Topic: Cryostatis

[Quemaqua]

Looks kind of interesting.  Sort of a STALKER vibe just from looking at screens, despite how different it obviously is.  No idea why I'm posting it.  Maybe just because I've been in a horror mood.  I'm trying to track down a copy of Darkwatch.

[Pugnate]

In Cryostasis, your character's health bar is actually a heat bar, which shows your body's internal temperature. If you venture outside in the cold, the heat will quickly drain away. To make things worse, the mutants on the ship are able to use cold as a weapon. The only way to heal is to find a heat source and warm up. These can range from life-saving heaters to a simple light bulb, though the latter can't restore a lot of warmth. Still, every little bit of warmth will help.

That seems pretty cool. If it truly is unique, then I hope publishers don't screw it up by pressuring them to make it more standard.

I am slightly skeptical, because I've seen games advertised to have innovative and unique gameplay, only for it to end up being the standard mechanics under different naming.

This has the potential to be really interesting though, as long as it isn't treated merely as a gimmick.

Thankfully, you won't be completely unarmed as you make your way through the ship. You will have a handful of weapons. We saw an old bolt-action rifle, like the kind used in World War I or World War II, as well as a pistol, and there are about eight weapons in the game. Meanwhile, there are 15 enemies, ranging from what looked like mutant zombies to a formidable heavily armed opponent clad in what looks like heavy armor.

I hope ammo is scarce.



Looks good.

[TheOtherBelmont]

That looks pretty cool.  Que, I think I saw a couple of copies of Darkwatch in our game case at work, if you have a hard time finding it, I can get one for you if you send me the money.

[Quemaqua]

That'd be awesome!  PS2 or Xbox?  I swear that I saw it recently (I think when we went to this place during the OWmeet), but I can't find it anywhere at all now.  Looked all over yesterday.  After talking to a couple guys, apparently it's getting hard to find.

[TheOtherBelmont]

That'd be awesome!  PS2 or Xbox?  I swear that I saw it recently (I think when we went to this place during the OWmeet), but I can't find it anywhere at all now.  Looked all over yesterday.  After talking to a couple guys, apparently it's getting hard to find.

I don't know off the top of my head, but I want to say Xbox.  I won't be at work till Friday, so I'll look then.  You can play either version, right?

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I can.  Xbox is preferable, but it actually makes zero difference.  I just have more PS2 games so another Xbox game would be working toward evening the collection out in the other direction.   

[TheOtherBelmont]

Well, you're in luck, I found the Xbox version in some dusty boxes of overstock in the backroom and its $30, well $29.92 to be exact, so if you still want it tell me and I'll PM you my address so you can send me the money.  I don't think anyone will mess with it till then, I've got it hidden where no customers can see it and I've told most of the employees not to mess with it.

[Quemaqua]

Actually, just yesterday I managed to find a copy.  Not local, but cheap.  It seems since last I looked several cropped up where they weren't before... so I think I'm just gonna' order it and junk.  I appreciate you keeping and eye out, though.  It's getting harder to find good stuff these days.

[TheOtherBelmont]

Cool, I'll hold it for you for a few days just in case something comes up.

[Quemaqua]

So apparently it's pretty awesome.  I didn't realize it was out until I randomly stumbled upon the GSpot review (which I can't watch because Firefox won't let me, and I'm too lazy to download it).  I'm going to have to keep my eye out for it in the coming weeks.

[MysterD]

Reviews
4 stars from Giant Bomb (out of 5)
8.1 from GameZone (out of 10)
78 from ComputerGames.Ro (out of 100)
6.0 from IGN; Steve Butts reviewed it.

EDIT:
PC Demo
1.1 GB Demo for this game is now out on the PC

[MysterD]

NVidia PhysX vs. No NVidia PhysX Video
Here's a side-by-side comparison of how Cryostasis looks without NVidia PhysX and with PhysX

[W7RE]

I keep hearing about PhyxX and not paying attention because it doesn't sound familiar. I remember seeing the videos of Mirror's Edge and it's physics stuff, but didn't remember that it was PhysX. After a quick google, it seems that PhysX is something you either get on an nvida grphics card, or go out and buy a dedicated PhysX card for your PC?

