believeable physics that's a nice thing. In the long run we need an open standard no doubt about that - or at least one that isn't controlled by one of the two (probably three in some years) hw manufacterers - but it seems we can't get everything.

If you're fine with some precomputed explosions, fragment movements and whatnot, that's ok - I mean we've lived with that for a long time, but it's so far below what we could reach, that's just a pity. And if we get some physics that runs well on all plattforms (if it runs on the CPU that's fine as well, after all we've got hexcores while most games don't even fully utilize quads) we could finally get some effects that affect the gameplay in a meaningful way, something no game I've seen so far has done.
Not sure what's so negative about that, I'd prefer that about some new AA mode every day.

 

[Sylvanas]

The car explosions look pretty terrible IMO- not realistic at all. Apart from that the rest is alright, not that it can't be done on the CPU, it can, but hey whatever floats your boat.

 

[NoQuarter]

I'm not sure why the glass flies inward when the dudes bullets are shooting it outward though

 

[MrK6]

So if you didn't find an interesting new way to look at the character WITHOUT noticing the movement of the trenchcoat, then it seems you don't think it's important how it looks. You're either saying that you can't notice the difference between the two models (which is hardly believeable) or that you don't care about how it looks. In both cases that brings up some questions.

There's a difference between the models, but it's more of a "Ok, and?" type reaction. Yes, it's progress, but if you look at the videos explaining why they wanted PhysX in the game and what it does for them, they promote it as really dramatic and awesome, but it isn't. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gCS7vRY5Q0 . More on that:

We get more and more processing power and if that gets us some more believeable physics that's a nice thing. In the long run we need an open standard no doubt about that - or at least one that isn't controlled by one of the two (probably three in some years) hw manufacterers - but it seems we can't get everything.

If you're fine with some precomputed explosions, fragment movements and whatnot, that's ok - I mean we've lived with that for a long time, but it's so far below what we could reach, that's just a pity. And if we get some physics that runs well on all plattforms (if it runs on the CPU that's fine as well, after all we've got hexcores while most games don't even fully utilize quads) we could finally get some effects that affect the gameplay in a meaningful way, something no game I've seen so far has done.
Not sure what's so negative about that, I'd prefer that about some new AA mode every day.

But that's the most laughable part, PhysX isn't realistic, and that's probably what bothers me the most about it. Honestly, I don't think half the coders have taken a physics class in their lives or even tried some of the stuff they are encoding to see what happens in real life. Personally, I think a lot of PhysX is bullshit, because they "overproduce" every single effect they add in. It's like someone sat there and said "debris flies out of objects when they're shot? We need a ton of fucking debris then!" Well, no. If anyone has ever actually shot a stationary object with an automatic firearm, they know what bullshit this trailer looks like. In case you haven't here's a reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5PsMHH0xk4 . Notice how debris isn't carpeting everything, the windows don't explode out and all this other bullshit. Same thing with the trenchcoat really, it looks like someone attached a pair of curtains to the bottom of a jacket, as that's not how a trenchcoat moves. The part where he was crouched behind the car did look good, but the other thing that's bothersome is how thick they have to make the coat, as it looks like a parka and not a trenchcoat. PhysX implementation reminds me of when Bloom first came out, and every single game was oversaturated to hell and you couldn't see a damn thing because it was so blinding.

The other thing is performance - PhysX has always tanked performance on single GPU's for largely unimpressive effects, I wonder if this game will be the same. There's already pauses when cars explode, and you know that demo was run on GTX 480 SLI or something, so it doesn't bode well. Anyway, I'll see what it's like when it comes out, but I doubt I'm going to pick up a 9800 series to add in to my rig to check it out.

 

[Voo]

But that's the most laughable part, PhysX isn't realistic, and that's probably what bothers me the most about it. Honestly, I don't think half the coders have taken a physics class in their lives or even tried some of the stuff they are encoding to see what happens in real life.

So you're saying because you can misuse something, it can't be used in a sensible way? It sure isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction and with some more experience and trys someone will get it right. But if you think that the trenchcoat in Mafia2 doesn't look realistic, then what does the one in Max Payne2 looks like? Sure it's far from perfect, but it's obviously better.
And exaggerated effects? Sure (though that's not a sole physix problem.. I don't think cars explode so easily just because you put some bullets into them) and we really don't need colums flying around, but you can misuse every tool.

Performanceproblems? The same as always for those stuff, Moore's law will deal with that sooner or later, though with that bad CPU utilization, it could very well be a more sensible approach to implement it there.


And yeah I fear most people in countries where you don't get a gun thrown after you when buying something in a super market really have not the slightest idea how stuff like that looks in reality

 

[MrK6]

So you're saying because you can misuse something, it can't be used in a sensible way?

Do you ever just read something and understand it or do you always twist it into something else? I'm not sure if you're doing it to troll or you have trouble with the English language, but it gets old having to correct you. I said the current implementation of many PhysX effects is unrealistic and misguided; if you want to find out what I think PhysX could be used for, ask me, it's not that difficult.

It sure isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction and with some more experience and trys someone will get it right. But if you think that the trenchcoat in Mafia2 doesn't look realistic, then what does the one in Max Payne2 looks like? Sure it's far from perfect, but it's obviously better.

Step in the right direction for what exactly? The trenchcoat, for example, I believe is much more detailed, but is it better? No, not really, as overall it isn't more realistic and rather is just a waste of resources.

And exaggerated effects? Sure (though that's not a sole physix problem.. I don't think cars explode so easily just because you put some bullets into them) and we really don't need colums flying around, but you can misuse every tool.

Cars are supposed to explode easily in action games, that's what makes them awesome. It's how they explode, which is unrealistic, that's the problem.

Performanceproblems? The same as always for those stuff, Moore's law will deal with that sooner or later, though with that bad CPU utilization, it could very well be a more sensible approach to implement it there.

One more reason PhysX is unimpressive. By artificially limiting its performance to make sure they can use it to sell cards, NVIDIA is (once again) collectively shooting itself in the foot.

And yeah I fear most people in countries where you don't get a gun thrown after you when buying something in a super market really have not the slightest idea how stuff like that looks in reality

Your fault and your loss.