inselaffe on 25/6/2011 at 15:54
Still a dick move to use physx though, considering there are just as good (if not better), (
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/) free physics libraries that they can use. Perhaps they don't mind segregating their audience as long as they get something out of it.
Mind you it doesn't help that epic integrate it into the unreal 3 engine.
A shame cos it will no doubt be a good game too.
Mind you even the whole anti-aliasing thing with the first game was bullshit when you consider that:
Quote:
As I stated, we gave Rocksteady a fix for AA implementation prior to launch, you can derive from that comment that we indeed had engineers working with the developers.
So despite what people said last time, there was support on both sides.
I just get the impression with a lot of these developers that there is some kind of bribing or manipulation going on here. And before you jump on your "huuuur" i don't necessarily mean in the form of money changing hands but there are lots of ways to influence developers decisions so who am i to know what went on. The important part is that it has gone on.
I mean a developer doesn't deliberately go out of its way to reduce the experience for half (or more if you include intel graphics) its audience just for the fun of it.
Sulphur on 25/6/2011 at 16:08
Segregation? What are you talking about? PhysX works on PCs whether you accelerate it or don't, and 99% of the game is the same bar some aesthetic improvements that acceleration gets you -- which the majority of us can eminently live without.
EvaUnit02 on 25/6/2011 at 16:52
Quote Posted by inselaffe
Still a dick move to use physx though, considering there are just as good (if not better), (
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/) free physics libraries that they can use. Perhaps they don't mind segregating their audience as long as they get something out of it.
Mind you it doesn't help that epic integrate it into the unreal 3 engine.
First off, who the hell are you replying to? Some Arkham Asylum discussion from 2009?
Has there even been any news that Arkham City will have exclusive Nvidia HW effects? Google delivers nothing.
Why the hell should they rip out the existing physics engine and replace it wholesale if the one built into their licensed graphical engine does everything they desire it to do? The reference physics engine would be built into the price of UE3. They aren't fucking senseless developer like 3D Realms, they wouldn't create unnecessary work for themselves just to satisfy a total of ~12 hippies who smoke Linus Torvald cock, who wouldn't purchase their game anyway, given how much closed proprietary Microsoft technology that it's married to (inc. DRM).
Quote Posted by inselaffe
I mean a developer doesn't deliberately go out of its way to reduce the experience for half (or more if you include intel graphics) its audience just for the fun of it.
Half the audience? The primary market for this game is consoles, sunshine. Sales on consoles will dwarf those of the PC version - so arguably the PROPER version of AC would be the 360 or PS3 version; whichever is the lead platform.
UE3 is one of the most popular engines on the market, most of the licensees opt to use the default physics engine. Any added HW PhysX effects would be gimmicky after-thoughts and VERY few games actually have any. If they were part of the developers proper artist vision for the game, then they would be in the lead SKUs.
Unlike the Nvidia stuff (which you're pulling out of your arse at this point), AC has been confirmed for Nintendo Wii U and will probably have exclusive hardware-based features involving that console's unique controller. Having a 2nd screen and motion gyros in your controller are arguably more substantial and less than gimmicky 3D Vision and PhysX effects, why aren't you kicking up a stink about that?
Nvidia might've "bribed" them with the use of their labs, testing facilities and Nvidia's engineers would've added a few extra features out of their own pocket, not the publisher's/developer's - so what? ATI just as guilty of this practice, eg promoting their Radeon GPU exclusive Eyefinity multi-monitor technology.
What you should be worried is that actual ready-made content, the challenge maps where you play as Robin, are exclusive to pre-orders at Best Buy. This is far, far more heinous that missing out on some tacked-on, hardware-specific gimmick features.
inselaffe on 25/6/2011 at 22:22
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Segregation? What
are you talking about? PhysX works on PCs whether you accelerate it or don't, and 99% of the game is the same bar some aesthetic improvements that acceleration gets you -- which the majority of us can eminently live without.
Don't be deliberately obtuse - everyone knows how poor the performance of physx on the cpu is, making an nvidia card a basic requirement.
It also adds a fair amount to games like arkham asylum, in terms of atmosphere and world depth. Have you even seen (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw) with and without?
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Has there even been any news that Arkham City will have exclusive Nvidia HW effects? Google delivers nothing.
Considering it was in the first game and this seems to be a quick sequel with much the same engine, it would suggest so. As would (
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PhysX#PhysX_in_video_games) wikipedia, which although not the best source, i would consider it highly likely anyway.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Why the hell should they rip out the existing physics engine and replace it wholesale if the one built into their licensed graphical engine does everything they desire it to do? The reference physics engine would be built into the price of UE3.
It really wouldn't be that difficult to reference a different physics library rather than physx. The problem they might have is how easy the code they've already written is to port to another physics library but in all honesty it shouldn't be that hard. If they had used a different library in the first game they wouldn't have any problem at all as there would be no code to port. Basically they should have thought about that when they made the first game - though they no doubt did and didn't care.
Physx is free and built into UE3. Bullet is also free and doesn't limit you on what hardware can be used to accelerate it. It also supports and graphics card for physics acceleration and supports the cpu well. Hardware physx effects are deliberately gimped on the cpu - hopefully the new apis will be of some improvement but considering what the whole point of phsyx is i doubt it will ever be a level playing field.
I'm not suggesting a different physics library for the sake of it just to be difficult. And not cos it's open source either. They could use havok if they wanted and i wouldn't care, it's just they'd have to pay for that. Bullet is really decent, used for films and increasingly games and really does look rather good in terms of features.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Half the audience? The primary market for this game is consoles, sunshine. Sales on consoles will dwarf those of the PC version - so arguably the PROPER version of AC would be the 360 or PS3 version; whichever is the lead platform.