If so, is anyone else bothered by the idea that something like this could make Nvidia cards greatly favored in the eyes of gamers? Then what, ATI comes up with something similar to compete? Then we'll have some games that support PhysX, some that support ATI's thing, and very few that support both. I mean it's great news for Nvidia as long as ATI doesn't have something to compete yet, but for gamers it means less choice.

EDIT: Yes, I know that as of now if you play a PhysX game without the hardware, you can still play, your game just doesn't look as pretty. But I would be surprised to see games support it more and more, and end up in a place where you game either looks like shit, or runs like shit, unless you hcae a PhysX capable card.

[MysterD]

I keep hearing about PhyxX and not paying attention because it doesn't sound familiar. I remember seeing the videos of Mirror's Edge and it's physics stuff, but didn't remember that it was PhysX. After a quick google, it seems that PhysX is something you either get on an nvida grphics card, or go out and buy a dedicated PhysX card for your PC?

Aegia had a physics-based card that you bought just for that feature -- which was Aegia PhysX. Basically, it took the strain of physics calculations off the processor and graphics boards. Gamers really weren't thrilled with the idea of the possibility of needing another piece of hardware to go along w/ everything else they already own.

So, Nvidia bought Aegia out and integrated the PhysX stuff right into their own GeForce 8xxx (and above) graphics cards.

If so, is anyone else bothered by the idea that something like this could make Nvidia cards greatly favored in the eyes of gamers? Then what, ATI comes up with something similar to compete? Then we'll have some games that support PhysX, some that support ATI's thing, and very few that support both. I mean it's great news for Nvidia as long as ATI doesn't have something to compete yet, but for gamers it means less choice.

Well, yeah -- it'll probably be like when 3DFX had Glide support as their own special exclusive, I'd guess...

EDIT: Yes, I know that as of now if you play a PhysX game without the hardware, you can still play, your game just doesn't look as pretty. But I would be surprised to see games support it more and more, and end up in a place where you game either looks like shit, or runs like shit, unless you hcae a PhysX capable card.

Here's a (possibly not full) list of games that currently support Aegia/Nvidia PhysX

[Quemaqua]

I really wouldn't worry about it.  Thus far, nobody gives a flying fuck about PhysX, and I doubt they're going to any time soon.  It makes roughly the same difference to people that DX10 did, i.e. basically none.

[MysterD]

I really wouldn't worry about it.  Thus far, nobody gives a flying fuck about PhysX, and I doubt they're going to any time soon.  It makes roughly the same difference to people that DX10 did, i.e. basically none.

Que - so agreed.

NVidia really needs to package some other cool new features to go along with PhysX to make their newer cards *special* and an amazing leap from their previous stuff for people to really care about it.

I'm sure if it was coupled with a few other cool new features, NVidia might be onto something...

[Pugnate]

I really wouldn't worry about it.  Thus far, nobody gives a flying fuck about PhysX, and I doubt they're going to any time soon.  It makes roughly the same difference to people that DX10 did, i.e. basically none.

Yea man, at least they are trying. No one is going to adopt PhysX overnight, but with Nvidia pushing it every day it will eventually get adopted more widely. Baby steps.

As for DX10, that was a whole bag of B.S., but you can actually see PhysX when it is happening, unlike DX10 that even DX9 cards could mysteriously emulate in Win XP.

[W7RE]

Yea after reading Que's comment about DX10 I did a google search and found image comparisons in gamespot using Crysis on max settings, dx9 vs dx10, and I could barely tell the difference. I could tell, but only because I was seeing the image swap from 9 to 10 and LOOKING for a difference.

The difference with PhysX vs without, at least in Cryostasis, is definitely noticeable.

[Quemaqua]

It's more noticeable, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody really cares.

