Mafia 2 PhysX demo trailer

[motsm]

Cars are supposed to explode easily in action games, that's what makes them awesome.

You can't say cars exploding for no reason is fine, and exaggerated debris isn't without being a total hypocrite. Exaggerated debris is no less a staple of action flicks than cars exploding for next to no reason.

 

[Voo]

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.

Well it's kind of hard to get your point and you just misunderstand me as well. I'm not fixed on physiX but just the physics implementations itself, let it be Havok, Bullet or OpenGl. If your point is that the way it's used right now is suboptimal, I can agree with that. Especially considering the fact that we're still starting to see games using it in a noticeable way (irregardless if you like it or not) - I've played ME with and without Physix and couldn't notice any difference, this time it seems it'll be more interesting.

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.
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.

Well and you could make the exact same argument for flying debris and whatnot. I don't think everything you look at has to explode, irregardless how unbelieveable, to get a good game, so imho that's a similar point.

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.

Well I don't think we have to discuss that point again, Nvidia can do what they want, if they want to annoy their own customers and try to clinge to their closed standard, nobody can stop them, it just limits their chances that physix will take over.
If we can get an open standard that runs fine on CPUs and GPUs and isn't controlled by one of the major players that'd be great and will probably happen in the long run.. or at least I don't want to use hacks to use my old 8800gts with my 4890..

 

[taltamir]

Well I don't think we have to discuss that point again, Nvidia can do what they want, if they want to annoy their own customers and try to clinge to their closed standard, nobody can stop them, it just limits their chances that physix will take over.

Maybe you misread, he didn't say that they CAN'T do it (although people have called to question the legality of such a move)... he said its STUPID of them to do so and its hurting themselves... hence the "shooting their own foot".

Heck, he didn't even say he is personally upset at it, only that they are being self destructive.

 

[MrK6]

You can't say cars exploding for no reason is fine, and exaggerated debris isn't without being a total hypocrite. Exaggerated debris is no less a staple of action flicks than cars exploding for next to no reason.

No, they're two different concepts, although I see what you're saying, so let me elaborate. To me, it's about making a living breathing world to run amok in and use your imagination to experience something else. Giant explosions are sweet, making them happen more easily is sweet too. However, if they don't blow up like a giant explosion does in real life, well, not so sweet, because then it's just a game again. I look at it as an artistic license, which is probably a very subjective preference. I don't think a board splitting off five times it's weight in debris while getting shot is cool, it just irks my sense of reality too much. In contrast, it'd suck if you ran over a guy in GTA and had to wait there and watch him curse you for 20 minutes as he bleeds out - instead, people just die instantly and get thrown into the bushes. Again, artistic license. I'm not saying these effects are useless, I just don't want them like that in this type of game.

Well it's kind of hard to get your point and you just misunderstand me as well. I'm not fixed on physiX but just the physics implementations itself, let it be Havok, Bullet or OpenGl. If your point is that the way it's used right now is suboptimal, I can agree with that. Especially considering the fact that we're still starting to see games using it in a noticeable way (irregardless if you like it or not) - I've played ME with and without Physix and couldn't notice any difference, this time it seems it'll be more interesting.

ME = Mass Effect? As far as I'm aware, the PhysX in Mass Effect doesn't support hardware acceleration, so it wouldn't have made a bit of difference anyway. I'm all for better physics in games, especially if they actually do something for the game. Case in point - BC2 has the sweetest physics in a multiplayer game I've seen yet. Destructible environments totally change how the game is played.

Well and you could make the exact same argument for flying debris and whatnot. I don't think everything you look at has to explode, irregardless how unbelieveable, to get a good game, so imho that's a similar point.

Neither do I. I think if every vehicle exploded with one shot, that'd be a little obnoxious (well, hilarious for the first half hour, then obnoxious). Having cars that actually explode form being shot, which would be very difficult in real life, is cool. If the Mafia 2 game is going for a realistic feel, in the PhysX demo video, I think having all three of those cars getting shot up explode was kind of too much. If it's all out action like the GTA series, then it's more than appropriate. If in either game there was literally tons of debris on the ground after it exploded, like in Mafia 2, I would be annoyed. Again, it's all about artistic license.

Well I don't think we have to discuss that point again, Nvidia can do what they want, if they want to annoy their own customers and try to clinge to their closed standard, nobody can stop them, it just limits their chances that physix will take over.
If we can get an open standard that runs fine on CPUs and GPUs and isn't controlled by one of the major players that'd be great and will probably happen in the long run.. or at least I don't want to use hacks to use my old 8800gts with my 4890..

Taltamir explained it best, but I'm all for progress, and NVIDIA's methods are one of the slowest ways to go about it. I don't really care, just don't be surprised by my "meh" response to videos like this.

