Mafia 2 will utilize PhysX and 3D Vision

Quote:

---

There is a practical difference in leaving something out that could easily have been in.

---

Yes, of course. But where do you get the idea that something was intentionally left out? In all these PhysX cases stuff was added to the base game. How can you argue that PhysX is tacked on and at the same time argue that those tacked on effects were in the original version?

Quote:

---

If you think that's what this is about then you really don't have a clue.

---

See Vardant's post above about the obvious hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iTravis

You have a point, but taking it to different direction and that's not what I'm trying to argue with you. I'm just saying no matter how hard Nvidia is trying to promote PhysX, gamers and enthusiasts know that it's not a vital part of the game and doesn't add on any significant gaming experience. It's something that nice to have but not that important.

---

One could say this about most game physics, and not just PhysX.

When was the last time you played a game in which physics played a central role? Very few games base their gameplay on physics..

Also, the most common physics algorithims used in games can easily be handled by the CPU, while calculation intense physics algorithims that a GPU would excel at (ie hair, cloth, fluid, smoke etc) are far more uncommon.

Quote:

---

And how long has PhysX been around? Yet you put the blame on the developers not to take full advantage of PhysX, instead maybe you should ask why Nvidia didn't handle and market it properly.

---

Nvidia has released many demos over the years showing what GPU accelerated PhysX is capable of, so I doubt it's a lack of marketing.

As I said in my previous post, I think the reluctance on the part of game developers to take full advantage of PhysX, is because it's specific to Nvidia hardware..

Once OpenCL becomes available, things should change....or if ATI ever adopts PhysX.

Did you see the Fermi PhysX demos btw? The most impressive one is the rocket sled, but there are others as well, featuring hair and fluid physics.

Quote:

---

You tend to provoke how ATI users upset when they don't have PhysX and all that but I bet most of them don't care about PhysX anyway, if not they wouldn't buy ATI in the first place, which make sense even more since it's not something you're looking forward in a game in term of judgment for quality.

---

Dude, seriously.. Every time we have threads discussing PhysX, you know what happens. It invariably ends up as a mudslinging contest over multiple pages between the supporters of PhysX like myself, and the detractors (most of which have ATI powered rigs)..

If most of them didn't care about PhysX, I doubt that would happen :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

---

Yep, have to agree. :yepp:

But thats human nature I suppose..

My hopes for this game have been so high that i was afraid that it would be a huge let down like GTA4 was.

But every new trailer that i see just looks fecking awesome and the story part also seems to have been done wel.
Now lets only hope that it runs wel im not in the mood to upgrade my PC.

Quote:

---

Mafia II will be the first Windows PC game ever to utilize the NVIDIA APEX Clothing module

---

This should be quite awesome, at least the demos are.
I wonder if they are going to offer a software PhysX implementation. I bet they will do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

This should be quite awesome, at least the demos are.
I wonder if they are going to offer a software PhysX implementation. I bet they will do that.

---

Indeed, check this demo out!

That looks fantastic :eek:

Quote:

---

One could say this about most game physics, and not just PhysX.

When was the last time you played a game in which physics played a central role? Very few games base their gameplay on physics..

Also, the most common physics algorithims used in games can easily be handled by the CPU, while calculation intense physics algorithims that a GPU would excel at (ie hair, cloth, fluid, smoke etc) are far more uncommon.

---

Yup, that's the whole point, PhysX/physics in game doesn't really matter that much, you can still fully enjoy the game without those extra effects.

Quote:

---

Nvidia has released many demos over the years showing what GPU accelerated PhysX is capable of, so I doubt it's a lack of marketing.

As I said in my previous post, I think the reluctance on the part of game developers to take full advantage of PhysX, is because it's specific to Nvidia hardware..

Once OpenCL becomes available, things should change....or if ATI ever adopts PhysX.

Did you see the Fermi PhysX demos btw? The most impressive one is the rocket sled, but there are others as well, featuring hair and fluid physics.

---

PhysX is just a marketing gimmick.The million dollar question is still, once again, how many good/decent games out there that support PhysX considering how long it's been around? Can you name a few besides Mirror Edge, Batman, and now Mafia 2? And I'm talking about games, not demos, which is for marketing purposes anyway.

Quote:

---

Dude, seriously.. Every time we have threads discussing PhysX, you know what happens. It invariably ends up as a mudslinging contest over multiple pages between the supporters of PhysX like myself, and the detractors (most of which have ATI powered rigs)..