[W7RE]

I care

EDIT: Do you always automatically assume the entire world shares your opinion, or is it just a method you use for telling someone they're wrong or that their comments aren't relavent? I wasn't looking for reassurance that I'm fine with my ATI card. I really just wanted to spark conversation about PhysX so I could learn more about it, what it does, and if it's something I want to keep in mind when I make my next video card purchase. When I buy new hardware, it's not so I can run X game at minimum setting on 320x200. I actually like good graphics when I can get them. Sure they shouldn't be more important than good gameplay, but I'm not gonna ignore graphics-improving hardware/software just to prove that point.

[MysterD]

There's definitely a difference in PhysX and without -- but, probably since I don't have a double core processor and all -- it's just not really smart for me in many cases to have it ON.

Turning it actually off helped me quite a bit in Mirror's Edge PC for the performance factor. With it on, I had some stutters and slowdowns too much to suit my needs.

[Quemaqua]

What's with the hostility?  You're probably still on me about the RE control thing, and in that argument all you managed to point out is that reviewers are hypocritical and easily led when they don't give a flying fuck about controls in one game, then suddenly care in the next installment.  Fine, point taken.  As I said, I hadn't followed anything at all on RE5 and could only point to the ubiquitous praise that RE4 received at release, which is what I was still referring to.

I say nobody cares about PhysX because I've never met anyone who did.  You are, apparently, the first.  PhysX was a useless technology when it existed as its own proprietary tech with the card, and it's useless now.  Until it becomes widely adopted and usable by a wide variety of people, it will consign itself to the realm of uselessness just like every single similarly-wrought technology that existed before it.  This is hardly a fledgling concept.  If by some chance it does find a way to grab the market and really take off, nvidia will then destroy ATI and that will be the end of it, with nvidia as a monopoly.  Which will be bad for everyone.  But the chances of that happening are exceedingly slim since support for the tech isn't required, games that use it don't need it for the game to run, and even the games that use it generally do so for a mere handful of effects that would hardly be enough to convince any sane person on a purchasing decision one way or the other.  It's a fucking gimmick and it's completely meaningless.  Someday something fruitful may be born from the same idea, but I don't see PhysX itself going anywhere.

Granted, it could be used to do incredible things if anyone was willing to take the risk and make something entirely dependent on the tech, but that's the nature of this stuff.  Nobody's willing to take the risk because they're going to cut themselves off from huge portions of the market, which is why the tech ultimately fails.  It's happened a hundred times before, I doubt it'll be different now.  And again, if it somehow does end up being different, it'll only be bad for everyone, so let's hope it isn't an exception.

[W7RE]

Not really hostile, just an observation. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but when you do it you come across as condescending. I'm not sitting around dwelling on the RE thing, but it did come to mind when I saw you doing it again here.

I was just looking for some information on PhysX, followed by some friendly "what if" discussion. The "nobody cares" seemed a bit hostile to me and all I meant to do was point that out.

[MysterD]

I think the gaming world doesn't care too much about PhysX b/c ONLY NVidia has it. If both ATI and NVidia had this technology, there would be more interest in this from gamers -- since I still think the vid card market looks like it's gonna stay as a NVidia Vs. ATI power-struggle for some time. I don't see either companies falling anytime soon, really. I see them both having the back and forth tennis match, like they've had for years -- NVidia will be in the lead for a bit; ATI will then be in the lead; then it'll be too close to call again; repeat cycle.

Also, PhysX is competing too hard with Havok, the most well-known and most-used of physics software, which supports both NVidia and ATI cards. Most people seem pretty happy with the job Havok pretty much does already.

And many of the big name games; recent, old, new, or upcoming -- Fallout 3; FEAR 2; Max Payne 1 and 2; Company of Heroes series; Oblivion; Saints Row 1 and 2; the upcoming Diablo 3; the upcoming StarCraft 2 -- all are using Havok.

[W7RE]

I wouldn't be surprised if having something like PhysX on all video cards becomes the norm at some point, but yea I gota agree that it being Nvidia specific would make it tough. Basically Nvidia having something no one else offers is only good for Nvidia, and no one else. More work for developers, less choice for gamers, less incentive for Nvidia to push the hardware, etc. For it to really take off I guess it would have to be something that a developer could design to work on both Nvidia and ATI cards, which means something where the technology isn't owned by one or the other.