 

[Lonbjerg]

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.

Find me a CPU physics game where debris isn't:

A) Created, does a scripted path and then becomes static/dead
B) Created, interact, but dissapears after ~10 seconds.

If if were so easy, it would be done and have been done in games for a long time.

Ball in your court.

 

[Voo]

Maybe you misread, he didn't say that they CAN'T do it (although people have called to question the legality of such a move)... he said its STUPID of them to do so and its hurting themselves... hence the "shooting their own foot".

Heck, he didn't even say he is personally upset at it, only that they are being self destructive.

And I didn't say that he's not right, because it is harming themselves, their customers and the whole PC business, or in one word just stupid. But nothing stops them from doing so. I meant we don't have to discuss that again, because I'm sure we agree on that point


@MrK6: No ME = Mirror's Edge in this case, another game where physix was heavily promoted and honestly I really didn't notice the difference while playing (which if you think about it, would be the best case szenario for "physics done right" - but in that case the effects were just too minor..)

 

[motsm]

No, they're two different concepts, although I see what you're saying, so let me elaborate. To me, it's about making a living breathing world to run amok in and use your imagination to experience something else. Giant explosions are sweet, making them happen more easily is sweet too. However, if they don't blow up like a giant explosion does in real life, well, not so sweet, because then it's just a game again.

Why are you basing anything off of real life? Cars don't even explode in real life so the mere fact you are bitching realism about something that doesn't happen is rather silly. You might as well be telling us the depiction of a flying house in Up has an unrealistic trajectory, because everyone knows houses being lifted by a few balloons would cause more turbulence.

You said it anyway, "I just don't want them like that in this type of game". Ok, so leave it at that how about? You are trying to use all sorts of crazy logic to prove some "fact" that you openly admit is an opinion. Tell us you don't like the explosions, and keep it right there.

 

[taltamir]

@MrK6: No ME = Mirror's Edge in this case, another game where physix was heavily promoted and honestly I really didn't notice the difference while playing (which if you think about it, would be the best case szenario for "physics done right" - but in that case the effects were just too minor..)

Mirror edge had physX promotion, but it was NOT physX done right...
ME only improves the shatter effects for GLASS.

Physics done right requires 100% destructible environments with the ability of the environment to hurt you... that is, I should be able to throw a molotov cocktail unto a house, have it catch fire,have the fire realistically spread, have it realistically burn the materials, and have it realistically collapse when the fire caused enough structural damage (not HP damage, but actual structural damage based on real world physics modeling)... and then realistically injure those insides. Those are called "first order physics"... physX can do first order physics, but there is not a single game in existence that uses it to do so in sufficient amounts to require dedicated nvidia GPUs. even nvidia only "games" (tech demos) don't do that, because it requires having one or two high end primary physics card with a secondary GPU for more traditional graphics stuff before it pays off.
This is where nvidia SHOULD have gone with physX but didn't. you could do utterly amazing things that way but the promise of physX was squandered.

 

[PingviN]

Well, PhysX is nice, but when I play games, I don't really care if debris are dynamic and clothing moves realistic(ally?). PhysX (the GPU-accelerated part) wont take off until the CUDA-exklusivity is removed - it's been said before and it's still true. Having a title or two a year using the stuff despite Nvidias (super)heavy marketing really must be called a failure.

 

[zerocool84]

Ahh Physx

I still wait for Nvidia to live up to it's promise to change the way games are played while other games that use different physics API's currently do that.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ahh Physx

I still wait for Nvidia to live up to it's promise to change the way games are played while other games that use different physics API's currently do that.

Why don't you answer post #55 then?

If you can't, you just made a nice own goal

 

[zerocool84]

Why don't you answer post #55 then?

If you can't, you just made a nice own goal

You've never answered this question that I've been asking for months. You say that it's so good so where are the killer games? Where are the games that change the way games are played? Where is the game that makes everyone want to have Physx??? Sad that these other physics API's that you say are inferior actually do something meaningful to the games we play. Really makes you think which one really is inferior. It's not like we are the ones that said Physx is going to change the way games are played, Nvidia did.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You've never answered this question that I've been asking for months. You say that it's so good so where are the killer games? Where are the games that change the way games are played? Where is the game that makes everyone want to have Physx??? Sad that these other physics API's that you say are inferior actually do something meaningful to the games we play. Really makes you think which one really is inferior. It's not like we are the ones that said Physx is going to change the way games are played, Nvidia did.

If I answer, you will do one of two things:

A) Move the goalpost
B) Claim that *insert gamename here* sucks and dosn't count.

But if you promise that A or B won't happen I will give it a go?