If most of them didn't care about PhysX, I doubt that would happen :D

---

As I said if they do care then they wouldn't buy ATI in the first place, we as gamers buy a video card for its performance overall, not for extra visual effects that only a handful of games support.
And speaking of hypocrisy, do you really think the decision of blocking the PhysX effect when running with an ATI card is fair? Not like ATI users demand for PhysX support on their card, they actually BUY an Nvidia product so it's really a dirty move to block it. And it's even more ridiculous when one user state that ATI has to pay for PhysX in order to use it along with ATI card. Now that's irony.

AMD bought ATI, why not just buy Havok and create their own Physix and put the final nail in the NV coffin. Would love to see how that works out for Devs. Not sure how physx is added into a game but the Devs would have to create 2 different games basically I would think. I think they are pushing this to happen by continuing to implement Phsyx though.

Of course the only NV card I have in my possession is a 7600gt and I can't even use it for Physx. I still want the game though, just hope its not crippled like Batman was for ATI users where it turned off AA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Once OpenCL becomes available, things should change....or if ATI ever adopts PhysX.

---

That latter part is something that will never happen. It might help ATI in the short run, but it could end up as a disaster in the long run and is thus not worth the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power5

AMD bought ATI, why not just buy Havok and create their own Physix and put the final nail in the NV coffin. Would love to see how that works out for Devs. Not sure how physx is added into a game but the Devs would have to create 2 different games basically I would think. I think they are pushing this to happen by continuing to implement Phsyx though.

---

Havok is now owned by Intel and I don't think AMD will buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

I thought this thread was about the looks, not the gameplay.

---

sure but my point is why do so many of you get your panties in a knot just because they use physx. chances are your not going to notice. I think people make far to big a deal about the graphics then really matters in this age of great looking games. There is allot of older games that are still enjoyable because of a great story/gameplay that have less then realistic physics/graphics.

As a long standing Nvidia user, I'd like to point out that PhysX is the biggest gimmick of the decade. Nvidia dicovered a few years back that they can't always win on performance, so these days they run with every crappy marketing angle they can get away with (they're not the only guilty ones!).

The trick is to know when it's all fluff. Unfortuantely i didn't - I bought a 9800gt for €60 to work as an add-in phyX card. The results were pretty underwhelming to say the least, and it only works in a handfull of games (most of them naff). There is NOTHING that I've seen in a physX game that I haven't seen elsewhere. The extra PCI card uses more electricity and pumps extra heat into my desktop. Its also pretty loud.

For all those reasons it doesn't make sense for devs to use physX (you'll want to sell your games to as many platform configurations as possible). As such PhysX will only turn up in games that Nvidia 'invests' in, and it will die eventually.

Nvidia release good hardware from time to time, but for me, the real thing that keeps me in is the quality of their drivers. If the competition continues to catch up in that regard, then no amount of PhysX will convince me not to buy something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jokester_wild

sure but my point is why do so many of you get your panties in a knot just because they use physx. chances are your not going to notice. I think people make far to big a deal about the graphics then really matters in this age of great looking games. There is allot of older games that are still enjoyable because of a great story/gameplay that have less then realistic physics/graphics.

---

I agree 100%, which is why I have a SEGA Genesis emulator ;) My post was essentially dissing the wow factor of PhysX as described by the press release. They make it sound like PhysX and APEX are what is making this game look so incredibly amazing... yet it doesn't look like much at all :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power5

AMD bought ATI, why not just buy Havok and create their own Physix and put the final nail in the NV coffin. Would love to see how that works out for Devs. Not sure how physx is added into a game but the Devs would have to create 2 different games basically I would think. I think they are pushing this to happen by continuing to implement Phsyx though.

Of course the only NV card I have in my possession is a 7600gt and I can't even use it for Physx. I still want the game though, just hope its not crippled like Batman was for ATI users where it turned off AA.

---

How about because Intel owns Havok? AMD has Bullet, which is an open platform, and it is really great in games. Oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://www.w3bbo.com/forums/Care-O-Meter.gif

---

That's hilarious :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toysoldier

If that happens then I for one won't be buying Batman Arkham Asylum 2.