[Quemaqua]

I was just looking for some information on PhysX, followed by some friendly "what if" discussion. The "nobody cares" seemed a bit hostile to me and all I meant to do was point that out.

Well, nobody does.  You said "Is anyone else concerned..." so I was saying no, pretty much nobody is concerned as far as I know.  The discussion has never really come up regarding PhysX in the years since the first card came out and bombed so gloriously.  I mean yeah, there's a chance it could be a big issue, but thus far it really doesn't seem like it will.  Things are getting less hardware intensive, not more.  Developers are trying to reach wider audiences, not increasingly niche ones.  I wasn't trying to be hostile, I was trying to be reassuring.

But it's true, I am a bit disdainful of the tech itself.  Again, what has it done for us?  Basically jack shit.  There hasn't been anything even remotely compelling done with it since it came out.  Yeah, it can throw lots of physics objects around.  So what, you know?  Somebody needs to do something truly meaningful with that technology before it's going to matter.  Like true volumetric water physics or something of that nature.  If it revolutionizes something or shows some truly new creative ideas that can be done with it, then it'll go somewhere.  Until then, it makes 10 seconds of a couple games slightly prettier, and that isn't terribly compelling to anyone, really.

[Pugnate]

Jeeze it is just a piece of tech. And I am really not surprised by Que's extreme reaction to something that isn't within his reach at that moment in time. I can only recall how he reacted initially to the Xbox 360 (Called it a useless piece of shit bla bla bla), the PS3 (useless overpriced garbage or something), Windows Vista's Aeroglass feature (In a thread I started he called it garbage, unnecessary bla bla bla). And in the end, he was the first of us to get a 360 and a PS3. And now that he has finally used Vista, he thinks it looks quite nice.

So I sorta gloss over Que's over the top rants, like I do D's spams... OK not nearly as much. But I do hate getting involved in these silly arguments, because I am getting to old for all this crap, and I do think Que is a really swell guy with a big heart... it just worries me when he still gets worked up over this stuff still. Though admittedly, it is far less frequent an occurrence.

I was going to do a little point by point thing discussing what Que said, etc., but I am not going to do that. I do agree that most people don't care so much, but it does make a pretty cool difference when in full effect. You just need wider adoption, that's all. Remember when FSAA came out? Anti aliasing was only available initially with 3DFX cards, and look at it now. Most people can't stand to look at a game without AA on -- THE JAGGIES THEY HURT MY EYES!

Anyway, I think this is what is at the heart of Que's anger:

If by some chance it does find a way to grab the market and really take off, nvidia will then destroy ATI and that will be the end of it, with nvidia as a monopoly.

I guess you don't know. A year ago, Nvidia offered ATi free implementation of the PhysX tech. I think they just want it to be widely adopted because of that whole PC Gamer alliance thingy. They want to improve the overall general PC experience or whatever:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38283/135/

They have also offered the kit for free to Nintendo and Sony

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10200171-64.html

Anyway, from what I read, thanks to this "help", ATi should either be releasing PhysX for their current Radeons... or Radeons in the future.

edit:

PhysX already running on Radeons with modified drivers:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764.html

Also, it looks like they are working on a Radeon physX patch, as far back as the 2XXX series.

[W7RE]

I'm sure Que doesn't mean to be as hostile as he sounds a lot of the time. I don't take it that way, I just, I dunno, wanted to throw a little back lol.

That's cool Pug, I guess the whole "Nvidia monopoly" thing wouldn't happen anyway. It's nice to see that Nvidia offered it up, shows that they care about more than just money. Though I guess as much as Nvidia would benefit from being THE video card company, they'd be out some cash if no one used it at all and it flopped.

[Quemaqua]

What the fuck Pug?  I haven't been hostile or extreme in the least.  I offered my take on the technology, nothing more.  At this point it's little more than a nice little party trick because nobody's *done* anything with it.  How is that extreme or hostile or anything other than my opinion?  And who was even arguing?  My initial statement could be summed up as "I wouldn't worry about it" re: W7RE's concerns, and everything that followed was an explanation since my intent was misconstrued as condescending when it wasn't meant to be.  I know I can be a bit abrasive because I'm a jackass, but shit.