 

[taltamir]

What IS the goalpost for physX, actually?

there is only one "game" in existence that I know of physX was correctly implemented (I would not say "done right" because it wasn't sufficiently impressive over the non physX experience)... I say "game" because it isn't a game.. its a map.
the unreal tournament 3 tornado map to be precise. it is first order physics that actually improves the game by providing game-play previously not possible.

Its problem is that physX card were far too weak back then so its improvements were hardly enough, and today it is already obsolete (there wasn't an update to add more first order physX To it for modern nvidia hardware)

any other game? eh, the glass just shatters to a few more parts, and maybe slightly more "realsitically" (still has tons of problems... such as cloth clipping over itself, etc).
The glass shouldn't just break realistically, it should realistically injure you and maybe kill you. you should be able to break a glass, watch its pieces fall, and if one hits someone just right have it cut them. etc

 

[Lonbjerg]

What IS the goalpost for physX, actually?

A none scripted, dynamic and interactive representation of the real world.

CellFactor does a better than UT 3, perhaps why EPIC bought the IP.
Darkest of Days did a great job woth smoke/fog...in combat blackpowder obsures..also your line of sight.

And I still enjoy that game today at LAN parties with buddies, tearing down strucktiures and using the as kinetic weapons is just so Jedi-like

Cryostatis tried tackling the most demanind physics out there: Fluids...and did a pretty decent job, with the horsepower available.

Metro 2033(PC version) rasied the bar once again, its physics tick-rate and it ragdolls are some of the best I have seen in any game.

Then you have the GRAW games, where sharpnel is lethal, and not just a blob-zone of damage, like in BFBC2...which is nothing but scripts, not physics...but yet accomplished to fool the lesser knowning.
And suddenly the crowd goes wild...they have something they THINK is physics like PhySX...and then it's good

Infact games like MZK does a better representation of the real world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B17ngrboukE

People thinking that a 40mm fragmentation grenade will make a 3-4 meter wide hole in a brick wall don't have a clue.

BFBC2 is way of target, but for kid who have never been in a warzone and only knows Hollywood war, I can understand why they get fooled.
Problem is that physics is just as (I would say more) demanding as raytraycing.

But that is no reason to limit our selfes to the lowest commmon demominator, the CPU.
Progress dosn't come from that, it comes from pushing into higher grounds.

I blame AMD too...for just talking and talking..since 2006.
That has split the market into several groups, the worst being the butthurt AMD fans who lack GPU-physcis support and thus flame out of envy.

But be assured if ever AMD comes with GPU-physics they will hail it like the second comming

They just wont like Mafia II...because they feel left out *shrugs*

 

[taltamir]

I noticed most of those games are not physX, they have physics, but its not physX branded physics engine.
I said UE3 tornado was the only PhysX game done right AFAIK, not that it was the only game to have proper physics.

So, are any of those games on the list actually first order GPU physics done via PhysX?

 

[Lonbjerg]

I noticed most of those games are not physX, they have physics, but its not physX branded physics engine.
I said UE3 tornado was the only PhysX game done right AFAIK, not that it was the only game to have proper physics.

So, are any of those games on the list actually first order GPU physics done via PhysX?

GRAW2 uses the PPU if you have it
Same goes for Cellfactor

But I like you shifting the goalpost...from Physx Hardware acceleration to GPU Physx hardware acceleration

Cryostais is a GPU physx game
MZK is too
So is Darkest of Days

So besides trying to move the goalposts, what was your point?

 

[NoQuarter]

But I like you shifting the goalpost...from Physx Hardware acceleration to GPU Physx hardware acceleration

That's just being purposely obtuse, everyone knows we're talking about Physx as shorthand for GPU Physx hardware acceleration. Even the Mafia 2 Physx demo linked doesn't specifiy that it's GPU Physx but we know it is because it's implicit.

 

[taltamir]

That's just being purposely obtuse, everyone knows we're talking about Physx as shorthand for GPU Physx hardware acceleration. Even the Mafia 2 Physx demo linked doesn't specifiy that it's GPU Physx but we know it is because it's implicit.

correct... I don't know HOW you could call it "shifting the goal post" when I clarified that it has to be:
1. nVidia branded physX not just any physics engine (so crysis doesn't count since it uses CryTek Physics engine)
2. GPU/PPU based, not CPU based (because CPU based physX runs fine if you have an AMD GPU last I checked)

Cryostais is a GPU physx game
MZK is too
So is Darkest of Days

I was thinking CRYSIS... my bad. ;p

Anyways, a bunch of obscure titles I haven't heard of... but being obscure is no reason to disqualify them. I am just saying that if they do "do it right" based on what I described then I would gladly admit to being wrong, and I would use the explanation to why I was wrong as me not having heard of said titles before...