It's sad to see how a gaming experience can be made to look inferior, without ANY reason at all (except money wise), for half the people who is going to buy / play it. I simply don't understand why developers allow things like this to happen. At least they could include Havok into the game instead giving both ATI and nVidia users the same experience.

I will be voting against this with my wallet, by simply not buying Mafia 2 (which makes me a bit sad since I was really looking forward to this game)

---

devs arent mindless robot... they need food water etc... to survive ... so offering more money = win for them

This news and discussion is pointless, specially since when playing the game, I'll have idle cores.. that could be used for these added "superficial" effects..! I love to see marketing in action.

Great, another game that will have half the user base playing with full graphical effects and the other half without them thanks to an artificial limitation.

Those that back Physx should realize that this crap is barely less restrictive than having a game using Glide exclusively back in the Voodoo era.
The sole existence of DirectX, OpenGL/AL, Havok and other APIs is to be able to get stuff to work as intended on as many hardware as possible.

Core i7 and Phenom II users with ATI cards will have half their cores doing nothing while those with Nvidia will have their GPU wasting processing power on physics effect and losing FPS. Their CPUs? Just like ATI users, half of them also idle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

I agree 100%, which is why I have a SEGA Genesis emulator ;) My post was essentially dissing the wow factor of PhysX as described by the press release. They make it sound like PhysX and APEX are what is making this game look so incredibly amazing... yet it doesn't look like much at all :cool:

---

PhysX as capable of excellent physics effects as Havok is. The reason we haven't seen any game using it fully so far is because most of the time it's a last-hour addition, just like Batman Arkham Asylum devs and their one-month-deadline to add flying newspapers and vapor.
Knowing this, think on Crysis or HL2 using "real" Physx and what that would mean for ATI users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

How about because Intel owns Havok? AMD has Bullet, which is an open platform, and it is really great in games. Oh wait...

---

Fine, use Bullet and start pushing it. Then Devs will need to write 3 possible codes. If AMD starts pushing, Intel will need to start pushing to compete as well. Either way, WE will lose. 3 crappy implementations like Physx, or 1 excellent implementation that works across all platforms and brands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripken204

but everyone has ati... lol

---

Don't let the facts get in the way of that:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toysoldier

If that happens then I for one won't be buying Batman Arkham Asylum 2.

It's sad to see how a gaming experience can be made to look inferior, without ANY reason at all (except money wise), for half the people who is going to buy / play it. I simply don't understand why developers allow things like this to happen. At least they could include Havok into the game instead giving both ATI and nVidia users the same experience.

I will be voting against this with my wallet, by simply not buying Mafia 2 (which makes me a bit sad since I was really looking forward to this game)

---

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? It's not taking anything away from the game. It's adding to it. If the game didn't have any of this PhysX stuff, you'd have the exact same experience on an ATI product as you do now. In fact that's specifically the reason developers are willing to use it at all. Not sure why you're so upset about it.

Most ATI users don't have PhysX because every time a thread came up about physx it was bashed to hell.Nvidia bought them,if Ageia was still independent everybody would have it.I believe some people want to protect there stock so they bash competing products.These motives are stupid because it holds back technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Svnth

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? It's not taking anything away from the game. It's adding to it. If the game didn't have any of this PhysX stuff, you'd have the exact same experience on an ATI product as you do now. In fact that's specifically the reason developers are willing to use it at all. Not sure why you're so upset about it.

---

OMG, really?

If the game didn't have any Physx effects, it would probably just use physics effects..!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hell Hound

Most ATI users don't have PhysX because every time a thread came up about physx it was bashed to hell.Nvidia bought them,if Ageia was still independent everybody would have it.I believe some people want to protect there stock so they bash competing products.These motives are stupid because it holds back technology.

---

nvidia should then charge ati a certain amount per card for it.
i would happily pay an extra $10 to have physx on my ati card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripken204

nvidia should then charge ati a certain amount per card for it.
i would happily pay an extra $10 to have physx on my ati card.

---

I don't think ATI would go for it if they had to pay for it. It's a matter of reputation and prestige.
But $10 is nothing, I'd gladly pay as well.

OK I got a question for ATI users..

Do you feel the same way about 3D Vision that you do about PhysX? Both 3D Vision and PhysX are specific to Nvidia hardware, and both technologies improve/adjust the standard gaming experience..

I'm curious because most of the ire seems to be directed towards PhysX, whilst 3D Vision is pretty much ignored....