Anyway...

I had forgotten about nvidia offering the tech to other people.  I haven't followed any of this super closely because (as mentioned) there hasn't been any real reason to.  I'm certainly not saying that physics stuff isn't really cool at times, or that it isn't going anywhere, as I'm quite sure physics stuff will continue to increase its prominence in design just as it has for years now, and maybe it'll even be PhysX as an entity that does something amazing in the future... but PhysX itself doesn't seem to be making waves right now.  My reaction isn't extreme, it's a statement of the reality of the situation.  Thus far PhysX just hasn't done anything other than a few cool effects in a few games that have, by and large, not convinced people that they really need to care.  I could be utterly wrong and that could change in ways I don't anticipate, but I'm just stating the way I see the situation.

I had forgotten Pug's recently-posted info, and maybe I should have been more specific in the above posts, but I didn't think I needed to be.  At the time of the comments, I was mostly thinking that I didn't see PhysX as a threat because by the time anyone did anything really interesting with it specifically (if anyone ever truly did), likely there would be competing and comparable solutions that would essentially do the same thing (just like graphics cards basically do the same thing with varying degrees of performance, etc.), or some similar option would have won out and been included in all the products readily vailable to buy.  And if other people do end up adopting it, then... well, that's basically what I was saying.  Then support will grow, developer interest will spark creative design, and it'll go somewhere.  Which would be great for everybody.  So maybe that'll happen.  That's the wider adoption Pug was talking about, but at the time of 3DFX and the 4xFSAA offered by the Voodoo5 5500 (which I owned), the Voodoo cards had a huge following and, at the same time, the company was about to have their creditors initiate bankruptcy proceedings eventually leading to a buyout by nvidia.  That was a bit of a different case with a variety of factors that led to the widespread acceptance of the tech.  And again, that's something more fundamental that can be used in many circumstances, where so far PhysX is more developmentally specific in scope.

[MysterD]

Wow...so NVidia offered PhysX up to others, such as ATI and Nintendo. I didn't know that. That we might see PhysX in Radeon drivers -- that's good news. That's really exciting!

Yes, that really does make NVidia look like the leader in the graphics card world to do something like that, give a tech right to their competitor -- I've always stuck by NVidia, anyways -- and that what they're doing is trying to push PhysX as a new standard onto the entire video card market. That's good b/c I never wanted the emergence of separate physics cards -- placing PhysX right onto the video card itself is fine with me; them sharing the tech with ATI is even better news, as if ATI actually adopts this, then their users can benefit from this.

If NVidia can push PhysX and eventually make it a new standard everybody that makes vid cards can adopt in due time -- and that PhysX can really be optimized to perform well, too; I think it's still in its "too early" stages, currently; well, at least for my aging rig here -- that makes things very interesting. Obviously, NVidia with PhysX -- especially trying to get ATI to jump aboard here -- is trying to really compete with Havok here even more so, by offering this thing up to others. I don't think PhysX will be killing Havok anytime soon, given what big-time games in the past, present, and future support Havok.

Maybe in the future, we'll see Havok and PhysX go to war here for physics support. It'd be like NVidia and ATI have had their war over video cards, having what seems like an endless war neither company will ever win b/c they both seem to try to out-do each other in this endless back and forth tennis match! Oooh -- how exciting that would be!

[Pugnate]

That's cool Pug, I guess the whole "Nvidia monopoly" thing wouldn't happen anyway. It's nice to see that Nvidia offered it up, shows that they care about more than just money. Though I guess as much as Nvidia would benefit from being THE video card company, they'd be out some cash if no one used it at all and it flopped.

Yea I doubt they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts actually. The probably have something to gain from this. Well, for the consoles they are getting licensing fees... though ATi is going to be developing their own PhysX software. Whatever it is, it just means wider use of the thing, so it benefits us in the end.

[MysterD]

Yea I doubt they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts actually. The probably have something to gain from this.

Yeah, it makes NVidia look REALLY good, doing such a move. It's definitely a good business move, if you ask me -- and good for the consumer, too. It doesn't force a gamer to say go with Nvidia b/c they got the new cool tech. Naw, ATI's gonna have it, too -- which is good news.