UE3 is one of the most popular engines on the market, most of the licensees opt to use the default physics engine. Any added HW PhysX effects would be gimmicky after-thoughts and VERY few games actually have any. If they were part of the developers proper artist vision for the game, then they would be in the lead SKUs.
Yes, yes EXACTLY. This is another large reason not to use hardware physx. If another physics library was used then not only people on pc but also people with consoles could experience a greater level of physics within games.
Because of the segregation, it does limit what it can be used for and like you say does limit it to certain effects. Those effects in arkham asylum do add to the atmosphere but they don't impact the actual gameplay.
If another physics engine was used that could be run optimally for everyone - whether havok (although they have to pay for that) or bullet (free and looks really good from what i've seen). There are even other free ones which i haven't mentioned. I am not mentioning free ones for the sake of it, bullet genuinely does look really good.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Unlike the Nvidia stuff (which you're pulling out of your arse at this point), AC has been confirmed for Nintendo Wii U and will probably have exclusive hardware-based features involving that console's unique controller. Having a 2nd screen and motion gyros in your controller are arguably more substantial and less than gimmicky 3D Vision and PhysX effects, why aren't you kicking up a stink about that?
Yes, because pushing your own physics library to developers that's locked down to only run properly on certain hardware for your computer is really the same as buying a specific console and playing to its strengths regarding input devices :rolleyes:
If companies decided to make motion input devices and second screens for home pcs and consoles, i do not think nintendo would go and deliberately stop anyone making games that use them just cos you aren't playing them on a wii.
Of course you only said this to be difficult and deliberately miss the point.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Nvidia might've "bribed" them with the use of their labs, testing facilities and Nvidia's engineers would've added a few extra features out of their own pocket, not the publisher's/developer's - so what? ATI just as guilty of this practice, eg promoting their Radeon GPU exclusive Eyefinity multi-monitor technology.
Multi-monitor support is not something that is exclusive to ati cards.
What we have here is nvidia buying up a company and then deliberately pushing a library that they have made sure will only work well on their cards for additional hardware effects.
This is not good news for the industry. It means that physics will not be pushed forward as a gameplay mechanic as much as it could in physx games, as its full potential is locked to those who have nvidia cards. As others have said, this means it will be used mainly for "gimmicks" that add to the atmosphere of a game, rather than actual gameplay mechanics.
If a library was used that would run well on any hardware, then a lot more could be done with the physics in the game in terms of making the whole experience more interactive.
All this does is cut off a number of small nice touches which combine together to add immersion from a great number of your pc audience while also stagnating what physics can be used for meaningfully within gameplay experiences.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
What you should be worried is that actual ready-made content, the challenge maps where you play as Robin, are exclusive to pre-orders at Best Buy. This is far, far more heinous that missing out on some tacked-on, hardware-specific gimmick features.
Yes that is worrying too - i wasn't aware of that.
It does show you though that developers seem to be increasingly keen to being paid off to make certain decisions with regards to features of their games.
It's all bad really.
In terms of the dlc and all of that, all that does is either unbalance the game or ends up breaking it up. With mafia 2 apparently the dlc for that was originally part of the game and main story (with slight changes, as in it was based around your character) and that there would have actually been side missions and stuff, but they had to cut it back to become dlc.
So yes, things like that really end up spoiling the overall product a great deal too, and stripping out possible atmosphere.
june gloom on 25/6/2011 at 23:18
That was a lot of tl;dr for "baw evil corporations fucked me because they use middleware I don't like." The irony is that it was your most carefully-typed post I've ever seen. Which is sad really.
inselaffe on 25/6/2011 at 23:30
Thanks for your time and effort :thumb: Drive on by.
june gloom on 25/6/2011 at 23:52
Right. If I had made a post in equal length to your platter of crybeef with a glass of whine, would it still be a 'drive-by' post?
inselaffe on 26/6/2011 at 00:37
There was no crying - i have no computer good enough to play it anyway.
I was mainly pointing out why it is actually bad for both the industry and consumer in general, whether or not you have nvidia hardware.
Just because you've chosen a twisted interpretation of what i've said that is easy to pick me up on and take the piss out of - as is tradition at ttlg, then that is up to you.
The length of post you wish to do that with is up to you.
Sulphur on 26/6/2011 at 06:46
Quote Posted by inselaffe
Don't be deliberately obtuse - everyone knows how poor the performance of physx on the cpu is, making an nvidia card a basic requirement.
You're talking out of your ass. There's squillions of games out there that use PhysX as their base physics library that runs on a CPU thread and don't ever need an nVidia GPU.
The only time you'll need an nVidia GPU is if the game in question specifically has PhysX-enabled effects that require GPU hardware acceleration, and even in those cases, you just turn the enhanced effects
off.
Yes, I have. And I don't really give a toss about prettier smoke and glass. If I get back to nVidia some day, I'll start caring about it. It might look slightly prettier, but that means jack to me in the long run because it's just one game that benefits out of hundreds or more that don't.
dexterward on 26/6/2011 at 12:01
"Accelerated" PhysX needs to die, pure and simple. It might be only few games, and it`s only smoke & mirrors but still it gets on my nerves. There`s this idiotic part of my brain that does not respond to logic and goes "ohhh so it was years of toil to get a rig that plays FO3 @ 60fps/1680/vsync on...alas the mission is not complete! not until there`s an animated rag in Mirror`s Edge....we neeeed thissss...we neeed...."
And yes, unaccelerated Batman looks sad. It`s a kind of game I actually didn`t mind playing on 360, but the fact remains, made worse that far as I remember console versions had all these gimmicks.
