Mirror’s Edge: Do we have a winner?

And now we get to the final test. Something truly different: Mirror’s Edge.

This is an EA game. Ben had to leave before we got to this part of the test, he does have a wife and kid after all, so I went at this one alone.

I’d never played Mirror’s Edge. I’d seen the videos, it looked interesting. You play as a girl, Faith, a runner. You run across rooftops, through buildings, it’s all very parkour-like. You’re often being pursued by “blues”, police offers, as you run through the game. I won’t give away any plot details here but this game, I liked.

The GPU accelerated PhysX impacted things like how glass shatters and the presence of destructible cloth. We posted a video of what the game looks like with NVIDIA GPU accelerated PhysX enabled late last year:

"Here is the side by side video showing better what DICE has added to Mirror's Edge for the PC with PhysX. Please note that the makers of the video (not us) slowed down the game during some effects to better show them off. The slow downs are not performance related issues. Also, the video is best viewed in full screen mode (the button in the bottom right corner)."

 

In Derek’s blog about the game he said the following:

“We still want to really get our hands on the game to see if it feels worth it, but from this video, we can at least say that there is more positive visual impact in Mirror's Edge than any major title that has used PhysX to date. NVIDIA is really trying to get developers to build something compelling out of PhysX, and Mirror's Edge has potential. We are anxious to see if the follow through is there.”

Well, we have had our hands on the game and I’ve played it quite a bit. I started with PhysX enabled. I was looking for the SSD-effect. I wanted to play with it on then take it away and see if I missed it. I played through the first couple of chapters with PhysX enabled, fell in lust with the game and then turned off PhysX.

I missed it.

I actually missed it. What did it for me was the way the glass shattered. When I was being pursued by blues and they were firing at me as I ran through a hallway full of windows, the hardware accelerated PhysX version was more believable. I felt more like I was in a movie than in a video game. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t hyper realistic, but the effect was noticeable.

I replayed a couple of chapters and then played some new ones with PhysX disabled now before turning it back on and repeating the test.

The impact of GPU accelerated PhysX was noticeable. EA had done it right.

The Verdict?

So am I sold? Would I gladly choose a slower NVIDIA part because of PhysX support? Of course not.

The reason why I enjoyed GPU accelerated PhysX in Mirror’s Edge was because it’s a good game to begin with. The implementation is subtle, but it augments an already visually interesting title. It makes the gameplay experience slightly more engrossing.

It’s a nice bonus if I already own a NVIDIA GPU, it’s not a reason for buying one.

The fact of the matter is that Mirror’s Edge should be the bare minimum requirement for GPU accelerated PhysX in games. The game has to be good to begin with and the effects should be the cherry on top. Crappy titles and gimmicky physics aren’t going to convince anyone. Aggressive marketing on top of that is merely going to push people like us to call GPU accelerated PhysX out for what it is. I can’t even call the overall implementations I’ve seen in games half baked, the oven isn’t even preheated yet. Mirror’s Edge so far is an outlier. You can pick a string of cheese off of a casserole and like it, but without some serious time in the oven it’s not going to be a good meal.

Then there’s the OpenCL argument. NVIDIA won’t port PhysX to OpenCL, at least not anytime soon. But Havok is being ported to OpenCL, that means by the end of this year all games that use OpenCL Havok can use GPU accelerated physics on any OpenCL compliant video card (NVIDIA, ATI and Intel when Larrabee comes out).

While I do believe that NVIDIA and EA were on to something with the implementation of PhysX in Mirror’s Edge, I do not believe NVIDIA is strong enough to drive the entire market on its own. Cross platform APIs like OpenCL will be the future of GPU accelerated physics, they have to be, simply because NVIDIA isn’t the only game in town. The majority of PhysX titles aren’t accelerated on NVIDIA GPUs, I would suspect that it won’t take too long for OpenCL accelerated Havok titles to equal that number once it’s ready.

Until we get a standard for GPU accelerated physics that all GPU vendors can use or until NVIDIA can somehow convince every major game developer to include compelling features that will only be accelerated on NVIDIA hardware, hardware PhysX will be nothing more than fancy lettering on a cake.

You wanted us to look at PhysX in a review of an ATI GPU, and there you have it.

The Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack: Finally, a Major Title CUDA - Oh there’s More
Comments Locked

294 Comments

View All Comments

  • piesquared - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    Must be tough trying to write a balanced review when you clearly favour one side of the equation. Seriously, you tow NV's line without hesitation, including soon to be extinct physx, a reviewer relieased card, and unreleased drivers at the time of your review. And here's the kicker; you ignore the OC potential of AMD's new card, which as you know, is one of it's major selling points.

    Could you possibly bend over any further for NV? Obviously you are perfectly willing to do so. F'n frauds
  • Chlorus - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link

    What?! Did you even read the article? They specifically say they cannot really endorse PhysX or CUDA and note the lack of support in any games. I think you're the one towing a line here.
  • SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link

    The red fanboys have to chime in with insanities so the reviewers can claim they're fair because "both sides complain".
    Yes, red rooster whiner never read the article, because if he had he would remember the line that neither overclocked well, and that overclocking would come in a future review ( in other words, they were rushed again, or got a chum card and knew it - whatever ).
    So, they didn't ignore it , they failed on execution - and delayed it for later, so they say.
    Yeah, red rooster boy didn't read.
  • tamalero - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link

    jesus dude, you have a strong persecution complex right?
    its like "ohh noes, they're going against my beloved nvidia, I MUST STOP THEM AT ALL COSTS".
    I wonder how much nvidia pays you? ( if not, you're sad.. )
  • SiliconDoc - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link

    That's interesting, not a single counterpoint, just two whining personal attacks.
    Better luck next time - keep flapping those red rooster wings.
    (You don't have any decent couinterpoints to the truth, do you flapper ? )
    Sometimes things are so out of hand someone has to say it - I'm still waiting for the logical rebuttals - but you don't have any, neither does anyone else.
  • aguilpa1 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    All these guys talking about how irrelevant physx and how not so many games use it don't get it. The power of physx is bringing the full strength of those GPU's to bear on everyday apps like CS4 or Badaboom video encoding. I used to think it was kind of gimmicky myself until I bought the "very" inexpensive badaboom encoder and wow, how awesome was that! I forgot all about the games.
  • Rhino2 - Monday, April 13, 2009 - link

    You forgot all about gaming because you can encode video faster? I guess we are just 2 different people. I don't think I've ever needed to encode a video for my ipod in 60 seconds or less, but I do play a lot of games.
  • z3R0C00L - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    You're talking about CUDA not Physx.

    Physx is useless as HavokFX will replace it as a standard through OpenCL.
  • sbuckler - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    No physx has the market, HavokFX is currently demoing what physx did 2 years ago.

    What will happen is the moment HavokFX becomes anything approaching a threat nvidia will port Physx to OpenCL and kill it.

    As far as ATI users are concerned the end result is the same - you'll be able to use physics acceleration on your card.
  • z3R0C00L - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    You do realize that Havok Physics are used in more games than Physx right (including all the source engine based games)?

    And that Diablo 3 makes use of Havok Physics right? Just thought I'd mention that to give you time to change your conclusion.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now