However, the first title I decided to check from your list is

Darkest of Days is a title that takes advantage of NVIDIA's PhysX technology to offer a more realistic looking battlefield. From smoke effects to rock chips from gunfire to leaves falling, 8monkey Labs has really strived to incorporate the technology well into the title.

Which is EXACTLY what I described as "physics done wrong".
None of those has ANY effect on gameplay (well, smoke affects gameplay but physX does not make smoke affect gameplay MORE then it does without physX), and they are such minute details too...

 

[NIGELG]

A none scripted, dynamic and interactive representation of the real world.

CellFactor does a better than UT 3, perhaps why EPIC bought the IP.
Darkest of Days did a great job woth smoke/fog...in combat blackpowder obsures..also your line of sight.

And I still enjoy that game today at LAN parties with buddies, tearing down strucktiures and using the as kinetic weapons is just so Jedi-like

Cryostatis tried tackling the most demanind physics out there: Fluids...and did a pretty decent job, with the horsepower available.

Metro 2033(PC version) rasied the bar once again, its physics tick-rate and it ragdolls are some of the best I have seen in any game.

Then you have the GRAW games, where sharpnel is lethal, and not just a blob-zone of damage, like in BFBC2...which is nothing but scripts, not physics...but yet accomplished to fool the lesser knowning.
And suddenly the crowd goes wild...they have something they THINK is physics like PhySX...and then it's good

Infact games like MZK does a better representation of the real world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B17ngrboukE

People thinking that a 40mm fragmentation grenade will make a 3-4 meter wide hole in a brick wall don't have a clue.

BFBC2 is way of target, but for kid who have never been in a warzone and only knows Hollywood war, I can understand why they get fooled.
Problem is that physics is just as (I would say more) demanding as raytraycing.

But that is no reason to limit our selfes to the lowest commmon demominator, the CPU.
Progress dosn't come from that, it comes from pushing into higher grounds.

I blame AMD too...for just talking and talking..since 2006.
That has split the market into several groups, the worst being the butthurt AMD fans who lack GPU-physcis support and thus flame out of envy.

But be assured if ever AMD comes with GPU-physics they will hail it like the second comming

They just wont like Mafia II...because they feel left out *shrugs*

How many developers are willing to lose the sales of ''butt hurt'' ATi owners?Whether they flame out of envy or not they are potential sales to any game developer.Maybe this is partly why PhysX games are in such a tiny minority of games released in the past couple of years.So you have ATi owners claiming they won't support Mafia2.Is it worth the risk for developers to accept Nvidia's "support"" and lose potential sales to 40% of the market??

 

[SirPauly]

Tend to look at it like this: If an IHV is pro-active and willing to risk and invest they can improve the gaming experience over what the developer may of intended for the PC version and customer base.

 

[tweakboy]

Guys with powerful CPU

Use CPU instead of a video card. CPU can handle phsyic computations and ivdeo card helps render. thx

 

[zerocool84]

If I answer, you will do one of two things:

A) Move the goalpost
B) Claim that *insert gamename here* sucks and dosn't count.

But if you promise that A or B won't happen I will give it a go?

Exactly cus you have none. I don't even have to say anything as there is no Physx game like that. Yes Physx is THEORETICALLY better but it fails to live up to the hype. Yes it's cool that stuff will stay after it's blown away but Nvidia promised us more than that and we're still waiting. There is not one killer Physx game out there at all. It's just little add-ons which is fine but not good if you want to show-off Physx and make it something people can't live without which is what Nvidia said it was going to be. We're not the ones that have something to prove, Nvidia is.

 

[toyota]

Guys with powerful CPU

Use CPU instead of a video card. CPU can handle phsyic computations and ivdeo card helps render. thx

I already told you before that NO cpu can run full hardware physx smoothly. Nvidia made sure of that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Is it worth the risk for developers to accept Nvidia's "support"" and lose potential sales to 40% of the market??

If it wasn't for the addition of PhysX, I almost certainly would have gotten this game for the PS3; now it will be a PC purchase.

None of those has ANY effect on gameplay (well, smoke affects gameplay but physX does not make smoke affect gameplay MORE then it does without physX), and they are such minute details too...

Gameplay is a function of the developers, when did we start expecting our graphics cards to do something besides making better graphics? First order physics seeing a major boost at this time requires devs making a game that will not run on ATi systems, is that really what ATi owners want to see? There would be an obnoxious whine all across the tech boards about 'anti competitive' behaviour and how evil nV should figure out a way to make i7's an order of magnitude faster using magic so their parts can run it. First order physics impacting gameplay won't happen until ATi gets on board with GPU accelerated physics or they are no longer a factor in the market. I'd much rather see the former ASAP.