Plus, I think NVidia is aiming to battle Havok now, myself.

Well, for the consoles they are getting licensing fees... though ATi is going to be developing their own PhysX software. Whatever it is, it just means wider use of the thing, so it benefits us in the end.

Exclusivity of this tech would just kill things. I don't think NVidia would stand a chance against Havok, if they kept it to themselves. Let's see...if there was NVidia-only PhysX, Havok would have an easier time stomping them -- since Havok is supporting both NVidia and ATI cards; and since it's been around much longer and has lots of games supporting it, as well. Now, if NVidia shares their tech -- yeah, they might have a chance battling Havok now.

[Pugnate]

I should clarify... ATi will still be using PhysX... but it will belike how ATi and Nvidia have slight personal variations on anti aliasing.

[MysterD]

Oh, so it's not just a straight-up borrow...

So is ATI taking some version of Nvidia's PhysX code and modifying it and enhancing it in their own way?
Or are they just starting from scratch entirely and doin' their own ATI PhysX thing entirely?

[scottws]

Remember when FSAA came out? Anti aliasing was only available initially with 3DFX cards, and look at it now. Most people can't stand to look at a game without AA on -- THE JAGGIES THEY HURT MY EYES!

I never turn on FSAA unless the game is really old and the performance impact of enabling it is negligible or if it's a brand new game I have to run at a lower resolution.  High resolutions get rid of jaggies on their own.

[Xessive]

I never turn on FSAA unless the game is really old and the performance impact of enabling it is negligible or if it's a brand new game I have to run at a lower resolution.  High resolutions get rid of jaggies on their own.

SAme here. It's very rare that I turn it on. I also experience less bugs and errors that way. For example, L4D runs amazingly with all settings cranked up at full res (1680x1050) and MSAA at 4x. however that causes the game to crash occasionally, random but almost certainly. If I switch off AA it runs for hours without a hitch.

Either way at 1680x1050 jaggies are practically unnoticeable, especially in fast-paced games. I only consider AA with games that I scale down to 1280x800, which in some cases yields better performance (1280x800 + 4xAA > 1680x1050 + No AA).

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I'm the same.  I only use AA if it doesn't cause problems or major performance issues.  I do use AA/AF more frequently than I used to (especially AF), but I still don't use it a lot.

[Pugnate]

AF makes a big on texture quality:

Anisotropic Filtering OFF:



ON:



I always try to keep on 16x.





Those are compressed 1600x1200 comparison images from gamespot.

As for AA, the differences are more subtle at higher resolutions of say 1680x1050, but I personally find it a must at anything lower. At resolutions higher than 1680x1050, I find the jaggies noticeable. It actually gets worse in motion for me, because the jaggies start glimmering and shimmering or something.

[Cobra951]

Filtering (subtracting artifacts) is a very different animal from true AA, which *adds* data to pixels on the fly based on some edge-smoothing algorithm.  AF should be comparatively cheap to use by now.  Multi-X AA is a lot more intensive.  I use AF all the time on my ancient system.  Not AA.

[Xessive]

Anisotropic Filtering barely costs me any frames, thankfully. While I am generally content with a mere trilinear filter some games demand a little more to hide the ugly smearing of textures.

Depending on how much performance I'm trying to squeeze out of a game, e.g. Crysis, I'll toss out AF and just use the basic trilinear filtering.

Btw, I've noticed that it's not necesarily how high the resolution is but whether or not it's the native resolution for a monitor that is the optimal one for me, making AA needless. I just switched over to my 32" HDTV, which runs at 1360x768 and I can barely notice any jaggies plus the drop in resolution is a great performance boost. At 32" sitting about 1.5m away everything looks phenomenal! Even this post! The one complaint I have is the response rate (over 5ms), during any scenes with a lot of onscreen activity I can clearly see a scanline wiping down the screen.

The quality and native resolution of the monitor is the key, for me at least. I don't mind playing on 17" (1280x800) or 19" (1440x900) widescreen monitors. I mainly just use the TV for videos rather than actualy computer use.